text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
---|---|
---
author:
- 'R. Fanali, A. Caccianiga, P. Severgnini, R. Della Ceca, M. Dotti, E. Marchese, A. Corral,'
title: ' The relationship between X-ray emission and accretion in X-ray selected AGNs '
---
It is now accepted that the engine of AGNs is powered by the accretion of matter onto the SMBH, placed in the center of the host galaxy: the matter is heated ($\sim 10^6$ K) through viscous and magnetic process and forms an accretion disk around the SMBH emitting in the UV-optical region. A fraction of energy is also emitted in the X-ray band with a spectrum that can be represented, at a zeroth order, by a power-law from 0.1 to 100 keV. It is believed that X-rays are produced in a hot corona ($\sim 10^8$ K) reprocessing the primary UV-optical emission of the disk via inverse-Compton mechanism ([@H]). The main properties of X-ray emission change significantly from source to source. Recent results suggest that the differences can be partly related to the value of accretion rate or to the black-hole mass ([@Grupe; @et; @al.; @2010], [@Risaliti; @et; @al.; @2009], [@V]). Understanding if and how the X-ray properties are related to accretion is a fundamental step to study the link between disk and corona, i. e. the two main components of an AGN.
The aim of this work is to establish the actual link between X-ray properties and the parameters that quantify the accretion rate by analyzing a well defined sample of $70$ type$1$ AGNs selected from the XMM-Newton Bright Serendipitous survey (XBS). In this work we study the spectral index $\Gamma$ between 0.5 and 10 keV and the bolometric correction $K_{\rm bol}$, defined as the ratio between bolometric luminosity and $2-10$ keV luminosity. $\Gamma$ gives direct information about the energy distribution of the electrons in the corona, while $K_{\rm bol}$ quantifies the relative importance between disk and corona. The approach followed is to search for statistically significant correlations between these parameters and the value of accretion rate, absolute ($\dot{M}$) and normalized to Eddington limit ($\lambda$), presented in ([@Caccianiga; @et; @al.; @2012]).
[**Results**]{}
We found that $\Gamma$ depends significantly on $\lambda$ while the dependence on $\dot{M}$ is weak. By using partial correlation we demonstrate that the observed correlations are not induced by redshift. We have found a similar $\Gamma-\lambda$ correlation also using the hard $2-10$ keV spectral index. Therefore the observed correlation is directly linked to the primary component of the X-ray emission and not due to secondary spectral component (e.g. soft excess). We also found a correlation between $K_{bol}$ and $\lambda$ while, again, the dependece on $\dot{M}$ is weak.
Using the partial correlation analysis we have also verified that other correlations observed in our sample ($\Gamma-M_{BH}$, $\Gamma-FWHM(H_\beta)$, $K_{bol}-L_{UV}$) are probably just secondary correlations induced by the $\Gamma-\lambda$ and $K_{bol}-\lambda$ correlations.
We represent graphically the results of the $\Gamma-\lambda$ and $K_{bol}-\lambda$ correlations by showing the theoretical SEDs in two extreme cases of low and high Eddington ratios (Fig. \[fig:figure\]): these SEDs were built using a Shakura $\&$ Sunyaev disk model plus a power-law in the range between $0.01$ and $100$ keV with a cut-off at $0.1$ keV. The values of $\Gamma$ and $K_{bol}$ are taken from our fits of the $\Gamma-\lambda$ and $K_{bol}-\lambda$ correlations. To simplify the comparison, we assumed the same disk emission normalization in both cases. The comparison of the two SEDs suggests that the variation of $K_{\rm bol}$ could be entirely attributed to the variation of $\Gamma$. We have also tested this idea by using the partial correlation analysis and we conclude that the correlations observed in this work can be in principle explained only by the $\Gamma - \lambda$ correlation. This result suggests a speculative interpretation based on the electron cooling of corona: for high values of $\lambda$, a large number of photons comes from the accretion disk and cools corona electrons rapidly, thus poducing steep X-ray spectra and high values of $K_{\rm bol}$. For low $\lambda$, less photons are available and this makes electron cooling inefficient, thus producing flat X-ray spectra and low values of $K_{\rm bol}$.
![Theoretical spectral energy distributions that represent two extreme cases of accretion: $\lambda \sim 10^{-3}$ (upper panel) and $\lambda \sim 1$ (lower panel). See text for more details.[]{data-label="fig:figure"}](flat22.ps "fig:"){width="6.4cm"} ![Theoretical spectral energy distributions that represent two extreme cases of accretion: $\lambda \sim 10^{-3}$ (upper panel) and $\lambda \sim 1$ (lower panel). See text for more details.[]{data-label="fig:figure"}](steep2.ps "fig:"){width="6.2cm"}
In conclusion, this work shows that the X-ray properties depend on how much the central black hole is accreting with respect to the Eddington limit. Full details will be reported in Fanali et al. in prep.
We acknowledge Francesco Haardt for the useful discussions and ASI (grant n. I/008/06/0) for financial support.
Caccianiga et al., 2012, A$\&$A in press.
Grupe et al. 2010, ApJ, 187, 64-106.
Haardt $\&$ Maraschi, 1991, ApJ, 380, L51-L54.
Risaliti et al., 2009, ApJ, 700, L6-L10.
Vasudevan $\&$ Fabian, 2009, R. Astron. Soc., 392, 1124-1140.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ensemble of Euclidean gluon field configurations represented by the domain wall network is considered. A single domain wall is given by the sine-Gordon kink for the angle between chromomagnetic and chromoelectric components of the gauge field. The domain wall separates the regions with self-dual and anti-self-dual fields. The network of the domain wall defects is introduced as a combination of multiplicative and additive superpositions of kinks. The character of the spectrum and eigenmodes of color-charged fluctuations in the presence of the domain wall network is discussed. The concept of the confinement-deconfinement transition in terms of the ensemble of domain wall networks is outlined. Conditions for the formation of a stable thick domain wall junction (the chromomagnetic trap) during heavy ion collisions are discussed, and the spectrum of color charged quasiparticles inside the trap is evaluated. An important observation is the existence of the critical size $L_c$ of the trap stable against gluon tachyonic modes, which means that deconfinement can occur only in a finite region of space-time in principle. The size $L_c$ is related to the value of gluon condensate $\langle g^2F^2\rangle$.'
author:
- 'Sergei N. Nedelko[^1], Vladimir E. Voronin[^2]'
title: Domain wall network as QCD vacuum and the chromomagnetic trap formation under extreme conditions
---
Introduction
============
In general, diffusion of the relativized versions of ideas born in condensed matter and solid state physics to the quantum field theory has been proven to be extremely fruitful. It was realised long time ago that a complex of problems associated with investigation of the QCD vacuum structure appeared as particularly suitable object in this respect. This paper is focused on the further development of approach to QCD vacuum as a medium describable in terms of statistical ensemble of domain wall networks. This concept plays important role in description of condensed matter systems with rival order and disorder but has been insufficiently explored in application to QCD vacuum.
The identification of the properties of nonperturbative gauge field configurations relevant to a coherent resolution of confinement, chiral symmetry breaking, $U_{\rm A}(1)$ and strong CP problems is an overall task pursued by most approaches to the QCD vacuum structure.
As a rule, analytical as well as Lattice QCD studies of QCD vacuum structure are focused on localized topological configurations (instantons, monopoles and dyons, vortices) which *via* condensation could be seen as appropriate gauge field configurations responsible for confinement of static color charges and other nonperturbative features of strong interactions. In recent years, three-dimensional configurations akin to domain walls became popular as well [@Ilgenfritz:2007xu; @Moran:2008xq; @Moran:2007nc; @deForcrand:2008aw; @deForcrand:2006my; @Zhitn]. First of all, these are the $Z(3)$ domain walls related to the center symmetry of the pure Yang-Mills theory [@deForcrand:2008aw] and double-layer domain wall structures in topological charge density [@Zhitn]. Lattice QCD serves as a main source of motivation and verification tool for these studies in pair with the theoretically appealing scenario of static quark confinement in the spirit of the dual Meissner effect equipped with the Wilson and Polyakov loop criteria. The localized configurations are characterized by the vanishing ratio of the action to the 4-volume in the infinite volume limit. In this sense, instantons, monopoles, vortices and double-layer domain walls are localized configurations.
A complementary treatment of the above mentioned overall task is based on the investigation of the properties of quantum effective action of QCD. As in other quantum systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom, the global minima of the effective action define the phase structure of QCD. The identification of global minima in different regimes (high energy density, high baryon density, strong external electromagnetic fields) has highest priority for understanding the phase transformations in hadronic matter. In general, a nontrivial global minimum corresponds to a gauge field with the strength not vanishing at space-time infinity and, hence, extensive action proportional to the four dimensional space-time volume of the system, unlike the localized configurations. A variety of essentially equivalent statements of the problem in the context of QCD can be found, for instance, in [@Minkowski; @Pagels; @Mink; @Leutwyler; @NK1; @Faddeev0]. Global minima related by discrete symmetry transformations like CP, Weyl symmetry in the root space of $su(N_{\rm c})$, center symmetry in particular, is a reason to look for field configurations interpolating between them. First of all, these are domain wall configurations, but also lower dimensional topological defects.
There is among others one difference between this treatment and approaches based on localized objects: the last one intends to merge the initially isolated objects (e.g., instanton gas or liquid) while the former collects defects in an initially homogeneous background. At first sight, both ways seem to lead to a similar outcome - a class of nonperturbative gluon field configurations with a self-consistent balance of order and disorder which can be characterized, in particular, by nonzero gluon condensate and topological charge density. However, essential disparity can arise since a superposition of localized objects inherits the properties of isolated objects while the superposition of defects in the initially homogeneous ordered background brings some disorder and merely refines the overall properties of the background. For instance, the superposition of infinitely many instantons and anti-instantons is not a configuration with a finite classical action but it maintains the property to have integer-valued topological charge. On the contrary, the configuration obtained by implanting infinitely many domain wall defects into the Abelian covariantly constant (anti-)self-dual field can have any real value of the mean topological charge density as well as any real value of topological charge fraction per domain [@NK3]. Both configurations can be seen as lumps of the topological charge density distributed in the Euclidean space-time like in Fig.\[Fig:kink\_network\] or in the lattice configurations [@Moran:2008xq; @Ilgenfritz:2007xu]. However, in the instanton picture each lump carries an integer charge while in the treatment of global minima the charge is any real, irrational, for instance, number. This can have dramatic consequences for the fate of $\theta$ parameter in QCD and the natural resolution of the strong CP-problem [@NK3].
In the Euclidean formulation, the statement of the problem starts with the very basic symbol of the functional integral $$\begin{aligned}
&&Z=N\int\limits_{{\cal F}} DA \exp\{-S[A]\},
\end{aligned}$$ where the functional space ${\cal F}$ is subject to the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond0}
{\cal F}=\{A: \lim_{V\to \infty} \frac{1}{V}\int\limits_V d^4xg^2F^a_{\mu\nu} (x)F^a_{\mu\nu}(x) =B_{\mathrm vac}^2\}.\end{aligned}$$ The constant $B_{\mathrm vac}$ is not equal to zero in the general case, which is equivalent to nonzero gluon condensate $\langle g^2F^2 \rangle$. Condition (\[cond0\]) singles out fields $B_\mu^a$ with the strength which is constant almost everywhere in $R^4$. It is a necessary requirement to allow gluon condensate to be nonzero. It does not forbid also fields with a finite action since the case $B_{\mathrm vac}=0$ has to be also studied. The dynamics chooses the value of $B_{\mathrm vac}$. However, the phenomenology of strong interactions has already required nonzero gluon and quark condensates. Hence, they must be allowed in the QCD functional integral from the very beginning. Separation of the long range modes $B_\mu^a$ responsible for gluon condensate and the local fluctuations $Q_\mu^a$ in the background $B_\mu^a$, must be supplemented by the gauge fixing condition. The background gauge condition for fluctuations $D(B)Q=0$ is the most natural choice.
Further steps include integration over the fluctuation fields resulting in the effective action for the long-range fields and identification of the minima of this effective action (for more details see [@NK1; @NK3; @NG2011-1]) which dominate over the integral in the limit $V\to \infty$ and define the phase structure of the system. As soon as minima are identified, this setup defines a principal scheme for self-consistent identification of the class of gauge fields which almost everywhere coincide with the global minima of the quantum effective action. A treatment of these “vacuum fields” in the functional integral $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=&N'\int\limits_{{\cal B}}DB \int\limits_{{\cal Q}} DQ \det[D(B)D(B+Q)]
\\
&&\times\delta[D(B)Q] \exp\{-S[B+Q]+S[B]\}.\end{aligned}$$ must be nonperturbative. The fields $B_\mu^a\in{\cal B}$ are subject to condition (\[cond0\]) with the fixed vacuum value of the condensate $B_{\mathrm vac}^2$. The condensate plays the role of the scale parameter of QCD to be identified from the hadron phenomenology. The fluctuations $Q$ in the background of the vacuum fields can be seen as perturbations.
The homogeneous fields with the domain wall defects are the most natural and simplest example of gluon configurations which are homogeneous almost everywhere in $R^4$ and satisfy the basic condition Eq.(\[cond0\]). Basic argumentation in favour of the Abelian (anti-)self-dual homogeneous fields as global minima of the effective action originates from papers [@Minkowski; @Leutwyler; @Pagels; @Woloshin; @Pawlowski; @NG2011].
Within the Ginzburg-Landau approach to the effective action the domain wall is described simply by the sine-Gordon kink for the angle between chromomagnetic and chromoelectric components of the gluon field [@NG2011]. This kink configuration can be seen as either Bloch or Néel domain wall separating the regions with self-dual and anti-self-dual Abelian gauge fields. On the domain wall the gluon field is Abelian with orthogonal to each other chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields. We shall not repeat here arguments leading to this conclusion but just refer to papers [@NG2011; @NG2011-1] where a more detailed discussion can be found. Group theoretical analysis of the Weyl symmetry and subgroup embeddings behind the domain wall formation in the effective gauge theories is given in a recent paper [@George:2012sb].
It should be also mentioned that the model of confinement, chiral symmetry breaking and hadronization based on the dominance of the gluon fields which are (anti-)self-dual Abelian almost everywhere demonstrated high phenomenological performance [@EN; @NK1; @NK3; @NK4].
The purpose of the present paper is to evolve the approach outlined in article [@NG2011] in two respects: explicit analytical construction of the domain wall network in $R^4$ through a combination of additive and multiplicative superpositions of kinks, and refining the spectrum and eigenmodes of the color charged scalar, spinor and vector fields in the background of a domain wall. In particular the spectrum of quasiparticles inside the thick domain wall junction is evaluated.
It is shown that the standard methods of the sine-Gordon model [@Vachaspati] allow one to generate various domain wall networks. The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are found for the Laplace operator in the background of a single infinitely thin domain wall. In this case, the eigenvalue problem has to be solved separately in the bulk of $R^4$ and on the 3-dimensional hyperplane of the wall. The continuity of the charge current through the wall is required together with the square integrability of the bulk eigenfunctions. For the infinitely thin wall the bulk eigenfunction possesses the purely discrete spectrum which coincides with the spectrum for the case of a homogeneous (anti-)self-dual field without a kink defect. The eigenfunctions differ in a certain way but have the same harmonic oscillator type as the ones in the absence of the kink defect. These modes describe confined color charged fields. The eigenfunctions localized on the wall have continuous spectrum with the dispersion relation of charged quasi-particles. This confirms qualitative conjectures of [@NG2011; @NG2011-1].
It is argued that thick domain wall junction may be formed during heavy ion collisions and play the role of a trap for charged quasi-particles. Confinement is lost inside the trap of a finite size. There exists a critical size of the stable trap, beyond which the emerging tachyonic gluon modes destroy it.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II is devoted to the domain wall network construction. The spectrum of scalar color charged field in the background of infinitely thin domain wall is discussed in section III. In the fourth section we discuss the chromomagnetic trap formation and evaluate the spectrum and eigenmodes of the color charged scalar, vector and spinor quasiparticles inside the trap.
Nonzero gluon condensate $\langle g^2F^2\rangle$ and domain wall network in QCD vacuum
======================================================================================
The calculation of the effective quantum action for the Abelian (anti-)self-dual homogeneous gluon field within the functional renormalization group approach [@Pawlowski] has indicated that this configuration is a serious candidate for the role of global minimum of QCD effective action and has enhanced the older one-loop results [@Minkowski; @Leutwyler; @Pagels]. The functional RG result also supported conclusions of [@NK1; @NG2011] based on the Ginzburg-Landau type effective Lagrangian of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{eff}} &=& - \frac{1}{4\Lambda^2}\left(D^{ab}_\nu F^b_{\rho\mu} D^{ac}_\nu F^c_{\rho\mu} + D^{ab}_\mu F^b_{\mu\nu} D^{ac}_\rho F^c_{\rho\nu }\right)
\nonumber\\
&-&U_{\mathrm{eff}}
\nonumber \\
U_{\mathrm{eff}}&=&\frac{\Lambda^4}{12} {\rm Tr}\left(C_1\breve{ f}^2 + \frac{4}{3}C_2\breve{ f}^4 - \frac{16}{9}C_3\breve{ f}^6\right),
\label{ueff}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda$ is a scale of QCD related to gluon condensate, $\breve f=\breve F/\Lambda^2$, and $$\begin{aligned}
&& D^{ab}_\mu = \delta^{ab} \partial_\mu - i\breve{ A}^{ab}_\mu = \partial_\mu - iA^c_\mu {(T^c)^{ab}},
\\
&& F^a_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A^a_\nu - \partial_\nu A^a_\mu - if^{abc} A^b_\mu A^c_\nu,
\\
&& \breve{ F}_{\mu\nu} = F^a_{\mu\nu} T^a,\ \ \ T^a_{bc} = -if^{abc}
\\
&& {\rm Tr}\left(\breve{ F}^2\right) = \breve{ F}^{ab}_{\mu\nu}\breve{ F}^{ba}_{\nu\mu} = -3 F^a_{\mu\nu}F^a_{\mu\nu} \leq 0,
\\ && C_1>0, \ C_2>0, \ C_3 > 0.\end{aligned}$$ Detailed discussion of this expression can be found in [@NG2011]. Here it should be noted that all symmetries of QCD are respected and the signs of the constants are chosen so that the action is bounded from below and its minimum corresponds to the fields with nonzero strength, i.e. $F^2\not=0$ at the minimum. Thus, an important input is the existence of the nonzero gluon condensate. By inspection, one gets as an output twelve (for $SU(3)$) global degenerate discrete minima. The minima are achieved for covariantly constant Abelian (anti-)self-dual fields $$\begin{aligned}
\breve{ A}_{\mu} = -\frac{1}{2}\breve{ n}_k F_{\mu\nu}x_\nu, \, \tilde F_{\mu\nu}=\pm F_{\mu\nu}\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $\breve{n}_k$ belongs to the Cartan subalgebra of $su(3)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\breve n_k &=& T^3\ \cos\left(\xi_k\right) + T^8\ \sin\left(\xi_k\right),
\nonumber\\
\xi_k&=&\frac{2k+1}{6}\pi, \, k=0,1,\dots,5.
\label{HLxik}\end{aligned}$$ The values $\xi_k$ correspond to the boundaries of the Weyl chambers in the root space of $su(3)$. The minima are connected by the discrete parity and Weyl transformations, which indicates that the system is prone to existence of solitons (in real space-time) and kink configurations (in Euclidean space). Below we shall concentrate on the simplest configuration – kink interpolating between self-dual and anti-self-dual Abelian vacua. If the angle $\omega$ between chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields is allowed to deviate from the constant vacuum value and all other parameters are fixed to the vacuum values, then the Lagrangian takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SG}
\mathcal{L}_{\textrm{eff}} &=& -\frac{1 }{2}\Lambda^2 b_{\textrm{vac}}^2 \partial_\mu \omega \partial_\mu \omega
\\
&-& b_{\textrm{vac}}^4 \Lambda^4 \left(C_2+3C_3b_{\textrm{vac}}^2 \right){\sin^2\omega},\end{aligned}$$ with the corresponding sine-Gordon equation $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^2\omega = m_\omega^2 \sin 2\omega,\ \ m_\omega^2 = b_{\textrm{vac}}^2 \Lambda^2\left(C_2+3C_3b_{\textrm{vac}}^2 \right),\end{aligned}$$ and the standard kink solution $$\omega(x_\mu) = 2\ {\rm arctg} \left(\exp(\mu x_\mu)\right)
\label{sakink}$$ interpolating between $0$ and $\pi$. Here $x_\mu$ stays for one of the four Euclidean coordinates. The kink describes a planar domain wall between the regions with almost homogeneous Abelian self-dual and anti-self-dual gluon fields. Chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields are orthogonal to each other on the wall, see Fig.\[Fig:single\_kink\]. Far from the wall, the topological charge density is constant, its absolute value is equal to the value of the gluon condensate. The topological charge density vanishes on the wall. The upper plot shows the profiles of the components of the chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields corresponding to the Bloch domain wall – the chromomagnetic field flips in the direction parallel to the wall plane.
![Kink profile in terms of the components of the chromomagnetic and chromoelectric field strengths (upper plot), and a two-dimensional slice for the topological charge density in the presence of a single kink measured in units of $g^2F^b_{\alpha\beta}F^b_{\alpha\beta}$ (lower plot). Here $\omega$ is the angle between the chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields, $\cos\omega=F^a_{\mu\nu}\tilde F^a_{\mu\nu}/F^b_{\alpha\beta}F^b_{\alpha\beta}$. The three-dimensional planar domain wall separates the four-dimensional regions filled with the self-dual (blue color) and anti-self-dual (red color) Abelian covariantly constant gluon fields. The chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields are orthogonal to each other inside the wall (green color). []{data-label="Fig:single_kink"}](kink){width="75mm"}
![Kink profile in terms of the components of the chromomagnetic and chromoelectric field strengths (upper plot), and a two-dimensional slice for the topological charge density in the presence of a single kink measured in units of $g^2F^b_{\alpha\beta}F^b_{\alpha\beta}$ (lower plot). Here $\omega$ is the angle between the chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields, $\cos\omega=F^a_{\mu\nu}\tilde F^a_{\mu\nu}/F^b_{\alpha\beta}F^b_{\alpha\beta}$. The three-dimensional planar domain wall separates the four-dimensional regions filled with the self-dual (blue color) and anti-self-dual (red color) Abelian covariantly constant gluon fields. The chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields are orthogonal to each other inside the wall (green color). []{data-label="Fig:single_kink"}](single_kink){width="70mm"}
{width="70mm"}
{width="75mm"}
![A two-dimensional slice of the four-dimensional lump of anti-self-dual field in the background of the self-dual configuration. The domain wall surrounding the lump in the four-dimensional space is given by the multiplicative superposition of eight kinks as it is defined by Eq.(\[asd\_lump\]). []{data-label="Fig:asd_lump"}](asd_lump){width="70mm"}
The domain wall network can be now constructed by the standard methods [@Vachaspati]. Let us denote the general kink configuration as $$\zeta(\mu_i,\eta_\nu^{i}x_\nu-q^{i})=\frac{2}{\pi}\arctan\exp(\mu_i(\eta_\nu^{i}x_\nu-q^{i})),$$ where $\mu_i$ is the inverse width of the kink, $\eta_\nu^{i}$ is a normal vector to the plane of the wall, $q^{i}=\eta_\nu^{i}x^{i}_\nu$ with $x^{i}_\nu$ - coordinates of the wall. The topological charge density for the multiplicative superposition of two kinks with the normal vectors anti-parallel to each other $$\omega(x_1)=\pi\zeta(\mu_1,x_1-a_1)\zeta(\mu_2,-x_1-a_2)$$ is shown in Fig.\[multsupkink\]. The additive superposition of infinitely many pairs $$\label{layered}
\omega(x_1)=\pi\sum\limits_{j=1}^{\infty}\zeta(\mu_j,x_1-a_j)\zeta(\mu_{j+1},-x_1-a_{j+1})$$ gives a layered topological charge structure in $R^4$, Fig.\[Fig:layered\].
Formally, one may try to go further and consider the product $$\label{asd_lump}
\omega(x)=\pi\prod_{i=1}^k \zeta(\mu_i,\eta_\nu^{i}x_\nu-q^{i}).$$ For an appropriate choice of normal vectors $\eta^i$ this superposition represents a lump of anti-self-dual field in the background of the self-dual one, in two, three and four dimensions for $k=4,6,8$, respectively. The case $k=8$ is illustrated in Fig.\[Fig:asd\_lump\]. The general kink network is then given by the additive superposition of lumps (\[asd\_lump\]) $$\label{kink_network}
\omega=\pi\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\prod_{i=1}^k \zeta(\mu_{ij},\eta_\nu^{ij}x_\nu-q^{ij}).$$ The correponding topological charge density is shown in Fig. \[Fig:kink\_network\]. This figure as well as the LHS of Fig. \[Fig:layered\] represents the configuration with infinitely thin domain wall defects, that is the Abelian homogeneous (anti-)self-dual field almost everywhere in $R^4$ characterized by the nonzero absolute value of the topological charge density which is constant and proportional to the value of the action density almost everywhere.
The most RHS plots in Figs. \[Fig:layered\] and \[Fig:kink\_network\] show the opposite case of the network composed of very thick kinks. Green color corresponds to the gauge field with an infinitesimally small topological charge density. Study of the spectrum of colorless and color charged fluctuations indicates that the LHS configuration is expected to be confining (only colorless hadrons can be excited as particles) while the RHS one (crossed orthogonal field) supports the color charged quasiparticles as the elementary excitations. It is expected that the RHS configuration can be triggered by external electromagnetic fields [@NG2011-1; @D'Elia:2012zw; @Bali:2013esa]. Strong electromagnetic fields emerge in relativistic heavy ion collisions [@Skokov:2009qp; @toneev; @Warringa]. Even after switching off the external electromagnetic field the nearly pure chromomagnetic vacuum configuration (RHS Fig.\[Fig:kink\_network\]) can support strong anisotropies [@Tuchin:2013ie] and, in particular, influence the chiral symmetry realization in the collision region [@Fukushima:2012kc]. More detailed consideration of the spectrum of elementary color charged excitations at the domain wall junctions (the green regions) is given in the section \[trap\].
A comment on representation of the domain wall network in terms of the vector potential is in order. The domain wall network constructed in this section relies on the separation of the Abelian part from the general gauge field. The vector potential representation can be easily realized for the planar Bloch domain wall and their layered superposition, Fig. \[Fig:layered\]. The same is true also for the interior of a thick domain wall junction, where field is almost homogeneous. The description of the domain walls in the general network Fig. \[Fig:kink\_network\] in terms of the vector potential requires application of the gauge field parametrization suggested in a series of papers by Y.M. Cho [@Cho1; @Cho2], S. Shabanov [@shabanov1; @shabanov2], L.D. Faddeev and A. J. Niemi [@Faddeev] and, recently, by K.-I. Kondo [@Kondo]. In this parameterization the Abelian part ${\hat V}_\mu (x)$ of the gauge field ${\hat A}_\mu (x)$ is separated manifestly, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqnsFaddeevNiemKondo}
{\hat A}_\mu (x) &=& {\hat V}_\mu (x) + {\hat X}_\mu (x), \,
{\hat V}_\mu (x) = {\hat B}_\mu (x) + {\hat C}_\mu (x), \\
{\hat B}_\mu (x) &=& [n^aA^a_\mu (x)]\hat{n} (x)=B_\mu(x)\hat{n}(x), \nonumber \\
{\hat C}_\mu (x) &=& g^{-1}\partial_\mu \hat{n}(x)\times \hat{n}(x), \nonumber\\
{\hat X}_\mu (x) &=& g^{-1}{\hat n}(x) \times \left( \partial_\mu {\hat n}(x) + g {\hat A}_\mu (x) \times {\hat n}(x) \right), \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\hat A}_\mu (x) = A^a_\mu (x) t^a$, ${\hat n} (x) = n_a (x) t^a$, $n^a n^a = 1$, and $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial_\mu\hat n}\times {\hat n} = i f^{abc}\partial_\mu n^a n^b t^c,\,
\, [t^a,t^b]=if^{abc}t^c.\end{aligned}$$ The field ${\hat V}_\mu $ is seen as the Abelian field in the sense that $[{\hat V}_\mu (x),{\hat V}_\nu (x)]=0$. The color vector field $n^a(x)$ may be used for detailed description of the thin domain wall junctions in general case. This issue is beyond the scope of the present paper and will be considered elsewhere.
[![Three-dimensional slices of the kink network - additive superposition of numerous four-dimensional lumps as it is given by Eq. . The correspondence of colors to the character of the configuration is the same as in Fig. \[Fig:layered\]. []{data-label="Fig:kink_network"}](cube1 "fig:"){width="25mm"}]{} [![Three-dimensional slices of the kink network - additive superposition of numerous four-dimensional lumps as it is given by Eq. . The correspondence of colors to the character of the configuration is the same as in Fig. \[Fig:layered\]. []{data-label="Fig:kink_network"}](cube3 "fig:"){width="25mm"}]{} [![Three-dimensional slices of the kink network - additive superposition of numerous four-dimensional lumps as it is given by Eq. . The correspondence of colors to the character of the configuration is the same as in Fig. \[Fig:layered\]. []{data-label="Fig:kink_network"}](cube4 "fig:"){width="25mm"}]{}
Charged field fluctuations in the background of a planar domain wall
====================================================================
Boundary condition
------------------
In this section we study the spectrum of color charged field fluctuations in the background of a single planar domain wall of the Bloch type.
The best thing to do would be to solve the eigenvalue problem for the kink of the finite width. However, the problem turns out to be not that simple. Let us consider the problem for the scalar field in the adjoint representation, that is just the Faddeev-Popov ghost field in the background gauge. The quadratic part of the action for the scalar field in the background field of a planar kink with the finite width placed at $x_1=0$ looks like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action_sc}
S[\Phi]&=&-\int d^4x (D_\mu\Phi)^\dagger(x)D_\mu\Phi(x)
\\ \nonumber
&=&\int d^4x \Phi^\dagger(x)D^2\Phi(x),
\\
\nonumber
D_\mu&=&\partial_\mu+i\breve B_\mu, \, \breve B_\mu=-\breve n B_\mu(x).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\breve n$ is the constant color matrix, $B_\mu$ is the vector potential for the planar Bloch domain wall. For our purposes the most convenient gauge for $B_\mu$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gauge1}
&& B_1=H_2(x_1)x_3+H_3(x_1)x_2,
\\ \nonumber
&& B_2=B_3=0,\quad B_4=-Bx_3,
\\ \nonumber
&&H_2=B\sin\omega(x_1), \,H_3=-B\cos\omega(x_1),
\\ \nonumber
&&\omega(x_1)=2\ {\rm arctg} \exp\mu x_1.\end{aligned}$$
A kink with the finite width is a regular everywhere in $R^4$ function, the scalar field is assumed to be a continuous square integrable function. Integration by parts in Eq.(\[action\_sc\]) does not generate surface terms either at infinity or at the location of the kink. However, there is a peculiarity related to the chosen gauge of the background field. According to Eq.(\[gauge1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
D^2&=& \tilde D^2+i\partial_\mu\breve B_\mu,
\label{covder1}\\
\tilde D^2&=& \partial^2+2i\breve B_\mu\partial_\mu -i\breve B_\mu \breve B_\mu
\nonumber\\
&=& (\partial_1-i\breve n H_2(x_1)x_3-i\breve nH_3(x_1)x_2)^2
\nonumber\\
&& + \partial_2^2 +\partial_3^2 + (\partial_4+i\breve n Bx_3)^2 -i\partial_1B_1
\nonumber\\
\partial_\mu\breve B_\mu&=&-\breve n H^\prime_2(x_1)x_3-\breve n H^\prime_3(x_1)x_2.
\label{sing_gauge}\end{aligned}$$ The action can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
S[\Phi]&=&\int d^4x \Phi^\dagger(x)\tilde D^2\Phi(x)
\label{surf_gauge}\\
&-&i\int d^4x \Phi^\dagger(x)\breve n\Phi(x) \left[H^\prime_2(x_1)x_3+H^\prime_3(x_1)x_2\right] .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that the integral in the second line is equal to zero if $\Phi^\dagger(x)\breve n\Phi(x)$ is an even function of $x_2$ and $x_3$.
The structure of $D^2$ in Eq.(\[covder1\]) is quite complicated. In the eigenvalue problem the variables can hardly be separated in the case of the finite width of the kink. The problem becomes much simpler and tractable in the limit of the infinitely thin domain wall $\mu\to\infty$. This limit brings discontinuity into the background field and thus creates a sharp boundary – the hyperplane of the domain wall. In such a situation one has to solve the problem in the bulk and on the wall and match the solutions according to some appropriate conditions. For our choice of the kink location there are three regions to be studied: $x_1<0$ with the self-dual field $B_\mu$, $x_1>0$ with the anti-self-dual field, and $x_1=0$ with the chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields orthogonal to each other. Conditions imposed onto the eigenmodes of color charged fields on the sharp wall can be obtained from the requirement of preservation of the properties of eigenmodes for finite $\mu$ as far as they can be identified. The continuity of the normal to the wall component of the total (through the whole hypersurface of the wall) charged current offers a reliable guiding principle for identification of the matching conditions. Continuity of the total current means that the surface terms do not appear under integration by parts in the action, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{current_cont_sc}
&&\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\left[J_1(\varepsilon)-J_1(-\varepsilon)\right]=0,
\\
\nonumber
&&J_\mu(x_1)=\int d^3x \Phi^\dagger(x)D_\mu\Phi(x),
\\
\nonumber
&&d^3x=dx_2dx_3dx_4.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, this requirement restricts the form of the eigenfunctions in such a way that the surface terms associated with the gauge dependent delta-function singularuties in $\partial_\mu \breve B_\mu$, Eq.(\[sing\_gauge\]) vanish as well.
![Derivatives of the components of the chromomagnetic field are plotted for two values of the width parameter $\mu/\sqrt{B}=3,10$.The coordinate $x_1$ is given in units of $1/\sqrt{B}$. In the limit of the infinitely thin domain wall ($\mu/\sqrt{B}\to\infty$) the derivatives develop the delta-function singularities at the location of the wall. []{data-label="Fig:der_single_kink"}](derivH.eps){width="75mm"}
Confined fluctuations in the bulk
---------------------------------
Let us consider the eigenvalue problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scalar1}
&&-\tilde D^2\Phi=\lambda\Phi.\end{aligned}$$ for the functions square integrable in $R^4$ and satisfying the condition (\[current\_cont\_sc\]). For all $x_1\not=0$ the operator $\tilde D^2$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{covder2}
\tilde D^2&=& (\partial_1 \pm i\breve n B x_2)^2
\nonumber\\
&& + \partial_2^2 +\partial_3^2 + (\partial_4+i\breve n Bx_3)^2
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where plus corresponds to the anti-self-dual configuration and minus is for the self-dual one. By inspection one can see that the eigenfunctions satisfy the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conditions}
\Phi^{(+)}(x_1,x_\perp)=\Phi^{(-)}(-x_1,x_\perp),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\pm)$ denotes the duality of the background field for a given $x_1$.
Respectively, the square integrable solutions are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eigenf_sc}
\Phi^{(\pm)}_{kl}(x)&=&\phi^{(\pm)}_k(x_1,x_2)\chi_l(x_3,x_4)
\\
\phi^{(\pm)}_k(x_1,x_2)&=&\int dp_1 f(p_1)e^{\pm ip_1x_1-\frac{1}{2}|\breve n|B(x_2+p_1/|\breve n|B)^2}
\nonumber\\
&\times& H_k\left(\sqrt{|\breve n|B}\left[x_2+\frac{p_1}{|\breve n|B}\right]\right)
\nonumber\\
\chi_k(x_3,x_4)&=&\int dp_4 g(p_4)e^{ip_4x_4-\frac{1}{2}|\breve n|B(x_3+p_4/|\breve n|B)^2 }
\nonumber\\
&\times& H_l\left(\sqrt{|\breve n|B}\left[x_3+\frac{p_4}{|\breve n|B}\right]\right),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $H_m$ are the Hermite polynomials. The eigenvalues are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eigenv_sc}
\lambda_{kl}=2|\breve n|B(k+l+1), \, \, k,l=0,1,\dots.\end{aligned}$$ The amplitudes $f(p_1)$ and $g(p_4)$ have to provide square integrability of the eigenfunctions in $x_1$ and $x_4$. In order to satisfy condition (\[current\_cont\_sc\]) one has to restrict the amplitude $f(p_1)$ additionally. The integral current through the domain wall is continuous if both $f$ and $H_k$ are odd or even functions simultaneously under the combined change $p_1\to-p_1$ and $x_2\to-x_2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cont_cond_sc}
f(-p_1)H_k(-z)=f(p_1)H_k(z).\end{aligned}$$ This property also guarantees the absence of the gauge specific contribution to the action related to the derivative of $H_3$ in Eqs.(\[sing\_gauge\],\[surf\_gauge\]).
A combination of (\[cont\_cond\_sc\]) and (\[conditions\]) obviously leads to the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relations}
\phi_{k}^{(\pm)}(x_1,x_2)=\phi_{k}^{(\pm)}(-x_1,-x_2),\end{aligned}$$ where $(\pm)$ denotes the duality of the background field for a given $x_1$. This identity allows one to show that the eigenfunctions $$\Phi_{kl}(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Phi^{(+)}_{kl}(x), \, \, x_1\in L_+\\
\Phi^{(-)}_{kl}(x), \, \, x_1\in L_-
\end{array}
\right., \, k,l=0,1\dots$$ form a complete orthogonal set in the space of square integrable functions which are even with respect to simultaneous reflection $x_1\to -x_1$ and $x_2\to-x_2$.
The eigenfunctions are of the bound state type with the purely discrete spectrum. Field fluctuations of this type can be seen as confined. It should be noted that the eigenvalues coincide with those for the purely homogeneous (anti-)self-dual Abelian field. In this sense, the domain wall defect does not destroy dynamical confinement of color charged fields. The eigenfunctions are restricted by the correlated evenness condition (\[cont\_cond\_sc\]), while in the case of the homogeneous field the properties of the amplitude $f(p_1)$ and the polynomial $H_k$ are mutually independent.
Color charged quasiparticles on the wall
----------------------------------------
Let us now consider the eigenvalue problem on the domain wall, i.e. for the region $x_1=0$. On the wall the chromomagnetic and chromoelectric fields are orthogonal to each other (see Fig.\[Fig:single\_kink\]). In conformity with (\[current\_cont\_sc\]) the absence of the charged current off the infinitely thin domain wall requires $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_1\Phi|_{x_1=0}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and the eigenvalue problem on the wall takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{covder_wall}
\left[- \partial_2^2 -\partial_3^2 +\breve n^2 B^2 x_3^2 + (i\partial_4-\breve n Bx_3)^2\right]\Phi=\lambda\Phi
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{on_wall_sol_sc}
\Phi_k(x_2,x_3,x_4)&=&e^{ip_2x_2+ip_4x_4}e^{-\frac{|\breve n|B}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x_3-\frac{p_4}{2|\breve n|B}\right)^2}
\nonumber\\
&\times&
H_k\left[\sqrt{\sqrt{2}|\breve n|B}\left(x_3-\frac{p_4}{2|\breve n|B}\right)\right],
\nonumber\\
\lambda_k(p^2_2,p_4^2)&=&\sqrt{2}|\breve n|B(2k+1)+\frac{p_4^2}{2}+\frac{p_2^2}{2},
\nonumber\\
&&k=0,1,2,\dots
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The spectrum of the eigenmodes on the wall is continuous, it depends on the momentum $p_2$ longitudinal to the chromomagnetic field and Euclidean energy $p_4$, the corresponding eigenfunctions are oscillating in $x_2$ and $x_4$. In the direction $x_3$ transverse to the chromomagnetic field the eigenfunctions are bounded and the eigenvalues display the Landau level structure. The continuation $p_4^2=-p_0^2$ leads to the dispersion relation $$p_0^2=p_2^2+\mu^2_k,\quad \mu^2_k=2\sqrt2(2k+1)|\breve n|B,\, \, k=0,1,2,\dots .$$ This can be treated as the lack of confinement - the color charged quasiparticles with masses $\mu_k$ and momentum $\mathbf{p}$ parallel to the chromomagnetic field $\mathbf{H}$ can be excited on the wall.
The case of the planar domain wall configuration (two infinite parts of the space-time separated by a three-dimentional hypersurface like in Fig.\[Fig:single\_kink\]) is rather artificial. Its weight in the whole ensemble of the gluon field configurations with the constant scalar condensate $\langle g^2F_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}\rangle$ and the lumpy structured distribution of the topological charge density $\langle g^2\tilde F_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}\rangle$ is negligible. The entropy-energy balance implies that the typical configuration should be highly disordered (see Fig.\[Fig:kink\_network\]). Moreover, in the case of the planar domain wall the eigenvalue problem for the square integrable vector gauge fields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vector}
\left[-D^2\delta_{\mu\nu}+2i\breve F_{\mu\nu}\right]Q_\nu=\lambda Q_\mu\end{aligned}$$ leads to the negative eigenvalues and corresponding tachyonic modes on the wall where $\tilde F_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}=0$. This is a well-known instability of the Nielsen-Olesen type [@Nielsen:1978rm]. The presence of the tachyonic mode is due to the three infinite dimensions of the planar domain wall hypersurface. One can expect that finite size of boundaries between lumps in the typical kink network configuration, Fig.\[Fig:kink\_network\], removes the tachyonic modes. This is manifestly exemplified in the next section where the color charged field eigenvalues and modes are studied for thick cylindrical domain wall junction. The relatively stable defect of this type can occur in the ensemble of confining gluon fields due to the influence of the strong electromagnetic fields on the QCD vacuum structure.
The spectrum of color charged quasiparticles trapped in a thick domain wall junction {#trap}
====================================================================================
Heavy ion collisions: the strong electromagnetic field as a trigger for deconfinement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been observed that the strong electromagnetic fields generated in relativistic heavy ion collisions can play the role of a trigger for deconfinement [@NG2011-1]. The mechanism discussed in [@NG2011-1] is as follows. The electric $\mathbf E_{\rm el}$ and magnetic $\mathbf H_{\rm el}$ fields are practically orthogonal to each other [@toneev; @Skokov:2009qp]: $\mathbf E_{\rm el}\mathbf H_{\rm el}\approx 0 $. For this configuration of the external electromagnetic field the one-loop quark contribution to the QCD effective potential for the homogeneous Abelian gluon fields is minimal for the chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields directed along the electric and magnetic fields respectively. The orthogonal chromo-fields are not confining: color charged quasiparticles can move along the chromomagnetic field. It has been noted also that this mechanism assumes the strong azimuthal anisotropy in momentum distribution of color charged quasiparticles. Deconfined quarks as well as gluons will move preferably along the direction of the magnetic field but this will happen due to the gluon field configuration even after switching the electromagnetic field off.
A detailed and systematic analytical one-loop calculation of the QCD effective potential for the pure chromomagnetic field was performed recently in [@Ozaki:2013sfa] and confirmed the result that the chromomagnetic field prefers to be parallel (or anti-parallel) to the external magnetic field. Another important source of verification of the basic observations of paper [@NG2011-1] is due to the recent Lattice QCD studies of the response of the QCD vacuum to external electromagnetic fields [@D'Elia:2012zw; @Bali:2013esa; @Bali:2013owa; @Bonati:2013qra].
In particular, in qualitative agreement with [@NG2011-1] Lattice QCD study [@Bali:2013esa] has demonstrated that in the presence of external magnetic field the gluonic action develops an anisotropy: the chromomagnetic field parallel to the external field is enhanced, while the chromo-electric field in this direction is suppressed. The results of [@Bali:2013owa] indicated that the magnetic field can affect the azimuthal structure of the expansion of the system during heavy ion collisions.
![ Examples of two-dimensional slice of the cylindrical thick domain wall junctions. The correspondence of colors is the same as in Fig.\[Fig:layered\]. Blue and red regions represent self-dual and anti-self-dual lumps. Confinement is lost in the green region where $g^2\tilde F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\mu\nu}(x)=0$. The scalar condensate density $g^2F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\mu\nu}(x)$ is nonzero and homogeneous everywhere.[]{data-label="Fig:chromo_bag"}](trap_2d_1 "fig:"){width="38mm"}![ Examples of two-dimensional slice of the cylindrical thick domain wall junctions. The correspondence of colors is the same as in Fig.\[Fig:layered\]. Blue and red regions represent self-dual and anti-self-dual lumps. Confinement is lost in the green region where $g^2\tilde F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\mu\nu}(x)=0$. The scalar condensate density $g^2F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\mu\nu}(x)$ is nonzero and homogeneous everywhere.[]{data-label="Fig:chromo_bag"}](trap_2d_2 "fig:"){width="38mm"}
Within the context of the confining domain wall network these observations mean that a flash of the strong electromagnetic field during heavy ion collisions produces a kind of defect in the form of the thick domain wall junction in the confining gluon background exactly in the region where collision occurs (see Fig.\[Fig:chromo\_bag\]). The electromagnetic flash can act as one of the preconditions for conversion of the high energy density and baryon density to the thermodynamics of color charged degrees of freedom.\
Cylindrical trap
-----------------
### Scalar field eigenmodes
Since topological charge density is zero in the interior of the trap ($g^2\tilde F_{\mu\nu}(x)F_{\mu\nu}(x)=0$) there exists a specific reference frame where one can use the pure chromomagnetic field for description of the gluon background inside the trap. For simplicity we take cylindrical geometry of the trap and study the properties of scalar and vector (gluon) color charged field eigenmodes. Extension of the present consideration to more realistic form of the trap is straightforward.
Consider the eigenvalue problem for the massless scalar field $\Phi^a$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cylinder_s}
-\left(\partial_\mu-i\breve B_\mu\right)^2\Phi(x)=\lambda^2\Phi(x)\end{aligned}$$ in the cylindrical region $$\begin{aligned}
x\in\mathcal{T}=\left\{x_1^2+x_2^2<R^2, \ (x_3,x_4)\in \mathrm{R^2} \right\}\end{aligned}$$ with the homogeneous Dirichlet condition at the boundary $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HDC}
&&\Phi(x)=0, \ x\in \partial\mathcal{T}
\\
&&\partial\mathcal{T} =\left\{x_1^2+x_2^2=R^2, \ (x_3,x_4)\in \mathrm{R^2} \right\}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $\breve B_\mu$ stays for adjoiunt representaion of the homogeneous chromomagnetic field $H^a_i=\delta_{i3}n^a H$ with the vector potential taken in the symmetric gauge $$\begin{gathered}
\breve B_\mu=-\frac{1}{2} \breve n B_{\mu\nu}x_\nu,
\label{purechrmag}\\
\breve B_4=\breve B_3=0, \ B_{12}=-B_{21}=H,
\nonumber\\
\breve n=T_3\cos(\xi)+T_8\sin(\xi).
\nonumber\end{gathered}$$
The eigenvalues of the matrix $\breve n$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{n_diag}
\breve v=\mathrm{diag}\left[\cos\left(\xi\right),-\cos\left(\xi\right),0,\cos\left(\xi-\frac{\pi}{3}\right),
-\cos\left(\xi-\frac{\pi}{3}\right),
\cos\left(\xi+\frac{\pi}{3}\right),-\cos\left(\xi+\frac{\pi}{3}\right),0\right].
\label{vadj}\end{aligned}$$
For any value of the angle $\xi$ there are two zero eigenvalues $\breve{v}_3=\breve{v}_8=0$. Two additional zero elements occur in $\breve{v}$ if the angle takes values $\xi_k$ (see Eq. ) minimizing the effective potential and corresponding to the boundaries of the Weyl chambers. By inspection one can check that nonzero eigenvalues $\breve{v}$ take values $\pm v$ with $v=\sqrt{3}/2$. Below we use notation $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\breve v^a=v\kappa^a.\end{aligned}$$ For example, if $\xi=\xi_0=\pi/6$ then the nonzero values of $v^a$ correspond to $a=1,2,4,5$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\kappa_1=1, \kappa_2=-1, \kappa_4=1, \ \kappa_5=-1.\end{aligned}$$ It has to be noted that the effective Lagrangian leads to the kink configuration (for details see [@NG2011]) $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{k}(x_i) =\frac{1}{3} \arctan\left[\sinh(m_\xi x_i)\right]+\frac{\pi k}{3}, \ k=0,\dots,5,\end{aligned}$$ interpolating between boundaries $\xi_k$ and $\xi_{k+1}$ of the $k$-th Weyl chamber. Superposition of these “color” domain walls can be arranged in a complete analogy with the “duality” domain walls. The only new feature of the “color” domains is that there are six different types interrelated by the Weyl reflections instead of two types as in the case of duality domains.
Solution of the problem is straightforward. We give it below just for completeness.
It is convenient to introduce dimensionless variables using the strength of the chromomagnetic field as a basic scale. Below all quantities are assumed to be measured in terms of this scale, for instance $$\sqrt{H}x_\mu \equiv x_\mu,\quad \frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{H}}\equiv \lambda.$$
After diagonalization with respect to color indices and transformation to the cylindrical coordinates Eq. takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HDC1}
-\left[\partial_4^2+\partial_3^2
+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vartheta^2}
-i\kappa^a v \frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta}
\right.
\nonumber\\
\left.
-\frac{1}{4} v^2r^2\right]\Phi^a=\lambda^2\Phi^a,\ \ \\end{aligned}$$ where it has been used that $$\begin{aligned}
&&x_1=r\cos\vartheta,\ x_2=r\sin\vartheta,\\
\\
&&\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}=\cos\vartheta\frac{\partial}{\partial r}-\frac{\sin\vartheta}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta},
\\
&&\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}=\sin\vartheta\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\frac{\cos\vartheta}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta},
\\
&&\partial_1^2+\partial_2^2=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vartheta^2}.\end{aligned}$$
The variables in Eq. are separated by substitution $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^a=\phi^a(r)e^{il\vartheta}\exp\left(ip_3x_3+ip_4x_4\right).\end{aligned}$$ Periodicity of the solution in angle $\vartheta\in[0,2\pi]$ requires integer values of parameter $l$.
The radial part $\phi(r)$ should satisfy equation $$\label{HDCR}
-\left[\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}-\frac{1}{r^2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\breve v r^2-l\right)^2
\right]\phi=\mu^2\phi,$$ where $\mu$ is related to the original eigenvalue $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^2=p_4^2+p_3^2+\mu^2.\end{aligned}$$
By means of the substitution $$\phi=r^le^{-\frac{1}{4}\breve{v}r^2}\chi,$$ one arrives at the Kummer equation ($z=\breve{v}r^2/2$) $$\left[z\frac{d^2}{dz^2}+(l+1-z)\frac{d}{dz}-\frac{\breve{v}-\mu^2}{2\breve{v}}\right]\chi=0.$$ The complete solution can be chosen in the form
$$\chi(z)=C_1M\left(\frac{\breve{v}-\mu^2}{2\breve{v}},1+l,z\right)+C_2z^{-l}M\left(\frac{\breve{v}-\mu^2}{2\breve{v}}-l,1-l,z\right),$$
where $M(a,b,z)$ is Kummer function. General solution of equation takes the form $$\phi_{l}(r)=
e^{-\frac{1}{4}\breve{v}r^2}\left[C_1r^lM\left(\frac{\breve{v}-\mu^2}{2\breve{v}},1+l,\frac12\breve{v}r^2\right)
+C_2r^{-l}M\left(\frac{\breve{v}-\mu^2}{2\breve{v}}-l,1-l,\frac12\breve{v}r^2\right)\right]$$ The first term is regular at $r=0$ provided $l\geqslant 0$ while the second one is well-defined for $l\leqslant 0$. Therefore, the solution regular inside the cylinder is $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{al}&=&e^{-\frac{1}{4}\breve{v}_ar^2}r^lM\left(\frac{\breve{v}_a-\mu^2}{2\breve{v}_a},1+l,\frac12\breve{v}_ar^2\right), \ \ l\geqslant 0,
\\
\phi_{al}&=&e^{-\frac{1}{4}\breve{v}_ar^2}r^{-l}M\left(\frac{\breve{v}_a-\mu^2}{2\breve{v}_a}-l,1-l,\frac12\breve{v}_ar^2\right), \ \ l< 0,
\label{scalarphi}\end{aligned}$$ where the color index $a$ has been explicitly indicated. The color matrix elements $\breve{v}_a$ can be negative. In this case one has to apply Kummer transformation [@AS] $$M(a,b,z)=e^zM(b-a,b,-z).$$
Dirichlet boundary condition defines the infinite discrete set of eigenvalues as the solutions $\mu^2_{alk}$ ($k=0,1\dots\infty$) of the equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eigenvaluesscalar1}
M\left(\frac{\hat{v}_a-\mu^2}{2\hat{v}_a},1+l,\frac12\hat{v}_aR^2\right)=0,\quad l\geqslant 0,
\\
M\left(\frac{\hat{v}_a-\mu^2}{2\hat{v}_a}-l,1-l,\frac12\hat{v}_aR^2\right)=0,\quad l< 0.
\label{eigenvaluesscalar2}\end{aligned}$$ If $\mu^2_{alk}$ satisfies equation , than $\tilde\mu^2_{alk}=\mu^2_{alk}-2\hat{v}_al$ is a solution of .
Finally the complete orthogonal set of eigenfunctions for the problem and reads $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Phi_{alk}(p_3, p_4|r,\vartheta,x_3,x_4)=e^{ip_3x_3+ip_4x_4}
e^{il\vartheta}\phi_{alk}(r),
\nonumber
\\
&&\lambda_{alk}^2=p_4^2+p_3^2+\mu_{akl}^2,
\label{eigenv_eucl}
\\
&& k=0,1,\dots,\infty, \ \ l=-\infty\dots\infty,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where functions $\phi_{alk}$ are defined by with $\mu^2=\mu_{akl}^2$ solving the boundary condition . Unlike Landau levels in the infinite space the eigenvalues $\mu_{akl}^2$ are not equidistant in $k$ and non-degenerate in $l$ as it is illustrated in Fig.\[Fig:Eigen\_set1\]). The dependence of several low-lying eigenvalues $\mu_{akl}^2$ on the dimensionless size parameter $\sqrt{H}R$ is shown in Fig.\[Fig:Eigen\_flow\].
### Vector field eigenmodes
For pure chromomagnetic field the adjoint representation vector field Eq. takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vector1}
\left[-\breve D^2\delta_{\mu\nu}+2i\breve n B_{\mu\nu}\right]Q_\nu=\lambda Q_\mu,\end{aligned}$$ and the boundary conditions are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\breve n Q_{\mu}(x)=0, \ x\in \partial\mathcal{T}
\nonumber\\
&&\partial\mathcal{T} =\left\{x_1^2+x_2^2=R^2, \ (x_3,x_4)\in \mathrm{R^2} \right\}
\label{HDCV}\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the eigenvectors $\breve{Q}_\mu^a$ of matrices $B_{\mu\nu}$ and $\breve n$ Eqs. and take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vector2}
\left[-\breve D^2+2s_{\mu}\breve v H\right]^a\breve{Q}^{a}_\mu
=\lambda_{a\mu}\breve{Q}^{a}_\mu,
\\\nonumber
\breve v \breve{Q}_{\mu}(x)=0, \ x\in \partial\mathcal{T}.\end{aligned}$$
Omitting obvious well-known details we just note that equation describes sixteen charged with respect to $\breve n$ spin-color polarizations of the gluon fluctuations with $(s_1=1, s_2=-1, s_3=s_4=0)$ and $\breve v^a\not=0$ as well as sixteen “color neutral” with respect to $\breve{n}$ modes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vector4}
&&-\partial^2\breve{Q}_\mu^{(0)}=p^2 \breve{Q}_\mu^{(0)}.
\label{Q0}\end{aligned}$$ Neutral mode $\breve{Q}_\mu^{(0)}$ is a zero mode of $\breve n$, and it is insensitive to the boundary condition . We shall briefly discuss the possible role of the neutral modes in the last section.
Equations for the color charged modes have the same form as the scalar field equation in the previous subsection. The only essential difference is that the eigenvalues $\lambda_{alk\nu}$ for nonzero $v^a$ have an addition $\pm 2vH$ to the eigenvalues $\mu^2_{akl}$ of the scalar case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\lambda^2_{alk\nu}=p_4^2+p_3^2+\mu_{alk}^2+ 2s_\nu\kappa_a v,
\label{eigenv_eucl_pm}
\\
&& k=0,1,\dots,\infty, \ \ l\in Z,
\nonumber\\
&& s_1=1, \ s_2=-1, \ s_3=s_4=0, \ \kappa_a=\pm 1.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu^2_{akl}$ are the same as in the scalar case. If we were considering the square integrable solutions in $R^4$ then the lowest mode $\lambda^2_{a00\nu}$ with $s_\nu\kappa_a=-1$ would be tachyonic. In the finite trap the lowest eigenvalue is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lambda00}
\lambda^2_{a00\nu}=p_4^2+p_3^2+\mu_{a00}^2-2v, \ s_\nu\kappa_a=-1.\end{aligned}$$ The dependence of $\mu_{a00}^2$ on dimensionless size parameter $\sqrt{H}R$ is strongly nonlinear. Few lowest eigenvalues $\mu_{akl}^2$ as functions of $\sqrt{H}R$ are shown in Fig. \[Fig:Eigen\_flow\]. One concludes that if the dimensionless size $\sqrt{H}R$ of the trap is sufficiently small $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dmlsc}
\sqrt{H}R<\sqrt{H}R_{\rm c}\approx 1.91,\end{aligned}$$ then there are no unstable tachyonic modes in the spectrum of color charged vector fields.
To estimate the critical size one may use the mean phenomenological value of the gluon condensate (gauge coupling constant $g$ is included into the field strength tensor) $$\begin{aligned}
\langle F^a_{\mu\nu}F^{a\mu\nu}\rangle = 2H^2\approx 0.5{\rm GeV}^4.\end{aligned}$$ Equation leads to the critical radius $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\rm c}\approx 0.51 \ {\rm fm} \ (2R_{\rm c}\approx 1 \ {\rm fm}).
\label{rc}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the tachyonic mode is absent if the diameter of the cylindrical trap is less or equal to $1 \ {\rm fm}$.
![Eigenvalues $\mu^2_{alk}$ for the scalar field problem, $l=-2,-1,0,1,2$ and $k=0,1,2$, for $\sqrt{H}R=1.6$. Eigenvalues are denoted by asterisks in the case of positive $v_a$ and by circles in the case of negative $v_a$. []{data-label="Fig:Eigen_set1"}](dirichlet_eigenvalues_set1){width="75mm"}
![The lowest eigenvalues corresponding to positive color orientation $\kappa^a=1$ as functions of $\sqrt{H}R$. The critical radius $R_{\rm c}$ corresponds to $\mu_{a00}^2=2v=\sqrt{3}$. For large $\sqrt{H}R$ eigenvalues approach correct Landau levels, the degeneracy in $l$ is restored.[]{data-label="Fig:Eigen_flow"}](dirichlet_eigenvalues_flow){width="75mm"}
### Quark field eigen modes
In this subsection we address the eigenvalue problem for Dirac operator in the cylindrical region in the presence of chromomagnetic background field (\[purechrmag\]) $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\not\!\!D\psi(x)=\lambda\psi(x),
\label{dirac}\\
&&D_\mu=\partial_\mu+\frac{i}{2}\hat n B_{\mu\nu}x_\nu,
\nonumber\\
&&\hat n= t_3\cos\xi +t_8\sin\xi
\label{nfund}\\
&&=\frac{1}{2}{\rm diag}\left(\cos\xi+\frac{\sin\xi}{\sqrt{3}}, -\cos\xi+\frac{\sin\xi}{\sqrt{3}}, -\frac{2\sin\xi}{\sqrt{3}}\right).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Euclidean Dirac matrices are taken in the anti-hermitian representation.
The angle $\xi$ is assumed to take one of the vacuum values $\xi_k$, and according to Eq. the following forms of the matrix $\hat n$ can occur $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hat n=\left\{ \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}{\rm diag}\left(1, -\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2}\right),
\right.
\label{HLxikfund}\\
&&\left.
\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}{\rm diag}\left(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2},-1\right), \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}{\rm diag}\left(-\frac{1}{2},1, -\frac{1}{2}\right) \right\}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Below we use notation $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{n}_{ij}=\delta_{ij}\hat{u}_j.
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ The boundary conditions are $$\begin{aligned}
i\!\not\!\eta(x)e^{i\theta\gamma_5}\hat n\psi(x) = \hat n\psi(x), \ x\in\partial\mathcal{T},
\nonumber\\
\bar\psi(x)e^{i\theta\gamma_5} \hat n i \! \!\not\!\eta(x) = -\bar\psi(x) \hat n,
\ x\in\partial\mathcal{T},
\label{bagbc}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_\mu$ is a unit vector normal to the cylinder surface $\partial\mathcal{T}$, see Eq. . These are simply the bag boundary conditions. This choice appears to be rather natural. Indeed, inside the thick domain wall junction one expects an existence of the color charged quasiparticles (quarks) being the carriers of the color current, but outside the junction gluon configurations are confining (see Fig. \[Fig:chromo\_bag\])) and the current has to vanish at the boundary. Unlike the adjoint representation of color matrix the matrix $\hat n$ in fundamental representation has no zero eigenvalues for any value of the angle $\xi$ corresponding to the boundaries of Weyl chambers, see Eq. . Boundary condition restricts all three color components of the quark field.
Substitution $$\label{psirelation}
\psi=\left(\not{\hspace*{-0.3em}D}+\lambda\right)\varphi$$ leads to the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{squareD}
-\left(D^2+\hat{u}H\Sigma_3\right)\varphi=\lambda^2\varphi,\end{aligned}$$ where it has been used that in the pure chromomagnetic field $$\begin{aligned}
\frac12\sigma_{\mu\nu}\hat{B}_{\mu\nu}=\Sigma_3H\hat{u},
\ \Sigma_i=\frac12\varepsilon_{ijk}\sigma_{jk}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation is essentially the same as . Its solution in cylindrical coordinates ($2\pi$-periodic in $\vartheta$ and regular at $r=0$) is given by four independent components $\varphi_l^\alpha$ ($\alpha=1,\dots,4$, $l\in Z$): $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_l^\alpha=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}e^{il\vartheta}\phi_l^\alpha(r)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{philp}
\phi_{l}^\alpha=e^{-\frac14\hat{u}r^2}r^{l}
M\left(\frac{1+s_\alpha}{2}-\frac{\mu^2}{2\hat{u}},1+l,\frac{\hat{u}r^2}{2}\right)$$ for the case $l\geqslant 0$ and $$\label{philn*}
\phi_{l}^{\alpha}=e^{-\frac14\hat{u}r^2}r^{-l}
M\left(\frac{1+s_{\alpha}}{2}-\frac{\mu^2}{2\hat{u}}-l,1-l,\frac{\hat{u}r^2}{2}\right)$$ for $l<0$. Here $$s_\alpha=(-1)^\alpha, \ \alpha=1,\dots,4$$ denotes the sign of the quark spin projection on the direction of chromomagnetic field, and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\label{philarrows}
\phi_l^3=\phi_l^1=\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r), \ \phi_l^4=\phi_l^2=\Phi_l^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r).\end{aligned}$$
The variable $\mu$ is related to the Dirac eigenvalues as $$\mu^2=\lambda^2-p_3^2-p_4^2.
\label{mu}$$
Finally the Dirac operator eigenfunction $\psi$ can be obtained by means of relation with $$\not{\hspace*{-0.3em}D}+\lambda=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\lambda&0&i\partial_4+\partial_3&D_1-iD_2\\
0&\lambda&D_1+iD_2&i\partial_4-\partial_3\\
i\partial_4-\partial_3&-D_1+iD_2&\lambda&0\\
-D_1-iD_2&i\partial_4+\partial_3&0&\lambda
\end{array}
\right),
\nonumber$$
where $$\begin{gathered}
D_1+iD_2=e^{i\vartheta}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\frac{i}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta}+\frac12\hat{u}r\right),\displaybreak[0]
\\
D_1-iD_2=e^{-i\vartheta}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r}-\frac{i}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta}-\frac12\hat{u}r\right).\end{gathered}$$ Four solutions are for $l\geqslant 0$ $$\psi_l^{(1)}=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\lambda \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
0\\
(p_4+ip_3)\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
\frac{\mu^2}{2(l+1)}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\psi_l^{(2)}=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\lambda \Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
-2(l+1)\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
(p_4-ip_3)\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\psi^{(3)}_l=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(p_4-ip_3)\Phi_{l}^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
-\frac{\mu^2}{2(1+l)}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\lambda \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
0
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\psi^{(4)}_l=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
2(l+1)\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
(p_4+ip_3)\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
0\\
\lambda \Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ and for $l<0$ $$\psi_l^{(1)}=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\lambda \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
0\\
(p_4+ip_3)\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
2l\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\psi_l^{(2)}=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\
\lambda \Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
-\frac{\mu^2}{2l}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
(p_4-ip_3)\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\psi^{(3)}_l=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(p_4-ip_3)\Phi_{l}^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
-2l\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\lambda \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
0
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\psi^{(4)}_l=e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\mu^2}{2l}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
(p_4+ip_3)\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
0\\
\lambda \Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\end{array}
\right).$$
All four spinors are eigenfunctions, $$\begin{aligned}
J_3\psi_l^{(m)}=\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)\psi_l^{(m)},\end{aligned}$$ of the total momentum projection operator onto $x_3$. $$\begin{gathered}
J_i=L_i+S_i,\quad L_i=-i\varepsilon_{ijk}x_j\partial_k,\quad S_i=\frac12\Sigma_i,\\
J_3=-i\frac{\partial}{\partial \vartheta}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma_3&0\\
0&\sigma_3
\end{array}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Only two of these solutions at given $l$ are linearly independent. We select $$\psi_l=A\psi^{(1)}_l+B\psi^{(4)}_l$$ as a general solution to equation for the reason that $\psi^{(1)}_l$ and $\psi^{(4)}_l$ remain linearly independent in the limit $\lambda\to 0$. The limit will be used in the next section for the solving the Dirac equation in Minkowski space-time.
Boundary condition with $\theta=\pi/2$ leads to the equation defining the values of the parameter $\mu$ as well as the ratio of $A$ and $B$. For $l\geqslant 0$ one gets
$$\begin{aligned}
&& A\left(\frac{\mu^2}{2(1+l)}\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(R)+\lambda \Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_{l}(R)\right)+B\left(\lambda \Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(R)+2(l+1)\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_{l}(R)\right)=0,
\nonumber\\
&&A\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(R)+B \Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(R)=0.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
This system has a nontrivial solution for $A$ and $B$ if the determinant of the matrix composed of the coefficients in front of them is equal to zero $$\begin{gathered}
\label{muquark}
\left[\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(R)\right]^2=\left[\frac{\mu}{2(1+l)}\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_
{l+1}(R)\right]^2.\end{gathered}$$ This equation defines the spectrum of $\mu^2$. States with definite spin orientation with respect to the chromomagnetic field are mixed in the boundary condition, and the spin projection onto the direction of the field is not a good quantum number unlike the projection of the total momentum $j_3$ as it is taken into account in Fig.\[Fig:Q\_eigenv\]. As is illustrated in Fig.\[Fig:Q\_eigenv\] there is a discrete set of solutions $\mu_{ilk}>0$ which depend also on the color orientation $\hat u_i$ ($j_3=(2l+1)/2$ with $l\in Z$, $k\in N$, $j=1,2,3$). As a rule one can omit the color index $j$ assuming that $\mu_{lk}$ is a diagonal color matrix for any $l,k$. The values $\mu^2_{lk}$ has to be used to find the relation between $A$ and $B$ $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{B_{lk}}{A_{lk}}=-\left.\frac{\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(R)}{\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(R)}\right|_{\mu^2=\mu^2_{lk}}= (-1)^{k+1}\frac{\mu_{lk}}{2(l+1)},
\label{lambdapm}\\
\lambda_{lk}=\pm\sqrt{\mu_{lk}^2+p_3^2+p_4^2}=\pm |\lambda_{lk}|.
\nonumber\end{gathered}$$ Here $\mu_{lk}$ is taken to be positive, and $\lambda_{lk}$ takes both positive and negative values. Equation has been used in combination with observation (by inspection) that the sign of the ratio $B_{lk}$ and $A_{lk}$ depends on $k\in N$ as it is indicated in irrespectively to $l$ and color orientation.
Analogous consideration for the case $l<0$ leads to the equation for $\mu$ $$\begin{gathered}
\left[\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(R)\right]^2=\left[\frac{\mu}{2l}\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_
{l}(R)\right]^2,\end{gathered}$$ and for the ratio of coefficients $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{A_{lk}}{B_{lk}}=-\left.\frac{\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(R)}{\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(R)}\right|_{\mu^2=\mu^2_{lk}}= (-1)^{k}\frac{\mu_{lk}}{2l},
\label{lumpm}\\
\lambda_{lk}=\pm\sqrt{\mu_{lk}^2+p_3^2+p_4^2}=\pm |\lambda_{lk}|.
\nonumber\end{gathered}$$
The orthogonal normalized set of solutions has the form for $l\geqslant 0$ $$\psi_{lk}^{(\pm)}=\frac{A_{lk}}{(2\pi)^\frac32\sqrt{2|\lambda_{lk}|}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\pm|\lambda_{lk}|+(-1)^{k+1}\mu_{lk}}{\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}
\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
(-1)^{k+1}\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}{2(l+1)}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
\frac{\mu_{lk}(\mu_{lk}\pm(-1)^{k+1}|\lambda_{lk}|)}{2(l+1)\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4},
\label{psi_eucl1}$$ and for $l<0$ $$\psi_{lk}^{(\pm)}=\frac{B_{lk}}{(2\pi)^\frac32\sqrt{2|\lambda_{lk}|}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\mu_{lk}(\mu_{lk}\pm(-1)^k|\lambda_{lk}|)}{2l\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}
\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
(-1)^k\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}{2l}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
\frac{\pm|\lambda_{lk}|+(-1)^k\mu_{lk}}{\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)e^{-ip_3x_3-ip_4x_4}.
\nonumber$$ The spinors $\psi_{lk}^{(+)}$ and $\psi_{lk}^{(-)}$ correspond to the positive and negative eigenvalues $\lambda_{lk}$ in respectively, they are eigenfunctions of $J_3$ with $j_3=l+1/2$. Normalization constants are $$\begin{aligned}
A^{-2}_{jlk}(R)&=&\int_0^R
drr\left[\left(\frac{\mu_{jlk}}{2(l+1)}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)\right)^2+\left(\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)\right)^2\right]
\nonumber\\
B^{-2}_{jlk}(R)&=&\int_0^R
drr\left[\left(\frac{\mu_{jlk}}{2l}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)\right)^2+\left(\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)\right)^2\right]
\label{normconst}\end{aligned}$$
The same procedure applied to the equation $$\bar\psi(x)\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\!\not\!\!D}=\lambda\bar\psi(x)$$ leads to the solutions for $l\geqslant 0$ $$\bar\psi_{lk}^{(\pm)}=\frac{A_{lk}}{(2\pi)^\frac32\sqrt{2|\lambda_{lk}|}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\pm\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(r)e^{-il\vartheta}\\
\frac{\mu_{lk}(\mp\mu_{lk}+(-1)^{k+1}|\lambda_{lk}|)}{2(1+l)\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}
\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(r)e^{-i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\frac{\pm(-1)^{k}\mu_{lk}+|\lambda_{lk}|}{\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(r)e^{-il\vartheta}\\
\mp(-1)^{k}\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}{2(1+l)}\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(r)e^{-i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)^\textrm{T}e^{ip_3x_3+ip_4x_4},
\label{psi_eucl}$$ and for $l<0$ $$\bar\psi_{lk}^{(\pm)}=\frac{B_{lk}}{(2\pi)^\frac32\sqrt{2|\lambda_{lk}|}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\pm(-1)^{k}\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}{2l}\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(r)e^{-il\vartheta}\\
\frac{|\lambda_{lk}|\mp(-1)^k\mu_{lk}}{\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}
\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(r)e^{-i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\frac{\mu_{lk}(\mp\mu_{lk}+(-1)^k|\lambda_{lk}|)}{2l\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}}\Phi^{\uparrow\uparrow}_l(r)e^{-il\vartheta}\\
\pm\sqrt{p_4+ip_3}\Phi^{\uparrow\downarrow}_{l+1}(r)e^{-i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
\end{array}
\right)^\textrm{T}e^{ip_3x_3+ip_4x_4}
.
\nonumber$$
![ The lowest values of $\mu$ solving Eq. for $\sqrt{H}R=1.6$. Here $j_3=l+1/2$ is the projection of the total momentum on the direction of the chromomagnetic field. Eigenvalues are denoted by asterisks in the case of positive $u_j$ and by circles in the case of negative $u_j$.[]{data-label="Fig:Q_eigenv"}](Quark_eigen_val-6){width="80mm"}
Quasiparticles
---------------
To get insight into the physical treatment of above-considered Euclidean eigenmodes one has to solve the Minkowski space Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations in the presence of chromomagnetic field inside the cylinder with the bag-like boundary conditions. Solutions describe the elementary quasiparticle excitations inside the thick cylindrical domain wall junction. Quite detailed analysis of the notion of quasiparticles in relativistic quantum field theory can be found in [@Arteaga:2008ux]. Unlike the fundamental elementary and composite particles the characteristic properties of quasiparticles (for instance the specific form of the dispersion relation) need not be necessarily Lorentz invariant or even gauge invariant. The overall statement of the problem under consideration necessarily assumes that space direction along the chromomagnetic field is singled out by underlining experimental setup as it coincides with the direction of the strong magnetic field generated for short time in heavy ion collision. In generic relativistic frame both chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields are present inside the domain wall junction. However since the topological charge density vanishes in the region (see Fig.\[Fig:chromo\_bag\]) there exists specific frame where chromoelectric field is absent. This frame is the most convenient for our purposes.
### Adjoint representation: color charged bosons
In Minkowski space-time the problem and turns to the wave equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cylinder_s_m}
-\left(\partial_\mu-i\breve B_\mu\right)^2\phi(x)=0\end{aligned}$$ for color charged adjoint spin zero field inside a cylindrical wave guide. As it follows from and futher discussion the charged components of the adjoint field of the color matrix $\breve n$ comes in complex conjugate pairs. For instance if $\xi=\pi/6$ then there are two pairs $\phi_1\pm i\phi_2$ and $\phi_4\pm i\phi_5$. Thus $\phi^a$ is a complex scalar field, the corresponding solution of satisfying boundary condition takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
&&\phi^a(x)=\sum_{lk}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{dp_3}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega_{alk}}} \left[a^{+}_{akl}(p_3)e^{ix_0\omega_{akl}-ip_3x_3}
+b_{akl}(p_3)e^{-ix_0\omega_{akl}+ip_3x_3}\right]e^{il\vartheta}\phi_{alk}(r),
\label{seigenf_mink}
\\
&&\phi^{a\dagger}(x)=\sum_{lk}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{dp_3}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega_{alk}}} \left[b^{+}_{akl}(p_3)e^{-ix_0\omega_{akl}+ip_3x_3}
+a_{akl}(p_3)e^{ix_0\omega_{akl}-ip_3x_3}\right]e^{-il\vartheta}\phi_{alk}(r),
\nonumber
\\
&&p_0^2=p_3^2+\mu_{akl}^2,
\nonumber\\
&&p_0=\pm\omega_{akl}(p_3), \ \omega_{akl}=\sqrt{p_3^2+\mu_{akl}^2},
\label{mass_mink}
\\
&& k=0,1,\dots,\infty, \ \ l\in Z,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with $\phi_{alk}(r)$ defined in but here it is assumed to be normalized $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits_0^\infty dr r\int\limits_0^{2\pi} d\vartheta e^{i(l-l')\vartheta} \phi_{alk}(r) \phi_{al'k'}(r)=\delta_{ll'}\delta_{kk'}. \end{aligned}$$ Equation can be treated as the dispersion relation between energy $p_0$ and momentum $p_3$ for the quasiparticles with masses $\mu_{akl}$. These quasiparticles are extended in $x_1$ and $x_2$ directions and are classified by the quantum numbers $l,k$. The orthogonality, normalization and completeness of the set of functions $e^{il\vartheta}\phi_{alk}(r)$ guarantees the standard canonical commutation relations for the field $\phi^a$ and its canonically conjugated momentum if $a^\dagger_{akl}(p_3)$, $a_{akl}(p_3)$, $b^\dagger_{akl}(p_3)$ and $b_{akl}(p_3)$ are assumed to satisfy the standard commutation relations for creation and annihilation operators. The Fock space of states for the quasiparticles with masses $\mu_{akl}$ can be constructed by means of the standard QFT methods. This treatment provides one with a suitable terminology and formalism for discussion of the confining properties of various gluon field configurations in the context of QFT: unlike the chromomagnetic field the (anti-)self-dual fields characteristic for the bulk of domain network configuration (see the LHS plot in Fig. \[Fig:kink\_network\]) lead to purely discrete spectrum of eigenmodes in Euclidean space and do not possess any quasiparticle treatment in terms of dispersion relation between energy and momentum for elementary color charged excitations. If there is a reason for long-lived defect in the form of thick domain wall junction then its boundary defines a shape and a size for the space region which can be populated by color charged quasiparticles.
The vector adjoint field can be elaborated in the similar to the scalar case way. A modification relates just to the inclusion of polarization vectors. As it has already been mentioned the most important feature is the absence of tachyonic mode of the vector color charged field if $R<R_{\mathrm c}$. Disappearance of the tachyonic mode for subcritical size of the trap is one of the most important observations of this paper.
### Fundamental representation: color charged fermions
Neither the background field nor the boundary condition involve the time coordinate. The solution of the Dirac equation $$\begin{aligned}
&&i\!\not\!\!D\psi(x)=0,
\label{dirac1}\end{aligned}$$ satisfying condition can be obtained from Euclidean solutions (unnormalized solutions have to be used) by the analytical continuation $p_4\to ip_0$, $x_4\to ix_0$ and the requirement $\lambda_{lk}=0$, which leads to the energy-momentum relation for the solutions with definite $j_3$, $k$ and color $j$ $$\begin{gathered}
p_0^2=p_3^2+\mu_{jlk}^2 ,\ \
p_0=\pm\omega_{jlk}(p_3),
\\ \omega_{jlk}=\sqrt{p_3^2+\mu_{jlk}^2}.\end{gathered}$$ Finally the solution of the Dirac equation takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{j}(x)=\sum_{lk}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{dp_3}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega_{jlk}}}
\left[a^{\dagger}_{jlk}(p_3)\chi_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)
e^{ix_0\omega_{jlk}-ix_3p_3}+b_{jlk}(p_3)\upsilon_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)e^{-ix_0\omega_{jlk}+ix_3p_3}\right],
\\
\bar\psi^{j}(x)=\sum_{lk}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{dp_3}{2\pi}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega_{jlk}}}
\left[b^{\dagger}_{jlk}(p_3)\bar\chi_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)
e^{-ix_0\omega_{jlk}+ix_3p_3}+a_{jlk}(p_3){\bar\upsilon }_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)e^{ix_0\omega_{jlk}-ix_3p_3}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here the pair of spinors for positive $\chi_{lk}$ and negative $\upsilon_{lk}$ energy solutions are $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{lk}=A_{lk}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(-1)^{k+1}\frac{\mu_{lk}}{\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}} \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
i(-1)^{k+1}\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}{2(l+1)}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
i\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
\frac{\mu^2_{lk}}{2(l+1)\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right),
\ \ \ \
\upsilon_{lk}=A_{lk}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
(-1)^{k+1}\frac{\mu_{lk}}{\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}} \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
i(-1)^{k}\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}{2(l+1)}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
-i\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
\frac{\mu^2_{lk}}{2(l+1)\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right),
\label{barchi_mink}\end{aligned}$$ for $l\geqslant0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{lk}=B_{lk}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\mu^2_{lk}}{2l\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}} \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
i\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
i(-1)^k\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}{2l}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
(-1)^k\frac{\mu_{lk}}{\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right),
\ \ \ \
\upsilon_{lk}=B_{lk}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{\mu^2_{lk}}{2l\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}} \Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
-i\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}\\
i(-1)^{k+1}\frac{\mu_{lk}\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}{2l}\Phi_l^{\uparrow\uparrow}(r)e^{il\vartheta}\\
(-1)^k\frac{\mu_{lk}}{\sqrt{\omega_{lk}+p_3}}\Phi_{l+1}^{\uparrow\downarrow}(r)e^{i(l+1)\vartheta}
\end{array}
\right)
\label{barchi_mink_ln}\end{aligned}$$ for $l<0$. The spinors are normalized as $$\begin{aligned}
\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}d\vartheta\int\limits_0^R dr r
\chi^\dagger_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)\chi_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)=
\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi}d\vartheta\int\limits_0^R dr r
\upsilon^\dagger_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)\upsilon_{jlk}(p_3|r,\vartheta)= 2\omega_{jlk}\end{aligned}$$
The Dirac conjugated spinors are $$\bar\psi^{j}(x)=\psi^{j\dagger}(x)\gamma_0$$ as usual. The Fock space can be constructed by means of the creation and annihilation operators $\left\{ a^{\dagger}_{jlk}(p_3), a_{jlk}(p_3), b^{\dagger}_{jlk}(p_3), b_{jlk}(p_3)\right\}$ satisfying the standard anticommutation relations. The one-particle state is characterized by a color orientation $j$, momentum $p_3$, projection $j_3=(l+1/2)$ of the total angular momentum and the energy $\omega_{jlk}=\sqrt{p_3^2+\mu^2_{jlk}}$. Since the boundary condition mixes the states with spin parallel and anti-parallel to the chromomagnetic field the spin projection is not a good quantum number unlike the half-integer valued projection of the total angular momentum $j_3$.
Discussion
==========
An ensemble of confining gluon configurations has been constructed explicitly as a domain wall networks representing the almost everywhere homogeneous Abelian (anti-)self-dual gluon fields. Confinement is understood here as the absence of the color charged wave-like elementary excitations. The dynamical quark confinement occurs in the (four-dimensional) bulk of the domain wall network. Inside the (three-dimensional) domain walls topological charge density vanishes and the color charged quasiparticles can be excited.
Under extreme conditions, in particular under the influence of the strong electromagnetic field specific for relativistic heavy ion collisions, a relatively stable defect in the confining ensemble, a thick domain wall junction, can be formed. Though the scalar gluon condensate is nonzero everywhere $\langle g^2F^2\rangle\not=0$, the region of defect is characterized by the vanishing topological charge density $\langle |g^2\tilde FF|\rangle$=0 unlike the rest of the space, which indicates the lack of confinement in the junction. The quark field excitations inside the junction are represented by the color charged quasiparticles. The spectrum of gluon excitations besides the trapped color charged modes contains also the color neutral with respect to the background field modes.
Almost obvious but important observation is that there exists a critical size $L_{\rm c}$ of the junction beyond which the tachyonic gluon modes emerge in the excitation spectrum and destabilize the defect. The critical size can be related to the value of the gluon condensate $\langle g^2F^2\rangle$ and in the case of the considered in the paper cylindrical trap $L_{\rm c}\approx 1$fm for the standard value of the condensate, see . The specific value of the critical size depends on the geometry of the trap but its very existence and its commensurability with a distance of order of $1$fm is a generic feature. This observation underlines the generic necessity of accounting for the essentially finite size of the space-time region in which deconfinement may occur. The reason is that thermodynamic limit does not exist as the system under consideration disappears as soon as the typical size of the space volume exceeds the critical value. Excess of the internal pressure of the trap filled by many charged quasiparticles leads to its expansion and breakdown of stability followed by its disintegration to many smaller traps (or bags), which is reminiscent of the heterophase fluctuations studied in [@Yukalov:2013yj] as well as the dynamics and statistical mechnaics of bags with a surface tension [@Bugaev].
The dynamics of the color charged quasiparticles as it is described above is strictly one-dimentional in space. This feature can be a source of the azimuthal asymmetries in heavy ion collisions, similarly to the approach of paper [@Tuchin:2013ie] upto a substitution of the magnetic field by the Abelian chromomagnetic field (see also [@Bali:2013owa]). However it should be noted that the one-dimensional dynamics is a property of the zero-th order approximation based on the quadratic part of the action. Taking into account interactions between the quasiparticles according to the interaction terms in the action should certainly dither the direction of the quasiparticle momenta, leaving just some degree of azimuthal asymmetry.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with V.Toneev, S. Molodtsov, J. Pawlowski, M.Ilgenfritz, A.Dorokhov, K.Bugaev S.Vinitsky, G.Efimov, V.Yukalov, A.Efremov, A.Titov.
[100]{} E. -M. Ilgenfritz, K. Koller, Y. Koma, G. Schierholz, T. Streuer and V. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 034506 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.0018 \[hep-lat\]\]. P. J. Moran and D. B. Leinweber, arXiv:0805.4246 \[hep-lat\]. P. J. Moran and D. B. Leinweber PoS [**LAT2007**]{} (2007) 383 \[arXiv:0710.2380 \[hep-lat\]\]. Ph. de Forcrand, A. Kurkela and A. Vuorinen Phys. Rev. D **77** (2008) 125014. P. de Forcrand AIP Conf. Proc. 892 (2007) 29 \[arXiv:hep-lat/0611034\]. A. R. Zhitnitsky, arXiv:1301.7072 \[hep-ph\]. P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 439. H. Pagels, and E. Tomboulis, Nucl. Phys. B **143** (1978) 485. P. Minkowski, Nucl. Phys. B**177** (1981) 203. H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B **179** (1981) 129; *ibid* Phys. Lett. B96 (1980) 154. A.C. Kalloniatis and S.N. Nedelko, Phys. Rev. D **64** (2001) 114025; L. D. Faddeev, \[arXiv:0911.1013 \[math-ph\]\]. A.C. Kalloniatis and S.N. Nedelko, Phys. Rev. D **73** (2006) 034006. B.V. Galilo and S.N. Nedelko, Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 094017. B.V. Galilo and S.N. Nedelko, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett., **8** (2011) 67 \[arXiv:hep-ph/1006.0248v2\]. H. D. Trottier and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70** (1993) 2053. A. Eichhorn, H. Gies and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 045014 (2011) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**83**]{}, 069903 (2011)\] \[arXiv:1010.2153 \[hep-ph\]\]. D. P. George, A. Ram, J. E. Thompson and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 105009 (2013) \[arXiv:1203.1048 \[hep-th\]\]. G.V. Efimov, and S.N. Nedelko, Phys. Rev. D **51** (1995) 176; J. .V. Burdanov, G. V. Efimov, S. N. Nedelko, S. A. Solunin, Phys. Rev. D **54** (1996) 4483. A.C. Kalloniatis and S.N. Nedelko, Phys. Rev. D **69** (2004) 074029; [*Erratum-ibid.*]{} Phys. Rev. D **70** (2004) 119903; [*ibid*]{}, Phys. Rev. D **71** (2005) 054002; T. Vachaspati, Kinks and Domain Walls, Cambridge University Press, 2006. M. D’Elia, M. Mariti and F. Negro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 082002 (2013) \[arXiv:1209.0722 \[hep-lat\]\]. G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, F. Gruber and A. Schaefer, JHEP [**1304**]{}, 130 (2013) \[arXiv:1303.1328 \[hep-lat\]\]. D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A **803** [**227**]{} (2008) V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V. P. Konchakovski and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C [**83**]{}, 054911 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.4239 \[nucl-th\]\]. V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**24**]{} (2009) 5925 \[arXiv:0907.1396 \[nucl-th\]\]. K. Tuchin, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2013**]{}, 490495 (2013) \[arXiv:1301.0099\]. K. Fukushima and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 031601 (2013) \[arXiv:1209.1319 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 1115. Y. M. Cho, J. H. Kim and D. G. Pak Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 (2006) 2789. S.V. Shabanov, J. Math. Phys. 43 (2002) 4127 \[hep-th/0202146\]. S. V. Shabanov Phys. Rept. 326 (2000) 1 \[arXiv:hep-th/0002043\]; S. V. Shabanov and J. R. Klauder Phys. Lett. B 456 (1999) 38. *L. V. Prokhorov* Yad. Fiz., 35 (1982) 229. L. D. Faddeev, A. J. Niemi // Nucl. Phys. B. 776. 2007; [*ibid*]{}, Phys. Lett. B 449 (1999) 214. Kei-Ichi Kondo, Toru Shinohara, Takeharu Murakami, Prog. Theor. Phys. 120 (2008) 1 \[arXiv:0803.0176 \[hep-th\]\]. N. K. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B [**144**]{}, 376 (1978). S. Ozaki, arXiv:1311.3137 \[hep-ph\]. G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi and A. Schafer, arXiv:1311.2559 \[hep-lat\]. C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, M. Mariti, F. Negro and F. Sanfilippo, arXiv:1312.5070 \[hep-lat\]. M. Abramowitz, I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables , Dover (1964), New York . D. Arteaga, Annals Phys. [**324**]{}, 920 (2009) \[arXiv:0801.4324 \[hep-ph\]\]. V. I. Yukalov and E. P. Yukalova, PoS ISHEPP [**2012**]{}, 046 (2012) \[arXiv:1301.6910 \[hep-ph\]\]; V.I. Yukalov, Phys. Rep. **208** (1991) 395; V.I. Yukalov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B **17**, (2003) 2333. K. A. Bugaev, Phys. Rev. C [**76**]{}, 014903 (2007) \[hep-ph/0703222\]; K. A. Bugaev, V. K. Petrov and G. M. Zinovjev, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 054913 (2009) \[arXiv:0807.2391 \[hep-ph\]\]; [*ibid*]{} Phys. Atom. Nucl. 76 (2013) 341 \[arXiv:0904.4420 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Sarit Kraus Department of Computer Science, Bar-Ilan University, Israel [email protected]'
- Yu Shi
- |
Jian LiZhize Li Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ijcai19.bib'
title: 'Gradient Boosting with Piece-Wise Linear Regression Trees'
---
=1
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In line with some previous works, we study in this paper the meson spectrum in the framework of a second order quark-antiquark Bethe-Salpeter formalism which includes confinement. An analytic one loop running coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)$, as proposed by Shirkov and Sovlovtsov, is used in the calculations. As for the quark masses, the case of a purely phenomenological running mass for the light quarks in terms of the c. m. momentum is further investigated. Alternatively a more fundamental expression $m_P(Q)$ is introduced for light and strange quarks, combining renormalization group and analyticity requirements with an approximate solution of the Dyson-Schwinger equation. The use of such running coupling constant and masses turns out to be essential for a correct reproduction of the the light pseudoscalar mesons.'
author:
- 'M. Baldicchi and G. M. Prosperi'
title: 'Running coupling constant and masses in QCD, the meson spectrum'
---
[address=[Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano\
I.N.F.N., sezione di Milano\
via Celoria 16, I20133 Milano, Italy]{}]{}
1. Introduction
===============
In a series of papers [@quadratic; @infrared] we have applied a second order Bethe-Salpeter formalism [^1], previously established [@bmp], to the evaluation of the quark-antiquark spectrum, in the context of QCD. Taking advantage of a Feynman-Schwinger representation for the quark propagator in an external field, the kernels of the Bethe-Salpeter and the Dyson-Schwinger equations were obtained, starting from an appropriate ansatz on the Wilson loop correlator. Such an ansatz consisted in adding an area term to the lowest perturbative expression of $\ln W$. By a 3D reduction of the original 4D BS equation a mass operator was obtained and applied to the determination of the $q\overline q$ bound states [@simon].
In that way, using a fixed strong coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and appropriate values for the other variables, the entire spectrum was reasonably well reproduced with, however, the relevant exception of the light pseudoscalar mesons ($\pi, K, \eta_s$). Agreement even for the latter states could be obtained using an analytic running coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)$ proposed by Shirkov and Sovlovtsov, which is modified in the infrared region with respect to the ordinary purely perturbative expression [@sanda; @shirkov]. In conjunction it was also necessary to use a phenomenological running constituent mass for the light quarks $u$ and $d$, written as a polynomial in the center of the mass quark momentum ${\bf k}$ [@infrared].
In this paper we reconsider and improve the above procedure from two aspects:
a\) we evaluate the hyperfine $^3S_1 - {^1S}_0$ separation for the light pseudoscalar mesons to the second rather than to the first order perturbation theory,
b\) we use running constituent masses for $u,d$ and $s$ quarks, obtained by an approximate solution of the appropriate DS equations and analytic running current masses.
As a consequence of a) a significant improvement is obtained in agreement with the data already with a phenomenological running mass for the light quarks. As for case b), preliminary calculations seem to provide results numerically similar to the above ones, but more satisfactory from the conceptual point of view.
The plan of the remaining part of the paper is as follows. In Sect. 2 we briefly recall the second order BS formalism to establish notations. In Sect. 3 we discuss the DS equation and the 3D reduction of the BS equation. In Sect. 4 we consider the infrared behavior of the running coupling constant and obtain the corresponding running masses. In sect. 5 and 6 we report our results and draw some conclusions.
2. Second order Bethe-Salpeter formalism
========================================
In the QCD framework a [*second order*]{} four point quark-antiquark function and a full quark propagator can be defined as $$H^{(4)}(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)= -{1\over 3} {\rm Tr _{color}}
\langle \Delta_1 (x_1,y_1;A)
{\Delta}_2(y_2,x_2;A)\rangle
\label{eq:so4point}$$ and $$H^{(2)}(x-y) = {i \over \sqrt{3}}{\rm Tr_{color}}
\langle \Delta(x,y:A)\rangle \,,
\label{eq:so2point}$$ where $$\langle f[A] \rangle = \int DA\, M_F [A]\, e^{iS_G[A]} f[A] \,,
\label{eq:expt}$$ $
M_F[A] = {\rm Det} \, \Pi_{j=1}^2 [1 + g\gamma^\mu A_\mu
( i\gamma_j^\nu \partial_{j\nu} - m_j)^{-1}]
$ and $\Delta (x,y;A)$ is the [*second order*]{} quark propagator in an external gauge field.
The quantity $ \Delta $ is defined by the second order differential equation $$(D_\mu D^\mu +m^2 -{1\over 2} g \, \sigma^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu})
\Delta (x,y;A) = -\delta^4(x-y) \, ,
\label{eq:soprop}$$ ($\sigma^{\mu \nu} = {i\over 2} [\gamma^\mu, \gamma^\nu]$ and $D_\mu=\partial_\mu + ig A_\mu$) and it is related to the corresponding first order propagator by $
S(x,y;A) = (i \gamma^\nu D_\nu + m) \Delta (x,y;A) \,.
$ The advantage of considering second order quantities is that the spin terms are more clearly separated and it is possible to write for $\Delta$ a generalized Feynman-Schwinger representation, [*i. e.*]{} to solve eq. (\[eq:soprop\]) in terms of a quark path integral [@bmp; @quadratic]. Using the latter in (\[eq:so4point\]) or (\[eq:so2point\]) a similar representation can be obtained for $H^{(4)}$ and $H^{(2)}$. The interesting aspect of this representation is that the gauge field appears only through a Wilson line correlator $W$. In the limit $x_2 \to x_1$, $y_2 \to y_1$ or $y \to x$ the Wilson lines close in a single Wilson loop $\Gamma$ and if $\Gamma$ stays on a plane, $i\ln W$ can be written in a first approximation as the sum of its lowest perturbative expression and an area term $$\begin{aligned}
&& i\ln W = {4\over 3} g^2 \oint dz^\mu \oint dz^{\nu \prime}
D_{\mu \nu}(z-z^\prime) +
\label{eq:wilson} \\
&& \sigma \oint dz^0 \oint dz^{0 \prime} \delta (z^0-z^{0\prime})
|{\bf z} - {\bf z}^\prime| \int_0^1 d\lambda
\Big \{ 1 - [\lambda {d{\bf z}_\perp \over dz^0}
+ (1-\lambda) {d{\bf z}_\perp ^\prime \over dz^{0 \prime}} ]^2
\Big \}^{1\over 2} \, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The area term here is written as the algebraic sum of successive equal time strips and $ d{\bf z}_\perp = d{\bf z} -
(d{\bf z}\cdot {\bf r}){\bf r}/r^2 $ denotes the transversal component of $ d{\bf z} $. The basic assumption now is that in the center of mass frame (\[eq:wilson\]) remains a good approximation even in the general case, [*i. e.*]{} for non flat curves and when $x_2 \ne x_1$, $y_2 \ne y_1$ or $y \ne x$. Then, by appropriate manipulations on the resulting expressions, an inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation for the 4-point function $H^{(4)}(x_1,x_2;y_1,y_2)$ and a Dyson-Schwinger equation for $H^{(2)}(x-y)$ can be derived in a kind of generalized ladder and rainbow approximation. This should appear plausible, even from the point of view of graph resummation, for the analogy between the perturbative and the confinement terms in (\[eq:wilson\]). We may refer to such terms as a [*gluon exchange*]{} and a [*string connection*]{}.
In momentum representation, the corresponding homogeneous BS-equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_P (k) &=& -i \int {d^4u \over (2 \pi)^4} \;
\hat I_{ab} \left( k-u; \, {1 \over 2}P
+{k+u \over 2}, \,
{1 \over 2}P-{k+u \over 2} \right) \nonumber \\
& & \qquad \qquad
\hat H_{1}^{(2)} \left({1 \over 2} P + k \right)
\sigma^a \, \Phi_P (u) \, \sigma^b \,
\hat H_{2}^{(2)} \left(-{1 \over 2} P + k \right) \, ,
\label{eq:bshom}\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $\sigma^0=1$; $a, \, b = 0, \, \mu\nu$; the center of mass frame has to be understood, $P=(m_B, {\bf 0})$; $\Phi_P (k)$ denotes an appropriate [*second order*]{} wave function [^2].
Similarly, in terms of the irreducible self-energy, defined by $\hat H^{(2)}(k) ={i\over k^2-m^2} + {i\over k^2-m^2} \, i \,
\Gamma (k) \, \hat H^{(2)}(k) \,$, the DS-equation can be written $$\hat \Gamma(k) = \int {d^4 l \over (2 \pi)^4} \,
\hat I_{ab} \Big ( k-l;{k+l \over 2},{k+l \over 2} \Big )
\sigma^a \hat H^{(2)}(l) \, \sigma^b \ .
\label{eq:dshom}$$
The kernels in (\[eq:bshom\]) and (\[eq:dshom\]) are the same in the two equations, consistently with the requirement of chiral symmetry limit [@chiral], and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \hat I_{0;0} (Q; p, p^\prime) =
16 \pi {4 \over 3} \alpha_{\rm s} p^\alpha p^{\prime \beta}
\hat D_{\alpha \beta} (Q) + \nonumber \\
& & \quad + 4 \sigma \int \! d^3 {\bf \zeta} e^{-i{\bf Q}
\cdot {\bf \zeta}}
\vert {\bf \zeta} \vert \epsilon (p_0) \epsilon ( p_0^\prime )
\int_0^1 \! d \lambda \{ p_0^2 p_0^{\prime 2} -
[\lambda p_0^\prime {\bf p}_{\rm T} +
(1-\lambda) p_0 {\bf p}_{\rm T}^\prime ]^2 \} ^{1 \over 2} \nonumber \\
& & \hat I_{\mu \nu ; 0}(Q;p,p^\prime) = 4\pi i {4 \over 3} \alpha_{\rm s}
(\delta_\mu^\alpha Q_\nu - \delta_\nu^\alpha Q_\mu) p_\beta^\prime
\hat D_{\alpha \beta}(Q) - \nonumber \\
& & \qquad \qquad \qquad - \sigma \int d^3 {\bf \zeta} \, e^{-i {\bf Q}
\cdot {\bf \zeta}} \epsilon (p_0)
{\zeta_\mu p_\nu -\zeta_\nu p_\mu \over
\vert {\bf \zeta} \vert \sqrt{p_0^2-{\bf p}_{\rm T}^2}}
p_0^\prime \nonumber \\
& & \hat I_{0; \rho \sigma}(Q;p,p^\prime) =
-4 \pi i{4 \over 3} \alpha_{\rm s}
p^\alpha (\delta_\rho^\beta Q_\sigma - \delta_\sigma^\beta Q_\rho)
\hat D_{\alpha \beta}(Q) + \nonumber \\
& & \qquad \qquad \qquad + \sigma \int d^3 {\bf \zeta} \, e^{-i{\bf Q}
\cdot {\bf \zeta}} p_0
{\zeta_\rho p_\sigma^\prime - \zeta_\sigma p_\rho^\prime \over
\vert {\bf \zeta} \vert \sqrt{p_0^{\prime 2}
-{\bf p}_{\rm T}^{\prime 2}} }
\epsilon (p_0^\prime) \nonumber \\
& & \hat I_{\mu \nu ; \rho \sigma}(Q;p,p^\prime) =
\pi {4\over 3} \alpha_{\rm s}
(\delta_\mu^\alpha Q_\nu - \delta_\nu^\alpha Q_\mu)
(\delta_\rho^\alpha Q_\sigma - \delta_\sigma^\alpha Q_\rho)
\hat D_{\alpha \beta}(Q) \, ,
\label{eq:imom}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second and in the third equation $\zeta_0 = 0$ has to be understood. Notice that, due to the privileged role given to the c. m. frame, the terms proportional to $\sigma$ in (\[eq:imom\]) are not formally covariant.
3. DS equation and mass operator
================================
Concerning eq. (\[eq:dshom\]), let us observe that the unity matrix, $\sigma^{\mu\nu}$ and $\gamma^5$ form a subalgebra of the Dirac algebra. Consequently $\Gamma(k)$ can be assumed to depend only on this set of matrices and, since it must be a three dimensional scalar, only on terms like $k_j \sigma^{0j}$. In fact, it can be checked that $\Gamma(k)$ can be consistently assumed to be completely spin independent and eq. (\[eq:dshom\]) can be written in the form $$\Gamma (k) = i \int {d^4l \over (2 \pi)^4} \,
{R(k,l) \over l^2-m^2+ \Gamma(l)} ,
\label{eq:dssc}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
R(k,l)&=& 4\pi \, {4 \over 3} \, \alpha_{\rm s}\left
[4 {p^2 l^2 -(pl)^2 \over
(k-l)^2} + {3 \over 4}\right] + \nonumber \\
& & + \, \sigma \int d^3 {\bf r} \, e^{-i({\bf k}-{\bf l})
\cdot{\bf r}} \, r \, (k_0 + l_0)^2 \sqrt{1-{({\bf k_\perp}+{\bf
l_\perp})^2 \over (k_0 + l_0)^2}} \,,
\label{eq:dskernel}\end{aligned}$$ ${\bf k_\perp}$ and ${\bf l_\perp}$ denoting as above the transversal part of ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf l}$.
Notice that, once (\[eq:dskernel\]) is solved, the pole or constituent mass $m_P ,$ to be used in bound states problems, is given by the equation $$m_P^2 - m^2 + \Gamma (m_P^2) = 0 \, .
\label{eq:polemass}$$ We can try to solve eq. (\[eq:dssc\]) iteratively and we have at the first step $$\Gamma (k) = i \int {d^4l \over (2 \pi)^4} \, {R(k,l) \over l^2-m^2}
\, .
\label{eq:iter}$$ In a preliminary calculation we omit altogether the perturbative contribution to $R(k,l)$ (notice the overplacing of curves [*b*]{} and [*c*]{} in Fig. 1) and neglect the term in $({\bf k}_\perp + {\bf l}_\perp)^2$ in the string part. Strictly, the second approximation is justified only for $S$ bound states (classically ${k_\perp}r$ is the angular momentum of the bound state) but it is necessary in order to make the integral analytically calculable.
Then introducing a cut off $ \mu $, we obtain $$\Gamma (k) = {\sigma \over \pi}[k_0^2 A(m,|{\bf k}|)
- B_{\mu} - B(m,|{\bf k}|)
\,, \label{eq:Gexpl}$$ where $ B_{\mu} = 2\ln { {\mu} \over m} - 1$, $$A(m,|{\bf k}|) = {1 \over {\bf k}^2 + m^2}\left [1 + {m^2 \over
2|{\bf k}| \sqrt{{\bf k}^2 + m^2}} \ln {\sqrt{{\bf k}^2 + m^2} +
|{\bf k}| \over \sqrt{{\bf k}^2 + m^2} - |{\bf k}|} \right ]
\label{eq:coeff}$$ and $B(m,|{\bf k}|)$ is a more complicated expression that we do not report explicitly here for lack of space. The resulting pole mass is $$\overline m_P^2 (m,|{\bf k}|) = {m^2 + {\sigma \over \pi}[B_{\mu} +
B(m,|{\bf k}|)-{\bf k}^2 A(m,|{\bf k}|)]\over 1+ {\sigma \over \pi}
A(m,|{\bf k}|)}
\,, \label{eq:cnstmass}$$ The above expression depends on the current mass $m$ and on the quark c. m. momentum $|{\bf k}|$, (see Fig. 1[*a*]{}). Notice that such dependence on $|{\bf k}|$ is clearly an artifact of the schematic way we have introduced confinement in eq. (\[eq:wilson\]) and that the curve is rather flat in the region of interest. Correspondingly it seems reasonable to chose as true mass $m_P(m)$ the value of $\overline m_P (m,|{\bf k}|)$ at its stationary point in $|{\bf k}|$.
Then, in a neighbor of its singularity $k^2=m_P^2$, the full propagator can be written as $\hat H^{(2)}(k) = {i \, Z \over k^2 - m_P^2}$, where the residuum $Z$ differs from 1 only for terms proportional to $\alpha_s$ or $\sigma$. Consistently in (\[eq:bshom\]) we can simply take $Z=1$ and are left with the free propagator with a constituent mass. If, in addition, we replace $\hat{I}_{ab}$ with its so called instantaneous approximation $ \hat{I}_{ab}^{\rm inst}
({\bf k}, {\bf u})$, we can explicitly perform the integration in $u_0$ and arrive at a three dimensional reduced equation.
Such a reduced equation takes the form of the eigenvalue equation for a squared mass operator [@bmp], $
M^2 = M_0^2 + U \,,
$ with $ M_0 = w_1 + w_2 $, $w_{1,2}=\sqrt{m_{1,2}^2 + {\bf k}^2}$ and $$\langle {\bf k} \vert U \vert {\bf k}^\prime \rangle =
{1\over (2 \pi)^3 }
\sqrt{ w_1 + w_2 \over 2 w_1 w_2} \; \hat I_{ab}^{\rm \; inst}
({\bf k} , {\bf k}^\prime) \; \sqrt{ w_1^\prime + w_2^\prime \over 2
w_1^\prime w_2^\prime}\; \sigma_1^a \sigma_2^b \,
\label{eq:quadrrel}$$ (for an explicit expression we refer to [@infrared; @quadratic]). The quadratic form of the above equation obviously derives from the second order formalism we have used.
Alternatively, in more usual terms, one can look for the eigenvalue of the mass operator or center of mass Hamiltonian $ H_{\rm CM} \equiv M = M_0 + V $ with $V$ defined by $M_0V+VM_0+V^2=U$. Neglecting the term $V^2$ the linear form potential $V$ can be obtained from $U$ by the kinematic replacement $
\sqrt{ (w_1+w_2) (w_1^\prime +w_2^\prime)\over w_1w_2w_1^\prime w_2^\prime}
\to {1\over 2\sqrt{w_1 w_2 w_1^\prime w_2^\prime}}
$. The resulting expression is particularly useful for a comparison with models based on potential. In particular, in the static limit $V$ reduces to the Cornell potential $$V_{\rm stat} = - {4 \over 3} {\alpha_{\rm s} \over r } + \sigma r \, ;
\label{eq:static}$$ in the semirelativistic limit (up to ${1 \over m^2}$ terms after an appropriate Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation) it equals the potential discussed in ref. [@barch], if full relativistic kinematics is kept, but the spin dependent terms are neglected, it becomes identical to the potential of the relativistic flux tube model [@bmp].
4. Running coupling constant and masses
=======================================
As we said, diagonalizing $M^2$ or $H_{\rm CM}$ with fixed coupling constant and quark masses, a general good fit of the data was obtained. Actually a serious problem was represented by the masses of the light pseudo scalar mesons that turned out too large. The results obtained in ref. [@infrared] suggest, however, that the situation can be greatly improved using an appropriate running coupling constant and running quark masses.
At one loop, the running coupling constant is usually written $$\alpha_{\rm s} ( Q ) = \frac{ 4 \pi }{ \beta_{0}
\ln{ ( Q^{2} / \Lambda^{2} ) } } \, ,
\label{eq:runcst}$$ with $\beta_0=11-{2 \over 3} N_{\rm f}$ and $ N_{\rm f} $ the number of ‘active’ quarks. However, the singularity occurring in such expression is an artifact of perturbation theory and it contradicts general analyticity properties, therefore the expression must be somewhat modified in the infrared region [@ginzburg]. Notice that this is particularly important for the quark-antiquark bound state problem, where the variable $ Q^{2} $ is usually identified with the squared momentum transfer $ {\bf Q}^{2} = ( {\bf k} - {\bf k}^{\prime} )^{2} \! $, which ranges typically from $ \; ( 0.1 \, {\rm GeV} )^{2} $ to $ ( 1 \, {\rm GeV} )^{2} $ for different quark masses and states.
The most naive modification of eq. (\[eq:runcst\]) would consist in freezing $\alpha_{\rm s} (Q^{2})$ to a certain maximum value $\bar{\alpha}_{\rm s}$ as $Q^2$ decreases and in treating this value as a phenomenological parameter (truncation prescription). However, various more sensible proposals have been made on different bases [@sanda; @shirkov].
In particular Shirkov and Solovtsov [@shirkov] suggest to replace (\[eq:runcst\]) with $$\alpha_{\rm s} ( Q ) = \frac{ 4 \pi }{
\beta_{0} } \left(
\frac{1}{ \ln{ ( Q^{2} / \Lambda^{2} ) } } +
\frac{ \Lambda^{2} }{ \Lambda^{2} - Q^{2} } \right).
\label{eq:runshk}$$ This remains regular for $ Q^{2} = \Lambda^{2} $ and has a finite $ \Lambda $ independent limit $ \alpha_{\rm s}(0) = 4 \pi / \beta_{0} $ for $ Q^{2} \rightarrow 0 $. Eq. (\[eq:runshk\]) is obtained assuming a dispersion relation for $ \alpha_{\rm s} ( Q ) $ with a cut for $-\infty<Q^2<0$ and applying (\[eq:runcst\]) to the evaluation of the spectral function.
The running mass expression corresponding to (\[eq:runshk\]) can be written in the form $$m ( Q ) = \hat m \, \left( {Q^2/\Lambda^2 - 1 \over Q^2/\Lambda^2
\ln (Q^2/\Lambda^2) } \right)^{\gamma_0/2\beta_0} \, ,
\label{eq:runmass}$$ where in the $\overline {MS}$ scheme $\gamma_0=8$. Eq. (\[eq:runmass\]) is obtained integrating the one loop renormalization group equation $${Q \over m ( Q )} {dm( Q ) \over dQ} = - \gamma_0
{\alpha_{\rm s} ( Q ) \over 4 \pi} \, ,
\label{eq:rngr}$$ where (\[eq:runshk\]) has been used and $\hat m$ denotes an integration constant. Notice that $ m ( Q )$ is singular for $ Q \rightarrow 0 $, contrary to $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)$.
Finally, if we replace the running mass (\[eq:runmass\]) in (\[eq:cnstmass\]) after maximizing we obtain a running constituent mass $ m_P (Q)$ of the type reported in Fig. 1 [*d*]{} that can be used together with the running coupling constant (\[eq:runshk\]) in the expression of the operator $M^2$ (see Sec. 3). [^3]
5. Calculations and results
===========================
The calculations we report in this paper follow a similar line to those of Ref. [@quadratic]. The general strategy for solving the eigenvalue equation for $ M^2 $ and the numerical treatment are basically the same.
We neglect spin-orbit terms, but include the hyperfine terms in $U$ (see eq. (\[eq:quadrrel\])). We solve first the eigenvalue equation for $M_{\rm stat}=M_0+V_{\rm stat}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:static\])) by the Rayleigh-Ritz method with an harmonic oscillator basis and then treat $M^2 - M_{\rm stat}^2$ as a perturbation (up to the first order this is obviously equivalent to taking $m_{\rm B}^2 = \langle M^2 \rangle $).
In the above general framework, in Fig. 2 we graphically report and compare with the data [@data] three different type of results, corresponding to different choices for the strong coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}$, the string tension $\sigma$ and the constituent masses.
Diamonds correspond to results already reported in [@quadratic]. A running coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)$ was assumed equal to the one loop perturbative expression (\[eq:runcst\]) frozen at the maximum value $\overline \alpha_{\rm s} = 0.35$, with $N_f=4$ and $\Lambda = 200$ MeV. $Q$ was identified with $|{\bf k}- {\bf k}^\prime|$ and $\sigma $ was set equal to $0.2 \ {\rm GeV}^2$. Fixed masses $m_u=m_d= 10$ MeV, $m_s = 200$ MeV, $m_c=1.394$ GeV, $ \; m_b=4.763$ GeV were adopted. The results do not differ essentially from the fixed coupling constant case; the spectrum is reasonably well reproduced on the whole with the exception of the light pseudoscalar mesons $\pi$, $\eta_s$ and $K$ (the $\eta_s$ mass is derived from the masses of $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ with the usual assumptions).
(435,150) (20,15) (240,15) (177,115)[ [*a”*]{} ]{} (177,75)[ [*a’*]{} ]{} (177,35)[ [*a*]{} ]{} (10,165)[ $ {}_{ ( {\rm GeV} ) } $ ]{} (2,151)[ $ {}_{ 0.3 } $ ]{} (2,107)[ $ {}_{ 0.2 } $ ]{} (2,62)[ $ {}_{ 0.1 } $ ]{} (190,8)[ $ {}_{ ( {\rm GeV} ) } $ ]{} (177,8)[ $ {}_{ | {\bf k} | } $ ]{} (10,13)[ $ {}_{ 0 } $ ]{} (123,8)[ $ {}_{ 0.3 } $ ]{} (86,8)[ $ {}_{ 0.2 } $ ]{} (49,8)[ $ {}_{ 0.1 } $ ]{} (290,113)[ [*d*]{} ]{} (255,75)[ [*c*]{} ]{} (250,20)[ [*b*]{} ]{} (230,165)[ $ {}_{ ( {\rm GeV} ) } $ ]{} (222,151)[ $ {}_{ 0.4 } $ ]{} (222,118)[ $ {}_{ 0.3 } $ ]{} (222,85)[ $ {}_{ 0.2 } $ ]{} (222,51)[ $ {}_{ 0.1 } $ ]{} (410,8)[ $ {}_{ ( {\rm GeV} ) } $ ]{} (400,8)[ $ {}_{ {\it Q} } $ ]{} (230,13)[ $ {}_{ 0 } $ ]{} (371,8)[ $ {}_{ 0.3 } $ ]{} (325,8)[ $ {}_{ 0.2 } $ ]{} (279,8)[ $ {}_{ 0.1 } $ ]{}
(420,600) (20,450) (162,118) (20,300) (235,300) (20,150) (235,150) (20,0) (235,0) (5,600)[ $ {}_{ ( {\rm MeV} ) } $ ]{} (0,587)[$ {}_{3000} $]{} (0,542)[$ {}_{2000} $]{} (0,497)[$ {}_{1000} $]{} (13,452)[$ {}_{0} $]{} (160,475)[ $ q \bar{q} $ ]{} (150,460)[ $ ( q = u,d ) $ ]{} (30,570)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (52,570)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (78,570)[ $ {^{1} {\rm P}_{1}} $ ]{} (100,570)[ $ {^{3} {\rm P}_{J}} $ ]{} (126,570)[ $ {^{1} {\rm D}_{1}} $ ]{} (148,570)[ $ {^{3} {\rm D}_{J}} $ ]{} (174,570)[ $ {^{3} {\rm F}_{J}} $ ]{} (51,455)[ $ \pi $ ]{} (72,485)[ $ \rho $ ]{} (0,437)[$ {}_{3000} $]{} (0,392)[$ {}_{2000} $]{} (0,347)[$ {}_{1000} $]{} (13,302)[$ {}_{0} $]{} (160,325)[ $ s \bar{s} $ ]{} (30,420)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (52,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (78,420)[ $ {^{1} {\rm P}_{1}} $ ]{} (100,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm P}_{J}} $ ]{} (126,420)[ $ {^{1} {\rm D}_{1}} $ ]{} (148,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm D}_{J}} $ ]{} (174,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm F}_{J}} $ ]{} (51,329)[ $ \eta_{s} $ ]{} (72,344)[ $ \phi $ ]{} (216,437)[$ {}_{3000} $]{} (216,392)[$ {}_{2000} $]{} (216,347)[$ {}_{1000} $]{} (229,302)[$ {}_{0} $]{} (376,325)[ $ q \bar{s} $ ]{} (366,310)[ $ ( q = u,d ) $ ]{} (245,420)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (267,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (293,420)[ $ {^{1} {\rm P}_{1}} $ ]{} (315,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm P}_{J}} $ ]{} (341,420)[ $ {^{1} {\rm D}_{1}} $ ]{} (363,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm D}_{J}} $ ]{} (389,420)[ $ {^{3} {\rm F}_{J}} $ ]{} (266,319)[ $ K $ ]{} (287,337)[ $ K^{\ast} $ ]{} (-4,248)[$ {}_{11000} $]{} (-4,200)[$ {}_{10000} $]{} (0,152)[$ {}_{9000} $]{} (160,165)[ $ b \bar{b} $ ]{} (44,270)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (80,270)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (125,270)[ $ {^{1} {\rm P}_{1}} $ ]{} (161,270)[ $ {^{3} {\rm P}_{J}} $ ]{} (188,245)[ $ {}_{J} $ ]{} (193,215)[ $ {}_{2} $ ]{} (188,212)[ $ {}_{1} $ ]{} (183,209)[ $ {}_{0} $ ]{} (193,197)[ $ {}_{2} $ ]{} (188,194)[ $ {}_{1} $ ]{} (183,191)[ $ {}_{0} $ ]{} (216,287)[$ {}_{5000} $]{} (216,233)[$ {}_{4000} $]{} (216,179)[$ {}_{3000} $]{} (376,165)[ $ c \bar{c} $ ]{} (248,270)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (273,270)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (304,270)[ $ {^{1} {\rm P}_{1}} $ ]{} (329,270)[ $ {^{3} {\rm P}_{J}} $ ]{} (360,270)[ $ {^{1} {\rm D}_{1}} $ ]{} (385,270)[ $ {^{3} {\rm D}_{J}} $ ]{} (348,250)[ $ {}_{J} $ ]{} (348,213)[ $ {}_{2} $ ]{} (348,205)[ $ {}_{1} $ ]{} (348,197)[ $ {}_{0} $ ]{} (405,250)[ $ {}_{J} $ ]{} (405,241)[ $ {}_{1} $ ]{} (405,226)[ $ {}_{2} $ ]{} (405,218)[ $ {}_{1} $ ]{} (0,92)[$ {}_{6000} $]{} (0,3)[$ {}_{5000} $]{} (85,25)[ $ q \bar{b} $ ]{} (60,10)[ $ ( q = u,d ) $ ]{} (31,121)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (53,121)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (86,121)[ $ {\rm P} $ ]{} (180,15)[ $ s \bar{b} $ ]{} (123,121)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (145,121)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (178,121)[ $ {\rm P} $ ]{} (216,115)[$ {}_{3000} $]{} (216,40)[$ {}_{2000} $]{} (300,25)[ $ q \bar{c} $ ]{} (275,10)[ $ ( q = u,d ) $ ]{} (246,121)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (268,121)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (301,121)[ $ {\rm P} $ ]{} (395,15)[ $ s \bar{c} $ ]{} (338,121)[ $ {^{1} {\rm S}_{0}} $ ]{} (360,121)[ $ {^{3} {\rm S}_{1}} $ ]{} (393,121)[ $ {\rm P} $ ]{}
Circlets correspond to results of the type reported in [@infrared], but in which the hyperfine separation for the 1S and 2S states has been evaluated up to the second order of perturbation theory. In this case as running coupling constant we have taken the Shirkov-Solovtsov expression (\[eq:runshk\]). We have set again $N_f=4$ and $\Lambda = 200$ MeV, but $\sigma =0.18\ {\rm GeV}^2$ and $m_s=0.39$ GeV, $ \; m_c=1.545$ GeV, $ \; m_b=4.898$ GeV. On the contrary for the light quarks we have taken a phenomenological running mass in terms of the modulus of the c.m. quark momentum, $m_u^2=m_d^2 =
0.17 |{\bf k}| - 0.025|{\bf k}|^2 + 0.15 |{\bf k}|^4 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ with |${\bf k}|$ in GeV. We can see that in this way even the light pseudoscalar mesons turn out correctly, with possibly some problems for the $q \bar b$ states and some other highly excited states for which coupling with other channels are probably important.
Squares correspond to preliminary completely new calculations, made using the analytic running constant (\[eq:runshk\]), running constituent masses $ m_{\rm P} (Q) $ (as described in Sec. 4) for the light and strange quarks, fixed masses for the charm and the beauty quarks. Inside $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q)$ the quantity $Q$ has been again identified with $|{\bf k}- {\bf k}^\prime|$. On the contrary, for computational difficulties, inside $m_{\rm P}(Q)$ we have taken $$Q = {1 \over e^{\gamma_{\rm E}} \langle r \rangle} \,,$$ where $\gamma_{\rm E}$ is the Euler constant $ \gamma_{\rm E}=
0.5772\dots $ and $\langle r \rangle $ is the radius of the unperturbed bound state [@schoberl]. We have chosen $N_f=3$, $\Lambda = 180$ MeV, $\sigma =0.18 \, {\rm GeV}^2$, $ { \sigma \over \pi } B_{\mu} = 0.48 $ GeV in (\[eq:cnstmass\]), both for the light and the strange quarks, and then $\hat m_u = \hat m_d =25.0 $ MeV, $\hat m_s = 87.3 $ MeV in (\[eq:runmass\]) (in order to reproduce correctly the $\rho$ and the $\phi$ masses). Finally we have taken $m_c = 1.508$ GeV and $m_b = 4.842$ for $c$ and $b$ quarks. The results are not of a better quality than those obtained in the preceding calculation but obviously conceptually more satisfactory. As an example, in the table numerical values for the three types of calculations are reported in the order for the light-light channel. For the third case in the last column the pertinent values of running constituent light quark mass are also reported for the various states.
6. Conclusions
==============
In conclusion we can confirm what already noticed in references [@infrared] that our reduced second order formalism together with ansatz (\[eq:wilson\]) can reproduce reasonably well the general structure of the entire meson spectrum, light-light, heavy-heavy and light-heavy sectors included. In order to obtain the masses of light pseudo scalar mesons $\pi$, $ \eta_{s} $ and $K$, however, a correct consideration of the infrared behavior of the running coupling constant and of some kinds of running constituent mass for the light quarks is essential. The analytic Shirkov-Solovtsov coupling constant seems to provide such a behavior.
What is new in this paper is the inclusion of second order perturbative corrections to the hyperfine splitting in the case of phenomenological running masses considered in [@infrared] (circlets in Fig. 2) and the use of a running mass obtained combining renormalization group and analyticity requirements with an approximate solution of the quark Dyson-Schwinger equation (squares in Fig. 2).
We are indebted to C. Simolo for various calculations on the running masses.
[9]{}
M. Baldicchi, G.M. Prosperi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 62**]{} (2000) 114024; [*Fizika*]{} [**B 8**]{} (1999) 2, 251; [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 436**]{} (1998) 145. M. Baldicchi and G. M. Prosperi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 66**]{} (2002) 074008; [*Color confinement and hadrons Quantum Chromodynamics*]{}, Page. 183, H. Suganuma, [*et al.*]{} eds. World Scientific 2004, hep-ph/0310213. N. Brambilla, E. Montaldi, G.M. Prosperi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 54**]{} (1996) 3506; G.M. Prosperi, [*Problems of Quantum Theory of Fields*]{}, Pag. 381, B.M. Barbashov, G.V. Efimov, A.V. Efremov Eds. JINR Dubna 1999, hep-ph/9906237. For a different approach to the relativistic bound state problem see : Yu.S. Kalashnikova, A.V. Nefediev, Yu.A. Simonov, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 64**]{} (2001) 014037; and references therein. A.C. Mattingly, P.M. Stevenson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 49**]{} (1994) 437; S. J. Brodsky, hep-ph/0412101; S. J. Brodsky, S. Menke, C. Merino, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 67**]{} (2003), 055008; P. Boucaud [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**04**]{} (2000) 006; A. Ringwald and F. Schrempp [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 459**]{} (1999) 24; Yu.L. Dokshitzer, A. Lucenti, G. Marchesini, G.P. Salam, [*JHEP*]{} 9805 (1998) 003; Yu.L. Dokshitzer, V.A. Khoze, S.I. Troyan, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 53**]{} (1996) 89; N.V. Krasnikov, A.A. Pivovarov, [*Phys. Atom. Nucl.*]{} [**64**]{} (2001) 1500; G. Grunberg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 46**]{} (1992) 2228; A.I. Sanda [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**42**]{} (1979) 1658. D.V. Shirkov, I.L. Solovtsov, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{} (1997) 1209; [*Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} [**120**]{} (1999) 1220; D.V. Shirkov, hep-ph/0408272; A.I. Alekseev, B.A. Arbuzov, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A 13**]{} (1998) 1747; A.I. Alekseev, [*Few Body Syst.*]{} [**32**]{} (2003) 193; see also A. V. Nesterenko, [*Int. Journ. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**A 18**]{} (2003) 5475. M.B. Hecht, C.D. Roberts, S.M. Schmidt, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**C 63**]{} (2001) 025213, and references therein. A. Barchielli, E. Montaldi, G.M. Prosperi, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 296**]{} (1988) 625; Erratum-ibid. [**B 303**]{} (1988) 752; A. Barchielli, N. Brambilla, G.M. Prosperi, [*Il Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**103 A**]{} (1990) 59; N. Brambilla, P. Consoli, G.M. Prosperi, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 50**]{} (1994) 5878. I.F. Ginzburg, D.V. Shirkov, [*Sov. Phys. JEPT*]{} [**22**]{} (1966) 234. The Review of Particle Physics, S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 592**]{} (2004) 1. W. Lucha, F. Schöberl, D. Gromes, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**200**]{} (1991) 127.
[^1]: second order in the sense of the differential equations
[^2]: In terms of the second order field $\phi (x) = (i\gamma^\mu
D_\mu + m)^{-1}\psi(x)$ this wave function is defined by $$\langle 0|\phi({\xi \over 2}) \bar\psi(-{\xi \over 2}) |P\rangle =
{1\over (2\pi)^2} \Phi_P (k) e^{-ik\xi} \,.$$
[^3]: At first sight it could seem strange that we should talk of a $Q$ dependence for a quantity like the constituent mass that should have a definite physical value. The point is that we are using $m_P(Q)$ in the context of certain approximations and it is the accuracy of such approximations that depend on the scale $Q$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
title: ' **Integrability, Einstein spaces and holographic fluids** '
---
CPHT-RR047.0914
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Abstract</span>\
Using holographic-fluid techniques, we discuss some aspects of the integrability properties of Einstein’s equations in asymptotically anti-de Sitter spacetimes. We review and we amend the results of [1506.04813](http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04813) on how exact four-dimensional Einstein spacetimes, which are algebraically special with respect to Petrov’s classification, can be reconstructed from boundary data: this is possible if the boundary metric supports a traceless, symmetric and conserved complex rank-two tensor, which is related to the boundary Cotton and energy–momentum tensors, and if the hydrodynamic congruence is shearless. We illustrate the method when the hydrodynamic congruence has vorticity and the boundary metric has two commuting isometries. This leads to the complete Plebański–Demiański family. The structure of the boundary consistency conditions depict a $U(1)$ invariance for the boundary data, which is reminiscent of a Geroch-like solution-generating pattern for the bulk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Holographic correspondence was originally formulated at the microscopic level between type IIB string theory on $\text{AdS}_5\times S^5$ and ${\cal N}=4$ Yang–Mills on the four-dimensional conformal boundary of $\text{AdS}_5$. Later on, it was extended macroscopically as a relationship between gravity plus matter in asymptotically (locally) anti-de Sitter spaces and some phenomenological boundary conformal field theory in one dimension less. The latter is usually a macroscopic quantum state, which might – but needs not to – be in the hydrodynamic regime. This is how fluids emerge in holography.
A duality correspondence is a tool for studying either of the sides of the correspondence, using knowledge and understanding available for the other. Holography has been developed in priority for unravelling the boundary quantum field theory and many attempts were made for enlarging the validity of the correspondence to quantum chromodynamics or to systems of condensed matter. On the supergravity side, the efforts were mostly focused on string theory in its non-perturbative regime, and much less for the supergravity approximation. Still, there are interesting issues to be addressed, such as the integrability properties of the gravity sector. The purpose of this note is to report on recent progress made in using holographic fluids for understanding some integrable corners of Einstein’s equations.
Generically Einstein’s equations are not integrable. Nevertheless, under some assumptions, the system exhibits interesting integrability properties or possesses solution-generating techniques. One of these is Geroch’s [@Geroch; @Geroch:1972yt], generalizing a previous work by Ehlers [@Ehlers]. The starting point in this approach is a four-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{M}$, endowed with a Ricci-flat metric $\mathrm{g}$ invariant under a one-parameter group of motions generated by a Killing vector $\xi$. A coset space $\mathcal{S}$ can be constructed as the quotient of $\mathcal{M}$ by the group of motions. The information carried by $(\mathcal{M}, \text{g}, \xi)$ is bijectively mapped onto $(\mathcal{S}, \text{h}, \text{A}, \phi)$, where $\mathrm{h}$ is the metric on the projected space $\mathcal{S}$ orthogonal to $\xi$, and $(\text{A},\phi)$ the Kaluza–Klein vector and scalar fields created along with $\mathrm{h}$. Einstein’s four-dimensional dynamics for $\mathrm{g}$ translates into three-dimensional sigma-model dynamics for the fields $(\text{h}, \text{A}, \phi)$. This sigma-model is not integrable but it exhibits a continuous group of symmetries, the $U$-duality group, which is $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$, and allows to map any solution onto another. Although this mapping is local at the level of the three-dimensional data, no local relationship exists amongst the uplifted four-dimensional solutions.
Following Ernst [@Ernst:1967wx; @Ernst:1968], Geroch’s method generalizes when 2 commuting Killing vectors are available on $(\mathcal{M}, \text{g})$ and allows to reduce Einstein’s dynamics to a two-dimensional sigma-model. The latter possesses full affine symmetry and is integrable [@Breitenlohner:1986um; @belinskii; @Maison:1978es; @maison2; @Mazur:1982]. Further generalizations of the method have been studied in great detail within supergravity theory, in various dimensions.
As an example, according to the above pattern, the vacuum Schwarzschild Taub–NUT solution with mass $m$ and nut charge $n$, can be obtained from the pure Schwarzschild solution with mass only. More generally, the complex parameter $m+in$ is mapped onto $\text{e}^{-i\lambda}(m+in)$, under a $U(1)\subset SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ symmetry of the three-dimensional sigma-model.
The techniques discussed here have been extensively developed over the years for vacuum or electrovacuum solutions. In the presence of a cosmological constant, Geroch’s approach is more intricate though, and this case has been lesser investigated. Some recent examples in the framework of Ernst’s equations can be found in [@Charmousis:2006fx; @Caldarelli:2008pz; @Astorino:2012zm], whereas a generalization of the plain Geroch’s procedure for Einstein spaces was made available in [@Leigh:2014dja]. In that case the $U$-duality group turns out to be a subgroup of $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$, and the benefit for generating new solutions is limited. In particular, this group does not include the generator which realizes the mapping $m+in \to \text{e}^{-i\lambda}(m+in)$. This is unfortunate because a full Schwarzschild Taub–NUT solution does exist on AdS, and it is legitimate to ask whether this is indeed a manifestation of a hidden symmetry, as for the vacuum case.
The question we would like to address here is the following: *does holography provide an alternative solution-generating technique?*
Schematically, a holography-based solution-generating technique could work as follows: $$\nonumber
(\mathcal{M}, \text{g}_{\text{bulk}}) \underset{r\to \infty}{\longrightarrow} (\mathcal{B}, \text{g}_{\text{bry.}}, \text{T}) \underset{\text{``}U\text{''}}{\rightarrow}(\mathcal{B}, \text{g}_{\text{bry.}}', \text{T}') \underset{\text{exact reconstruction}}{\longrightarrow} (\mathcal{M}, \text{g}_{\text{bulk}}').$$ In this pattern, the starting point is an Einstein space $(\mathcal{M}, \text{g}_{\text{bulk}})$, delivering a boundary space $\mathcal{B}$ with boundary metric $\text{g}_{\text{bry.}}$ and boundary energy–momentum tensor $\text{T}$ ($r$ is the holographic radial coordinate). Indeed $\text{g}_{\text{bry.}}$ and $\text{T}$ are the two holographic pieces of data for pure-gravity bulk dynamics. We can imagine that the boundary data of exact bulk Einstein spaces obey certain integrability requirements, that leave some freedom to map $(\text{g}_{\text{bry.}}, \text{T})$ into $(\text{g}_{\text{bry.}}', \text{T}')$. Reconstructing $(\mathcal{M}, \text{g}_{\text{bulk}}')$ from $(\text{g}_{\text{bry.}}', \text{T}')$ would then lead to a possibly new exact Einstein space.
In principle, given any two independent pieces of boundary data, one can reconstruct the bulk order by order using e.g. the Fefferman–Graham series expansion [@PMP-FG1; @PMP-FG2]. For arbitrary boundary data, this series expansion is generically not resummable and the bulk solution is not exact. The first task in the aforementioned program is therefore to set up the integrability requirements. Finding the group of transformations, which act on the boundary data without altering the integrability properties of the latter is the second step.
The aim of this paper is to report on our understanding about these two steps. We will first (Sec. \[der-res\]) review the integrability properties in the framework of the derivative expansion, which is an alternative to the Fefferman–Graham expansion, inspired by the black-brane paradigm and proposed in [@Haack:2008cp; @Bhattacharyya:2008jc; @Bhattacharyya:2008ji]. Our review is based on a series of papers [@Caldarelli:2012cm; @Mukhopadhyay:2013gja], culminating in [@Gath:2015nxa], where the complete description of integrable boundary data was developed. Here, we will particularly insist on the rôle played by the absence of shear in the hydrodynamic congruence, both in the integrability itself, and for designing algebraically special bulk geometries (the App. \[cong\] is fully devoted to this important result). We will then move (Sec. \[sec:PD\]) to a new example, where the reconstruction of the entire Plebański–Demiański family [@Plebanski:1976gy] is performed and exhibits the seed for the “$U$-duality” transformation, mapping $(m,n)$ to $(m',n')$. Two more appendices complete the main presentation.
Bulk reconstruction from boundary data[^1] {#der-res}
==========================================
The holographic fluid in the derivative expansion
-------------------------------------------------
The reconstruction of the geometry from the boundary towards the bulk can be formulated as an ADM-type Hamiltonian evolution which, as usual, requires two pieces of fundamental holographic data. For pure gravity dynamics, one piece is the boundary metric and the other one is the energy–momentum tensor. If the boundary system is in the hydrodynamic regime, the energy–momentum tensor describes a conformal, non-perfect fluid, but this needs not be true in general for the Hamiltonian evolution scheme to hold. Irrespective of its physical interpretation, the boundary metric together with the energy–momentum tensor allows us to reconstruct the Einstein bulk spacetime.
The derivative expansion assumes the existence of a null geodesic congruence in the bulk, defining tubes that extend from the boundary inwards. On the boundary, this congruence translates into a timelike congruence, and the aforementioned derivative series expansion is built on increasing derivative order of this field. At the perturbative level, the fluid interpretation is applicable and the boundary timelike congruence is always identified with the boundary fluid velocity field. Beyond the perturbative framework, however, this interpretation is not faithful due to the presence of non-hydrodynamic modes in the boundary energy–momentum tensor.
As already mentioned in the introduction, from a boundary-to-bulk perspective, it is unlikely that one could explicitly resum the derivative expansion – or the Fefferman–Graham expansion alternatively; generically the bulk solution can be achieved only in a perturbative manner. It is remarkable, however, that given an arbitrary class of boundary metrics it is possible to set up the conditions it should satisfy and the energy–momentum tensor it should be accompanied with in order for an *exact* dual bulk Einstein space to exist. We refer to these as integrability properties.
In the remaining of this section, we will review these integrability properties and present a general boundary ansatz, which allows to reconstruct almost all known Einstein spaces. The common property of all these solutions is that they are algebraically special with respect to Petrov’s classification: within the proposed method, the Weyl tensor of the four-dimensional bulk is controlled from the boundary data, and turns out to be always at least of type II. Another interesting feature is that resummation generates non-perturbative effects *i.e.* non-hydrodynamic modes. We find e.g. Robinson–Trautman solutions [@Gath:2015nxa], whose holographic dual fluid is highly far from equilibrium or the Plebański–Demiański family [@Plebanski:1976gy], which we will study in Sec. \[sec:PD\].
The boundary data
-----------------
Consider a three-dimensional spacetime playing the rôle of the boundary, equipped with a metric $\text{d}s^2=g_{\mu\nu}\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x^\nu$ ($\mu, \nu, \ldots = 0,1,2$) and with a symmetric, traceless and covariantly conserved tensor $\text{T}=T_{\mu\nu}\text{d}x^\mu \text{d}x^\nu$. We assume for this tensor the least requirements for being a conformal energy–momentum tensor [@hawking1975large], and consider systems for which it can be put in the form $$\label{Tdec}
\text{T}=\text{T}_{(0)}+\Pi$$ with the a perfect-fluid part $$\label{Tperf}
\text{T}_{(0)}=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\left(3\text{u}^2+\text{d}s^2\right) \ .$$ The timelike congruence $\text{u}=u_\mu(x) \text{d}x^\mu$ is normalized ($u_\mu u^\mu = -1$) and defines the fluid lines. The tensor $\Pi$ captures *all* corrections to the perfect-fluid component, *i.e.* hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic modes. The hydrodynamic part is the viscous fluid contribution, which can be expressed as a series expansion with respect to derivatives of $\text{u}$. The first derivatives of the velocity field are canonically decomposed in terms of the acceleration $\text{a}$, the expansion $\Theta$, the shear $\sigma$ and the vorticity (a reminder is provided in App. \[rem\]) $$\label{vortgen}
\omega=\frac{1}{2}\omega_{\mu\nu }\, \mathrm{d}\mathrm{x}^\mu\wedge\mathrm{d}\mathrm{x}^\nu =\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{d}\mathrm{u} +
\mathrm{u} \wedge\mathrm{a} \right).$$ In the Landau frame, the hydrodynamic component of $\Pi$ is transverse to $\text{u}$. The full $\Pi$ *is not* transverse but $$\label{Piprop}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}u^\mu u^\nu=0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad T_{\mu\nu}u^\mu u^\nu=\varepsilon(x).$$ The latter is the local energy density, related to the pressure via the conformal equation of state $\varepsilon=2p$. However, it should be stressed that the presence of a non-hydrodynamic component tempers the fluid interpretation. In particular, it is not an easy task to extract the congruence $\text{u}$ from $\text{T}$, because its meaning as a vector tangent to fluid lines becomes questionable. Another important structure in three spacetime dimensions, where the Weyl tensor vanishes, is the Cotton tensor[^2] $$\label{cotdef}
C^{\mu\nu}=\eta^{\mu\rho\sigma}
\nabla_\rho \left(R^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\sigma}-\frac{R}{4}\delta^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\sigma} \right),$$ with $\eta^{\mu\nu\sigma}=\nicefrac{\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma}}{\sqrt{-g}}$. This tensor vanishes if and only if the spacetime is conformally flat. It shares the key properties of the energy–momentum tensor, *i.e.* it is symmetric, traceless and covariantly conserved. For later reference we introduce a contraction analogous to the energy density $$\label{cofx}
C_{\mu \nu}u^\mu u^\nu = c(x)\ .$$
Bulk Petrov classification and the resummability conditions {#Pet}
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Weyl tensor in four dimensions can be classified according to the Petrov types. For an Einstein space this provides a complete classification of the curvature tensor.
The Petrov classification is obtained from the eigenvalue equation for the Weyl tensor. In particular, the Weyl tensor and its dual can be used to form a pair of complex-conjugate tensors. Each of these tensors has two pairs of bivector indices, which can be used to form a complex two-index tensor. Its components are naturally packaged inside a complex symmetric $3 \times 3$ matrix $\text{Q}$ with zero trace (see e.g. [@Stephani:624239] for this construction). This matrix encompasses the ten independent real components of the Weyl tensor and the associated eigenvalue equation determines the Petrov type.
We can now establish a connection of the bulk type with the three-dimensional boundary data. Performing the Fefferman–Graham expansion of the complex Weyl tensor $\text{Q}^{\pm}$ for a general Einstein space, one can show that the leading-order ($\nicefrac{1}{r^3}$) coefficient, say $\text{S}^{\pm}$, exhibits a specific combination of the components of the boundary Cotton and energy–momentum tensors.[^3] The Segre type of this combination determines precisely the Petrov type of the four-dimensional bulk metric and establishes a one-to-one map between the bulk Petrov type and the boundary data. Assume now that we wish to reconstruct the Einstein bulk spacetime from a set of boundary data. Given a three-dimensional boundary metric, one can *impose* a desired *canonical form* for the asymptotic Weyl tensor $\text{S}^{\pm}$, as e.g. a perfect-fluid form (type D) or matter–radiation form (type III or N) or a combination of both (type II) (see e.g. [@Chow:2009km] for these structures). Doing so, we design from the boundary the Petrov structure of the bulk spacetime, and furthermore provide a set of conditions that turn out to guarantee the resummability of the perturbative expansion into an exact Einstein space. This procedure refers to the step one mentioned in the introduction. It turns out that it is somehow easier to work with a different pair of complex-conjugate tensors $$\label{eqn:Tref}
T_{\mu\nu}^\pm = T_{\mu\nu} \pm \frac{i}{8\pi G k^2 }C_{\mu\nu} \ ,$$ [where $k$ is a constant and $\text{T}^\pm$ is related to $\text{S}^{\pm}$ by a similarity transformation: $\text{T}^\pm = \text{P} \, \text{S}^{\pm}\text{P}^{-1}$ with $\text{P}={\rm diag}(\mp i,-1,1)$.]{} Choosing a specific form for these tensors, and assuming a boundary metric $\text{d}s^2$, we are led to two conditions. The first, provides a set of equations that the boundary metric must satisfy: $$\label{C-con}
\text{C}=8\pi G k^2\, \text{Im} \text{T}^+.$$ The second delivers the boundary energy–momentum tensor it should be accompanied with for an exact bulk ascendent spacetime to exist: $$\label{T-con}
\text{T}= \text{Re} \text{T}^+.$$ The tensors given in Eq. are by construction symmetric, traceless and conserved: $$\label{Tref-cons}
\nabla\cdot \text{T}^\pm=0.$$ We will refer to them as the *reference energy–momentum tensors* as they play the rôle of a pair of fictitious conserved boundary sources, always accompanying the boundary geometry. It turns out that the particular combination of the energy–momentum and Cotton tensors is exactly the combination one finds if the Weyl tensor is decomposed into self-dual and anti-self-dual components, complex-conjugate in Lorentzian signature. Finally, we note that some care must be taken when working with $\text{T}^\pm$ instead of $\text{S}^\pm$. Indeed, the eigenvalues are equal, but not necessarily their eigenvectors. In particular, this means that one cannot determine the Petrov type unambiguously if considering the eigenvalue equation for $\text{T}^{\pm}$.[^4]
The derivative expansion and its resummation ansatz
---------------------------------------------------
We have listed in the previous section all boundary ingredients needed for reaching holographically exact bulk Einstein spacetimes. We would like here to discuss their actual reconstruction. We will use for that the derivative expansion, organized around the derivatives of the boundary fluid velocity field $\text{u}$. This expansion assumes small derivatives, small curvature, and small higher-derivative curvature tensors for the boundary metric. This limitation is irrelevant for us since we are ultimately interested in resumming the series. A related and potentially problematic issue, is the definition of $\text{u}$, which is not automatic when the boundary energy–momentum tensor $\text{T}$ is not of the fluid type. In that case $\text{u}$ should be considered as an ingredient of the ansatz rather related to the metric than to the energy–momentum tensor and *a posteriori* justified by the success of the resummation.
The guideline for the reconstruction of spacetime based on the derivative expansion is *Weyl covariance* [@Haack:2008cp; @Bhattacharyya:2008jc]: the bulk geometry should be insensitive to a conformal rescaling of the boundary metric $\text{d}s^2\to \nicefrac{\text{d}s^2}{{\cal B}^2}$. The latter is accompanied with $\text{C}\to {\cal B}\, \text{C}$, and at the same time $\text{T}\to {\cal B}\, \text{T}$, $\text{u}\to \nicefrac{\text{u}}{{\cal B}}$ (velocity one-form) and $\omega\to \nicefrac{\omega}{{\cal B}}$ (vorticity two-form). Covariantization with respect to rescalings requires to introduce a Weyl connection one-form: $$\label{Wcon}
\text{A}:=\text{a} -\frac{\Theta}{2} \text{u} \ ,$$ which transforms as $\text{A}\to\text{A}-\text{d}\ln {\cal B}$. Ordinary covariant derivatives $\nabla$ are thus traded for Weyl-covariant ones $\mathscr{D}=\nabla+w\,\text{A}$, $w$ being the conformal weight of the tensor under consideration. In three spacetime dimensions, Weyl-covariant quantities are e.g. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{D}_\nu\omega^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\mu}&=&\nabla_\nu\omega^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\mu},\\
\mathscr{R}&=&R +4\nabla_\mu A^\mu- 2 A_\mu A^\mu \, \label{curlR}\end{aligned}$$ while $$\label{sigma}
\Sigma=
\Sigma_{\mu\nu}
\text{d}x^\mu\text{d}x^\nu=-2\text{u}\mathscr{D}_\nu \omega^\nu_{\hphantom{\nu}\mu}\text{d}x^\mu- \omega_\mu^{\hphantom{\mu}\lambda} \omega^{\vphantom{\lambda}}_{\lambda\nu}\text{d}x^\mu\text{d}x^\nu
-\text{u}^2\frac{\mathscr{R}}{2} \ ,$$ is Weyl-invariant. Notice also that for any symmetric and traceless tensor $S_{\mu\nu}\text{d}x^\mu\text{d}x^\nu$ of conformal weight $1$ (like the energy–momentum tensor and the Cotton tensor), one has $$\mathscr{D}_\nu S^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\mu}=\nabla_\nu S^{\nu}_{\hphantom{\nu}\mu} \ .$$
In the present analysis, we will be interested in situations where the boundary congruence $\text{u}$ is *shear-free*. Despite this limitation, wide classes of dual holographic bulk geometries remain accessible. Vanishing shear simplifies considerably the reconstruction of the asymptotically AdS bulk geometry because it reduces the available Weyl-invariant terms. As a consequence, at each order of $\mathscr{D}\text{u}$, the terms compatible with Weyl covariance of the bulk metric $\text{d}s^2_{\text{bulk}}$ are nicely organized. Even though we cannot write them all at arbitrary order, the structure of the first orders has suggested that resummation, whenever possible, should lead to the following [@Haack:2008cp; @Bhattacharyya:2008jc; @Bhattacharyya:2008ji; @Caldarelli:2012cm; @Mukhopadhyay:2013gja; @Gath:2015nxa; @Petropoulos:2014yaa]: $$\text{d}s^2_{\text{res.}} =
-2\text{u}(\text{d}r+r \text{A})+r^2k^2\text{d}s^2+\frac{\Sigma}{k^2}
+ \frac{\text{u}^2}{\rho^2} \left(\frac{3 T_{\lambda \mu}u^\lambda u^\mu}{k \kappa }r+\frac{C_{\lambda \mu}u^\lambda \eta^{\mu\nu\sigma}\omega_{\nu\sigma}}{2k^6}\right).
\label{papaefgenres}$$ Here $r$ the radial coordinate whose dependence is explicit, $x^\mu$ are the three boundary coordinates extended to the bulk, on which depend implicitly the various functions, $\kappa=\nicefrac{3k}{8\pi G}$, $k$ a constant, and $\Sigma$ is displayed in . Finally, $$\label{rho2}
\rho^2=r^2 +\frac{1}{2k^4} \omega_{\mu\nu} \omega^{\mu\nu} = r^2 +\frac{q^2}{4k^4}$$ performs the resummation as the derivative expansion is manifestly organized in powers of $q^2=2 \omega_{\mu\nu} \omega^{\mu\nu}$. Note that the three-dimensional Hodge dual of the vorticity is always aligned with the velocity field and this is how $q(x)$ is originally defined: $$\label{Hodge.vorticity}
\eta^{\mu\nu\sigma}\omega_{\nu\sigma}=q u^\mu\,.$$ In expression , we recognize the energy density $\varepsilon(x)$ introduced in Eq. , and $c(x)$ as in . The presence of the boundary Cotton tensor stresses that the bulk is generically asymptotically *locally* anti-de Sitter. It is readily checked that boundary Weyl transformations correspond to bulk diffeomorphisms, which can be reabsorbed into a redefinition of the radial coordinate: $r\to {\cal B}\, r$. The four-dimensional metric $\text{d}s^2_{\text{res.}}$ displayed in is not expected to be Einstein for arbitrary boundary data $\text{T}$ and $\text{d}s^2$. *Our claim is that when these data satisfy Eqs. and , $\text{d}s^2_{\text{res.}}$ is Einstein with $\Lambda=-3 k^2$.*
More can be said on the allowed reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm$. Expression also contains $\text{u}$, assumed to be the timelike and shear-free boundary hydrodynamic congruence. On the bulk , $\text{u}$ is a manifestly a null congruence, associated with the vector $\partial_r$. One can show that this congruence is *geodesic and shear-free* – the proof is displayed in App. \[4to3\]. According to the Goldberg–Sachs theorem and its generalizations, the anticipated Einstein bulk metric is therefore algebraically special , *i.e.* of Petrov type II, III, D, N or O. Following the discussion of Sec. \[Pet\] on the relationship between the bulk Weyl tensor and the boundary reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm$ regarding Petrov classification, we conclude that the boundary piece of data $\text{T}^\pm$ is further constrained: it can only be of a special canonical Segre type. A boundary metric accompanied with a generic $\text{T}^\pm$, even satisfying Eqs. and , is not expected to guarantee be Einstein. Only perfect-fluid, pure matter or pure radiation (or any combination) $\text{T}^\pm$’s will produce an Einstein space, which will furthermore be algebraically special. Scanning over canonical forms for $\text{T}^\pm$ amounts to exploring various Petrov classes. *Hence, Eqs. and appear as a boundary translation of Einstein’s equations, in the integrable sector of algebraically special geometries.*
We would like to insist again on the rôle played by the absence of shear for the boundary fluid congruence, intimately related with the resummability of the derivative expansion. Not only this assumption enables to discard the large number of Weyl-covariant tensors available when the shear is non-vanishing, which would have probably spoiled any resummation attempt; but it also selects the algebraically special geometries, known to be related with integrability properties. Of course this is not a theorem and we cannot exclude that some exact Einstein type I space might be successfully reconstructed or that none exact resummation involves a congruence with shear.
We come finally to the actual definition of the boundary hydrodynamic congruence $\text{u}$. As already emphasized previously, the energy–momentum tensor $\text{T}$, obtained in the procedure described in Sec. \[Pet\], is not necessarily of the fluid type (we shall soon meet examples in Sec. \[exam\] and App. \[emcomp\]). Hence, it is not straightforward to extract from this tensor the velocity congruence $\text{u}$, required in the resummed expression – and further check or impose the absence of shear. It seems therefore that we are led to choosing $\text{u}$ rather than determining it, as part of the ansatz of this constructive approach.
At this stage, the reader might be puzzled by the freedom in making such a choice for $\text{u}$ independently of the other boundary data such as the metric and the energy–momentum tensor. In fact, this freedom is only apparent because there is basically a unique timelike normalized and real shearless congruence on three-dimensional geometries – another peculiar feature of four-dimensional bulks. Indeed, given a generic three-dimensional metric, there is a unique way to express it as a fibration over a conformally flat two-dimensional base:[^5] $$\label{PDbdymet}
\text{d}s^2=-\Omega^2(\text{d}t-\text{b})^2+\frac{2}{k^2P^2}\text{d}\zeta\text{d}\bar\zeta,$$ with $P$ and $\Omega$ arbitrary real functions of $(t,\zeta, \bar \zeta)$, and[^6] $$\label{frame}
\text{b}=B(t,\zeta, \bar \zeta)\, \text{d}\zeta+\bar B(t,\zeta, \bar \zeta)\, \text{d}\bar\zeta.$$ In this metric, $$\label{ut}
\text{u}= -\Omega(\text{d}t-\text{b})$$ is precisely normalized and shear-free (see App. \[4to3\] for details). This defines our fluid congruence, and is part of our resummation ansatz. Making use of and we find $$\label{papaefgentetr}
\text{d}s^2_{\text{res.}} =-2\mathbf{k}\mathbf{l}+2\mathbf{m}\bar{\mathbf{m}},$$ where $$\label{km}
\mathbf{k}=-\text{u},\quad
\mathbf{m}=\frac{\rho}{P}\text{d}\zeta$$ and[^7] $$\label{l}
\mathbf{l}=-\text{d}r-r \text{a} -H \text{u}
+
\frac{1}{2k^2} \ast(\text{u}\wedge (\text{d} q+q\text{a}))$$ with $$\label{Hgen}
2 H= r^2k^2 -r\, \Theta
+\frac{q^2}{k^2}
+\frac{\mathscr{R}}{2k^2}
-\frac{3 }{\rho^2 k} \left(\frac{r\varepsilon}{\kappa}+\frac{qc}{ 6k^5}
\right).$$ In the latter expression we have introduced $\varepsilon(x)$ and $c(x)$ defined in and ($x$ refers to the coordinates $t,\zeta,\bar\zeta$ common for bulk and boundary). The congruences $\mathbf{k}$, $\mathbf{l}$, $\mathbf{m}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{m}}$ define a null tetrad, of which $\mathbf{k}$ is geodesic and shear-free, as already stated and proven in App. \[4to3\].
Comments
--------
Several comments are in order here for making the picture complete. Equation is obtained using the derivative expansion, which is an alternative to the Fefferman–Graham expansion and better suited for our purposes. As such, it assumes that the boundary state is in the hydrodynamic regime, described by an energy–momentum tensor of the fluid type. The latter has a natural built-in velocity field, interpreted as the fluid velocity congruence. Our method, however, does not necessarily lead to a fluid-like energy–momentum tensor. This is not a principle problem, because non-perturbative contributions with respect to the derivative expansion (non-hydrodynamic modes) are indeed expected to emerge along with a resummation [@Heller:2013fn]. In practice, it requires information regarding the velocity field around which the hydrodynamic modes are organized. Thanks to the assumption of absence of shear, crucial for eliminating many terms in the derivative expansion of the bulk metric and making it resummable, this velocity field is naturally provided by the boundary metric itself, when put in the form ; it is given in Eq. .
Many examples illustrate how the method works in practice. In [@Gath:2015nxa] we presented the reconstruction of generic boundary data with a vorticity-free congruence. These lead to the complete family of Robinson–Trautman bulk Einstein spaces. In the following section we will consider congruences with vorticity leading to the family of Plebański–Demiański. This is important for three reasons. Firstly, the Plebański–Demiański captures all aspects of black-hole physics. Secondly, the presence of vorticity encoded in $\rho^2$ (see ) makes $2H$ in a genuinely resummed series expansion, which for vanishing $q$ (as in Robinson–Trautman) is rather a truncated expansion. This demonstrates that we are really probing a non-trivial integrability corner of Einstein’s equations. Thirdly, the non-trivial structure behind the reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm$ turns out to open a window towards the “$U$-duality group” quoted in the introduction.
The Plebański–Demiański Einstein spaces {#sec:PD}
=======================================
The boundary metric and the reference energy–momentum tensors
-------------------------------------------------------------
The resummability of the derivative expansion, irrespective of the dimension, was originally observed in [@Bhattacharyya:2008jc] for the Kerr black holes. This property was latter shown to hold more systematically in four dimensions, even in the presence of a nut charge, which accounts for asymptotically locally anti-de Sitter spacetimes. This was achieved in [@Caldarelli:2012cm; @Mukhopadhyay:2013gja; @Petropoulos:2014yaa] by including an infinite, though resummable series of terms built on the boundary Cotton tensor (last term of Eq. ). There, the requirement was that the Cotton tensor of the boundary metric be proportional to the energy–momentum tensor, itself being of a perfect-fluid form. In other words, the corresponding reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm$ were proportional and both of the Segre type D. This kind of ansatz turns out to unify all known black-hole solutions with mass, nut charge and rotation, which are Petrov type D. All these have two commuting Killing vectors, but they do not exhaust the Petrov-D two-Killing-vector family of Einstein spaces, known as Plebański–Demiański [@Plebanski:1976gy] (see also [@PMP-GP]). The latter possess an extra parameter: the acceleration parameter – not to be confused with the boundary fluid acceleration mentioned earlier.
The general method for reconstructing bulk Einstein spaces described above in Sec. \[der-res\] is based on a family of boundary metrics, equipped with a shearless congruence (supporting the fluid whenever this makes sense), together with a boundary pair of complex-conjugate reference energy–momentum tensors, the type of which controls the Petrov type of the resummed bulk algebraically special Einstein space. The Plebański–Demiański metric is the most general Petrov-D Einstein space with two commuting Killing fields, one timelike and the other spacelike. We expect therefore to reach this metric holographically with a boundary possessing two isometries.
The boundary metric will eventually be of the general type accompanied with the shearless congruence $\text{u}$ as in , and with non-vanishing $\text{b}$ in order to create vorticity . Indeed, as observed in [@Leigh:2011au; @Leigh:2012jv], boundary vorticity is necessary for generating bulk rotation and nut charge, both present in Plebański–Demiański. As already mentioned, the reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm$ will be chosen of the perfect-fluid form (D-type Segre), not proportional to each-other though, for if they were we would recover the general Kerr–Taub–NUT subfamily, which misses the black-hole acceleration parameter. This latter caution forbids $\partial_t = \Omega \text{u}$ be the timelike Killing vector. Indeed, if $\partial_t$ were a Killing field, the Weyl connection would be exact.[^8] As a consequence, using the result of App. \[appendix.perfect\], the boundary energy–momentum tensor would be of the perfect-fluid form. Since $\text{T}^\pm$ are also chosen of that form, we would learn from and that the Cotton and the energy–momentum tensors were proportional.
Although appropriate for a compact and elegant expression of the resummed bulk metric , the form for the boundary metric is not convenient for implementing the set of *a priori* requirements listed above, in particular the one regarding the timelike Killing field. We will therefore parameterize differently the most general two-Killing boundary metric, adapting two coordinates $\tau$ and $\varphi$ to the two Killing commuting fields, and letting $\chi$ be the third one. Up to an arbitrary conformal factor, which plays no rôle in holographic issues where the important piece of data is the conformal class, such a metric can be expressed in terms of two arbitrary functions $F(\chi)$ and $G(\chi)$ as follows: $$\label{PDbry}
\text{d}s^2=
-\frac{F -\chi^4 G }{F+G}
\text{d}\varphi^2 +
\frac{G -\chi^4 F }{F+G}\text{d}\tau^2
+2\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\, \text{d}\tau+\frac{\text{d}\chi^2}{F G }.$$ This expression is inspired from the boundary metric as it appears in the reconstruction of the $C$-metric, a type-D Petrov member of the general Robinson–Trautman family studied in [@Gath:2015nxa], common to the Plebański–Demiański one.
We now turn to the ansatz for the reference energy–momentum tensors, chosen here of the perfect-fluid[^9] form $\text{T}^\pm_{\text{pf}}$. We need for this an ansatz for two complex-conjugate, normalized congruences with exact Weyl connection (see App. \[appendix.perfect\]). Thanks to the presence of the two Killing fields, it is easy to design such congruences by normalizing a linear combination of these fields. Indeed, the following $$\label{upmPD}
\text{u}_{\pm}
=
\frac{\partial_\tau\pm i \partial_\varphi}{\chi^2\mp i}
\leftrightarrow
\text{u}^{\pm}=\frac{\pm i}{F+G}\left(
G\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2 \text{d}\varphi\right)
\pm i
F\left(\chi^2\text{d}\tau -\text{d}\varphi\right)
\right)$$ are non-expanding and accelerating[^10] with $$\label{apm}
\text{a}^{\pm}=
\frac{2\chi\text{d}\chi}{\chi^2\mp i},$$ and their Weyl connections $$\label{Apm}
\text{A}^{\pm}=
\text{d}
\ln(\chi^2\mp i)$$ are exact. The corresponding perfect-fluid reference tensors are then conserved with a $\chi$-dependent pressure: $$\label{PD-perflu}
\text{T}^\pm_{\text{pf}}= \frac{M_\pm(\chi) k^2}{8\pi G}\left(3\left(\text{u}^\pm\right)^2 +\text{d}s^2\right),$$ where $$\label{Ppm}
M_\pm(\chi) =\frac{-m\pm i n}{(\chi^2\mp i)^3}.$$ It is worth stressing that $m$ and $n$ are arbitrary parameters, which will survive all the way up to the bulk metric, where they will play the rôle of the mass and nut charge (in appropriate normalizations) respectively. They appear here as first integrals of . We will comment again on this point later in the discussion of Sec. \[Ud\].
Cotton, integrability conditions and energy–momentum {#exam}
----------------------------------------------------
The Cotton tensor can be computed for the general boundary ansatz . The expressions are quite lengthy, and will not be reproduced here. The resummability condition can be imposed using the reference tensors . They result in third-order differential equations for the functions $F(\chi)$ and $G(\chi)$.
The equations at hand turn out to be tractable. At the first place, their compatibility implies that $$\label{FG}
F(\chi)+G(\chi)
= k^2,$$ showing that the freedom on the boundary metric is severely reduced by the integrability condition . Once this condition is imposed, some equations become linear with $\chi$-dependent coefficients and their resolution is immediate: $$\label{FGRQ}
F(\chi)=\frac{\hat R(\chi)}{\chi^4+1}, \quad G(\chi)= \frac{\hat Q(\chi)}{\chi^4+1},$$ where $\hat Q(\chi)$ and $\hat R(\chi)$ are fourth-degree polynomials: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F}
\hat R(\chi)&=&(k^2-\ell)\chi^4-2n\chi^3+\epsilon \chi^2-2m\chi +\ell,\\
\label{G}
\hat Q(\chi)&=&\ell\chi^4+2n\chi^3-\epsilon \chi^2+2m\chi +k^2-\ell.\end{aligned}$$ Two further integration constants appear: $\ell$ and $\epsilon$. Expressions , , and should be thought of as integrability conditions, since they stem out of .
The next step in our procedure is to determine the genuine boundary energy–momentum tensor, using , which together with the above integrability relations is expected to guarantee that the resummed bulk metric is exact Einstein. The expression is provided in App. \[emcomp\], together with that of the Cotton tensor. The energy–momentum tensor is the starting point for the physical analysis of the holographic state: it contains information on both hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic modes that can be extracted using, among others, the fluid congruence $\text{u}$ that will be studied in the next section. We will not perform this analysis, which stands beyond the scope of the present paper.
The canonical frame and the hydrodynamic congruence {#cancon}
---------------------------------------------------
As stressed in the general presentation of Sec. \[der-res\], the hydrodynamic congruence $\text{u}$ is part of the resummation ansatz. Once the boundary metric is set in the form , the velocity field used in the resummation formula should be taken to be , which is shear-free. Our task is thus to turn onto . This is performed assuming [^11] (but not , and , even though ultimately these are necessary for the resummation to be successful).
The coordinate change from $(\tau,\chi,\varphi)$ to $(t, \zeta, \bar\zeta)$ is easily found to be the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chi}
t+\frac{\zeta+\bar\zeta}{k\sqrt{2}}&=&\int\text{d}\chi\left(
\frac{k^2\chi^2}{FG(\chi^4+1)}-\frac{1}{F\chi^2}
\right),
\\
\label{zeta}
\zeta&=&-\frac{k}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(\tau+i\varphi-k^2\int\text{d}\chi\frac{\chi^2-i}{FG\left(\chi^4+1\right)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ In the new frame, the two Killing vector fields read: $$\partial_{\tau}=\partial_t-\frac{k}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(\partial_\zeta+
\partial_{\bar \zeta}
\right),
\quad
\partial_{\varphi}
=-
i\frac{k}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(\partial_\zeta-
\partial_{\bar \zeta}
\right).
\label{Ktauphi}$$ As anticipated, $\partial_t$ *is not* a Killing. The boundary metric has now the form , $$\nonumber
\text{d}s^2=-\Omega^2(\text{d}t-\text{b})^2+\frac{2}{k^2P^2}\text{d}\zeta\text{d}\bar\zeta,$$ with $\text{b}$ as in , $$\nonumber
\text{b}=B\, \text{d}\zeta+\bar B\, \text{d}\bar\zeta.$$ All functions $\Omega$, $P$ and $B$ depend only on $\chi$ *i.e.* on the specific combination dictated by the isometries, $t+\frac{\zeta+\bar\zeta}{k\sqrt{2}}$, via : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q}
\Omega&=&\frac{F\chi^2(\chi^4+1)}{F\chi^4-G},
\\
\label{B}
B&=&-\frac{k}{\sqrt{2}F(1+\chi^4)}\left(1-i\frac{F\chi^4-G}{k^2\chi^2}\right),
\\
\label{P}
P^2&=&\frac{k^2}{G(1+\chi^4)}.\end{aligned}$$
We are now in position to read off the normalized hydrodynamic congruence $\text{u}$ that accompanies our ansatz of boundary metric and boundary energy–momentum tensor, as given in , $$\nonumber
\text{u}= -\Omega(\text{d}t-\text{b}).$$ Expressed in the frame $(\text{d}\tau, \text{d}\chi, \text{d}\varphi)$, the latter reads: $$\text{u}=\text{d}\varphi-
\chi^2\text{d}\tau +\frac{\text{d}\chi}{F}\leftrightarrow
\text{u}=\frac{F+G}{F(1+\chi^4)}\left(\chi^2\partial_\tau-\partial_\varphi\right)+G\,\partial_\chi.\label{uuPD}$$ Given the hydrodynamic congruence, it is possible to determine the longitudinal projections of the energy–momentum and Cotton tensors, as displayed in Eqs. and . We find: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{epsPD}
\varepsilon
(\chi)&=&-\frac{2k\kappa}{3}\frac{m\chi^2(\chi^4-3)+n(3\chi^4-1)}{(1+\chi^4)^3},\\
\label{cPD}
c(\chi)&=&2k^4\frac{n\chi^2(\chi^4-3)-m(3\chi^4-1)}{(1+\chi^4)^3}.
\end{aligned}$$ With these quantities, we can rewrite $M_{\pm}(\chi)$ in as $$\label{epsMPD}
M_{\pm}(\chi)=\frac{3}{2 k \kappa}\varepsilon(\chi) \pm \frac{i}{2 k^4}c(\chi).$$
Besides their importance as building blocks in the resumed null tetrad , via , these expressions are interesting because they correspond to each-other (when appropriately normalized) by the following map: $(m,n )\to (-n,m)$. This is a *gravity duality map*. Gravitational duality is known to exchange the mass and the nut charge. This is settled more generally in Ricci-flat spaces, when the duality maps the Riemann tensor to its dual. As for the full continuous $U$-duality group, this $\mathbb{Z}_2$ subgroup acts non-locally on the four-dimensional metric (as opposed to the action in the three-dimensional reductions *à la* ); it is actually understood only in a linearized version of gravity [@Argurio:2009xr; @Bunster:2012km]. Here the bulk spaces are Einstein and this $\mathbb{Z}_2$ mapping, non-local in four dimensions relates the Weyl to its dual, which on the boundary is known to exchange the Cotton and the energy–momentum tensors [@deHaro:2008gp; @Mansi:2008br; @Mansi:2008bs]. This is what we observe and the holographic language seem to be the appropriate one for handling these duality issues in the presence of a cosmological constant. We will soon reach a similar conclusion for the generalization of the Geroch solution-generating technique to Einstein spaces.
Before moving to the resummation, let us mention here that, in the new frame, the complex-conjugate congruences used in to define the perfect-fluid reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm_{\text{pf}}$ are $$\label{upmPDtzzb}
\text{u}^+= \text{u}+ \frac{\alpha^+}{P^2}\text{d}\zeta, \quad
\text{u}^-= \text{u}+ \frac{\alpha^-}{P^2}\text{d}\bar\zeta,$$ where $$\alpha^{\pm}
=-\frac{\nicefrac{\sqrt{2}}{k}}{\chi^2\mp i}.$$ It is worth noting that these congruences are actually the most general ones: adding an extra leg along the missing direction ($\text{d}\bar\zeta$ or $\text{d}\zeta$ respectively), and adjusting the overall scale for keeping the normalization amounts to performing a combination of a diffeomorphism and a Weyl transformation on the metric . This shows that we are actually performing the general analysis of two-Killing boundary metrics accompanied with the most general perfect-fluid reference tensors. Such a conclusion might not have been obvious to draw from the expressions . The immediate and important consequence is that the bulk metrics we will reach by resumming the boundary data at hand, will exhaust the entire family of type-D two-Killing Einstein spaces. Other Petrov type two-Killing Einstein spaces can possibly be reconstructed, using different Segre types of reference tensors. We will not investigate this issue here.
From the boundary to the bulk
-----------------------------
At this stage we are ready to pursue with the resummation of the derivative expansion associated to the above boundary data, using Eq. . This requires to determine the null tetrad $\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{l}, \mathbf{m}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{m}}$, using and . Further intermediate ingredients are necessary for that, which we will compute and present in the frame $(\text{d}\tau, \text{d}\chi, \text{d}\varphi)$. The bulk frame is thus $(\text{d}r,\text{d}\tau, \text{d}\chi, \text{d}\varphi)$.
The hydrodynamic boundary congruence $\text{u}$ given in is shearless but has acceleration, expansion and vorticity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{aPD}
\text{a}&=& - 2\chi\left(G \text{d}\tau
-
\frac{k^2\chi^2}{F(1+\chi^4)}
\text{d}\chi
\right),
\\
\label{thPD}
\Theta&=&\frac{4\chi^3G}{1+\chi^4}+G',
\\
\omega&=& \chi\left(
\frac{k^2}{F(1+\chi^4)}
\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\text{d}\varphi\right)\wedge \text{d}\chi
-G\text{d}\varphi\wedge\text{d}\tau\right).
\end{aligned}$$ The dual vorticity, computed using reads: $$\label{qPD}
q=
\frac{2k^2 \chi}{1+\chi^4},$$ and this allows to express the resummation variable $\rho(r,\chi)$ defined in as: $$\label{rhoPD}
\rho^2=r^2 + \frac{\chi^2}{\left(1+\chi^4\right)^2}.$$ 0.2cm Using the above, we can compute explicitly the null tetrad (Eqs. and), and reconstruct the bulk metric as in Eq. . In their original form, all these expressions are not very illuminating and we recollect them in App. \[null\]. It is possible, however, to abandon the analogue of Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates $(\tau, \chi, \varphi, r)$ in use, and bring the metric at hand in a more familiar form. This is achieved with the following coordinate transformation: $$\label{trans}
\begin{cases}
\tau&=\hat \tau+\int \frac{\hat{q}^2\, \text{d}\hat q}{\hat R(\hat q)}-\int
\frac{\hat{r}^2\, \text{d}\hat r}{\hat R(\hat r)}
\\
\chi&=\hat q
\\
\varphi&=\hat \varphi-\int \frac{\text{d}\hat q}{\hat R(\hat q)}+\int
\frac{\text{d}\hat r}{\hat R(\hat r)}
\\
r&=\frac{1}{\hat r-\hat q}+\frac{\hat{q}^3}{\hat{q}^4+1}
,
\end{cases}$$ where the function $\hat R$ is displayed in . Despite the complicated expression of the original metric, thanks to the polynomial structure of $\hat R$ and to Eqs. , and , the metric becomes unexpectedly simple in the new coordinates $(\hat\tau, \hat q, \hat\varphi, \hat r)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{d}s^2&=&\frac{1}{(\hat{q}-\hat{r})^2}\bigg(
-\frac{\hat R(\hat{r}) \left(\text{d}\hat{\varphi}-\hat{q}^2\text{d}\hat{\tau}\right)^2}{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}
+\frac{\hat Q(\hat{q}) \left(\text{d}\hat{\tau}+\hat{r}^2\text{d}\hat{\varphi}\right)^2}{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}
\nonumber
\\
\label{PD}
&&+
\frac{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}{\hat Q(\hat{q})} \text{d}\hat{q}^2
+
\frac{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}{\hat R(\hat{r})} \text{d}\hat{r}^2\bigg).
\end{aligned}$$ This metric is known as the Plebański–Demiański geometry [@Plebanski:1976gy] (see also [@PMP-GP]).
The Plebański–Demiański solution is the most general Einstein space with two commuting Killing vector fields. It is Petrov D because it possesses two multiplicity-two principal null directions.[^12] The congruence tangent to $\mathbf{k}$ is a principal null direction, but this property does not hold for $\mathbf{l}$. An alternative null tetrad[^13] is read off directly from the expression : $$\label{PDprime}
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{k}'&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}(\hat{q}-\hat{r})}
\left(
\sqrt{\frac{\hat R(\hat{r}) }{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}}\left(\text{d}\hat{\varphi}-\hat{q}^2\text{d}\hat{\tau}\right)
+ \sqrt{\frac{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}{\hat R(\hat{r}) }}\text{d}\hat{r}
\right)
\\
\mathbf{l}'&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}(\hat{q}-\hat{r})}
\left(
\sqrt{\frac{\hat R(\hat{r}) }{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}}\left(\text{d}\hat{\varphi}-\hat{q}^2\text{d}\hat{\tau}\right)
- \sqrt{\frac{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}{\hat R(\hat{r}) }}\text{d}\hat{r}
\right)
\\
\mathbf{m}'&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}(\hat{q}-\hat{r})}
\left(
\sqrt{\frac{\hat Q(\hat{r}) }{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}}\left(\text{d}\hat{\tau}+\hat{r}^2\text{d}\hat{\varphi}\right)
+i \sqrt{\frac{1+(\hat{r}\hat{q})^2}{\hat Q(\hat{r}) }}\text{d}\hat{q}
\right).
\end{cases}$$ Two of its elements, $\mathbf{k}'$ (which is actually proportional to $\text{u}=-\mathbf{k}$) and $\mathbf{l}'$ turn out to provide the two principal null directions, and are furthermore geodesic and shear-free (details can be found e.g. in Ref. [@PMP-GP; @Podolsky:2009ag]). In the latter tetrad the only non-vanishing Weyl invariant is $$\Psi_2=W^{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}\,k'_\kappa m'_\lambda \bar m'_\mu l'_\nu =(m-in)\left(
\frac{\hat{q}-\hat{r}}{i-\hat{r}\hat{q}}
\right)^3.$$ Using the transformation (and , ) we find for the leading large-$r$ behaviour: $$\Psi_2\approx
-\frac{M_+(\chi)}{r^3}=-\frac{1}{r^3}\left(
\frac{3}{2 k \kappa}\varepsilon(\chi) + \frac{i}{2 k^4}c(\chi)\right).$$ This last expression illustrates what has been explained in general terms in Sec. \[Pet\], regarding the boundary information carried by the bulk Weyl tensor. Here, for Petrov-D spaces, $\Psi_2$ (*i.e.* the projection of the Weyl onto $\mathbf{k}'\propto \text{u}$) contains the information on $\varepsilon$ and $c$, which are the projections of the boundary energy–momentum and Cotton tensors onto the hydrodynamic congruence $\text{u}$.
Towards a $U$-duality group {#Ud}
---------------------------
We would like to stress that the Einstein space has been found here from *purely boundary considerations*: (1) a general two-Killing boundary metric with its associated normalized and shear-free congruence , and (2) a general perfect-fluid reference tensor . The integrability conditions involving the boundary Cotton tensor completely determine the *a priori* arbitrary functions $F$ and $G$ appearing in the metric, whereas the boundary energy–momentum tensor is determined via the other integrability condition . The resulting data allow to reconstruct an exact Einstein space thanks to the resummation formula .
The Plebański–Demiański family obtained in this way is described in terms of the four parameters entering the functions $F$ and $G$, Eqs. , and : $\epsilon, \ell, m$ and $n$. Of these, $m$ and $n$ appear in the expression for the reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm$, chosen here to be of the perfect-fluid type (type D in Segre classification), whereas the others, $\epsilon$ and $\ell$ emerge after solving the integrability conditions . The two parameters $m$ and $n$ can be thought of as constants of motion of the equation , $$\nonumber
\nabla\cdot \text{T}^\pm=0,$$ reflecting its invariance under transformations $$\label{U-dual}
\text{T}^{\pm}
\to \text{e}^{\pm i\lambda}\,
\text{T}^{\pm}, \ \lambda\in \mathbb{R}.$$ Indeed, with a perfect-fluid reference tensor $\text{T}^{\pm}_{\text{pf}}$ as given in and , the transformation produces the continuous $U(1)$ mapping $$\label{U-mn}
m-in\to m'-in'=
\text{e}^{i\lambda}\, (m-in).$$ For $\lambda=\nicefrac{-\pi}{2}$ in particular, this amounts to the already quoted (see Sec. \[cancon\]) discrete $\mathbb{Z}_2$ transformation $(m,n) \to (-n,m)$, exchanging the rôles of $\varepsilon(\chi)$ and $c(\chi)$. Given a solution with parameters $m$ and $n$, another solution is made available with $(m',n')$, and this is reminiscent of the $U(1)$ subgroup of Geroch’s $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ action in Ricci-flat spaces [@Geroch; @Geroch:1972yt]. The $\mathbb{Z}_2$ subgroup is itself the gravitational Weyl duality action, reminiscent of Geroch’s Riemann duality discrete subgroup for the Ricci-flat case.
The Geroch group emerges as a symmetry of the three-dimensional sigma model obtained when reducing four-dimensional vacuum Einstein’s equations along a Killing congruence. Here, a similar symmetry appears in the reference tensor equations of motion on the conformal boundary of an Einstein space. In both cases, this symmetry acts locally on the three-dimensional data, whereas the action is non-local on the four-dimensional solution itself. In practice, within the class at hand, this this action (at least for a $U(1)$ subgroup of it) induces a transformation mixing the mass and nut charge.[^14] Not only this shows that we are on the right tracks for understanding the generalization of Geroch’s method to Einstein spaces, but it also gives us confidence when interpreting Eqs. , and as Einstein’s equations with cosmological constant in some integrable sector – much like Geroch’s sigma-model equations are vacuum Einstein’s equations for reductions along Killing congruences.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
The developments we have presented here are twofold.
They concern at the first place the integrability of Einstein’s equations from a holographic perspective, setting the conditions that a given class of boundary metrics should satisfy, and determining the energy–momentum tensor it should be accompanied with in order for an *exact* dual bulk Einstein space to exist. The proposed procedure is three-step:
- The first step consists in choosing a set of two complex-conjugate reference tensors $\text{T}^\pm$, symmetric, traceless and satisfying the conservation equation .
- Next, this tensor enables us (1) to set conditions on the boundary metric by imposing its Cotton be the imaginary part of $\text{T}^\pm$ (up to constants), Eq. ; (2) to determine the boundary energy–momentum tensor as its real part, Eq. .
- Finally, using these data and Eq. , we reconstruct the bulk Einstein space.
It is fair to say that Eqs. , and emerge as Einstein’s equations in some integrable sector. Moreover, this sector is that of Petrov algebraically special solutions.
Next, this procedure was applied for reconstructing the full Plebański–Demiański family. The starting point is a general boundary metric with two commuting Killing vectors and perfect-fluid boundary reference tensors with complex conjugate congruences $\text{u}^{\pm}$ obeying $\text{d}\text{A}^{\pm}=0$. This equation of motion for the reference perfect fluids is equivalent to the conservation requirement for $\text{T}^{\pm}_{\text{pf}}$, and is invariant under the transformation . This transformation on the boundary data maps a bulk exact Einstein space onto another. Hence, it is solution-generating.
The above results are encouraging regarding our original motivations and expectations. They deserve further investigation.
On the one hand, the resummability conditions for the derivative expansion presented here and borrowed from [@Gath:2015nxa] are of constructive value, as we have not proven that they are necessary or sufficient: they work efficiently and systematically, and can generate all known algebraically special Einstein spaces. Here we discussed the Plebański–Demiański familly, whereas the Robinson–Trautman family was explicitly built in [@Gath:2015nxa]. The proof that is indeed Einstein will appear in a future work, but some further questions remain. Our working assumption was the absence of shear for the boundary hydrodynamic congruence. This makes the resummation of the derivative expansion possible, and as a corollary, implies the existence of a bulk null, geodesic and shear-free congruence – Goldberg–Sachs theorem for Einstein spaces is at work. Is boundary shear a genuine obstruction to resummability? In our approach the absence of shear guarantees the bulk be algebraically special, and a precise relationship is set between the Segre type of the reference tensor and the Petrov type of the bulk Weyl tensor. This was illustrated in the case of the Plebański–Demiański familly, which is Petrov D and is indeed built with perfect-fluid type reference boundary tensors *i.e.* of Segre type D. Can one reconstruct exact Einstein spaces which are not algebraically special, with non-zero shear on the boundary? Can one better understand the interplay between the two perturbative expansions mentioned here, namely the Fefferman–Graham and the derivative ones?
On the other hand, the emergence of a “holographic $U$-duality symmetry” remains modest. Although, the observed $U(1)$ invariance is valid, of course, as is its effect on the mass and nut parameters (in agreement with our expectations inferred from the Ricci-flat paradigm), it is at the present stage confined to the somehow restricted boundary framework of the Plebański–Demiański family. We nevertheless believe that the whole approach, new and original, starts shedding light on the integrability and solution-generating properties of Einstein’s equations in the presence of cosmological constant.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is based partly on a talk delivered during the workshop in honour of Prof. Ph. Spindel *About various kinds of interactions* held in June 2015 at the University of Mons, Belgium. It relies on works published or to appear, performed in collaboration with M. Caldarelli, J. Gath, R. Leigh, A. Mukhopadhyay, A. Petkou and V. Pozzoli.
We are particularly grateful to D. Klemm for drawing in 2013 our attention to the black-hole acceleration parameter of the Plebański–Demiański family, missing in our article [@Mukhopadhyay:2013gja]. This parameter turns out to be the cornerstone for understanding the holographic origin of integrability in Einstein spaces. We also had interesting correspondence with M. Blau and J. Podolsk' y.
We would like to thank the organizers T. Basile, N. Boulanger, S. Detournay, M. Henneaux and I. Van Geet for this unforgettable meeting. The research of P.M. Petropoulos and K. Siampos is supported by the Franco–Swiss bilateral Hubert Curien program *Germaine de Stael* 2015 (project no 32753SG).
Finally we acknowledge each others home institutions, the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki for hospitality and financial support, where part of this work was developed.
On congruences {#cong}
==============
General congruences {#rem}
-------------------
Consider a $D$-dimensional hyperbolic geometry equipped with a metric $$\label{Dmet}
\text{d}s^2 =g_{MN}\,\text{d}\text{x}^M \text{d}\text{x}^N$$ with $M,N, \ldots =0,1,\ldots, D-1$ and $I,J, \ldots =1,\ldots, D-1$. We do not make any assumption regarding isometries. Consider now an arbitrary timelike vector field $\text{u}$, normalized as $u^M u_M=-1$, and let $U$ be the longitudinal projector and $\Delta$ the projector on the locally orthogonal hyperplane: $$\label{proj}
U_{MN} = - u_M u_N , \quad \Delta_{MN } = u_M u_N + g_{MN}.$$ These projectors satisfy the usual identities: $$\label{projprop}
U^M_{\hphantom{M}R } U^R _{\hphantom{R }N } = U^M_{\hphantom{M}N },\quad U^M_{\hphantom{M}R } \Delta^R _{\hphantom{R }N } = 0 , \quad \Delta^M_{\hphantom{M}R } \Delta^R _{\hphantom{R }N } = \Delta^M_{\hphantom{M}N } ,\quad U^M_{\hphantom{M}M}=1, \quad \Delta^M_{\hphantom{M}M}=D-1.$$
The integral lines of $\text{u}$ define a congruence characterized by its acceleration, shear, expansion and vorticity: $$\label{def1}
\nabla_{M} u_N=-u_M a_N +\frac{1}{D-1}\Theta \Delta_{MN}+\sigma_{MN} +\omega_{MN}$$ with[^15] $$\label{def2}
\begin{cases}
a_M&=u^N\nabla_N u_M, \quad
\Theta=\nabla_M u^M \\
\sigma_{MN }&=\frac{1}{2} \Delta_M^{\hphantom{M}R } \Delta_N ^{\hphantom{N }S}\left(
\nabla_R u_S +\nabla_S u_R
\right)-\frac{1}{D-1} \Delta_{MN }\Delta^{R S } \nabla_R u_S \\
&= \nabla_{(M} u_{N )} + a_{(M} u_{N )} -\frac{1}{D-1} \Delta_{MN } \nabla_R u^R
\\
\omega_{MN }&=\frac{1}{2} \Delta_M^{\hphantom{M}R } \Delta_N ^{\hphantom{N }S }\left(
\nabla_R u_S -\nabla_S u_R
\right)= \nabla_{[M} u_{N ]} + u_{[M} a_{N ]}.
\end{cases}$$ By construction, all these tensors are transverse; they satisfy the following identities: $$u^M a_M=0, \quad u^M \sigma_{MN }=0,\quad u^M \omega_{MN }=0, \quad u^M \nabla_N u_M=0, \quad \Delta^R _{\hphantom{R }M} \nabla_N u_R =\nabla_N u_M.$$
The vorticity allows to define the following form $$\label{def3}
2\omega=\omega_{MN}\, \mathrm{d}\mathrm{x}^M\wedge\mathrm{d}\mathrm{x}^N =\mathrm{d}\mathrm{u} +
\mathrm{u} \wedge\mathrm{a}\, .$$ When $\omega$ is non-closed, the field $\text{u}$ is not hypersurface-orthogonal. If $t$ is the coordinate adapted to the congruence, so that $\text{u}=\nicefrac{\partial_t}{\Omega}$, the corresponding form reads generally: $$\label{uform}
\text{u}= -\Omega(\text{d}t-\text{b}), \quad \text{b}=b_I\,\text{d}x^I\,.$$ With this choice of coordinates, due to , $\Delta_{0M}=0$. Consequently only $
\Delta_{IJ}$ are non-vanishing. Hence the metric reads: $$\label{adfr}
\text{d}s^2=-\Omega^2(\text{d}t-\text{b})^2+\Delta_{IJ}\,\mathrm{d}x^I \mathrm{d}x^J.$$
We can compute the various properties of the congruence $\text{u}$ in the adapted frame at hand . We find: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{a}&=&\frac1\Omega\partial_t \text{u}+\mathrm{d}\ln\Omega\,, \\
\omega&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\Omega\, \text{db}+\frac1\Omega\text{u}\wedge\partial_t \text{u}\right),
\\
\Theta&=&\frac{1}{2\Omega}\partial_t\ln\det\Delta_{D-1}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{D-1}$ stands for the restricted matrix of rank $D-1$. Finally, the components of the shear tensor read: $$\label{shear3d}
\sigma_{MN}=\frac\Omega2\left(\partial_t \Delta_{MN}-\frac{\Delta_{MN}}{D-1}\partial_t \ln\det\Delta_{D-1}\right)$$ with vanishing longitudinal components $\sigma_{0M}$.
Boundary vs. bulk shearless congruences {#4to3}
---------------------------------------
Let us now specialize to the case $D=3$ ($\mu,\nu, \ldots =0,1, 2$ and $i,j, \ldots =1,2$). From Eq. , we learn that there are two obvious instances where the shear of $\text{u}=\nicefrac{\partial_t}{\Omega}$ vanishes.
1. The shear of $\text{u}$ vanishes when $\partial_t$ is a Killing field (cancellation of each term in ) – this holds actually in any dimension $D$.
2. It also vanishes when $\Delta_{ij}\,\mathrm{d}x^i \mathrm{d}x^j$ in defines a conformally flat two-surface: $$\label{adfr2-CF}
\Delta_{ij}\,\mathrm{d}x^i \mathrm{d}x^j=\frac{2}{k^2P^2}\text{d}\zeta\text{d}\bar\zeta$$ with $P=P(t,\zeta,\bar \zeta)$ a real function (cancellation between the two terms in ).
It should be clear that given an arbitrary congruence $\text{u}$, it is not always possible to bring the metric into the fibration form with – if this were true, every three-dimensional congruence would be shearless. Conversely, in three dimensions, *it is always possible to find a frame where the metric is a fibration over a conformally flat two-surface*, as in , , and this frame is generically unique.[^16] The timelike congruence $\text{u}=-\Omega(\text{d}t-\text{b})$ on which this frame is adapted is thus shear-free. Therefore, irrespective of any symmetry, there is always a generically unique timelike normalized shearless congruence in $D=3$.
We now move to four dimensions ($D=4$ with indices $M = (r,\mu)$). Our scope to prove, using the above results, that the bulk velocity field $\partial_r$ of our four-dimensional resummed metric is null, geodesic and shear-free.
1. The congruence $\partial_r$ is null as our four-dimensional metric is written in an analogue of Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates, *i.e.* $g_{rr}=0$.
2. The congruence $\partial_r$ is geodesic because we can easily show that its acceleration vanishes: $$a^M=u^N\nabla_N u^M=\Gamma^M_{\hphantom{M}rr}=g^{M\nu}\partial_r g_{r\nu}=-g^{M\nu}\partial_r u_\nu=0\, ,$$ since the velocity form is independent of $r$.
3. This null and geodesic congruence $\partial_r$ turns out to be shearless. Consider the associated form $\mathbf{k}=-\text{u}$ together with another null field $\mathbf{l}$, and define a rank-2 projector on the locally orthogonal hyperplane: $$\label{null.projector}
\gamma_{MN}:=g_{MN}+k_M l_N+k_N l_M\,,\quad \mathbf{k}^2=\mathbf{l}^2=0\,,\quad \mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{l}=-1\,.$$ This projector has the following properties: $$\label{null.projector1}
l^M\gamma_{MN}=k^M\gamma_{MN}=0\,,\quad
\gamma_{MP}\gamma^{PN}=\gamma_M^{\hphantom{M}N}\,,$$ where $\gamma^{MN}:=g^{MP}\gamma_{PQ}g^{QN}$. Using the latter we can project the covariant derivative of the congruence as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
b_{MN}&:=&\gamma_M^{\hphantom{M}P}\gamma_N^{\hphantom{M}Q}\,\nabla_{P}\,u_Q\\
&=&
\frac12\left(b_{MN}+b_{NM}-\Theta\,\gamma_{MN}\right)+\frac12\left(b_{MN}-b_{NM}\right)+
\frac{\Theta}{2}\,\gamma_{MN}\,,
\label{null.decom}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Theta:=\gamma^{MN}\,b_{MN}.$$ Expression defines the shear, the vorticity and the expansion for a null geodecic congruence. To compute the shear of the congruence $\partial_r$ we note that $$\nabla_M u_N+\nabla_N u_M=\partial_r g_{MN}\,,$$ which, thanks to and , leads to $$b_{MN}+b_{NM}=\gamma_M^{\hphantom{M}P}\gamma_N^{\hphantom{M}Q}\,\partial_r g_{PQ}=
\gamma_M^{\hphantom{M}P}\gamma_N^{\hphantom{M}Q}\,\partial_r \gamma_{PQ}\,.$$ In addition, the expansion can be rewritten as: $$\Theta=\gamma^{MN}\gamma_M^{\hphantom{M}P}\gamma_N^{\hphantom{M}Q}\nabla_P u_Q=
\gamma^{PQ}\nabla_P u_Q=\nabla^P u_P=
\frac12\partial_r\ln g$$ ($g:=\vert\det\text{g}\vert$), where we used , and the fact that $\mathbf{k}$ is null and geodesic. The components of the shear tensor are given by $$\label{shear.4d}
\sigma_{MN}=\frac12\,\gamma_M^{\hphantom{M}P}\gamma_N^{\hphantom{M}Q}
\left(\partial_r\gamma_{PQ}-\frac{\gamma_{PQ}}{2}\partial_r\ln g\right),$$ of which the null ones are all vanishing by construction. Using , and , we can compute the determinant of the metric (in the frame $(\text{d}r, \text{d}t, \text{d}\zeta, \text{d}\bar \zeta)$): $$\label{det}
g=\frac{\Omega^2\rho^4}{P^4}\,.$$ Furthermore from and we find: $$\label{projector.null}
\gamma_{PQ}\,\text{d}x^P\text{d}x^Q=2\mathbf{m}\bar{\mathbf{m}}=\frac{2\rho^2}{P^2}\text{d}\zeta\text{d}\bar\zeta\,.$$ This is the metric on a conformally flat two-surface, and this structure is inherited from the form of the boundary metric itself, due to the shearlessness of the boundary congruence $\text{u}$, along the lines of . With and , and with $\Omega$ being $r$-independent, the expression for the shear of $\partial_r$ vanishes by cancellation between the two terms – exactly as it happens for $\nicefrac{\partial_t}{\Omega}$ in three dimensions. Had not $\nicefrac{\partial_t}{\Omega}$ been shear-free in three-dimensions, $\gamma_{PQ}\,\text{d}x^P\text{d}x^Q$ would not have been conformally flat, and $\partial_r$ would have had shear.
Finally we recapitulate the above results, regarding the original motivations: [*An arbitrary three-dimensional Lorentzian boundary metric can be uniquely expressed as a fiber bundle spanned by a timelike shearless vector field over a conformally flat two-dimensional base. The absence of shear for this boundary congruence guarantees that the corresponding null and geodesic bulk congruence is also shear-free. Thanks to the Goldberg–Sachs theorem and its generalizations, a reconstructed Einstein bulk geometry is algebraically special.*]{}
Perfect-fluid congruences {#appendix.perfect}
-------------------------
What makes a congruence $\text{u}$ be the velocity of a perfect conformal fluid? Conformal perfect fluids obey Euler’s equations, which in $D$ spacetime dimensions read ($x$ stands for generic coordinates): $$\label{PMP-Euler0}
\begin{cases}
(D-1)\text{u}(\ln p)+D\, \Theta=0 \\
\text{u}(\ln p)\, \text{u}
+\text{d}\ln p+D\, \mathrm{a}=0
\end{cases}$$ with $p(x)$ the pressure field and $\text{u}(f)=u^\mu \partial_\mu f$. Combining these equations, we obtain: $$\label{Euler0-int}
\text{A}+\text{d}\ln p^{\nicefrac{1}{D}}=0,$$ where $$\label{WconD}
\text{A}=\text{a} -\frac{\Theta}{D-1} \text{u}.$$ Equation is integrable if the Weyl connection $\text{A}$ is closed (hence locally exact). If $\text{dA}\neq 0$ the fluid flowing on $\text{u}$ is not perfect. If $\text{A}$ vanishes, the fluid is perfect and isobar.
The reconstructed boundary tensors for Plebański–Demiański {#emcomp}
==========================================================
We provide in this appendix the expressions for the boundary energy–momentum tensor and for the boundary Cotton tensor, as they are obtained from Eqs. and , when a perfect-fluid reference tensor is considered. We assume here that the integrability conditions , , and , imposed on the metric by the form of the Cotton, are fulfilled. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\text{T}&=&\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\text{d}s^2+\frac{3\varepsilon}{2k^4}\left(F^2\left(\text{d}\varphi-\chi^2\, \text{d}\tau\right)^2-G^2\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\right)^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\kappa c}{k^7}\,FG\left(\text{d}\varphi-\chi^2\, \text{d}\tau\right)\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\right)
\label{fullT}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\text{C}&=&\frac{c}{2}\text{d}s^2+\frac{3c}{2k^4}\left(F^2\left(\text{d}\varphi-\chi^2\, \text{d}\tau\right)^2-G^2\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\right)^2\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{9\varepsilon}{\kappa k}\,FG\left(\text{d}\varphi-\chi^2\, \text{d}\tau\right)\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\right),
\label{fullC}\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $\varepsilon(\chi)$ and $c(\chi)$ are given in and , while $F(\chi)$ and $G(\chi)$ are found in , and .
Neither the energy–momentum nor the Cotton is of the perfect form, given the velocity congruence $$\text{u}=\text{d}\varphi-
\chi^2\text{d}\tau +\frac{\text{d}\chi}{F}.\nonumber$$ The energy–momentum tensor $\text{T}$ can be decomposed as in Eqs. , in a perfect-fluid piece plus a deviation given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi&=&-\frac{3\varepsilon}{2k^4}\left(\left(F+k^2\right)G\left(\text{d}\varphi-\chi^2\, \text{d}\tau\right)^2+G^2\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\right)^2+
k^4\frac{\text{d}\chi^2}{F^2} \right)\\
&&-\left(\text{d}\varphi-\chi^2\, \text{d}\tau\right)\left(3\varepsilon\frac{\text{d}\chi}{F}+\frac{\kappa c}{k^7}FG\left(\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ This tensor contains all physical information regarding the boundary fluid: viscous hydrodynamic and non-hydrodynamic modes. It has been obtained here from purely boundary considerations, following integrability requirements.
The reconstructed null tetrad for Plebański–Demiański {#null}
=====================================================
We display here some intermediate elements necessary for resumming the boundary data provided by the metric , the congruence , and the energy–momentum . The resummation is performed using , for which we need to determine $\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{l}$ and $\mathbf{m}$ as in Eqs. and . We find: $$\label{uPD}
\mathbf{k}=-\text{u}=
\chi^2\text{d}\tau-\text{d}\varphi- \frac{\text{d}\chi}{F},$$ and $$\label{mPD}
\mathbf{m}=-\sqrt{\frac{G}{2}}\, \rho
\left(\sqrt{\chi^4+1}(\text{d}\tau+i\, \text{d}\varphi)
+\frac{k^2\left(i-\chi^2\right)\text{d}\chi}{FG \sqrt{\chi^4+1}}\right).$$ In order to determine $\mathbf{l}$, the following is also useful (see ): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RcPD}
\mathscr{R}=\frac{k^2}{\left(1+\chi^4\right)^2}
\bigg(2\chi^2(F-3G)
-2\chi^3
\left(1+\chi^4\right)G'
-
\left(1+\chi^4\right)^2G''
\bigg);
\end{aligned}$$ combined with and in , this leads to $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\frac{k^2}{2}\left(r^2+\frac{5\chi^2}{\left(1+\chi^4\right)^2}\right)
-
\frac{2\chi^2 G}{\left(1+\chi^4\right)^2}
\left(1+r\chi\left(1+\chi^4\right)\right)\nonumber
\\ && -\left(r+\frac{\chi^3}{1+\chi^4}\right)\frac{G'}{2}
-\frac{G''}{4} -\frac{\chi c}{2k^4\left(1+\chi^4\right)\rho^2}
-\frac{3r\varepsilon}{2k\kappa \rho^2}.
\label{HPD}
\end{aligned}$$ Further using and we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\gamma&:=&
-r \text{a} +
\frac{1}{2k^2} \ast(\text{u}\wedge (\text{d} q+q\text{a}))\\
\nonumber
&\ =&\frac{1}{\left(1+\chi^4\right)^2}
\bigg[
\frac{2k^2\chi^2}{F}\left(1-r\chi\left(1+\chi^4\right)\right)\text{d}\chi \\
&&-
G\left(\left(3\chi^4-1-2r\chi\left(1+\chi^4\right)^2\right)
\text{d}\tau+\chi^2\left(\chi^4-3\right)\text{d}\varphi
\right)\bigg].
\label{starqPD}
\end{aligned}$$ Finally Eq. provides $\mathbf{l}$: $$\label{lPD}
\mathbf{l}=-\text{d}r-H \text{u}
+
\gamma.$$ In the above expressions $F(\chi)$ and $G(\chi)$ are given in , and , and the energy density $\varepsilon(\chi)$ and Cotton projection $c(\chi)$ are displayed in and .
[99.]{} R. Geroch, *A method for generating solutions of Einstein’s equations,*\
[J. Math Phys. **12** (1971) 918.](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/12/6/10.1063/1.1665681)
R. Geroch, *A method for generating new solutions of Einstein’s equation, II,*\
[J. Math. Phys. [**13**]{} (1972) 394.](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/13/3/10.1063/1.1665990) J. Ehlers, *Les théories relativistes de la gravitation*, CNRS, Paris, 1959.
F.J. Ernst, *New formulation of the axially symmetric gravitational field problem,*\
[Phys. Rev. [**167**]{}, (1968) 1175.](http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.167.1175) F.J. Ernst, *New Formulation of the Axially Symmetric Gravitational Field Problem, II,*\
[Phys. Rev. **168** (1968) 1415.](http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.168.1415)
P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison, *On the Geroch group,* [Annales IHP [**A46**]{} (1987) 215.](https://eudml.org/doc/76358) V. Belinskii and V. Zakharov, *Integration of the Einstein equations by means of the inverse scattering problem technique and construction of exact soliton solutions,*\
[Sov. Phys. JETP **48** (1978) 6.](http://www.jetp.ac.ru/cgi-bin/e/index/e/48/6/p985?a=list)
D. Maison, *Are the stationary, axially symmetric Einstein equations completely integrable?,* [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**41**]{} (1978) 521.](http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.521) D. Maison, *On the complete integrability of the stationary, axially symmetric Einstein equations,* [J. Math. Phys. **20** (1979) 871.](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/20/5/10.1063/1.524134)
P.O. Mazur, *Properties and integrability of the Ernst equations*, Ph. D. Thesis, Jagellonian University, Krakow, Poland, unpublished (in Polish).
C. Charmousis, D. Langlois, D.A. Steer and R. Zegers, *Rotating spacetimes with a cosmological constant,* JHEP [**0702**]{} (2007) 064, [arXiv:gr-qc/0610091.](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610091) M.M. Caldarelli, R. Emparan and M.J. Rodriguez, *Black rings in (anti-)de Sitter space,* JHEP [**0811**]{} (2008) 011, [arXiv:0806.1954 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1954)
M. Astorino, *Charging axisymmetric space-times with cosmological constant,* JHEP [**1206**]{} (2012) 086, [arXiv:1205.6998 \[gr-qc\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6998) R.G. Leigh, A.C. Petkou, P.M. Petropoulos and P.K. Tripathy, *The Geroch group in Einstein spaces,* Class. Quant. Grav. [**31**]{} (2014) 225006, [arXiv:1403.6511 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6511) C. Fefferman and C.R. Graham, *Conformal invariants*, in *Elie Cartan et les mathématiques d’aujourd’hui,* Astérisque, 1985, numéro hors série Soc. Math. France, Paris, 95.
C. Fefferman and C.R. Graham, *The ambient metric*, [arXiv:0710.0919 \[math.DG\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0919)
M. Haack and A. Yarom, *Nonlinear viscous hydrodynamics in various dimensions using AdS/CFT,* JHEP [**0810**]{} (2008) 063, [arXiv:0806.4602 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4602)
S. Bhattacharyya, R. Loganayagam, I. Mandal, S. Minwalla and A. Sharma, *Conformal nonlinear fluid dynamics from gravity in arbitrary dimensions*, JHEP [**0812**]{} (2008) 116, [arXiv:0809.4272 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4272) S. Bhattacharyya, R. Loganayagam, S. Minwalla, S. Nampuri, S.P. Trivedi and S.R. Wadia, *Forced fluid dynamics from gravity*, JHEP [**0902**]{} (2009) 018, [arXiv:0806.0006 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0006) M.M. Caldarelli, R.G. Leigh, A.C. Petkou, P.M. Petropoulos, V. Pozzoli and K. Siampos, *Vorticity in holographic fluids*, Proc. of Science **Corfu11** (2012) 076,\
[arXiv:1206.4351 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4351)
A. Mukhopadhyay, A.C. Petkou, P.M. Petropoulos, V. Pozzoli and K. Siampos, *Holographic perfect fluidity, Cotton energy–momentum duality and transport properties*, JHEP **04** (2014) 136, [arXiv:1309.2310 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2310)
J. Gath, A. Mukhopadhyay, A.C. Petkou, P.M. Petropoulos and K. Siampos, *Petrov classification and holographic reconstruction of spacetime,* JHEP [**1509**]{} (2015) 005, [arXiv:1506.04813 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04813) J.F. Plebański and M. Demiański, *Rotating, charged, and uniformly accelerating mass in general relativity*, [Annals Phys. [**98**]{} (1976) 98.](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003491676902402) S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, *The large scale structure of spacetime*, CUP 1973.
H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers and E. Herlt, *Exact solutions to Einstein’s field equations*, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, CUP 2003.
D.D.K. Chow, C.N. Pope and E. Sezgin, *Classification of solutions in topologically massive gravity*, Class. Quant. Grav. [**27**]{} (2010) 105001, [arXiv:0906.3559 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3559) D.S. Mansi, A.C. Petkou and G. Tagliabue, *Gravity in the $3+1$-split formalism I: holography as an initial value problem*, Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{} (2009) 045008,\
[arXiv:0808.1212 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1212) D.S. Mansi, A.C. Petkou and G. Tagliabue, *Gravity in the $3+1$-split formalism II: self-duality and the emergence of the gravitational Chern–Simons in the boundary*,\
Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{} (2009) 045009, [arXiv:0808.1213 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1213)
P.M. Petropoulos, *Gravitational duality, topologically massive gravity and holographic fluids*, Lect. Notes Phys. [**892**]{} (2015) 331, [arXiv:1406.2328 \[hep-th\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2328).
B. Coll, J. Llosa and D. Soler, [*Three-dimensional metrics as deformations of a constant curvature metric*]{}, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**34**]{} (2002) 269, [gr-qc/0104070.](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104070) M.P. Heller, R.A. Janik and P. Witaszczyk, *Hydrodynamic gradient expansion in gauge theory plasmas,* Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{} (2013) 211602, [arXiv:1302.0697 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0697)
J. Griffiths and J. Podolsk' y, *Exact spacetimes in Einstein’s general relativity*, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, CUP 2009.
R.G. Leigh, A.C. Petkou and P.M. Petropoulos, *Holographic three-dimensional fluids with nontrivial vorticity*, Phys. Rev. [**D85**]{} (2012) 086010, [arXiv:1108.1393 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1393) R.G. Leigh, A.C. Petkou and P.M. Petropoulos, *Holographic fluids with vorticity and analogue gravity*, JHEP [**1211**]{} (2012) 121, [arXiv:1205.6140 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6140)
R. Argurio and F. Dehouck, [*Gravitational duality and rotating solutions*]{},\
Phys. Rev. [**D81**]{} (2010) 064010, [arXiv:0909.0542 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0542) C. Bunster, M. Henneaux and S. Hortner, [*Gravitational electric-magnetic duality, gauge invariance and twisted self-duality*]{}, J. Phys. [**A46**]{} (2013) 214016, [arXiv:1207.1840 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1840) S. de Haro, *Dual gravitons in AdS$_4$/CFT$_3$ and the holographic Cotton tensor*,\
JHEP [**0901**]{} (2009) 042, [arXiv:0808.2054 \[hep-th\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2054) J. Podolský and H. Kadlecova, [*Radiation generated by accelerating and rotating charged black holes in (anti-)de Sitter space*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{} (2009) 105007,\
[arXiv:0903.3577 \[gr-qc\].](http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3577)
[^1]: For the benefit of the reader, we reproduce in this section the results of [@Gath:2015nxa] on how exact four-dimensional Einstein spacetimes can be reconstructed from boundary data. In addition, we provide the explicit proof that these geometries, with appropriate choice of boundary data, are Petrov algebraically special.
[^2]: The Cotton and Levi–Civita are pseudo–tensors, *i.e.* they change sign under a parity transformation. It is therefore important to state the convention in use.
[^3]: We will provide the details in the already announced upcoming publication (see also e.g. [@Mansi:2008br; @Mansi:2008bs]).
[^4]: In fact, the ambiguity is only between type D and type II, since these types have the same number of eigenvalues. This was noticed e.g. in the Robinson–Trautman metric studied in [@Gath:2015nxa].
[^5]: See e.g. [@Coll] and our discussion in App. \[4to3\]. This statement is not true in the presence of isometries, where more shearless congruences may exist. In these cases, the distinct congruences are equivalent.
[^6]: We could even set $\Omega=1$, without spoiling the generality – as we are interested in the conformal class.
[^7]: The Hodge duality is here meant with respect to the three-dimensional boundary: $\ast(\text{u}\wedge \text{d} q)= \eta_{\mu}^{\hphantom{\mu}\nu\sigma}u_\nu\partial_\sigma q\, \text{d}x^\mu$.
[^8]: The congruence $\text{u}=\nicefrac{\partial_t}{\Omega}$ is in this case shearless and expansionless with $
\text{A}=\text{d}\ln \Omega
$.
[^9]: This form of $\text{T}^\pm$ is Segre type D. Alternative choices are available, such as e.g. pure-radiation reference tensors. This option was exploited in [@Gath:2015nxa], with a different boundary metric, and produced Petrov-N Robinson–Trautman Einstein spaces. Similarly, we could proceed here with a more general ansatz aiming at recovering all possible two-Killing Einstein spaces. Restricting ourselves to the perfect-fluid form, we will only reproduce the Petrov-D ones.
[^10]: They are also shearless and carry vorticity, but this plays no rôle here.
[^11]: For the sake of clarity many expressions will still contain both $F$ and $G$, even though these are no longer independent: $F+G = k^2$. The boundary metric in particular reads: $$\text{d}s^2=
-\frac{F -\chi^4 G }{k^2}
\text{d}\varphi^2 +
\frac{G -\chi^4 F }{k^2}\text{d}\tau^2
+2\chi^2\, \text{d}\varphi\, \text{d}\tau+\frac{\text{d}\chi^2}{F G }.$$
[^12]: A principal null direction $\mathbf{n}$ obeys $n_{[\rho}W_{\kappa]\lambda\mu[\nu}n_{\sigma]}n^\lambda n^\mu=0$, where $W_{\kappa\lambda\mu\nu}$ are the components of the Weyl tensor.
[^13]: The null tetrad is not uniquely defined: one can perform boosts in the $\mathbf{k}$-$\mathbf{l}$ plane, null rotations (with $\mathbf{k}$ fixed) and spatial rotations in the $\mathbf{m}$-$\bar{\mathbf{m}}$ plane [@Stephani:624239; @PMP-GP].
[^14]: Here, the parameter $n$ is not exactly the nut charge, but is closely related to it (and dressed with the cosmological constant *i.e.* $k$). The physical parameters such as the nut charge, the angular velocity or the black-hole acceleration are obtained via a rescaling accompanied with a coordinate transformation, leading to more involved expressions, which we have avoided here. These expressions can be found in [@PMP-GP]; they are useful because they allow to consider the limit of vanishing acceleration parameter, where one recovers the results of Ref. [@Mukhopadhyay:2013gja]: $$\text{u}^+=\text{u}^-=\text{u} \quad \text{and} \quad
\text{T}^{+}\propto \text{T}^{-}\propto \text{T}\propto \text{C}.$$
[^15]: Our conventions are: $A_{(MN)}:=\nicefrac{1}{2}\left(A_{MN}+A_{NM}\right)$ and $A_{[MN]}:=\nicefrac{1}{2}\left(A_{MN}-A_{NM}\right)$.
[^16]: A discussion on this issue can be found in Ref. [@Coll].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study solutions to elliptic linear equations $L(u)=\partial_i(a^{ij}(x)\partial_j u) + b^i(x) \partial _i u + c(x) u=0$, either on ${\mathds{R}}^n$ or a Riemannian manifold, under the assumption of Lipschitz control on the coefficients $a^{ij}$. We focus our attention on the critical set ${\mathcal{C}}(u)\equiv\{x:|\nabla u|=0\}$ and the singular set ${\mathcal{S}}(u)\equiv\{x:u=|\nabla u|=0\}$, and more importantly on effective versions of these. Currently, under the coefficient control we have assumed, the strongest results in the literature say that the singular set is $n-2$-dimensional, however at this point it has not even been shown that ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{S}})<\infty$ unless the coefficients are smooth. Fundamentally, this is due to the need of an $\epsilon$-regularity theorem which requires higher coefficient control as the frequency increases. We introduce new techniques for estimating the critical and singular set, which avoids the need of any such $\epsilon$-regularity. Consequently, we prove that if the frequency of $u$ is bounded by $\Lambda$ then we have the estimates ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{C}}(u))\leq C^{\Lambda^2}$, ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{S}}(u))\leq C^{\Lambda^2}$, depending on whether the equation is critical or not. More importantly, we prove corresponding estimates for the [*effective*]{} critical and singular sets. Even under the assumption of analytic coefficients these results are much sharper than those currently in the literature. We also give applications of the technique to the nodal set of solutions, and to give estimates on the corresponding eigenvalue problem.'
author:
- 'Aaron Naber and Daniele Valtorta [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'nava\_bib.bib'
title: Volume estimates on the critical sets of solutions to elliptic PDEs
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Conjectural Theorem]{}
\[theorem\][Proposition]{}
\[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Conjectural Lemma]{}
\[theorem\][Corollary]{}
\[theorem\][Definition]{}
\[theorem\][Remark]{}
\[theorem\][Example]{}
\[theorem\][Note]{}
\[theorem\][Notation]{}
\[theorem\][Question]{}
\[theorem\][Conjecture]{}
Introduction:
=============
In this paper, we study solutions $u$ to second order linear homogeneous elliptic equations with Lipschitz leading coefficients. That is, we will study on ${\mathds{R}}^n$ solutions $u$ to the equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_Lu}
{\mathcal{L}}(u)=\partial_i(a^{ij}(x)\partial_j u) + b^i(x) \partial _i u + c(x) u=0\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where the coefficients $a$ are Lipschitz and the coefficients $b,c$ are bounded. More effectively, we assume
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:coefficient_estimates}
&(1+\lambda)^{-1}\delta^{ij}\leq a^{ij}\leq (1+\lambda)\delta^{ij}, \,\notag\\
&\text{Lip}(a^{ij}), \,\, {\left|b^i\right|},\,\,{\left|c\right|}\leq \lambda\, .\end{aligned}$$
We will call the equation [*critical*]{} if $c\equiv 0$. Given the local nature of the estimates and the techniques involved in their proof, it is not restrictive to assume for simplicity that $u$ is defined on the ball $B_1(0)\subset {\mathds{R}}^n$. With simple modifications the results are easily extensible also to more general domains in Riemannian manifolds. Using a new covering argument we prove new $n-2$-[*Minkowski*]{} estimates on the critical and singular sets $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{C}}(u)\equiv\{x\in B_{1/2}(0):|\nabla u|=0\}\, ,\,\,\,\,\, {\mathcal{S}}(u)\equiv\{x\in B_{1/2}(0):u=|\nabla u|=0\}\, .\end{aligned}$$ In principal, for general equations we will prove estimates on ${\mathcal{S}}(u)$, while for critical equations we will prove estimates on ${\mathcal{C}}(u)$. It will be convenient to denote by ${\mathcal{CS}}(u)$ either the critical set ${\mathcal{C}}(u)$ or singular set ${\mathcal{S}}(u)$, depending on whether the equation (\[eq\_Lu\]) is critical or not, respectively. Note that if we wish to control the $n-2$-measure of critical or singular sets, then the assumption of Lipschitz coefficients is a sharp assumption, since if the coefficients are only Hölder one can find nontrivial solutions which vanish on open subsets, see [@plis].\
More importantly we will prove estimates on the [*effective*]{} critical and singular sets ${\mathcal{C}}_r(u)$, ${\mathcal{S}}_r(u)$. The effective critical and singular sets were first introduced by the authors in [@chnava]. In essence, $x\in {\mathcal{C}}_r(u)$ if on the definite size ball $B_r(x)$ we have that $|\nabla u|$ has a definite size relative to $u$, more precisely we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:effective_critical}
&{\mathcal{C}}_r(u)\equiv{\left\{x\in B_{1/2}(0): \inf_{B_r(x)}|\nabla u|^2 < \frac{n}{16r^2}\fint_{\partial B_{2r}(x)} |u-u(x)|^2\right\}}\, ,\notag\\
&{\mathcal{S}}_r(u)\equiv{\left\{x\in B_{1/2}(0): \inf_{B_r(x)}{\left({\left|u\right|}^2 + \frac{r^2}{n} |\nabla u|^2 \right)} < \frac{1}{16}\fint_{\partial B_{2r}(x)} |u|^2\right\}}\, .\end{aligned}$$
Again we will denote by ${\mathcal{CS}}_r(u)$ the effective critical or singular set, depending on whether the equation is critical or not. Notice that for every $r>0$ we have that ${\mathcal{CS}}(u)\subseteq {\mathcal{CS}}_r(u)$, and more effectively that points of ${\mathcal{CS}}_r(u)$ are those points which have a definite amount of gradient on a ball of definite size.
#### Background:
To control the critical and singular sets of a solution to (\[eq\_Lu\]) more information about the solution is needed. For instance, one could just take the solution $u=0$, which by all regards is a great solution but there is no control on the critical and singular set. It has been understood for some time that being a constant or close to a constant is all that can really go wrong, and hence what is important is to control how far away $u$ is from a constant solution. The right measurement for this is are the frequencies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d:frequency}
N^u_{{\mathcal{C}}}(x,r)\equiv \frac{r\int_{B_r(x)} |\nabla u|^2}{\int_{\partial B_r(x)} (u-u(x))^2}\, ,\,\, N^u_{{\mathcal{S}}}(x,r)\equiv \frac{r \int_{B_r(x)} |\nabla u|^2}{\int_{\partial B_r(x)} u^2}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and their generalizations (see Section \[ss:generalized\_frequency\]), where we denote by $N^u(x,r)$ either $N^u_{{\mathcal{C}}}(x,r)$ or $N^u_{{\mathcal{S}}}(x,r)$, depending on whether (\[eq\_Lu\]) is critical or not, respectively. By unique continuation and the maximum principle, if $u$ is not constant then $N^u$ is well defined for positive $r$. For a fixed solution $u$ of (\[eq\_Lu\]) we then denote by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda \equiv N^u(0,1)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ the frequency bound of $u$. The main conjecture in the area goes back to Lin [@lin], which predicts that for some constant $C(n,\lambda)$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{CS}}(u))< C\Lambda^2\, .\end{aligned}$$ The best that has been proved in the literature at this point goes back to [@hanlin; @hanhardtlin; @HLrank], which proves under the assumption of [*smooth*]{} coefficients there exists constants $C(n,a,b,c,\Lambda)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{CS}}(u))< C(n,a,b,c,\Lambda)\, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, there is no effective control on the coefficients at all. If one drops the assumption of smoothness on the coefficients, even if one assumes control over a large number of derivatives but not all, then the situation becomes drastically worse. In this case the best that has been proven is in [@hanlin; @han_sing], where it was shown that Hausdorff dimension satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\dim{\mathcal{CS}}(u) = n-2\, ,\end{aligned}$$ however it was not even shown that ${\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{CS}}(u))<\infty$. There is a fundamental reason for this, as the results of [@hanlin],[@lin] rely on an $\epsilon$-regularity theorem which requires additional smoothness as the frequency increases. One of the main goals of this paper is to improve on these estimates by removing the need for such an $\epsilon$-regularity theorem.
In another direction there are more recent results from [@chnava] that attempt to prove more effective estimates on the critical and singular sets. Namely, even a Hausdorff dimension bound has limited application. In short, the Hausdorff dimension of a set can be small while still being dense. On the other hand, Minkowski estimates bound not only the set in question, but the tubular neighborhood of that set, providing a much more analytically effective notion of [*size*]{}. For example, we recall that the set of rational numbers in ${\mathds{R}}^n$ has Hausdorff dimension $0$ and Minkowski dimension $n$. What is needed for applications to nonlinear equations are control over the critical and singular sets on balls of definite size. That is, it would be better to estimate ${\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r({\mathcal{CS}}(u)))$, and even better to make the statement that if $x\not\in B_r({\mathcal{CS}}(u))$ then the gradient of $u$ on $B_r(x)$ has some definite size. The first results in this direction were proven in [@chnava], where by using the ideas of quantitative stratification it was shown under only Lipschitz coefficients that for every $\epsilon>0$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r({\mathcal{CS}}_r(u))) < C(n,\lambda,\epsilon) r^{2-\epsilon}\, .\end{aligned}$$ This gives the much stronger Minkowski estimates on the critical set. Unfortunately, while such an estimate is much stronger than $\dim{\mathcal{CS}}(u) = n-2$, the existence of the $\epsilon$ still prevents one from obtaining finiteness of the $n-2$-measure.
Main Results
------------
Now we briefly describe our main new results.
#### Main Result for Critical and Singular Sets:
In this paper we have developed a new method for controlling the critical and singular sets, distinct from the techniques of either [@chnava] or [@hanlin]. Before discussing the methods, let us state our main results and compare them to the literature:
\[t:main\_critical\] Let $u:B_1(0)\to {\mathds{R}}$ solve (\[eq\_Lu\]) with lipschitz coefficients satisfying (\[e:coefficient\_estimates\]). There exists $r_0=r_0(n,\lambda)>0$ and $C=C(n,\lambda)$ such that if $\Lambda\equiv N^u(0,2r_0)$, then the following Minkowski estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:mink_est}
{\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r({\mathcal{CS}}(u))\cap B_{r_0}(0)) \leq {\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r({\mathcal{CS}}_r(u))\cap B_{r_0}(0)) \leq C^{\Lambda^2}\, r^2\, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we have the much weaker estimate on the Hausdorff measure $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:haus_est}
{\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{CS}}(u)\cap B_{r_0}(0))\leq C^{\Lambda^2}\, .\end{aligned}$$
Since this statement is scale invariant, we will assume for convenience that $r_0\geq 1$. This can be obtained using a suitable blow-up of the domain of the function $u$, or, equivalently, by assuming $\lambda$ to be small enough.
Before continuing let us make some remarks about Theorem \[t:main\_critical\]. Even under the assumption of analytic coefficients the Hausdorff measure estimate of (\[e:haus\_est\]) is the first which gives an [*effective*]{} bound for the $n-2$ Hausdorff measure of the critical and singular sets, while of course the Minkowski estimate of (\[e:mink\_est\]) is in fact significantly stronger. As was previously discussed, under the assumption of Lipschitz coefficients the Hausdorff estimate (\[e:haus\_est\]) is the first to give that the $n-2$-Hausdorff measure is even finite. In fact, the techniques even show that the critical and singular sets are [*finitely*]{} rectifiable. That is, away from a set of $n-2$-measure zero we have that ${\mathcal{CS}}(u)$ is the finite union of biLipschitz images of subsets of ${\mathds{R}}^{n-2}$. On a manifold the constant $C$ should also depend on the sectional curvature bound of the manifold.
#### Main Results for Nodal Sets:
By a simple adaptation of the arguments used for critical sets, we are able to also give estimates on the [*nodal*]{} set of solutions $u$ to . In this case our effective Hausdorff estimates match those that are currently in the literature, however we do prove the significantly stronger Minkowski versions as well, which is quite new. To state the results let us recall the definition of the nodal and [*effective*]{} nodal sets given by $$\begin{aligned}
&Z(u)\equiv \{x\in B_{1/2}(0):u(x)=0\}\, ,\notag\\
&Z_r(u)\equiv {\left\{x\in B_{1/2}(0): \inf_{B_r(x)}|u|^2(x)<\epsilon(n)\fint_{\partial B_{2r}(x)}|u|^2\right\}}\, .\end{aligned}$$ As with the effective critical and singular sets, the effective nodal set represents the set of points where $u$ has a definite size on a ball of definite size. It is again the frequency which plays a key role in controlling the nodal set, though in this case it is the singular frequency $N^u_{\mathcal{S}}$. The primary conjecture in the area goes back to Yau, which predicts that there exists a constant $C(n,\lambda)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
H^{n-1}(Z(u))< C\Lambda\, .\end{aligned}$$ Yau’s conjecture has been proven in [@DonFef] for analytic coefficients. For Lipschitz coefficients the best result known are given in [@HardtSimon] which give the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
H^{n-1}(Z(u))< \Lambda^{C\Lambda}\, .\end{aligned}$$ The techniques of this paper, which are quite different from that of [@HardtSimon], can recapture that result, as well as improve it to the stronger Minkowski version. More specifically, our main theorem in this direction is the following:
\[t:main\_nodal\] Let $u:B_1(0)\to {\mathds{R}}$ solve (\[eq\_Lu\]) with the coefficients satisfying (\[e:coefficient\_estimates\]). There exists $r_0=r_0(n,\lambda)>0$ and $C=C(n,\lambda)$ such that if $\Lambda\equiv N^u(0,2r_0)$, then the following Minkowski estimates hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:mink_est_nod}
{\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r(Z(u))\cap B_{r_0}(0)) \leq {\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r(Z_r(u))\cap B_{r_0}(0)) \leq C^{\Lambda^2}\, r^2\, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we have the much weaker estimate on the Hausdorff measure $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:haus_est_nod}
{\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}(Z(u)\cap B_{r_0}(0))\leq C^{\Lambda^2}\, .\end{aligned}$$
#### Applications to Eigenvalue Equation on Manifolds:
Let us now assume we are working on a compact Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ with at least Lipschitz metric $g$. In this context we are most interested in studying the Laplace beltrami operator $\Delta u \equiv \text{div} \nabla u$, though the results hold equally well for other second order operators. It is well understood that the eigenvalues $0=\lambda_0<\lambda_1\leq \lambda_2\leq \cdots$ of $-\Delta$ are discrete with $\lambda_j\to \infty$. As an application of Theorems \[t:main\_critical\] and \[t:main\_nodal\], as well as the doubling estimate of [@DonFef] we have the following:
For a compact lipschitz Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ there exists a constant $C(g)$ such that if $u$ solves the eigenfunction equation $-\Delta u = \lambda u$ then we have the Minkowski estimates $$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r({\mathcal{S}}(u))) \leq {\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r({\mathcal{S}}_r(u))) \leq C^{\lambda}\,r^2\, ,\notag\\
&{\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r(Z(u))) \leq {\operatorname{Vol}}(B_r(Z_r(u))) \leq \lambda^{C\sqrt{\lambda}}\,r\, .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we have the much weaker estimate on the Hausdorff measure $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal{H}}^{n-2}({\mathcal{S}}(u))\leq C^{\lambda}\, ,\notag\\
&{\mathcal{H}}^{n-1}(Z(u))\leq \lambda^{C\sqrt{\lambda}}\, .\end{aligned}$$
Preliminaries and Outline of Proof
==================================
In this section we concentrate on introducing the correct terminology for the paper, as well as giving an outline for the proof of the mains Theorems. To keep the arguments as non-convoluded as possible we will concentrate on proving Theorem \[t:main\_critical\] in the context where (\[eq\_Lu\]) is critical, as the other results are completely analogous.
The main new ingredient to the proof of Theorem \[t:main\_critical\] is a new covering argument, which itself relies on a new [*effective*]{} tangent map uniqueness statement. In section \[ss:tangent\_maps\] we review the notion of a blow up and discuss the new results in this paper related to them. In section \[ss:critical\_radius\] we discuss the notion of the critical radius. In section \[ss:proof\_outline\] we outline the proof of Theorem \[t:main\_critical\], and in particular the new covering argument.
Generalized Frequency
---------------------
For solutions of (\[eq\_Lu\]) it is more natural and convenient on small scales to work with a generalization of the frequency function (\[d:frequency\]) which takes into account better the coefficients of the equation. Among other things this allows one to preserve the essential property of [*monotonicity*]{} for the frequency. Such a generalized frequency was first introduced in [@galin1; @galin2; @hanlin], and further expanded in [@chnava]. We will follow the mild extensions given in [@chnava], which are discussed in Section \[ss:generalized\_frequency\]. For now, we simply wish to remark that the frequency $N$ in the next subsections will refer to the generalized frequency.
Tangent Maps and Blow Ups {#ss:tangent_maps}
-------------------------
In this subsection we define the notion of a blow up and discuss both new and old results related to it. To discuss this with precision, let us define for $x\in B_1(0)$ the linear transformation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_Q}
Q_{x} (y) = q_{ij}(y-x)^i e^j\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $q^{ij}(x)$ is the square root of the matrix $a^{ij}(x)$. For instance if we consider just the Laplacian then $Q\equiv I$ is just the identity map. It is evident that $Q_x$ is a bi-Lipschitz equivalence from ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ to itself with Lipschitz constant $\leq (1+\lambda)^{1/2}$. Thus if $u$ solves (\[eq\_Lu\]) with $x\in B_{1/2}(0)$ and $r<\frac{1}{2(1+\lambda)^{1/2}}$ then we can define the blow up by
\[d:tangent\]
1. For $x\in B_{1/2}(0)$ and $r<\frac{1}{2(1+\lambda)^{1/2}}$ we define $T^u_{x,r}:B_{r^{-1}}(0)\to{\mathds{R}}$ by $$\begin{gathered}
T_{x,r}^u(y) = \frac{u(x+rQ_x(y))-u(x)}{{\left(\fint_{\partial B_1(0)} (u(x+rQ_x (y))-u(x))^2 \right)}^{1/2}}\, .\end{gathered}$$
2. For $x\in B_1(0)$ we define $$\begin{gathered}
T_x^u(y)=\lim_{r\to 0} T_{x,r}u(y)\, .\end{gathered}$$
By unique continuation and the maximum principle, $T^u_{x,r}$ is defined for all positive $r$ sufficiently small. The existence of the limit is a different matter. If the coefficients of the equation are smooth, its existence is an easy consequence of Taylor’s theorem and the unique continuation principle. In this case, the limit is unique and, up to rescaling, $T_x^u$ is just the leading order polynomial of the Taylor expansion of $u-u(x)$ at $x$. In the general case, the existence of the limit has been proved in [@han_sing] and is a deeply important property of solutions to .
Using a simple change of variables, it is easy to see that the function $T$ satisfies an elliptic PDE of the form: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_LT}
\tilde {\mathcal{L}}(u)=\partial_i{\left(\tilde a^{ij} \partial _j T\right)} + \tilde b^i \partial_i T +\tilde c T =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$ with $\tilde a^{ij}(0)=\delta^{ij}$. Moreover, the conditions imply similar estimates for the coefficients $\tilde a^{ij}, \ \tilde b^i$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_aT}
(1+\lambda r)^{-1}\delta^{ij}\leq \tilde a^{ij}\leq (1+\lambda r)\delta^{ij}, \, \text{Lip}(\tilde a^{ij})\leq \lambda r\, , \,
{\left|\tilde b^i\right|},{\left|\tilde c\right|} \leq \lambda r\, .\end{gathered}$$
An important property of the blow ups is that they are controlled by the frequency. We say the frequency at $x$ is $\delta$-pinched on the scales $[r_0,r_1]$ if $|N(x,r_0)-N(x,r_1)|<\delta$. It is known, see [@chnava] for instance, that for every $\epsilon>0$ there is a $\delta>0$ such that if the frequency is $\delta$-pinched at $r$, then $T^u_{x,r}$ is $\epsilon$ close to some homogeneous harmonic polynomial $P_d$. The primary weakness of this result from [@chnava], besides its lack of effectiveness, is that if the frequency is $\delta$-pinched over a potentially large number of scales $[r_0,r_1]$, then the homogeneous harmonic polynomial $P^{(r)}_d$ which $T^u_{x,r}$ is close to may depend on $r$.
In this paper, using arguments which extends both those of [@chnava] and the tangent map uniqueness result of [@han_sing], we prove a result which strengthens both of these into a much more effective statement. Namely, we see that for every $\epsilon>0$ there is a $\delta>0$, which is in fact given explicitly and sharply, such that if the frequency is $\delta$ pinched on scales $[r_0,r_1]$, then there exists a [*unique*]{} homogeneous harmonic polynomial $P_d$ such that $T_{x,r}$ is $\epsilon$-close to $P_d$ for all $r\in [r_0,r_1]$. See Theorem \[t:eff\_tan\_con\_uniq\_harm\] for the harmonic case and Theorem \[t:eff\_tan\_con\_uniq\] for the general case. Both the uniqueness and the effectiveness of the constants play an important role in Theorem \[t:main\_critical\].
The Critical Radius {#ss:critical_radius}
-------------------
Let us begin with the following definition of the critical radius:
Given $x\in B_{1/2}(0)$ we define $$\begin{gathered}
r_c(x)\equiv r_x = \sup{\left\{0\leq s\leq r_0: N(x,s)<\frac{3}{2}\right\}} \, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $r_0(n,\lambda)>0$ is a small constant chosen from Lemma \[l:frequency\_comparison\].
Let us quickly remark on the following, which is easy to prove, see for instance [@chnava] and Lemma \[lemma\_ell3/2\]:
\[l:frequency\_comparison\] There exists $C(n,\lambda)>0$ and $r_0(n,\lambda)>0$ such that if $r_x>Cr$ with $r\leq r_0$, then $\inf_{B_r(x)}|\nabla u|^2 > \frac{n}{4r^2}\fint_{\partial B_{2r}(x)} |u-u(x)|^2$. In particular, we have the inclusion $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{C}}_r(u)\subseteq\{x\in B_{1/2}(0):\ r_x\leq Cr\}\, .\end{aligned}$$
The above Lemma allows us in the proof of Theorem \[t:main\_critical\] to prove a volume estimate on the set $\{r_x<r\}$, which will be more natural in the context of the frequency.
Let us now generalize the above construction, as it will play an important role in our covering argument. For $d\in{\mathds{N}}$ a fixed integer let us define the following $d$-critical radius:
Given $x\in B_1(0)$ in its domain, we define the $d$-critical radius $$\begin{gathered}
r^d_x = \sup{\left\{0\leq s\leq r_0: \forall y\in B_s(x) \text{ we have that } N(y,s)< d+\epsilon_0\right\}} \, .
\end{gathered}$$
Though not supremely important at this stage, the constant $\epsilon_0(n,\lambda)>0$ is chosen from Corollary \[c:cone\_splitting\] by setting $\tau=10^{-6}$, and the radius $r_0(n,\lambda, d)$ is chosen from Theorem \[t:eff\_tan\_con\_uniq\].
For the sake of the outline all that is important is that the constants in the above definition are chosen small enough that one has the effective cone splitting of Corollary \[c:cone\_splitting\].
Outline of Proof {#ss:proof_outline}
----------------
The proof comes by working inductively on $d$-critical balls. In this short subsection we will try to outline the general idea of the construction without worrying about precision or technical details.
Let $u$ be a solution of (\[eq\_Lu\]) such that the frequency is bounded by $\Lambda$ as in the statement of Theorem \[t:main\_critical\]. Using the results of Sections \[s:harmonic\] and \[s:general\_elliptic\] it is not hard to see that there exists a constant $C(n,\lambda)$ and an integer $d\leq C\Lambda$ such that for each $x\in B_{1/2}(0)$ we have the $d$-critical radius bound $r^d_x\geq r_0$, where $r_0\geq \epsilon(n,\lambda)^{-d}$. We can cover $B_{1/2}(0)$ by at most an exponential number of such balls, thus there is no harm in estimating each such ball individually and adding up the error. Note that on each such ball that after rescaling $r_x\to 1$ and translating $x\to 0$ we can assume we are working on a ball $B_1(0)$ such that $r^d_0\geq 1$.
Now let us fix $r>0$ and assume $B_1(0)$ is such that $r^d_0\geq 1$ as above. The rough goal is to find a collection of balls $\{B_{r_i}(x_i)\}\subseteq B_1(0)$ with the following properties:
1. For each $i$ either $r_i=r$ or $r_i = r_{x_i}^{d-1}$.
2. If $x\not\in \cup B_{r_i}(x_i)$ then $r_x<r$, which is to say $x\not\in {\mathcal{C}}_r(u)$.
3. We have the estimate $\sum r_i^{n-2} < C(n,\lambda)^d$.
Ignoring the construction of the balls $B_{r_i}(x_i)$ for a moment, let us remark that we are done if we can always find such a collection. Indeed, in this case we can then consider each ball $B_{r_i}(x_i)$ independently. If $r_i=r$ we leave the ball alone, otherwise by rescaling $r_i\to 1$ and translating $x_i\to 0$ we now have a ball $B_1(0)$ such that $r^{d-1}_0\geq 1$, and hence we can find a $d-1$-covering as above for the new ball. In particular, this means we can cover $B_{r_i}(x_i)$ by a collection of balls $B_{r_{ij}}(x_{ij})$ which satisfy the above conditions for $d-2$. Summing over all $i$ and $j$ gives us a collection of balls $\{B_{r_{ij}}(x_{ij})\}\subseteq B_1(0)$ of our original ball which satisfy (1) and (2) above and for which $$\begin{aligned}
\sum r_{ij}^{n-2}\leq C(n,\lambda)^{d}\cdot C(n,\lambda)^{d-1}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Continuing this $d$ times we arrive at a collection of balls $B_r(y_j)$ which satisfy (2) and for which $\sum r^{n-2} \leq C^{\frac{1}{2}d(d-1)}\leq C^{\Lambda^2}$, which finishes the proof.
Hence, we are left with understanding the construction of the balls $\{B_{r_i}(x_i)\}\subseteq B_1(0)$ satisfying (1),(2),(3) above under the assumption that $r_0^{d}\geq 1$. Roughly, the construction proceeds as follows. For every $x\in B_1(0)$ let us define $$\begin{aligned}
r'_x \equiv \max\{r, r_x^{d-1}\}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $r^{d-1}_x$ is the $(d-1)$-critical radius of Section \[ss:critical\_radius\]. Let us separate $B_1(0)$ into subsets $S_1,S_2$ which are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&S_1\equiv\{x\in B_1(0): \not\exists\, y\in B_{10 r'_x}(x) \text{ s.t. } r'_y<10^{-2}r'_x\}\, \notag\\
&S_2\equiv B_1\setminus S_1\, .\end{aligned}$$ We can interpret $S_1$ as the set of points with locally minimizing $d-1$-critical radii. We let $\{B_{r_i}(x_i)\}$ be a Vitali subcovering of the collection $\{B_{r'_x}(x)\}_{x\in S_1}$. Clearly the collection satisfies (1), and hence we need to show this collection of balls satisfies (2),(3).
Now standard arguments as in [@chnava] give us, roughly, that for every $x_i$ and $s\in [r_i,1]$ that there exists a homogeneous harmonic polynomial $P_i^{(s)}$ of degree $d$ such that $T_{x,s}^u$ is close to $P_i^{(s)}$. A key point is that the new effective argument discussed in Section \[ss:tangent\_maps\] will allow us to take $P_i^{(s)}\equiv P^d$ to be independent of both $i$ and $s$. For the sake of the outline let us make the assumption that $P^d$ is $n-2$ symmetric, which is to say that $P^d$ depends on only two variables. Up to some technical details this will turn out to be the important case, in that one can always handle the other cases by even simpler methods. So in this case there is an $n-2$-plane $V\subseteq {\mathds{R}}^n$ such that if $x\not\in V$ then $P^d$ is not critical at $x$.
There are two steps needed to complete the proof. First, if $x\in S_2$ then by assumption there exists a point $x_i$ our covering which is not too far from $x$ relative to $r'_{x}$. In particular, since $u$ is close to $P^d$ centered at $x_i$ this is roughly equivalent to the statement that $d(x,V)>r'_x\geq r$. We have already mentioned that $P^d$ is therefore not critical at $x$, and with a little work, since $u$ is close to $P^d$, one can use this to show $u$ is not critical at $x$. More effectively, we even have that $r_x\geq r$, which proves (2) for the covering. Making this precise will turn out to require an effective cone-splitting argument.
Finally, let us consider the projection map $P^V:{\mathds{R}}^n\to V$. Since $u$ is close to $P^d$ for in all balls $B_{s}(x_i)$ with $s\in [r_i,1]$, one can use this to prove the projection map, when restricted to the centers of the balls $\{x_i\}$, is $(1+\epsilon)$-biLipschitz. Slightly more precisely, if $x_i,x_j\in \{x_k\}$ are two centers in the covering, then we know that the blow up of $u$ centered at $x_i$ at the radius $d_{ij}\equiv d(x_i,x_j)$ looks close to $P^d$. In particular, since both $x_i$ and $x_j$ are ’good’ points relative to the frequency pinching, by construction, we have that $x_i$ and $x_j$ must be close to the plane $V$ relative to $d_{ij}$. Making this precise is exactly the statement that $P^V$ restricted to $\{x_i\}$ is $(1+\epsilon)$-biLipschitz. In particular, the Vitali covering $B_{r_i}(x_i)$ induces a Vitali covering $\{V_{r_i/2}(P^V(x_i))\}$ of the $n-2$-ball $B_1\cap V$. Thus we get from this the estimate (3).
Harmonic functions {#s:harmonic}
==================
In this Section, we concentrate on harmonic functions in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and will first prove Theorem \[t:main\_critical\] in this simplified case. This will allow us to illustrate the main ideas of the proof without the confusion of the added technical complications needed for the general case. More than that, many of the tools we will need for general solutions of (\[eq\_Lu\]) will follow by appropriate approximation arguments with harmonic functions, and thus many of the results of this Section are directly relevant.
We start in section \[ss:hhp\] by recalling some basic properties of homogeneous harmonic polynomials, hhPs in short. For a more complete overview on the subject, we refer the reader to [@HFT]. In section \[ss:frequency\_hhp\] and \[ss:hpinch\] we discuss the frequency function and its relation to homogeneous harmonic polynomials. Although much of this is known, the estimates of these sections are much more refined than those previously in the literature, and we will need these results. In particular in Theorem \[t:eff\_tan\_con\_uniq\_harm\] we will prove an effective tangent cone uniqueness statement, which will play an important role in our estimates. In section \[ss:almost\_conesplitting\] we revisit the idea of cone splitting, introduced in this context first in [@chnava]. The results of [@chnava] are based on contradiction arguments, and we again prove much more refined estimates. Sections \[ss:almost\_codim2\_invariant\] and \[ss:symmetric\_criticalpoints\] discuss the relationship of critical points to the symmetry of a harmonic function. Finally in section \[ss:volume\_estimates\_harmonic\] we prove Theorem \[t:main\_critical\] for harmonic functions.
Homogeneous harmonic polynomials {#ss:hhp}
--------------------------------
Let $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be any domain, and denote for convenience ${\mathcal{H}}(D)$ the space of harmonic functions $u:D\to {\mathbb{R}}$, $u\in W^{1,2}(D)$. Most of the times, we will consider $B(0,1)$ as our domain, thus we define for simplicity $B=B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$. We recall that a polynomial $P$ is said to be homogeneous of degree $d$ if $P(\lambda x)=\lambda^d P(x)$ for all $\lambda\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, or equivalently if $P$ is the sum of monomials with the same degree $d$.
Set ${\mathcal{P}}_{d}$ to be the vector space of homogeneous harmonic polynomial of degree $d$ defined on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. For $d\geq 2$ and $n\geq 3$, its dimension is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{dim}({\mathcal{P}}_d) = \binom{n+d-1}{n-1}-\binom{n+d-3}{n-1} \leq C(n) d^{n-2}\, .
\end{gathered}$$
By the standard theory of spherical harmonics, recall that $$\begin{gathered}
L^2(\partial B(0,1)) = \bigoplus_{d=0}^\infty {\mathcal{P}}_d\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $L^2(\partial B(0,1))$ is the real Hilbert space generated by the scalar product $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langlef\middle\vertg\right\rangle}= \fint_{\partial B(0,1)} fg\, .\end{gathered}$$ The space ${\mathcal{H}}(B(0,1))$ inherits the Hilbert structure of $L^2(\partial B(0,1))$. Indeed, this product is well defined for all functions in $W^{1,2}(B(0,1))$, however only gives a hilbert space structure on the harmonic functions as ${\left\|u\right\|} =0 \Rightarrow u=0$ is true only on harmonic functions.
Thus, we can write $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_expu}
u(y)= \sum_{d=0}^\infty a_d P_d(y)\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $P_d$ are hhP of degree $d$ normalized with ${\left\|P_d\right\|}=1$, and $a_d = {\left\langleu\middle\vertP_d\right\rangle}$. This expansion of course will depend on the base point chosen for the expansion. When needed, we will make this dependence explicit by writing $$\begin{gathered}
u(y+x)=\sum_{d=0}^\infty a_d(x) P_{d,x} (y)\, .\end{gathered}$$
It is clear that if $P$ is a hhP of degree $d$, then $\partial_i P$ is either zero or a hhP of degree $d-1$. An important relation between the norm of a hhP and the norm of its gradient is given by the following lemma.
\[lemma\_pdp\][@HFT lemma 5.13] Let $P,\ Q:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be two homogeneous harmonic polynomials of degree $d$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langleP\middle\vertQ\right\rangle} = \frac{1}{d(2d+n-2)} {\left\langle\nabla P\middle\vert\nabla Q\right\rangle} =\frac{1}{d(2d+n-2)} \sum_{i=1}^n {\left\langle\partial_i P\middle\vert\partial_i Q\right\rangle}\, .\end{gathered}$$
Moreover, it is possible to prove a simple bound on the sup norm of a hhP $P$ given its degree and its $L^2(\partial B(0,1))$ norm.
\[lemma\_dest\] Given a $P_d\in {\mathcal{P}}_d$, we have the sharp upper bound $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|P_d\right\|}_{C^0(B(0,1))}\leq \sqrt{\operatorname{dim}({\mathcal{H}}_d)} {\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} P_d^2 \right)}^{1/2}\leq C(n) d^{\frac n 2 -1 }{\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} P_d^2 \right)}^{1/2}\, .\end{gathered}$$
### Two Variables
A special case which deserves to be studied on its own is the case of hhPs defined in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The following is a standard but useful point:
Let $n=2$, then ${\mathcal{H}}_{d,2}$ is a $2$ dimensional space for every $d\geq 2$, and an orthonormal basis for this space is given by $$\begin{gathered}
P_d(r,\theta) = 2r^{d} \sin{\left(d\theta\right)}\, , \quad C_d(r,\theta)= 2r^{d}\cos{\left(d\theta\right)} = P_d(r,\theta+\pi/(2d))\, .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, by direct computation one has $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_dxP}
\partial_x P_d(r,\theta) = 2d r^{d-1} \sin((d-1)\theta)\, , \quad \partial_y P_d(r,\theta) = 2d r^{d-1} \cos((d-1)\theta)\, ,\\
{\left|\nabla P_d(r,\theta)\right|}={\left|\nabla C_d(r,\theta)\right|} = 2d r^{d-1}\, \label{eq_nabla2vars} ,\\
\frac{\partial^k}{\partial x^k} P_d(r,\theta)|_{(0,0)} = 2 \binom{d}{k} k! r^{d-k}\sin((d-k)\theta)= \binom d k k! P_{d-k}(r,\theta)\, ,\\
P_d((t,0)+(r,\theta)) = P_d(r,\theta) + \sum_{k=1}^d \binom{d}{k} t^k P_{d-k}(r,\theta)\, .\end{gathered}$$
### Cone Splitting
By simple algebra, it is easy to see that the set of point wrt which $P$ is homogeneous forms a vector subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Indeed, let $P$ be homogeneous wrt $0$ and wrt $x\neq 0$, and pick any $y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$. By Euler’s formula $$\begin{gathered}
d\cdot P(y) = \nabla P|_y \cdot y = \nabla P|_y \cdot (y-x)\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \nabla P|_y \cdot x =0\, ,\end{gathered}$$ and thus the partial derivative of $P$ in the $x$ direction vanishes at every point, making $P$ invariant wrt the subspace spanned by $x$. In other words, if $P$ is a harmonic polynomial of degree $d\geq 1$, the set $$\begin{gathered}
V\equiv{\left\{v\in {\mathbb{R}}^n \ \ s.t. \ \ \nabla P\cdot v =0\right\}}\end{gathered}$$ is a vector subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and it is the invariant subspace of $P$ in the sense that $P(x+v)=P(x)$ for all $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $v\in V$.
In the next proposition, we prove an extremely important (and simple) relation between the degree of $P$ and the dimension of $V$.
\[prop\_pn-2\] Let $P$ be a nonconstant homogeneous harmonic polynomial. Then $P$ is of degree $1$ if and only if $V$ has dimension $n-1$.
The direct implication is evident. As for the reverse, if $V$ has dimension $n-1$, then $P$ is a harmonic function of one variable, and thus it is linear.
### Space of invariant polynomials
Given $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\setminus \{0\}$, we set ${\mathcal{P}}_d(\cancel x)$ to be the subspace of ${\mathcal{P}}_d$ of polynomials invariant with respect to the coordinate $x$. It is clear that this subspace has a uniquely defined orthogonal complement such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{P}}_d = {\mathcal{P}}_d(\cancel x) \oplus {\mathcal{P}}_d(\cancel x)^\perp\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where the direct sum is in the sense of $L^2(\partial B)$.
In the next proposition, we characterize the elements of ${\mathcal{P}}_d(\cancel x_1)^\perp$.
The linear function $K:{\mathcal{P}}_{d-1}\to{\mathcal{P}}_d$ defined by $$\begin{gathered}
K[p]\equiv x_1p - \frac 1 {2d+n-4} {\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1 p \equiv x_1p +c_{d,n} {\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1 p
\end{gathered}$$ provides a vector space isomorphism between ${\mathcal{P}}_{d-1}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_{d}(\cancel x_1)$. Moreover $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_K-}
{\left\|K[p]\right\|}\leq {\left\|x_1 p\right\|}_{L^2(\partial B(0,1)}\leq {\left\|p\right\|}\, .\end{gathered}$$
Note that $K$ is, up to multiplicative constants, the *Kelvin transform* defined in [@HFT].
Let $p\in {\mathcal{P}}_{d-1}$, and let $q\in {\mathcal{P}}_d(\cancel x_1)$. We will prove that ${\left\langleK[p]\middle\vertq\right\rangle}=0$ by induction on $d$.
It is clear that the statement is true for $d=1$. By Lemma \[lemma\_pdp\] we have $$\begin{gathered}
d(2d+n-2) {\left\langleK[p]\middle\vertq\right\rangle}= \sum_{i=2}^n{\left\langle\partial_i {\left(x_1p +c {\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1 p\right)} \middle\vert\partial_i q\right\rangle}=\sum_{i=2}^n {\left\langlex_1\partial_i p +2cx_i \partial_1p +c{\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1\partial_i p \middle\vert\partial_i q\right\rangle}=\\
=\sum_{i=2}^n {\left\langlex_1\partial_i p +c_{d-1,n}{\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1\partial_i p \middle\vert\partial_i q\right\rangle} + \sum_{i=2}^n {\left\langle{\left(c_{d,n}-c_{d-1,n}\right)}{\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1\partial_i p \middle\vert\partial_i q\right\rangle} + 2c\sum_{i=2}^n {\left\langle\partial_1p\middle\vertx_i\partial_i q\right\rangle}=\\
=\sum_{i=2}^n {\left\langlex_1\partial_i p +c_{d-1,n}{\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1\partial_i p \middle\vert\partial_i q\right\rangle} + {\left(c_{d,n}-c_{d-1,n}\right)}\sum_{i=2}^n {\left\langle \partial_1\partial_i p \middle\vert\partial_i q\right\rangle} + 2cd\sum_{i=2}^n {\left\langle\partial_1p\middle\vertq\right\rangle}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ The first sum is null by induction, while the second and third sum are null since they are scalar products of spherical harmonics (hhPs) of different degrees. Hence we see that $K$ maps ${\mathcal{P}}_{d-1}$ into ${\mathcal{P}}_d(\cancel x_1)$.
Note now that $K[\cdot]$ in injective. Indeed, let $p\in {\mathcal{P}}_{d-1}$ be such that $K[p]=0$. Then necessarily $\partial_1 p$ must be divisible by $x_1$, and thus $p$ is a harmonic polynomial proportional to ${\left|x\right|}^2$, which is necessarily zero by [@HFT corollary 5.3].
Surjectivity is easily proved by a dimension argument. Indeed $$\begin{gathered}
\dim{\left({\mathcal{P}}_d\right)} = \dim{\left({\mathcal{P}}_{d}(\cancel x_1)\right)} + \dim{\left({\mathcal{P}}_{d-1}\right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$
Finally, since $K[p]$ and $\partial_1 p$ are hhP’s of different degrees, $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langleK[p]\middle\vertc_{d,n}{\left|x\right|}^2 \partial_1 p \right\rangle}= c_{d,n}{\left\langleK[p]\middle\vert\partial_1 p \right\rangle}=0\, .\end{gathered}$$ This immediately implies the estimate on ${\left\|K[p]\right\|}$.
This characterization allows us to prove the following important property.
\[prop\_perpest\] Let $h\in {\mathcal{P}}_d(\cancel x_1)^\perp$, then $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|h\right\|}\leq {\left\|\partial_1 h\right\|}\, .
\end{gathered}$$
If $d=1$, the proposition is easily proved by direct computation.
If $d\geq 2$, we write $$\begin{gathered}
h = x_1 p + c_{d,n}{\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial _1 p\, ,\\
\partial_1 h = p + (2c_{d,n}+1) x_1 \partial_1 p + c_{d,n} {\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\, .\end{gathered}$$ Note that for every $d,n\geq 2$, $2c_{d,n}+1\geq 0$. We estimate the norm of $\partial_1 h$ by $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_1 h\right\|}^2 = {\left\|p\right\|} ^2 + {\left\|(2c_{d,n}+1) x_1 \partial_1 p + c_{d,n} {\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\right\|}^2 + 2 {\left\langlep\middle\vert(2c_{d,n}+1) x_1 \partial_1 p + c_{d,n} {\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\right\rangle}\geq\\
\geq {\left\|p\right\|} ^2 + 2 {\left\langlep\middle\vert(2c_{d,n}+1)x_1 \partial_1 p + c_{d,n}{\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\right\rangle}={\left\|p\right\|} ^2 + 2 (2c_{d,n}+1) {\left\langlep\middle\vertx_1 \partial_1 p\right\rangle}\, .\end{gathered}$$ The last scalar product is nonnegative, as will be shown in the next Lemma (\[lemma\_+\]). This and equation conclude the proof.
\[lemma\_+\] Let $p\in {\mathcal{H}}_{n,d}$, then $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langlep\middle\vertx_1 \partial_1 p\right\rangle}_{L^2(\partial B(0,1)} = \frac{1}{2d+n-2}{\left\|\partial_1 p\right\|}^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$
We prove this proposition by induction on $d$. For $d=1$, the proposition is easily proved. Indeed, $p= \sum_i p_i x_i$ and by direct computation $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langlep\middle\vertx_1\partial_1 p\right\rangle} = \sum_i p_1p_i\fint_{\partial B(0,1)}x_1 x_i = p_1^2 \fint_{\partial B(0,1)} x_1 ^2 =\frac{1}{n} {\left\|\partial_1 p\right\|}^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Suppose by induction that the statement is true for $d-1$, and let $p\in {\mathcal{H}}_{n,d}$. Note that the function $x_1 \partial_1 p$ is not harmonic, and its projection ${\mathcal{P}}_d$ is $$\begin{gathered}
x_1 \partial_1 p +c_{d,n} {\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\, .\end{gathered}$$ Since $p$ and $\partial^2_{1^2} p$ are spherical harmonics of different degrees, $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langlep\middle\vertc_{d,n} {\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\right\rangle} =0\, .\end{gathered}$$ Thus, by Lemma \[lemma\_pdp\], we can write $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langlep\middle\vertx_1 \partial_1 p \right\rangle} = {\left\langlep\middle\vertx_1 \partial_1 p + c_{d,n} {\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\right\rangle}=\frac 1 {d(2d+n-2)}{\left\langle\nabla p\middle\vert\nabla {\left(x_1 \partial_1 p + c_{d,n} {\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\right)}\right\rangle}\, .\end{gathered}$$ On the right hand side we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langle\nabla p\middle\vert\nabla {\left(x_1 \partial_1 p + c_{d,n}{\left|x\right|} ^2 \partial^2_{1^2} p\right)}\right\rangle} = {\left\|\partial_1 p\right\|}^2 + {\left\langle\nabla p\middle\vertx_1 \partial_1 \nabla p\right\rangle} + 2c_{d,n} {\left\langlex\cdot\nabla p\middle\vert\partial^2_{1^2} p\right\rangle} + c_{d,n} {\left\langle\nabla p\middle\vert{\left|x\right|} ^2 \nabla \partial^2_{1^2} p\right\rangle}\, .\end{gathered}$$ The last two scalar products are null by the orthogonality of spherical harmonics of different degree. Induction and Lemma \[lemma\_pdp\] allow us to conclude $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\langle\nabla p\middle\vertx_1 \partial_1 \nabla p\right\rangle} = (d-1)\frac{2d+n-4}{2d+n-4}=(d-1){\left\|\partial_1 p\right\|}^2\, .\end{gathered}$$
We close this section with a consideration about invariant polynomials and their norm. Let $P:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a hhP of degree $d$, and suppose that $P$ is $x_1$ invariant. Then evidently $P$ is also a hhP from ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$, and thus we can define its $L^2$ norm wrt ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$. The following proposition gives the relation between these two norms.
\[lemma\_norm\_n\] Let $P:{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a hhP of degree $d$, and denote by $P:{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ the polynomial $P(x_1,y)\equiv P(y)$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|P\right\|}^2_{n-1} = \fint_{\partial B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}} P^2 = {\left\|P\right\|}^2_{n}\prod_{k=1}^d \frac{n+2k-2}{n+2k-3}\leq {\left\|P\right\|}^2_{n}e^2\sqrt{1+\frac{2d-2}{n-1}} \, .
\end{gathered}$$
This lemma can be proved by direct computation, or as a corollary of [@HFT Theorem 5.14]. As for the estimate, it is easy to see that $$\begin{gathered}
\ln{\left(\prod_{k=1}^d \frac{n+2k-2}{n+2k-3}\right)} \leq \ln{\left(1+\frac 1 {n-1}\right)} + \sum_{k=2}^d \frac 1 {2k+n-3} \leq \ln{\left(2\right)} + \frac 1 2 \ln{\left(1+\frac{2d-2}{n-1}\right)}\, .
\end{gathered}$$
Almgren’s frequency and homogeneous harmonic polynomials {#ss:frequency_hhp}
--------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we recall the classic frequency function and some basic results about it. Because we will focus on the critical set and not the singular set in our proofs, we will focus on the normalized frequency function:
Given a nonconstant $u\in {\mathcal{H}}(B(0,1))$, $x\in B(0,1)$ and $r\leq 1-{\left|x\right|}$, we define Almgren’s (normalized) frequency by $$\begin{gathered}
N_u(x,r)=N(x,r) = \frac{r \int_{B(x,r)} {\left|\nabla u\right|}^2 dV }{\int_{\partial B(x,r)} (u-u(x))^2 dS }\, .
\end{gathered}$$
Note that $N$ is invariant under blow-up, rescaling, and adding a constant. In particular, if we define $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_dephT}
T_{x,r}^u(y) = T_{x,r}(y)= \frac{u(x+ry)-u(x)}{{\left(\fint_{\partial B} [u(x+ry)-u(x)]^2 \right)}^{1/2}}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ then $N_u(x,rs)=N_T (0,s)$. The monotonicity of $N$ wrt $r$ is standard in literature (see for example [@hanlin]). Moreover, its proof is a simple matter of calculus.
For every $u\in {\mathcal{H}}(B)$ and $x\in B$, $N(x,r)$ is monotone non decreasing wrt $r$. Moreover, if for some $0<r<s$, $N(x,r)=N(x,s)$, then $u$ is a harmonic polynomial homogeneous wrt $x$, and $N(x,t)$ is constant and equal to the degree of $u$ for all $t$.
Since $N$ is monotone, one can define $N(x,0)=\lim_{r\to 0} N(x,r)$ for all $x\in B$. As it is easily seen, $N(x,0)$ is the vanishing order of the function $u-u(x)$ at the point $x$. In particular $$\begin{gathered}
1\leq N(x,0)=d \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \forall 1\leq k <d\, , \ \nabla ^{(k)} u|_x =0 \quad \text{ and } \quad \nabla ^{(d)}u|_x\neq 0\, .\end{gathered}$$
### Polynomials and Frequency {#ss:freq_poly_exp}
Let $P$ be a harmonic polynomial of degree $d\geq 1$. Since $N$ is invariant under blow-up and rescaling, it is easy to see that $N(x,r)\leq d$ for all $x$ and $r$. Indeed, consider the function $P_{x,r}(y) = \frac{P(x+ry)}{{\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,1) } P(x+ry)^2 \right)}^{1/2} } $. As $r\to \infty$, this function converges in the smooth sense to the normalized homogeneous component of $P$ with the highest degree, and thus, $\lim_{r\to \infty} N(x,r)=d$ for all $x$. As an easy corollary of the previous proposition, we get that $P$ is homogeneous wrt $x$ if and only if $N(x,0)=d$.
Sometimes it is convenient to exploit the polynomial expansion of $u$ given in to express its frequency (see for example [@hanlin p 23]). Given that we can re-write $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,r)}{\left|\nabla u\right|}^2 = \int_{\partial B(0,r)} u \nabla_n u = \sum_{d=0}^\infty a_d^2 \int_{\partial B(0,r)} P_d \nabla P_d \cdot (r^{-1}x) = \sum_{d=0}^\infty r^{-1} d a_d^2\int_{\partial B(0,r)} P_d^2 \, ,\end{gathered}$$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
N(0,r)= \frac{\sum_{d=0}^{\infty} d a_d^2 r^{2d} }{\sum_{d=0}^{\infty} a_d^2 r^{2d}}\, , \quad \quad N(0,r)= \frac{\sum_{d=1}^{\infty} d a_d^2 r^{2d} }{\sum_{d=1}^{\infty} a_d^2 r^{2d}}\, .\end{gathered}$$
### Growth estimates
Almgren’s frequency can also be used to get growth estimates on the function $u$. Indeed, let $$\begin{gathered}
h(x,r)\equiv \fint_{\partial B(x,r)} u^2 dx\, ,\end{gathered}$$ then by direct computation we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_doth}
\frac{d}{dt}\ln(h(x,t)) = \frac{2N(x,t)}{t}\, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad h(x,t) = h(x,r) \exp{\left(-2\int_t^r \frac{N(s)}{s}ds\right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$
### Uniform control
An important property of the unnormalized frequency is that $N(x,r/2)\leq c(n,r) (N(0,1)+1)$ for ${\left|x\right|} \leq r <1$ (see for example [@hanlin theorem 2.2.8]). Thus, a bound on $N(0,1)$ implies an upper bound on the vanishing order of the function for all $x\in B$ away from the boundary. A similar statement with a similar proof holds also for the normalized version. For the sake of completeness, hereafter we sketch a proof of this result.
\[th\_cN\] Let $u$ be a nonconstant harmonic function. Then for every $r,k<1$, there exists a constant $C(n,r,k)$ such that for all ${\left|x\right|} \leq r$ $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,k(1-r))\leq C N(0,1)\, .
\end{gathered}$$
We assume for simplicity that $u(0)=0$. First of all, we prove that there exists a radius $\beta(n)>0$ such that for all ${\left|x\right|} \leq \beta(n)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_alpha}
u(x)^2 \leq \frac{1}{2} \fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ We exploit the fact that $u$ vanishes with order at least $1$ at the origin. Suppose for convenience that $\fint_{\partial B(0,2\beta)} u^2 =1$. Since $N(0,2\beta)\geq 1$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,2\beta)} u^2 \leq \int_0^{2\beta} ds \omega_n s^{n-1} {\left(\frac{s}{2\beta}\right)}^2 = \frac{\omega_n}{n+2} (2\beta)^n\, .\end{gathered}$$ With a similar argument: $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,1/2-\beta)} u^2 \geq \int_{2\beta}^{1/2-\beta} ds \omega_n s^{n-1} {\left(\frac{s}{2\beta}\right)}^2 = \frac{\omega_n}{(2\beta)^2(n+2)} {\left[{\left(\frac 1 2 - \beta\right)}^{n+2} -(2\beta)^{n+2}\right]}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By geometric considerations, we have $$\begin{gathered}
u(x)^2\leq \fint_{B(x,\beta)} u^2 = \frac{1}{V(1) \beta^n} \int_{B(x,\beta)} u^2\leq \frac{1}{V(1) \beta^n} \int_{B(0,2\beta)} u^2\leq \frac{2^n}{V(1)} \alpha(n) \int_{B(0,1/2-\beta)} u^2\leq\\
\leq \frac{2^n}{V(1)} \alpha(n) \int_{B(x,1/2)} u^2= \alpha(n) \fint_{B(x,1/2)} u^2\leq \alpha(n) \fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2 \, ,\end{gathered}$$ where we have set $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha(n) \equiv \frac{(2\beta)^{n+2}}{(2\beta)^n {\left[{\left(\frac 1 2 - \beta\right)}^{n+2} -(2\beta)^{n+2}\right]}} = {\left[{\left(\frac 1 2 - \beta\right)}^{n+2} -(2\beta)^{n+2}\right]}^{-1} (2\beta)^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ It is evident that one can choose $\beta(n)$ sufficiently small in such a way that $\alpha(n)\leq 1/2$, which is all we need.
Now we are in a position to prove the theorem with $r=\beta(n)$ and $k$ generic. The general case is obtained by repeated applications of this estimate.
For simplicity of notation, we will assume $k=1/2$. Given the obvious inclusions $$\begin{gathered}
B(0,1/4)\subset B(x,1/2)\subset B(x,3/4)\subset B(0,1)\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ and the growth estimates $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} u^2 \leq 4^{2N(0,1)}\fint_{\partial B(0,1/4)} u^2 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \fint_{B(0,1)} u^2 \leq c(n)4^{2N(0,1)}\fint_{B(0,1/4)} u^2\, ,\end{gathered}$$ one has $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{B(x,3/4)} u^2 \leq c(n)4^{2N(0,1)}\fint_{B(x,1/2)} u^2 \, .\end{gathered}$$ Since $\fint_{\partial B(0,r)} u^2$ is an increasing function of $r$ (if $u$ is harmonic), we can estimate $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(x,3/4)} u^2 \geq \int_{B(x,3/4)\setminus B(x,5/8)} u^2 \geq c(n) \fint_{\partial B(x,5/8)} u^2\, ,\\
\int_{B(x,1/2)}u^2 \leq c(n) \fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ Thus we obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_1}
\fint_{\partial B(x,5/8)} u^2 \leq c(n) 4^{2N(0,1)} \fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ With some easy computation, this implies $N(x,1/2)\leq C(n) (N(0,1)+1)$. In order to obtain a similar estimate for $ N$, consider that $$\begin{gathered}
u(x)^2 = \lim_{r\to 0} \fint_{\partial B(x,r)} u^2 = \gamma\fint_{\partial B(x,5/8)} u^2\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where we set for convenience $\gamma = \exp{\left(-2\int_0^{5/8} \frac{N(x,s)}{s} ds \right)}$. Note that, if $u$ is not constant, $0\leq \gamma<1$. Using , we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(x,5/8)} u^2-u(x)^2 \leq c(n) 4^{2N(0,1)} {\left(1-\gamma\right)}\fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2 = c(n) 4^{2N(0,1)} {\left(\fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2 - \gamma' u(x)^2\right)}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $\gamma'= \exp{\left(-2\int_{1/2}^{5/8} \frac{N(x,s)}{s} ds \right)}$, and again $0<\gamma'<1$. Given Equation , we can estimate $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_2}
\fint_{\partial B(x,5/8)} u^2-u(x)^2 \leq 2c(n) 4^{2N(0,1)} {\left(\fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2 - u(x)^2\right)}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ By the growth conditions related to $ N$, we obtain the inequality $$\begin{gathered}
{\left(\frac 5 4\right)}^{2 N(x,1/2)}\leq \exp{\left(2\int_{1/2}^{5/8} \frac{ N(x,s)} s ds\right)} = \frac{\fint_{\partial B(x,5/8)} u^2-u(x)^2 }{\fint_{\partial B(x,1/2)} u^2 - u(x)^2} \leq 2c(n) 4^{2N(0,1)}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By taking logs on both sides, we complete our estimate. Indeed we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,1/2)\leq c(n) (N(0,1) +1) = c(n) ( N(0,1) +1) \leq c(n) N(0,1)\, .\end{gathered}$$
Frequency pinching for harmonic functions {#ss:hpinch}
-----------------------------------------
In the previous section, we have seen that if $N$ is constant, then the function $u$ is homogeneous. The aim of this section is to prove a quantitative “almost” version of this statement, with particular care on how the parameters involved depend on the frequency $N(0,1)$. The results of this Section may be viewed as a generalization of the quantitative pinching in [@chnava theorem 2.8].
Given a nonconstant harmonic function $u$, we say that its frequency is $\delta$-pinched at $x$ on the scales $[r_2,r_1]$ if $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_pinch1}
N(x,r_1)- N(x,r_2)\leq \delta\, .\end{gathered}$$
As we have seen, if $\delta=0$, $u$ is, up to an additive constant, a homogeneous harmonic polynomial of degree $d$ and $N(x,r)=d$ for all $r$. Using a simple compactness argument (see [@chnava theorem 2.8]), one can prove that if $\delta$ is small enough then $u$ is close to a homogeneous harmonic polynomial. In particular, for every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $\delta(n,\Lambda,\epsilon)>0$ such that if is satisfied, then for all $r\in [2r_2,r_1]$ there exists a hhP $P^{(r)}$ of degree $d$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|T^u_{x,r}-P^{(r)}\right\|}\leq \epsilon\quad \text{and}\, , \quad {\left|N^u(x,r)-d\right|}\leq \epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$
By exploiting some improved monotonicity properties of $N$, we make the previous argument effective. First of all, we prove that $N(r)$ can be pinched only when it is close to an integer.
\[lemma\_Npinch\] Let $\min_{k\in {\mathbb{N}}} {\left|N(r)-k\right|}=\epsilon>0$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
r \left.\frac{d N}{dt} \right\vert_{t=r} \geq 2\epsilon(1-\epsilon)\, .
\end{gathered}$$ As a corollary, if $N(r)\leq d-\epsilon$, then $$\begin{gathered}
N{\left(\frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon} r\right)}\leq d-1+\epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$
By the scale invariance properties of $N$, we can assume for simplicity $r=1$ and $h(1)=1$. Let $d$ be the integral part of $ N(1)$, i.e., the largest integer $\leq N(1)$. By hypothesis, $d\leq N(1)-\epsilon$.
Define the following functions. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_hpm}
h_+(t) = \sum_{k\geq d+1} a_k^2 t^{2k}\, , \quad \quad h_-(t) = \sum_{k\leq d-1} a_k^2 t^{2k}\, ;\\
N_+ (t) = \frac{\sum_{k\geq d+1} k a_k ^2 t^{2k}}{h_+(t)}\, , \quad \quad N_- (t) = \frac{\sum_{k\leq d-1} k a_k ^2 t^{2k}}{h_-(t)}\, ;\label{eq_Npm}\\
f_+(t) = \frac{h_+(t)}{t^{2d+2}}{\left(N_+(t)-d\right)}\, , \quad \quad f_-(t) = \frac{h_-(t)}{t^{2d+2}}{\left(d-N_-(t)\right)}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Note that $f_+(t)>0$ for $t>0$, with $\lim_{t\to 0} f_+(t)=0$. As for $f_-$, it is either a strictly positive function or it is zero. In the first case $\lim_{t\to 0} f_-(t)=\infty$. The derivatives of $f_\pm$ are easily computed directly. Indeed, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\dot f_+(t) = 2\sum_{k\geq d+1} (k-d-1)(k-d) a_k^2 t^{2(k-d-1)-1}\geq 0 \, ,\\
\dot f_-(t) = 2\sum_{k\leq d-1} (k-d-1)(d-k) a_k^2 t^{2(k-d-1)-1}\leq 0 \, .\end{gathered}$$
We rewrite the frequency $N(t)$ in the following convenient way. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_Nhpm}
N(t) = \frac{N_-(t) h_-(t) + d a_d^2 t^{2d} + N_+(t) h_+(t) }{h(t)} = \frac{N_-(t) h_-(t) + d {\left[h(t)-h_-(t)-h_+(t)\right]}+ N_+(t) h_+(t) }{h(t)}=\\
\notag= \frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)} {\left(N_-(t)-d\right)} + d + \frac{h_+(t)}{h(t)} {\left(N_+(t)-d\right)} = -\frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)} {\left(d-N_-(t)\right)} + d + \frac{h_+(t)}{h(t)} {\left(N_+(t)-d\right)} \, .\end{gathered}$$ In particular, we obtain the simple formula $$\begin{gathered}
N(t)-d = \frac{t^{2d+2}}{h(t)}{\left(f_+(t) - f_-(t)\right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By , we obtain the equality $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{h(t)}{t^{2d+2}} = h(1)\exp{\left(- 2\int_t^1 \frac{ N(s)-d-1}{s}ds\right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$ This and the fact that $\frac{d}{dt} {\left(f_+(t)-f_-(t)\right)}\geq 0$ imply that $$\begin{gathered}
0\leq \frac{d}{dt} {\left[{\left(N(t)-d\right)} \exp{\left(- 2\int_t^1 \frac{ N(s)-d-1}{s}ds\right)} \right]}= \\
\notag = \exp{\left(- 2\int_t^1 \frac{ N(s)-d-1}{s}ds\right)} {\left[\frac d {dt} { N(t)} + 2(N(t)-d)\frac{ N(t)-d-1}{t}\right]}\, .\end{gathered}$$ As a consequence we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_dotN}
\frac{d}{dt} N(t) \geq 2( N(t)-d)\frac{d+1- N(t)}{t}\, .\end{gathered}$$ As long as $ N(t)\in (d,d+1)$, the rhs is positive. Define for convenience $\rho(t)=\ln(t)$, and $t=e^{\rho}$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_dNdrho}
\frac {d}{d\rho} N \geq 2( N(\rho)-d){\left(d+1-N(\rho)\right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Let $\hat N(\rho)$ be the solution of the differential equality, i.e., $$\begin{gathered}
\hat N(\rho) = d + \frac{1}{c e^{-2\rho} +1} \, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $c>0$ is chosen in such a way that $\hat N(0)\geq N(\rho=0)$. Since $N(\rho=0)\leq d+1-\epsilon$, we can pick $$\begin{gathered}
c=\frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon}\, .\end{gathered}$$ A standard comparison for ODE implies that $N(\rho)\leq \hat N(\rho)$ for all $\rho\leq 0$. Thus if $\bar \rho$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{c e^{-2\bar \rho}+1}\leq \epsilon\, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \bar \rho \leq \log{\left(\frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon}\right)}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ then $N(\bar \rho)\leq d+\epsilon$. This concludes the proof.
As a corollary of the proof, we obtain the following
\[cor\_Npinch\] Let $\operatorname{dist}{\left(N(r),{\mathbb{N}}\right)}=2\epsilon >0$. Then $N(r)-N(r/e)\geq \epsilon$.
Note that by definition $0<\epsilon<1/2$. By , as long as $\operatorname{dist}{\left(N(\rho),{\mathbb{N}}\right)}\geq\epsilon$ we have the lower bound $$\begin{gathered}
\frac {d}{d\rho} N \geq 2\epsilon\, .
\end{gathered}$$ This and the monotonicity of $N$ immediately imply the thesis.
Using a similar technique, we can prove that either $u$ is close in the $L^2$ sense to a homogeneous harmonic polynomial $P$ at a certain scale, or the frequency drops by a definite amount after some definite number of scales.
\[lemma\_polypinch\] Given a harmonic function $u:B(0,r)\to {\mathbb{R}}$, for every $\epsilon>0$ one of these two things can happen
1. either there exists $d$ such that $a_d^2 r^{2d} \geq {\left(1-6\epsilon\right)}h(r)$;
2. or $N(0,r)-N(0,r/e) \geq \epsilon$.
Suppose without loss of generality that $r=1$ and $h(1)=1$. Fix an index $d$, and define $h_\pm$ and $N_\pm$ as in , . By analogy with the usual frequency, both $N_\pm$ are monotone nondecreasing functions. Moreover, it is easily seen that $$\begin{gathered}
N_+(t)-d\geq 1 \, \quad \quad d-N_-(t)\geq 1\, .\end{gathered}$$ Simple considerations on the definitions of $h$ and $h_\pm$ imply that
1. if $h_+$ is not identically zero, $\frac{h_+(t)}{h(t)}$ is increasing with respect to $t$, and, if $h_-$ is not identically zero, it has limit $0$ for $t\to 0$,
2. if $h_-$ is not identically zero, $\frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)}$ is decreasing with respect to $t$, and it has limit $1$ for $t\to 0$.
By we have $$\begin{gathered}
N(t) = -\frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)} {\left(d-N_-(t)\right)} + d + \frac{h_+(t)}{h(t)} {\left(N_+(t)-d\right)} \, .\end{gathered}$$
If $a_k^2 \leq 1-6\epsilon$ for all $k$, then there exists an index $d$ such that either $h_+(1)\in [3\epsilon,1/2]$ or $h_-(1) \in [3\epsilon,1/2]$. Suppose that the first case is true, with a similar argument one can deal also with the second case.
By monotonicity of $N_-$, positivity of $d-N_-(t)$ and since $h_-(t)/h(t)$ is a decreasing function of $t$, we have for $t\leq 1$ $$\begin{gathered}
-\frac{h_-(1)}{h(1)} {\left(d-N_-(1)\right)} + \frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)} {\left(d-N_-(t)\right)} \geq 0\, .\end{gathered}$$ Thus $$\begin{gathered}
N(1)-N(t)\geq \frac{h_+(1)}{h(1)}(N_+(1)-d) -\frac{h_+(t)}{h(t)}(N_+(t)-d) \, .\end{gathered}$$ Note that for all $t\leq 1$: $$\begin{gathered}
1\leq N_+(t)-d \leq N_+(1)-d\, ,\\
\frac{h_+(t)}{h(t)} = \frac{t^{-2d}h_+(t)}{t^{-2d}h_-(t) + a_d^2 + t^{-2d}h_+(t)} \leq \frac{t^2 h_+(1)}{t^{-2d}h_-(t) + a_d^2 } \leq \frac{t^2 h_+(1)}{t^{-2}h_-(1) + a_d^2 } \leq 2t^2 h_+(1)\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where the last inequality follows from the assumptions $h(1)=1$ and $h_+(1)\leq 1/2$.
Thus we obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
N(1)-N(t)\geq h_+(1) {\left[(N_+(1)-d) -2t^2(N_+(t)-d)\right]} \geq 3\epsilon (N_+(t)-d)(1-2t^2)\geq 3\epsilon (1-2t^2)\, .\end{gathered}$$ If we choose $t=e^{-1}$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
N(1)- N(1/e)> 2\epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$
In case $h_-(1)\in [3\epsilon,1/2]$, a similar computation holds. Indeed, by monotonicity of $N_+$, positivity of $N_+(t)-d$ and since $h_+(t)/h(t)$ is an increasing function of $t$, we have for $t\leq 1$ $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{h_+(1)}{h(1)} {\left(N_+(1)-d\right)} - \frac{h_+(t)}{h(t)} {\left(N_+(t)-d\right)} \geq 0\, .\end{gathered}$$ Thus $$\begin{gathered}
N(1)- N(t)\geq -\frac{h_-(1)}{h(1)}(d-N_-(1)) +\frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)}(d-N_-(t)) \, .\end{gathered}$$ Note that for all $t\leq 1$: $$\begin{gathered}
1\leq d-N_-(1)\leq d-N_-(t)\, ,\\
1\geq\frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)} = \frac{t^{-2d}h_-(t)}{t^{-2d}h_-(t) + a_d^2 + t^{-2d} h_+(t)} \geq \frac{t^{-2d} h_-(t)}{t^{-2d}h_-(t) + a_d^2 +t^2 h_+(1)} \geq \frac{t^{-2d} h_-(t)}{t^{-2d}h_-(t) + 1-h_-(1)} \, .\end{gathered}$$ Since the function $x/(1+x)$ is an increasing function for $x\geq 0$, and since $t^{-2d} h_-(t) \geq t^{-2} h_-(1)$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)} \geq \frac{t^{-2} h_-(1)}{1 + (t^{-2})h_-(1)} \, .\end{gathered}$$ Since $h_-(1)\leq 1/2$, for $t=e^{-1}$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{h_-(t)}{h(t)} > \frac 4 3 h_-(1)\, .\end{gathered}$$
Thus we obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
N(1)-N(1/e)> h_-(1) {\left[-(d-N_-(1)) +\frac 4 3 (d-N_-(1/2))\right]}\geq \frac 1 3 \epsilon (d-N_-(1/2))\geq\epsilon \, .\end{gathered}$$ This concludes the proof.
As a consequence of Lemma \[lemma\_Npinch\] and \[lemma\_polypinch\], we see that $N(r)-N(r/e)$ is sufficiently small, then the function $u$ is close to a homogeneous harmonic polynomial at scale $r$, and $N$ is close to an integer. We now generalize this point to our [*effective*]{} tangent cone uniqueness statement for harmonic functions, which is our main result for this subsection.
\[th\_hNpinch\]\[t:eff\_tan\_con\_uniq\_harm\] Let $u:B(0,r_1)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be harmonic, and assume that $\big|N(0,r_1)-N(0,r_2)\big| \leq \epsilon$ with $r_2\leq r_1/e^3$. There exists an absolute constant $\epsilon_0>0$ such that if $\epsilon \leq \epsilon_0$, then
1. There exists an integer $d$ such that for all $t\in (r_2,r_1)$, ${\left| N(t)-d\right|}\leq 3\epsilon$,
2. For all $t\in (er_2,r_1/e)$ we have $a_d^2 t^{2d} \geq (1-6\epsilon) h(t)$,
3. For all $t\in (er_2,r_1/e)$ we have that $u$ is close in the $L^2$ sense to the homogeneous harmonic polynomial $P_d$. More precisely, for all $t\in (e r_2,r_1/e)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|T_{0,t}^u - P_d\right|}^2 \leq 7\epsilon\, ,
\end{gathered}$$
4. up to a factor $d$, $u$ and $P_d$ are also $W^{1,2}$ close. More precisely, for all $t\in (e r_2,r_1/e)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,1)} {\left|\nabla T_{0,t}^u - \nabla P_d\right|}^2\leq 7d\epsilon\, .
\end{gathered}$$
The key aspect of this Theorem is the sharpness of the closeness of $u$ to $P_d$ depending on the frequency drop. That is, after dropping one scale either the frequency drops by $\epsilon$ or $u$ is $\epsilon$ close to a homogeneous harmonic polynomial, where $\epsilon$ is independent of $d$, compare for instance to [@chnava].
The second key aspect of this Theorem is that if $u$ is pinched on many scales, then $u$ is automatically close to the [*same*]{} homogeneous harmonic polynomial on all scales. This is a key point to the proof of the main Theorem.
Let us begin with the observation that if we prove the Theorem for $e^3r_2 = r_1 \equiv r$, then the result is proved for any $r_1,r_2$. Indeed, since we are proving that $u$ is close to the $d^{th}$-order part of its Taylor expansion, the radii are unimportant, and thus we will make this assumption in the rest of the proof.
\(i) is a direct consequence of Corollary \[cor\_Npinch\]. By Lemma \[lemma\_polypinch\] (ii) is valid with $d$ replaced by another integer $q$ which, a priori, might be different from $d$. We are left to prove that $q=d$. In order to do so, we will prove that ${\left|N(r/e)-d\right|}$ cannot be small if $d\neq q$.
For simplicity, we assume that $r=e$ and $h(1)=1$. A simple computation yields $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_N-d}
N(1)-d = \sum_{k\neq d} (k-d) a_k^2 = (d-q) a_q^2 + \sum_{k\neq d,q} (k-d) a_k^2 \, .
\end{gathered}$$ By Cauchy inequality, we estimate the last sum as follows $$\begin{gathered}
{\left| \sum_{k\neq q,d} (k-d) a_k^2\right|} \leq \sum_{k\leq d-1, \ k\neq q} (d-k) a_k^2+\sum_{k\geq d+1, \ k\neq q} (k-d) a_k^2\leq \\
\leq {\left(\sum_{k\leq d-1, \ k\neq q} (d-k)^2 a_k^2\right)}^{1/2}{\left(\sum_{k\leq d-1, \ k\neq q} a_k^2\right)}^{1/2}+{\left(\sum_{k\geq d+1, \ k\neq q} (d-k)^2 a_k^2\right)}^{1/2}{\left(\sum_{k\geq d+1, \ k\neq q} a_k^2\right)}^{1/2}\leq \\
\leq \sqrt{6\epsilon} {\left[{\left(\sum_{k\leq d-1, \ k\neq q} (d-k)^2 a_k^2\right)}^{1/2} + {\left(\sum_{k\geq d+1, \ k\neq q} (d-k)^2 a_k^2\right)}^{1/2}\right]}\, .\end{gathered}$$ In order to estimate the sums with $(d-k)^2$, we exploit the growth conditions on $h(t)$. Recall that, for all $t\in (e^{-1},e)$, $\sum_{k\neq q} a_k^2 t^{2k} \leq 6\epsilon h(t)$. Moreover, by (i) and , we can estimate $h(t)$ by $$\begin{gathered}
h(e)\leq e^{2d+6\epsilon}\leq e^{2d+1}\, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sum_{k\neq q} a_k^2 e^{2k-2d-1}\leq 6\epsilon \, , \\
h(e^{-1}) \leq e^{-2d+6\epsilon}\leq e^{-2d+1 }\, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sum_{k\neq q} a_k^2 e^{-2k+2d-1}\leq 6\epsilon \, .\end{gathered}$$ It is evident that there exists a universal constant $C$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
(k-d)^2 \leq C\begin{cases}
e^{2k-2d-1} & \text{ for } k\geq d+1\, ,\\
e^{-2k+2d-1}& \text{ for } k\leq d-1\, .
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ Thus we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\geq d+1, k\ \neq q} (k-d)^2 a_k^2 \leq C \sum_{k\neq q} a_k^2 e^{2k-2d-1} \leq 6 C\epsilon \, ,\\
\sum_{k\leq d-1, k\ \neq q} (k-d)^2 a_k^2 \leq C \sum_{k\neq q} a_k^2 e^{-2k+2d-1} \leq 6 C\epsilon \, .\end{gathered}$$ By and the triangle inequality, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|N(1)-d\right|} \geq {\left|q-d\right|} (1-6\epsilon) - 12 \epsilon \sqrt C\, ,\end{gathered}$$ and the conclusion follows immediately by (i) and the fact that $q$ and $d$ are both integers.
\(iii) is a simple corollary of (ii). Indeed, for all $t\in (r/e^2,r)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|T_{0,t}^u - \tilde a_d P_d\right|}^2 \leq 6 \epsilon\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ and $\tilde a_d \geq \sqrt{1-6\epsilon}\geq 1-4\epsilon$ for $\epsilon\leq \epsilon_0$. This and the normalization of $P_k$ imply that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|T_{0,t}^u - P_d\right|}^2 \right)}^{1/2}\leq \sqrt{6 \epsilon} + 4\epsilon\leq \sqrt{7\epsilon}\, .
\end{gathered}$$
The $W^{1,2}$ estimates in $(iv)$ are an easy consequence of the harmonicity of $u$ and $P$. Indeed, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,1)} {\left|\nabla T_{0,t}^u - \nabla P_d\right|}^2 = \int_{B(0,1)} {\left|\nabla T_{0,t}^u\right|}^2 + \int_{B(0,1)} {\left|\nabla P\right|}^2 - 2 \int_{B(0,1)} {\left\langle\nabla T_{0,t}^u\middle\vert\nabla P\right\rangle} =\\
= N(t) +d - 2 \int_{\partial B(0,1)} T_{0,t}^u\nabla _n P\, .\end{gathered}$$ By homogeneity, $\nabla_n P (x)= d{\left|x\right|}^{-1} P(x)$, thus $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,1)} {\left|\nabla T_{0,t}^u - \nabla P_d\right|}^2 \leq 2d + 3\epsilon - 2d\tilde a_d \leq 3\epsilon + 4d\epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$
As it is clear from the proofs of this subsection, the same results proved here are valid also if we replace $N$ with the unnormalized frequency, the only difference is that in this second case the unnormalized frequency is bounded below by $0$, not $1$, and the integers appearing in the propositions can take the value $0$.
Almost cone splitting {#ss:almost_conesplitting}
---------------------
As we have seen before, a cone splitting theorem is valid for hhPs. In particular, if $P$ is homogeneous wrt $0$ and $x$, then $P$ is invariant wrt the line defined by $x$, and thus $\partial_x P=0$. An almost cone splitting holds for generic harmonic functions, where homogeneity is replaced by quantitative frequency pinching.
\[lemma\_epsd\] Let $u:B(0,e^2d+1)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function, and let $d\geq 1$ be an integer such that
- $N(0,e^2 d)-N(0,e^{-1})\leq \epsilon$ with ${\left|N(0,1)-d\right|}\leq \epsilon$ as well,
- there exists $\bar x \in B(0,1)$ such that $N(\bar x,e^2 d)-N(\bar x,e^{-1})\leq \epsilon$ with ${\left|N(0,1)-d\right|}\leq \epsilon$.
After rotating we may assume without loss that $\bar x = (t,0,\cdots,0)$. If $\epsilon \leq \epsilon_0(n)$ then $u$ is almost $\bar x$ invariant, in the sense that:
1. The $d$-th degree part in its expansion is almost constant. In particular $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|a_d(0) P_{d,0}(y) - a_d(\bar x) P_{d,\bar x}(y) \right|}^2 dy \leq C(n)\epsilon t^2 \fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|a_d(0) P_{d,0}(y) \right|}^2 dy =C(n)\epsilon t^2 a_d(0)^2\, ;
\end{gathered}$$
2. The function itself is almost invariant. In particular $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|u(y) - u(\bar x +y) \right|}^2 dy \leq C(n)\epsilon t^2\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|u(y)\right|}^2 dy \, ;
\end{gathered}$$
3. The $\bar x$ derivative of $P_d$ is almost zero, more precisely $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_1 P_{d,0}\right\|}\leq C(n) t^{-1} \sqrt \epsilon {\left\|\nabla P_{d,0}\right\|}=C(n) t^{-1} \sqrt \epsilon \sqrt{d(2d+n-2)}{\left\|P_{d,0}\right\|}\, .
\end{gathered}$$
Let $u= \sum_k a_k P_k$ be the expansion at zero. By the pinching conditions and Theorem \[th\_hNpinch\], we know that for all $t\in [e^{-1},ed]$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_estepsd}
\sum_{k\neq d} a_k^2 t^{2k}\leq \epsilon a_d^2 t^{2d}\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sum_{k\geq d+1} a_k^2 (ed)^{2(k-d)}\leq \epsilon a_d^2\quad \Longrightarrow \quad \forall k\geq d+1\, , \, \, a_k^2 \leq \epsilon a_d^2 (ed)^{2(d-k)}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ In order to compute the expansion $u$ at $\bar x$, we expand all the polynomials $P_k$ using Taylor’s formula. $$\begin{gathered}
P_k(x+\bar x) = P_k(x) + \sum_{ i=1}^k \frac{t^i}{i!} {\left(\partial _1\right)}^i P_k\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where ${\left(\partial _1\right)}^i P_k$ is again a homogeneous harmonic polynomial of degree $k-i$. By an iterated use of Lemma \[lemma\_pdp\], we can estimate $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_estdip}
\frac{{\left\|{\left(\partial _1\right)}^i P_k\right\|}^2}{{\left\|P_k\right\|}^2}\leq \binom k i i! \prod_{j=0}^{i-1} (2(k-j)+n-2)={\left[\binom k i \ i!\right]}^2 2^i \prod_{j=0}^{i-1} {\left(1+\frac{n-2}{2(k-j)}\right)}\leq c {\left[\binom k i \ i!\right]}^2 2^i {\left(\frac{k}{k-i+1}\right)}^{n/2}\, .\end{gathered}$$
Now, when we re-expand, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
u(x+\bar x)=\sum_k a_k P_k(x+\bar x)\, .\end{gathered}$$ The degree $d$ part in this expansion is $$\begin{gathered}
a_d(\bar x) P_{d,\bar x} = a_d P_d + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{t^k}{k!} a_{d+k}{\left(\partial _1\right)}^k P_{d+k}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By and $$\begin{gathered}
a_d^{-1}{\left\|\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{t^k}{k!} a_{d+k}{\left(\partial _1\right)}^k P_{d+k}\right\|}\leq \sqrt \epsilon \sum_{k=1}^\infty t^k \binom{d+k}{d} d^{-k} e^{-k}{\left(1+\frac{k}{d}\right)}^{n/2}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Simple and very rough algebraic manipulations lead to $$\begin{gathered}
a_d^{-1}{\left\|a_dP_d-a_d(\bar x) P_{d,\bar x}\right\|}\leq \sqrt \epsilon t \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(d+k)(d+k-1)\cdots (d+1)}{d^k k!} e^{-k}{\left(1+\frac{k}{d}\right)}^{n/2}\leq C(n)\sqrt\epsilon t\, ,\end{gathered}$$ which concludes the proof of point $1$.
#### Proof of (2)
This point is a simple corollary of the fact that pinching implies the dominance of the $d$-th term in the expansion. Thus, if the $d$-th term in the expansion is almost constant, the whole function is almost constant.
#### Proof of (3)
In order to prove this last point, we consider also the $d-1$ order part in the expansion of $u$ around $\bar x$.
In detail, it is easy to see that $$\begin{gathered}
a_{d-1}(\bar x) P_{d-1,\bar x} = a_{d-1} P_{d-1} + a_d t \ \partial_1 P_{d}+ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{t^{k+1}}{(k+1)!} a_{d+k}{\left(\partial _1\right)}^{k+1} P_{d+k} \, .
\end{gathered}$$ Given the pinching in the frequency around $\bar x$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|a_{d-1}(\bar x) P_{d-1,\bar x}\right\|}^2\leq C\epsilon {\left\|a_{d}(\bar x) P_{d,\bar x}\right\|}^2 =C\epsilon a_d^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, the triangle inequality implies the easy estimate $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|a_{d-1}(\bar x) P_{d-1,\bar x}\right\|} \geq {\left\|a_d t \ \partial_1 P_d\right\|} - {\left\|a_{d-1} P_{d-1}\right\|} - \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{t^{k+1}}{(k+1)!} a_{d+k}{\left\|{\left(\partial _1\right)}^{k+1} P_{d+k}\right\|}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By computations similar to before, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|a_d t \ \partial_1 P_d\right\|} \leq C{\left|a_d\right|} \sqrt \epsilon + Cd {\left|a_d\right|} \sqrt \epsilon \, .\end{gathered}$$ Given Lemma \[lemma\_pdp\], we can conclude $$\begin{gathered}
t {\left|a_d\right|} {\left\|\partial_1 P_d\right\|} \leq C(n){\left|a_d\right|} d \sqrt \epsilon \, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \, {\left\|\partial_1 P_d\right\|} \leq C(n) t^{-1} \sqrt \epsilon {\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}\, .\end{gathered}$$
With this Lemma, we are in a position to prove a quantitative version of Proposition \[prop\_pn-2\]. In particular, we will see that the points where the frequency is almost pinched around $d$ are almost contained in a $n-2$ dimensional plane. In order to do so, we start by proving that if a harmonic polynomials has $n-1$ partial derivatives suitably close to zero, then it has to be linear.
Let $P_d:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a (nonconstant) hhP of degree $d$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_i P_d\right\|}\leq \sqrt\epsilon {\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}
\end{gathered}$$ for $i=1,\cdots,n-1$ and $\epsilon < \epsilon_0(n)=2n(n-1)$. Then $P_d$ is linear, i.e., $d=1$.
For simplicity we assume that $P_d$ is normalized. By Lemma \[lemma\_pdp\] $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|P_d\right\|}^2=1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad {\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}^2 =\sum_{i=1}^n {\left\|\partial_i P_d\right\|}^2 = d(2d+n-2) \quad \Longrightarrow \\
\Longrightarrow \quad {\left\|\nabla^2 P_d\right\|}^2 =\sum_{i,j=1}^n {\left\|\partial_i \partial_j P_d\right\|}^2 = d(d-1)(2d+n-2)(2(d-1)+n-2)\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Also, for each $i$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial _i P_d \right\|}^2 = (d-1)(2(d-1)+n-2) {\left\|\nabla \partial_i P_d\right\|}^2 = (d-1)(2(d-1)+n-2) \sum_{j=1}^n {\left\|\partial_j \partial_i P_d\right\|}^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Thus we obtain that for $i=1,\cdots,n-1$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla \partial_i P_d\right\|} = {\left\|\nabla^2 (P_d)[e_i]\right\|}<\sqrt \epsilon {\left\|\nabla^2 P_d\right\|}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ This in particular implies that $\nabla^2 P_d=(h_{ij})$ is a symmetric matrix (whose elements are hhPs) with ${\left\|h_{ij}\right\|}^2 \leq \epsilon{\left\|h\right\|}$ if either $i$ or $j$ are not $n$, so for all $(i,j)\neq (n,n)$. This last term is small as well since $P_d$ is harmonic. Indeed, $\sum_i h_{ii}(x) =0$ for all $x$ implies ${\left\|h_{nn}\right\|}^2 \leq (n-1)^2 \epsilon {\left\|h\right\|}$. Summing everything up we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|h\right\|}^2 = \sum_{i,j=1}^n {\left\|h_{ij}\right\|}^2 \leq {\left((n^2-1)\epsilon + (n-1)^2 \epsilon \right)} {\left\|h\right\|}^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ If $\epsilon < c(n) = 2n(n-1)$, then ${\left\|h\right\|}^2=0$, which implies $d=1$.
One could rephrase this Lemma in the following way: the almost invariant directions of every nonlinear hhP $P_d$ are always contained in a neighborhood of a subspace $V$ of dimension $\leq n-2$. It is easy to see that this notion is in some sense stable wrt the polynomial $P_d$.
\[prop\_alcone\] Let $d\geq2$ and $P_d, P'_d:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be two nonlinear hhPs with ${\left\|P_d\right\|}={\left\|P'_d\right\|}=1$. Let $I(\epsilon)\subset S\equiv{\left\{{\left\|v\right\|} =1\right\}}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be the set of almost invariant directions for $P_d$, i.e., the set of unit vectors $v$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_v P_d\right\|}\leq \sqrt \epsilon {\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ and let $I'(\epsilon)$ be the corresponding set for $P'_d$. Then for every $\tau>0$, there exists $\epsilon_0(n,\tau)>0$ such that if $0<\epsilon<\epsilon_0$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|P_d-P'_d\right\|}\leq \sqrt{\epsilon}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ there exists a subspace $V\leq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ of dimension $\leq n-2$ such that $I(\epsilon)\cup I'(\epsilon)\subset B_\tau(V)$. We define this subspace $V$ as the almost invariant subspace of $P_d$ and $P'_d$.
Note that this proposition is a quantitative version of Proposition \[prop\_pn-2\] which is also stable wrt the $L^2$ norm of the polynomial $P_d$. Note also that $V$ is only well defined up to an $\epsilon$-perturbation.
Recall that, by Lemma \[lemma\_pdp\] and the normalization of the polynomials, the following equality holds $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}^2 = {\left\|\nabla P'_d\right\|}^2 = d(2d+n-2)\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Thus it is easy to see that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_v P_d - \partial_v P'_d\right\|} \leq \sqrt{d(2d+n-2)} {\left\|P_d-P'_d\right\|}= \sqrt{\epsilon}{\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}=\sqrt \epsilon {\left\|\nabla{P'_d}\right\|}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ which means $I(\epsilon/4)\subset I'(\epsilon)\subset I(4\epsilon)$. Thus, up to an inconsequential change in $\epsilon_0$, it is sufficient to prove the statement for $I$.
The inclusion $I(\epsilon)\subset B_\tau(V)$ is an easy corollary of the previous Proposition. Suppose by contradiction that for every $n-2$ dimensional plane $V$, $I\setminus B_\tau(V)\neq \emptyset$. Then there exists $n-1$ unit vectors $v_i$ with $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_{v_i} P_d\right\|}\leq \sqrt \epsilon {\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}\quad \text{ and }\quad v_i \not \in B_\tau {\left(\operatorname{span}(v_1,\cdots,v_{i-1})\right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By a simple orthonormalization argument, it is easy to see that there exists $n-1$ *orthonormal* vectors $w_i$ satisfying ${\left\|\partial_{w_i} P_d\right\|}\leq c(n,\tau)\sqrt\epsilon {\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}$. The previous Lemma concludes the proof.
As a Corollary of this Proposition and Lemma \[lemma\_epsd\], we obtain that the points with pinched frequency have to be close to an $n-2$ dimensional plane.
\[cor\_alcone\] Let $u:B(0,e^2d+1)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function, fix some $\tau>0$ and set ${\mathcal{V}}$ to be set of points $x\in B(0,1)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,e^2 d)-N(x,e^{-1})\leq \epsilon \quad \text{ with } \quad {\left|N(x,1)-d\right|}\leq \epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$ There exists $\epsilon_0(n,\tau)$ such that if $\epsilon<\epsilon_0$, then there exists a subspace $V$ of dimension at most $n-2$ such that for all $x\in {\mathcal{V}}$ $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{V}}\cap B(0,1)\subset x+B_\tau (V)\, .\end{gathered}$$ Note that the subspace $V$ may be chosen indepedent of $x$.
Almost $n-2$ invariant hhPs {#ss:almost_codim2_invariant}
---------------------------
In the previous section, we have seen that if some hhP is almost $n-1$ invariant, then it depends only on $1$ variable and thus it is linear. Here we will explore the properties of almost $n-2$ invariant polynomials. Although an almost $n-2$ invariant polynomial is not necessarily a polynomial of $2$ variables, such a function has to be *close* to a polynomial of two variables. Exploiting the properties of hhP in dimension $2$, we will then use this statement to get some control over the critical and almost critical sets of such functions.
Let $P:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a hhP of degree $d$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_1 P\right\|}^2\leq \epsilon {\left\|\nabla P\right\|}^2 = \epsilon d(2d+n-2) {\left\|P\right\|}^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$ There exist constants $\epsilon_0$ such that if $\epsilon\leq \epsilon_0/d^2$, then $$\begin{gathered}
P = \sqrt{1-\delta} Q + \sqrt \delta R\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $Q$ and $R$ are hhPs of degree $d$ with ${\left\|Q\right\|} = {\left\|R\right\|} = {\left\|P\right\|}$, $Q$ is $x_1$-invariant and $\delta\leq n\epsilon_0$.
We will assume for simplicity ${\left\|P\right\|}=1$. Let $P=Q+R$, where $Q\in {\mathcal{P}}_d$ is independent of $x_1$, and $R$ is orthogonal to all $x_1$ inviariant polynomials. Then $\partial_1 P = \partial_1 R$, and so, by Proposition \[prop\_perpest\], ${\left\|R\right\|}\leq {\left\|\partial_1 R\right\|}\leq \sqrt{n\epsilon} d {\left\|P\right\|}\leq \sqrt{n\epsilon_0} {\left\|P\right\|}$.
Proceding by successive steps, one can prove the following.
\[prop\_poly2\] Let $P:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a hhP of degree $d$ such that for $i=1,\cdots,k\leq n-2$ $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_i P\right\|}^2\leq \epsilon {\left\|\nabla P\right\|}^2 = \epsilon d(2d+n-2) {\left\|P\right\|}^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$ There exist constants $\epsilon_0$ such that if $\epsilon\leq \epsilon_0/d^{2n-4}$, then $$\begin{gathered}
P = \sqrt{1-\delta^2} Q + \delta R\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $Q$ and $R$ are hhPs of degree $d$ with ${\left\|Q\right\|} = {\left\|R\right\|} = {\left\|P\right\|}$, $Q$ is $x_1,\cdots,x_k$ invariant and $\delta\leq \sqrt {c(n)\epsilon_0}$.
For $k=1$, this is exactly the content of the previous lemma. Thus we can write $P=\sqrt{1-\delta_1}Q_1+\sqrt \delta_1 R_1$, where $Q_1$ is invariant wrt $x_1$ and $\delta_1\leq \epsilon_0/d^{2n-6}$. This in particular implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\sqrt{1-\delta_1}{\left\|\partial_2 Q_1\right\|} \leq {\left\|\partial_2 P\right\|} + \sqrt{\delta_1} {\left\|\partial_2 R_1\right\|}\leq \sqrt{n}d\sqrt{\epsilon} {\left\|P\right\|} + nd^2\sqrt{\epsilon} {\left\|R_1\right\|} = \sqrt{\epsilon}{\left(\sqrt{n}d + nd^2\right)}{\left\|Q_1\right\|}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Given the hypothesis on $\delta_1$, we have the rough estimate $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_2 Q_1\right\|} \leq \sqrt 2 \sqrt{\epsilon}{\left(\sqrt{n}d + nd^2\right)}{\left\|Q_1\right\|}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Note that $Q_1$ (and thus also $\partial_2 Q_1$ is independent of $x_1$. By \[lemma\_norm\_n\], this estimate is equivalent to $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\partial_2 Q_1\right\|}_{n-1} \leq \sqrt 2 \frac{n+2d-2}{n+2d-3} \sqrt{\epsilon}{\left(\sqrt{n}d + nd^2\right)}{\left\|Q_1\right\|}_{n-1}\leq 2\sqrt{\epsilon}{\left(\sqrt{n}d + nd^2\right)}{\left\|Q_1\right\|}_{n-1}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where ${\left\|\cdot\right\|}_{n-1}$ is the usual $L^2(\partial B(0,1))$ norm in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$. Thus we can apply again the previous lemma and obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
Q_1=\sqrt{1-\delta_2}Q_2+\sqrt{\delta_2} R_2\, ,\end{gathered}$$ with $\delta_2\leq c(n) \epsilon_0 /d^{2n-8}$. Moreover, $Q_2$ is both $x_1$ and $x_2$ invariant.
By induction, we obtain the thesis.
Symmetry and Critical Points {#ss:symmetric_criticalpoints}
----------------------------
In this section, we study the properties of functions close to $n-2$ symmetric polynomials and obtain estimates on the critical radius $r_c(x)$ for suitable $x$.
Let $P$ be a hhP of degree $d$ depending only on two variables, where for simplicity we choose the coordinates $(x,y)\in {\mathbb{R}}^2\times {\mathbb{R}}^{n-2} ={\mathbb{R}}^n$ in such a way that $P$ depends only on $x$. As we have seen in , the gradient of $P$ has absolute value ${\left|\nabla P (x,y)\right|}= 2d {\left\|P\right\|}_{L^2(\partial B)} {\left|x\right|} ^{d-1}$, thus $P$ has no critical points outside its $n-2$ dimensional invariant plane $V$. The aim of thi section is to obtain a quantitative version of this property.
### Harmonic functions in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$
First of all, we restrict ourselves to harmonic functions in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, since in this situation the statements are stronger and easier to prove. In the previous sections, we have seen how the pinching on Almgren’s frequency affects the expansion of a harmonic function at a point. Here we prove an important connection between pinching and the critical points (or better, the lack thereof).
\[prop\_crit2\] Let $u:B(0,e^2)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function. There exists an $\epsilon_0$ independent of $d$ such that if $$\begin{gathered}
N(0,e^2)- N(0,e^{-2})\leq \epsilon
\end{gathered}$$ with $\epsilon \leq \epsilon_0$, then $u$ does not have critical points on $\partial B(0,1)$.
As done previously, we consider the Taylor expansion of $u$ $$\begin{gathered}
u= \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k P_k\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where without loss of generality, we assume $u(0)=0$ and ${\left\|u\right\|}=h(1)=1$.
By Theorem \[th\_hNpinch\], there exists an integer $d$ such that
1. for all $t\in [e^{-2}, e^2]$, ${\left| N(t)-d\right|}\leq 3\epsilon$
2. for all $t\in [e^{-1}, e^1]$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_kdsum}
\sum_{k\neq d} a_k^2 t^{2k} \leq 6\epsilon h(t)\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ or equivalently $$\begin{gathered}
a_d^2 t^{2d} \geq (1-6\epsilon )h(t)\, .
\end{gathered}$$
With this relation we can compare the gradient of $u$ with the gradient of its leading term, $P_d$: $$\begin{gathered}
\delta \equiv u-a_d P_d = \sum_{k\neq d} a_k P_k \, \Longrightarrow \, {\left|\nabla \delta\right|} \leq \sum_{k\neq d} {\left|a_k\right|} {\left|\nabla P_k\right|} \, ,\end{gathered}$$ In particular, for $x\in \partial B(0,1)$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla P_d\right|}(x) = 2d\, , \quad {\left|\nabla \delta\right|}(x) \leq 2 \sum_{k\neq d} k{\left|a_k\right|}\, . \end{gathered}$$ In order to estimate the last sum, we split it in two parts: the sum from $d+1$ to infinity, and the sum up to $d-1$. We can estimate $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\geq d+1} k{\left|a_k\right|} \leq {\left(\sum_{k\geq d+1} {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{2k-2d} \right)}^{1/2}{\left(\sum_{k\geq d+1} k^2e^{2d-2k} \right)}^{1/2}\, .\end{gathered}$$ The first term on the rhs can be estimated using . Indeed by this equation, and the pinching on the frequency we have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\geq d+1} {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{2k} \leq 6\epsilon e^{2d+6\epsilon} \, \Longrightarrow \sum_{k\geq d+1} {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{2k-2d} \leq 6e\epsilon\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where we assumed $\epsilon_0\leq 6^{-1}$. As for the second term, we can use the comparison with integrals. $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\geq d+1} k^2e^{-2k} \leq \int_d^\infty x^2 e^{-2x} dx = -\frac 1 2 {\left[ {\left(x^2+x-\frac 1 2 \right)} e^{-2x} \right]}_d^\infty = -\frac 1 2 {\left(d^2+d-\frac 1 2 \right)} e^{-2d} \leq cd^2 e^{-2d}\, .\end{gathered}$$ In a similar way, we can deal with the sum up to $d-1$. As before, we use Cauchy inequality to split the sum and get $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\leq d-1} k{\left|a_k\right|} \leq {\left(\sum_{k\leq d-1} {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{2d-2k} \right)}^{1/2}{\left(\sum_{k\leq d-1} k^2e^{2k-2d} \right)}^{1/2}\, .\end{gathered}$$ The first term on the rhs can be estimated using . Indeed by this equation, and the pinching on the frequency we have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\leq d-1} {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{-2k} \leq 6\epsilon e^{-2d+6\epsilon} \, \Longrightarrow \sum_{k\leq d-1} {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{-2k+2d} \leq 6e\epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$ As for the second term, we can use again the comparison with integrals. $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\leq d-1} k^2e^{2k} \leq \int_0^d x^2 e^{2x} dx = \frac 1 2 {\left[ {\left(x^2-x+\frac 1 2 \right)} e^{2x} \right]}_d^\infty = \frac 1 2 {\left(d^2-d+\frac 1 2 \right)} e^{2d} \leq cd^2 e^{2d}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Summing up, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\neq d } k{\left|a_k\right|} \leq cd\epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$ If $\epsilon_0\leq (4c)^{-1}$, we have for all $x\in \partial B(0,1)$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla u\right|}(x) \geq a_d {\left|\nabla P_d\right|}(x) - {\left|\nabla \delta\right|}(x) \geq d -2cd\epsilon >0\, .\end{gathered}$$
It is possible to improve the previous theorem to obtain information not only on the gradient of $u$ at $x\in \partial B(0,1)$, but also on its critical radius $r_c(x)$.
\[prop\_h2effcrit\] Let $u:B(0,e^2)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function. There exist $\epsilon_0,r_0$ independent of $d$ such that if $$\begin{gathered}
N(0,e^2)- N(0,e^{-2})\leq \epsilon
\end{gathered}$$ with $\epsilon \leq \epsilon_0$ and ${\left| N(0,1) -d \right|}<1/2$, then for all $x\in \partial B(0,1)$, $r_c(x)\geq r_0 d^{-1}$.
By studying hhP of two variables, it is easy to realize that the lower bound on $r_c(x)$ cannot be independent of $d$. however, in our computations this only adds a polynomial error to the final estimate.
The proof of this theorem is very similar in spirit to the proof of the previous proposition. However, in order to get estimates on $r_c(x)$, it is not sufficient to concentrate on the gradient of the function $u$. We need to estimate all the terms in the Taylor expansion of the function $u$ at $x$.
As before, we start by writing the expansion of $u$ at the origin and at some point $x\in \partial B(0,1)$: $$\begin{gathered}
u(y)=\sum_k a_k P_k(y)\, , \quad \quad u(x+y)=\sum_k a_k(x) P_{k,x}(y)\, .
\end{gathered}$$ The pinching condition implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k\neq d} a_k^2 e^{4{\left|k-d\right|}} \leq c\epsilon a_d^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$ For simplicity, we will assume that $a_d^2=1$, and that $x=(t,0,\cdots,0)$. By re-expanding $u$ at $x$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
a_k(x) P_{k,x}(y)= \sum_{s=0}^\infty a_{k+s} \frac{t^s}{s!} \partial_1^s P_{k+s}\, ,\\
{\left|a_k(x)\right|}\leq \sum_{s=0}^\infty {\left|a_{k+s}\right|} t^s \binom{k+s}{s}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Since $t=1$, for $k\geq d+1$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|a_k(x)\right|}\leq c\sqrt \epsilon \sum_{s=0}^\infty e^{-2(k-d)} e^{-2s} \frac{(k+s)^s}{s!}\leq c\sqrt \epsilon \sum_{s=0}^\infty e^{-2(k-d)} e^{-s} {\left(1+\frac k s\right)}^s\leq c\sqrt \epsilon e^{-k+2d}\sum_{s=0}^\infty e^{-s}\leq c\sqrt \epsilon e^{-k+2d}\, .\end{gathered}$$ For $k\leq d$, it is convenient to separate the contribution coming from the expansion of the degrees $\leq d-1$, $=d$ and $\geq d+1$. In such a way we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
a_{k}(x)P_{k,x}(y)= \sum_{s=0}^{d-k-1} a_{k+s} \frac{t^s}{s!}\partial_1^s P_{k+s} \, +\, t^{d-k}{(d-k)!} \partial_1^{d-k} P_d \, +\, \sum_{s=d-k+1}^\infty a_{k+s} \frac{t^s}{s!}\partial_1^s P_{k+s}\, ,\\
{\left|a_k\right|}\leq \sum_{s=1}^{d-k} a_{d-s} \binom{d-s}{k} \, + \, \binom d k \, + \, \sum_{s=1}^\infty a_{d+s} \binom{d+s} k \leq \binom d k + c\sqrt\epsilon{\left[\sum_{s=1}^{d-k} e^{-2s} \frac{(d-s)^k}{k!} + \sum_{s=1}^\infty e^{-2s} \frac{d^k}{k!} {\left(1+\frac{s}{d}\right)}^k \right]}\leq\\
\leq \binom{d}{k} +c\sqrt\epsilon \frac{d^k}{k!}{\left[c+\sum_{s=1}^\infty s^k e^{-2s}\right]}\leq \frac{d^k}{k!} +c\sqrt\epsilon d^k{\left[\frac 1 {k!} + 2^{-k}\right]} \, .\end{gathered}$$ By the previous proposition, it is easy to see that $$\begin{gathered}
(1-c\epsilon)d \leq {\left|a_1\right|}\leq (1+c\epsilon) d\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Putting together these estimates, we obtain the following very rough bound on the frequency $ N(x,r_0 d^{-1})$: $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,r)= \frac{\sum_{k=1}^\infty k a_k(x)^2 r^{2k}}{\sum_{k=1}^\infty a_k(x)^2 r^{2k}}\leq 1+\frac{\sum_{k=2}^\infty k a_k(x)^2 r^{2k}}{a_1(x)^2 r^2 }\, ,\\
N(x,r_0 d^{-1})\leq 1+cr_0^2 \sum_{k=2}^d{\left(k \frac{d^k}{k!} \frac 1 {d^k}\right)} + c\sqrt \epsilon r_0^2 {\left[\sum_{k=2}^d \frac k {k!} + k2^{-k} + \sum_{k=d+1}^\infty ke^{-k+2d} d^{-k} \right]}\, .\end{gathered}$$ It is clear that $r_0$ can be chosen in such a way that $ N{\left(x,r_0d^{-1}\right)}\leq 1+3/2$, and this proves the thesis.
### Harmonic functions in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$
For general $n$, with similar computations we can obtain similar results. However, in this case the results we obtain are somewhat weaker, in particular the constant $\epsilon_0$ will not be independent of the degree $d$ of the polynomial.
\[prop\_n-2\] Let $u:B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function which can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
u=Q_d + \sum_k a_k P_k\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $P_k$ are normalized hhPs of degree $k$, and $Q_d$ is a normalized hhP of degree $d$ invariant wrt the $n-2$ dimensional plane $V$. For $0<\tau\leq 1$, there exists a constant $c(n)$ such that if $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_k {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{2{\left|k-d\right|}}\leq \epsilon\, \end{gathered}$$ with $\epsilon \leq (c(n)\tau )^{2d-2}$, then $u$ does not have critical points in $B(0,1)\setminus B_\tau (V)$.
The proof of this Lemma follows closely the proof of Proposition \[prop\_crit2\]. Indeed, define $\delta = \sum_k a_k P_k$, and consider that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla \delta\right|}\leq \sum_k {\left|a_k\right|} {\left|\nabla P_k\right|}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ The normalization on $P_k$, along with Lemmas \[lemma\_pdp\] and \[lemma\_dest\], imply that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla P_k\right\|}^2 \leq k(2k+n-2)\leq nk^2\, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \, {\left|\nabla P_k(x)\right|} \leq c(n) k^{n/2} {\left|x\right|} ^{k-1}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Thus for all $x\in B(0,1)$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla \delta(x)\right|}\leq c(n)\sqrt{\epsilon} \sum_k e^{-{\left|k-d\right|}} k ^{n/2}\leq c(n) \sqrt{\epsilon} d^{n/2}\, .\end{gathered}$$ On the other hand, let ${\left|x-V\right|}$ be the distance from $x$ to $V$. By the properties of hhPs of two variables $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla Q_d(x)\right|}\geq 2 d {\left|x-V\right|}^{d-1}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ thus, if $x\in B(0,1)\setminus B_\tau (V)$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla u (x)\right|} \geq {\left|x-V\right|}^{d-1} {\left(2d - \tau^{1-d}c(n) d^{n/2} \sqrt{\epsilon} \right)}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ which implies the thesis.
As for the $n=2$ case, also for general dimension it is not difficult to improve the previous statement in order to get estimates on the *effective* critical set.
\[prop\_heffcrit\] Let $u:B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function which can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
u=Q_d + \sum_k a_k P_k\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $P_k$ are normalized hhPs of degree $k$, and $Q_d$ is a normalized hhP of degree $d$ invariant wrt the $n-2$ dimensional plane $V$. For $0<\tau\leq 1$, there exists a constant $c(n)$ such that if $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_k {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{2{\left|k-d\right|}}\leq \epsilon\, \end{gathered}$$ with $\epsilon \leq (c(n)\tau )^{2d-2}$, then for all $x\in B(0,1)\setminus B_\tau(V)$, $r_c(x)\geq c(n) \tau^{d}$.
The proof follows as in the $n=2$ case using the results of the previous proposition.
Volume estimates on the effective critical sets {#ss:volume_estimates_harmonic}
-----------------------------------------------
In this section, we prove the main volume estimates on the effective critical set. The proof is obtained by successive covering of “good” and “bad scales”.
We start with the definition of a good scale for the function $u$ relative to the degree $d$. As we will see, on these scales we will have nice covering arguments for the set ${\mathcal{S}}_r(u)$.
We fix $\tau=1/100$, and set $\epsilon=\epsilon(n,d)$ given by the minimum of $\epsilon_0(n)/2$ in Theorem \[th\_hNpinch\], $\epsilon_0(n)/2$ in Lemma \[lemma\_epsd\], $\epsilon_0(n,\tau)/2$ in Proposition \[prop\_alcone\] and $\epsilon(n,d)=(c(n)\tau)^{2d-2}$ from Proposition \[prop\_heffcrit\].
Let $u$ be a harmonic function defined on some domain $D$ with $B(x,2t)\subset D$. We say that $(x,t)$ is a good scale for $u$ (or equivalently we say that $B(x,t)$ is a good scale ball for $u$) relative to the degree $d$ if $N(y,t)\leq d+\epsilon$ for all $y\in B(x,t)$.
Fix some positive $r$ and suppose that $B(x,t)$ is a good scale ball for $u$ relative to $d$. Then we define $$\begin{gathered}
r'_x = \sup{\left\{s\geq 0 \ \ s.t. \ \ N(x,s)\geq d-\epsilon\right\}}\, , \quad r_x = \max{\left\{r'_x,r\right\}}\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where as a convention we set $r'_x=\infty$ if $N(x,s)$ is never $\geq d-\epsilon$ on the domain of $u$. Moreover, for any positive $r$, we also set $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{S}}_r(u)={\mathcal{S}}= {\left\{x\in B(0,1) \ \ s.t. \ \ N(x,r)\geq 3/2\right\}}\, ,\\
{\mathcal{S}}_g(u) ={\mathcal{S}}_g= {\left\{x\in {\mathcal{S}}\ \ s.t. \ \ \forall y \in {\mathcal{S}}\cap B(x,5 r_x), \ \ r_y \geq r_x/7\right\}}\, ,\\
{\mathcal{S}}_b(u) ={\mathcal{S}}_b= {\mathcal{S}}(u)\setminus {\mathcal{S}}_g(u) ={\left\{y\in {\mathcal{S}}\ \ s.t. \ \ \exists x \in {\mathcal{S}}\cap B(y,5 r_y), \ \ r_x < r_y/7\right\}}\, .
\end{gathered}$$
The following proposition gives us a covering of the set ${\mathcal{S}}(u)$ on a good scale. Later on, we will deal with bad scales.
Let $B(0,1)$ be a good scale ball for $u$ relative to the degree $d$. Then there exists $x_i\in {\mathcal{S}}_r(u)$ and $s_i>0$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{S}}_{c(n)\tau^d r}(u)\subset \bigcup_{i} B(x_i,s_i)\, , \quad \sum_i s_i^{n-2}\leq r^{n-2} C(n)d^n
\end{gathered}$$ and such that for every $y\in B(x_i,s_i)$, either $s_i\leq r$ or $ N(y,7^{-1}\epsilon s_i)\leq d-1+\epsilon$.
We can assume that $r\leq (e^3d)^{-1}$, otherwise a simple Vitali covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_r\cap B(0,1)$ will do the trick.
Consider the collection of balls $B(x,r_x)$ with centers in $x\in {\mathcal{S}}_g(u)$, and pick a Vitali subcovering of ${\mathcal{S}}_g(u)$, i.e., a finite collection of balls such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{S}}_g(u)\subset \bigcup_{i} B(x_i,5r_i)\quad \text{ and }\quad B(x_i,r_i)\cap B(x_j,r_j)=\emptyset\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $r_i=r_{x_i}$. For each $r_i$ we have two options, either this radius is smaller than $(e^3d)^{-1}$ or not. In the first case, we say that $i\in G_g$, in the second, $i\in G_b$.
An immediate volume argument allow us to estimate $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i\in G_b} r_i^{n-2}\leq C(n) d^n\, .\end{gathered}$$ As for the indexes in $G_g$, we can partition this set further in subfamilies, in such a way that for each $i$ and $j$ in each subfamily, $d(x_i,x_j)\leq (e^3d)^{-1}$. Again, the number of such subfamilies is bounded above by $C(n)d^n$.
Now, pick $i,j$ in the same subfamily, and consider that $$\begin{gathered}
r_i+r_j\leq d(x_i,x_j)\leq (e^3d)^{-1}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By definition of good scale and $r_i$, $N(x_i,1)- N(x_i,r_i)\leq 2\epsilon$, and the same holds for $x_j$. Thus we can apply Theorem \[th\_hNpinch\] to obtain the existence of a unique normalized hhP $P_d$ such that for all $s\in [r_i,(e^3d)^{-1}]$, ${\left\|T_{x_i,s}-P_d\right\|}\leq \sqrt{7\epsilon}$. A similar statement is true for $x_j$, and we denote $P'_d$ the approximating polynomial in this case.
By the almost cone splitting proved in Corollary \[cor\_alcone\], there exists a common almost invariant subspace $V\leq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ of dimension at most $n-2$ for $P_d$ and $P'_d$, and $x_j$ is effectively close to $x_i+V$, in the sense that $$\begin{gathered}
d(x_j-x_i,V) \leq \tau d(x_i,x_j)=100^{-1} d(x_i,x_j)\, .\end{gathered}$$
Since this argument holds for any $i,j$ in the same subfamily, by the Lipschitz extension theorem there exists a Lipschitz function $f:V\to V^\perp$ with Lipschitz constant $\leq 10^{-1}$ such that all $x_i$ in the same subfamily belong to the graph of $f$, which we denote by $\Gamma(f)$.
This allow us to estimate the sum $\sum r_i^{n-2}$, where $i$ belong to the same subfamily. Indeed, this sum is bounded above by a constant depending only on the Lipschitz constant of $f$ and on the $n-2$ Lebesgue measure of an $n-2$ dimensional ball of radius $(e^3d)^{-1}$. Summing over all subfamilies we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i\in G_g} r_i^{n-2}\leq C(n) d^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ In the end, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i\in G_g\cup G_b} r_i^{n-2} \leq C(n) d^n\, .\end{gathered}$$
As for the drop in the frequency, let $z\in B(x_i,5 r_i)$. By definition of ${\mathcal{S}}_g$, $r_z\geq r_i/7$, which with Lemma \[lemma\_Npinch\] proves the frequency drop.
#### Covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_b$
Now we turn our attention to the set ${\mathcal{S}}_b$. We divide this argument in two subcases.
#### If $V$ has dimension $\leq n-3$
. It is easy to see that for each $y\in {\mathcal{S}}_b$, there exists a point $x\in {\mathcal{S}}_g$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
d(x,y)\leq {\left(5\sum_{k=0}^\infty 7^{-k}\right)}r_y \leq 6 r_y \quad \text{ and } \quad r_x<7^{-1} r_y\, .\end{gathered}$$ In turn, there exists some $B(x_i,5r_i)$ in the covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_g$ such that $x\in B(x_i,5r_i)$ and $r_i\leq 7^{-1}r_x$. This implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_rj}
r_i\leq r_y \quad \text{ and } \quad d(x_i,y)\leq 11r_y\, .\end{gathered}$$ For all $y\in {\mathcal{S}}_b$, define $t_y=55^{-1}\min_i d(y,x_i)\leq r_y/5$, and consider the covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_b$ given by $\cup_{y\in {\mathcal{S}}_b} B(y,t_y)$. A Vitali subcovering has the property that $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{S}}_b\subset \bigcup_j B(y_j,5t_j) \quad \text{ and }\quad B(y_j,t_j)\cap B(y_k,t_k)=\emptyset\, .\end{gathered}$$ We partition the index set $J$ into $J_k$, with $k=0,\cdots,\infty$ such that $j\in J_k$ only if $t_j\in (2^{-k-1},2^{-k}]$. Denote by $\Gamma(f)$ the union of all the graphs of the functions $f$ in the subfamilies described above. By , $d(y_j,\Gamma(f))\leq 55t_j$, and so for every $k$ we can estimate the number of balls elements in $J_k$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\#(J_k)\leq \frac{{\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_{55\times 2^k} \Gamma(f)\right)} }{{\operatorname{Vol}}B(0,2^{-k-1})}\leq c(n) 2^{k(3-n)} d^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ Thus we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{j\in J} t_j^{n-2} \leq \sum _k 2^{k(n-2)} \# (J_k) \leq c(n)d^2\, .\end{gathered}$$
Now consider any $z\in B(y_j,5t_j)\cap {\mathcal{S}}_2$. Evidently for all $i$: $d(z,x_i)\geq d(y_j,x_i)-5t_j \geq 50 t_j $. Moreover, since $r_z\geq d(z,x_i)/11$, we have that $r_z\geq 5 t_j$, thus proving the frequency drop.
#### If $V$ has dimension $=n-2$.
In this case, we see that all the hypothesis of Proposition \[prop\_heffcrit\] are satisfied.
Thus in particular, if $z\in B(0,1)$ is such that there exists $i$ with $$\begin{gathered}
5r_i<d(z,x_i)< (e^3d)^{-1}\, \quad \text{ and } \quad d(z,x_i+V) > \tau d(z,x_i)\, ,\end{gathered}$$ then $r_c(z)\geq (c(n)\tau)^{d}r_i$, which means that, by definition, $z\not \in {\mathcal{S}}_{(c(n)\tau)^d r}$.
As for the points such that $d(z,x_i+V) \leq \tau d(z,x_i)$, we can cover them as we covered ${\mathcal{S}}_b$ in the previous case and obtain easily the $n-2$ Minkowski estimate on them. Indeed, these points are effectively close to an $n-2$ dimensional subspace.
With this proposition, we are ready to prove our main theorem.
\[th\_vol\_harm\] Let $u:B(0,1)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function with $N(0,1)\leq \Lambda$. There exists a constant $C(n)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_r{\left({\mathcal{S}}_r(u)\right)} \cap B(0,1/2)\right)}\leq C(n)^{\Lambda^2} r^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$
We are going to prove the theorem by successive covering of the set $S_r\cap B(0,1/2)$, in such a way that in each step we will cover a ball of radius $s$ in the previous step with balls of radia $s_i\geq r$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_i s_i^{n-2}\leq C(n)^\Lambda s^{n-2}\, .\end{gathered}$$ As we will see, the number of steps in the induction will be bounded above by $C(n)\Lambda$, thus the estimate follows. Define for convenience ${\tilde r}=c(n)\tau^{d} r$.
First of all, observe that, by Theorem \[th\_cN\], $N(x,1/3)\leq C(n)\Lambda$ for all $x\in B(0,1/2)$. Let $d^\star$ be the integral part of $C(n)\Lambda$, then by Lemma \[lemma\_Npinch\] $N(x,\epsilon/4)\leq d^\star + \epsilon$. This in particular implies that for every $x$, $B(x,\epsilon/4)$ is a good scale ball relative to the degree $d^\star$. We cover ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}\cap B(0,1/2)$ with $C(n)\epsilon^{-n}$ such balls, say $B(x_{0,i},s_{0,i})$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_i s_{0,i}^{n-2}\leq C(n)\epsilon^{-2}\leq C(n)^{\Lambda}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Fix one $i$, the previous proposition gives us a covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}\cap B(x_{0,i},s_{0,i})$ by balls $B(y_{0,j},t_{0,j})$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{j} t_{0,j}^{n-2} \leq C(n)^{\Lambda} s_{0,i}^{n-2}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Evidently, if we consider all the balls $B(y_{0,i},t_{0,i})$ in the coverings of all $B(x_{0,i},s_{0,i})$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_i t_{0,i}^{n-2}\leq C(n)^{2\Lambda}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, for each $x\in B(y_{0,i},t_{0,i})$, either $t_{0,i}=r$ (and in such a case we keep this ball untouched in the successive steps), or the ball of radius $t_{0,i}\epsilon/7$ is a good scale ball relative to $d^\star -1$. Since we can cover each $B(y_{0,i},t_{0,i})$ by $C(n) \epsilon^{n}$ such balls, we obtain a covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}\cap B(0,1/2)$ by balls $B(x_{1,i},s_{1,i})$ which are good with respect to $d^\star -1$ and such that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_i s_{1,i}^{n-2}\leq C(n)^{3\Lambda}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Recall that $\epsilon=\epsilon_0(n) \tau^{2d-2}\leq \epsilon_0(n) C(n)^{-\Lambda}$. We repeat this argument $d^\star -1$ times, and obtain a covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}\cap B(0,1/2)$ made by balls $B(y_i,t_i)$ such that either $t_i=r$ or for all $x\in B(y_i,t_i)$, $N(x,\epsilon_0 t_i)\leq 3/2$. Thus if $t_i\geq \epsilon$, then $B(y_i,t_i)\cap {\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r} = \emptyset$. Otherwise, ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}\cap B(y_i,t_i)$ can be easily covered by at most $C(n)\epsilon^{-n}$ balls of radius $r\geq \epsilon t_i$.
By induction, it is easy to realize that at this last step we obtain a covering of ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}\cap B(0,1/2)$ by at most $M$ balls of radius $r$, where $M r^{n-2}\leq C(n)^{\Lambda^2}$. Since ${\tilde r}\leq r C(n)^{-\Lambda}$, we obtain the thesis.
If we deal with functions in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, we can obtain better estimates. Indeed, in this case the $\epsilon$-regularity theorem works for $\epsilon\leq \epsilon_0(n)$, without any dependence on $d$, and one does not need to use the cone splitting Lemma in \[lemma\_epsd\]. In the next two statements, we briefly describe how to modify the arguments stated previously in order to obtain these better estimates.
For the next proposition, fix $\epsilon(n)$ to be the minimum of $\epsilon_0(n)$ given by Theorem \[th\_hNpinch\] and Proposition \[prop\_h2effcrit\].
Let $B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a good scale ball for $u$ relative to the degree $d$, fix $r>0$ and let $\tilde r = r r_0/d$, where $r_0=r_0(n)$ is the one in Proposition \[prop\_h2effcrit\].
There exists a single $x\in {\mathcal{S}}_r$ such that ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}\subset B(x,r_x)$ and either $r_x=r$ or for all $y\in B(x,r_x)$, $N(y,\epsilon r_x)\leq d-1+\epsilon$.
If for all $x\in {\mathcal{S}}_r$, $r_x=\infty$, then we obtain our estimate just by considering $B(0,1)$ as a cover for itself.
In the other cases, let $x\in {\mathcal{S}}_r$ be (one of the) points for which $r_x$ is minimum. By definition of $r_x$ and good scale, we have that $N(x,1)-N(x,r_x)\leq \epsilon$, and thus, by Proposition \[prop\_h2effcrit\], $B(x,1)\setminus B(x,r_x)$ has empty intersection with ${\mathcal{S}}_{\tilde r}(u)$.
Moreover, since $r_x$ has minimum value, the statement about frequency drop is trivial.
With this proposition, using the exact same argument as before, we can prove the following improved estimate in dimension $2$.
Let $u:B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a harmonic function with $N(0,1)\leq \Lambda$. There exists a constant $C(n)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_r{\left({\mathcal{S}}_r(u)\right)} \cap B(0,1/2)\right)}\leq C(n)^{\Lambda} r^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$
More general elliptic equations {#s:general_elliptic}
===============================
Using the same technique as in the harmonic case, one can obtain similar results also for solutions of more general elliptic equations of the form . The most important tool in the estimates proved in the previous sections is Almgren’s frequency and its monotonicity properties. For this reason, we start our analysis of elliptic equations by recalling the definition and basic properties of the generalized frequency. For convenience, we follow the notation used in [@chnava], which is a generalization of similar constructions given in [@galin1; @galin2; @HLrank; @hanlin; @hanhardtlin].
Generalized frequency {#ss:generalized_frequency}
---------------------
Fix an origin $\bar x$, and define the function $r^2$ by $$\begin{gathered}
r^2=r^2(\bar x,x)=a_{ij}(\bar x) (x-\bar x)^i (x-\bar x)^j\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $x=x^ie_i$ is the usual decomposition in the canonical basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and $a_{ij}$ is the inverse matrix of $a^{ij}$. Note that the level sets of $r$ are Euclidean ellipsoids centered at $\bar x$.
\[prop\_gij\] Given $a^{ij}$ satisfying , set $$\begin{gathered}
\eta(\bar x,x)={a^{kl}(x)\frac{\partial r(\bar x,x)}{\partial x^k}\frac{\partial r(\bar x,x)}{\partial x^l}}
={a^{kl}(x)\frac{a_{ks}(\bar x)a_{lt}(\bar x)(x-\bar x)^s(x-\bar x)^t}{r^2}}\, ,\\
g_{ij}(\bar x,x)=\eta(\bar x,x)a_{ij}(x)\, .\end{gathered}$$
This metric has been introduced in the work [@toc]. It is important to underline that the geodesic distance $d_{\bar x}(\bar x,x)$ in the metric $g_{ij}(\bar x,x)$ is equal to $r(\bar x,x)$ for all $x,\bar x$. In particular, the geodesic ball ${\left\{x\ \ s.t. \ \ d_{\bar x}(\bar x,x)<r\right\}}$ coincides with the Euclidean ellipsoid ${\left\{x \ \ s.t. \ \ a_{ij}(\bar x) (x-\bar x)^i (x-\bar x )^j <r\right\}}=\bar x + Q_{\bar x} ^{-1} (B(0,r))$.
Now we are ready to define the generalized frequency function for a (weak) solution $u$ to . For ease of notation, we will keep using the symbol $N$ also for the generalized frequency.
\[deph\_LN\] For a solution $u:B(0,1)$ to equation , for each $\bar x\in B_1(0)$ and $r\leq \lambda^{-1/2}(1-{\left|\bar x\right|})$, define $$\begin{gathered}
I(u,\bar x,g,r)=\int_{B(g(\bar x),\bar x,r)}{\left\|\nabla u\right\|}_{g(\bar x)}^2
+ (u-u(\bar x))\Delta_{g(\bar x)} (u )dV_{g(\bar x)}\\
D(u,\bar x,g,r)=\int_{B(g(\bar x),\bar x,r)}{\left\|\nabla u\right\|}_{g(\bar x)}^2\\
H(u,\bar x,g,r)=\int_{\partial B(g(\bar x) ,\bar x,r)}
{\left[u-u(\bar x)\right]}^2 dS_{g(\bar x)}\\
N(u,\bar x,g,r) =\frac{rI(u,\bar x,g,r)}{H(u,\bar x,g,r)}\, .\end{gathered}$$
If the operator ${\mathcal{L}}$ in is the usual Laplace operator, then it is easily seen that this new definition coincides with the old one. This is why we call $N$ the *generalized* frequency for solutions to .
Note that $N$ has the same invariance properties than $u$. In particular, $$\begin{gathered}
N(u,x,g,r) = N(T^u_{x,r},0,g_T,1)\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $g_T$ is the metric defined according to the equation satisfied by $T$.
\[prop\_genfreq\] There exist constants $r_0,C$ depending only on $n$ and $\lambda$ such that
1. $N$ is almost monotone, in the sense that $e^{Cr} N(x,r)$ is monotone for all solutions $u$ and for all $r\in (0,r_0]$;
2. $N$ controls the growth of $u$, in particular for $0<s<r \leq r_0$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\frac{H(s)}{H(r)} \exp{\left(-2\int_s^r \frac{N(t)}{t} dt\right)} -1\right|} \leq C r\, ,
\end{gathered}$$
3. $I$ and $D$ are almost equal, in particular $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{{\left|I(r)-D(r)\right|}}{D(r)} \leq C r\, .
\end{gathered}$$
Moreover, by the existence and uniqueness of the tangent map proved in [@han_sing], the limit $N(x,0)=\lim_{r\to 0} N(x,r)$ exists for all $x$ and it is the vanishing order of $u-u(x)$ at $x$ (thus, it is an integer $\geq 1$).
It is important to underline that a generalization of Theorem \[th\_cN\] is available also for general elliptic equations, although it is necessary to restrict ourselves to $r\leq r_0(n,\lambda)$. The proof of the following is analogous to the proof of Theorem \[th\_cN\], up to some minor technical modifications.
\[th\_ellcN\] Let $u$ solve with , and assume for simplicity that $a^{ij}(0)=\delta^{ij}$. There exists $r_0=r_0(n,\lambda)$ and $C(n,\lambda)$ such that if $r_1\leq r_0$ and $N(0,r_1)\leq \Lambda$, then $$\begin{gathered}
N(y,r_1/3)\leq C\Lambda
\end{gathered}$$ for all $y\in (B(0,r_1))$.
Frequency pinching for elliptic equations: growth estimates {#sec_lipgrowth}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Generalizing the definition given for harmonic functions, we say that a solution $u$ to has frequency $\delta$-pinched on the scales $[r_2,r_1]$ around $x$ if $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|F(x,s)-N(x,r_1)\right|}\leq \delta\, \quad \forall\ s\in [r_2,r_1]\, .\end{gathered}$$ Given the almost monotonicity of $N$, a sufficient condition for pinching is $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,r_1)-N(x,r_2)\leq \delta/2 \quad \text { and } \quad r_1\leq r_0(n,\lambda) \frac{\delta}{N(x,r_1)}\, .\end{gathered}$$
The aim of this section is to generalize in this context the properties enjoyed by harmonic functions with pinched frequency, with particular emphasis on the quantitative versions of these properties.
Throughout this section, we fix some $0<\delta<1/7$ and we will assume that $N(0,r_0)\leq \Lambda$ and that $r_1\leq \delta \min{\left\{\frac{r_0}{\Lambda}, \frac{1}{C}\right\}}$.
\[lemma\_lipl2est\] Set for convenience $T=T^u_{x,r_1}$, and let $N$ be any real number, and suppose that for some $r_2\leq r_1$, $N(x,r_2)\geq N-\delta/2$ (or equivalently that $N(x,s)\geq N-\delta$ for all $s\in[r_2,r_1]$). Then $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B_t} T^2dV \leq \frac{\omega_n}{n} (1+2\delta)\begin{cases}
t^{n+2N-2\delta} & \text{ for } t\in{\left[\frac{r_2}{r_1},1\right]}\, ,\\
{\left(\frac{r_2}{r_1}\right)}^{2N-2\delta-2} t^{n+2} & \text{ for } t\in{\left[0,\frac{r_2}{r_1}\right]}\, ·
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$
The almost monotonicity of $N$ and the fact that $N(x,0)\geq 1$ for any $x$ give the bound: $$\begin{gathered}
N(0,r)\geq \begin{cases}
N(0,r_1)-\delta & \text{ for } r\in [r_2,r_1]\, ,\\
e^{-Cr} & \text{ for } r\in [0,r_2]\, .
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ The lemma is an easy consequence of the $L^2$ estimates in Proposition \[prop\_genfreq\]. Indeed, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,t)} {\left|T(x)\right|}^2 = \int_{0}^t ds \omega_n s^{n-1} \fint_{\partial B(0,s)} {\left|T(x)\right|}^2 \leq \omega_n (1+Cr_1)\int_0^t ds s^{n-1} \exp{\left(-2\int_s ^1 \frac{N(0,r_1 s)} s ds \right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$
By standard elliptic estimates (see [@GT theorem 8.24]), we obtain the following corollary.
\[cor\_lipabsest\] Under the assumptions of Lemma \[lemma\_lipl2est\], we have that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|T(x)\right|} \leq C(n,\lambda) 2^{N/2}\begin{cases}
{\left(r_2\ r_1^{-1}\right)}^{N-\delta-1} {\left|x\right|}^{1} & \text{ for } {\left|x\right|} \in [0,2^{-1/2}r_2/(r_1)]\\
{\left|x\right|}^{N-\delta} & \text{ for } {\left|x\right|} \in [2^{-1/2}r_2/r_1,2^{-1/2}]
\end{cases}
\end{gathered}$$
By $W^{2,p}$ elliptic estimates, we can easily use the previous Corollary to obtain $L^p$ estimates on the Laplacian of $u$.
\[lemma\_liplpest\] For any fixed $p\in (1,\infty)$, under the assumptions of Lemma \[lemma\_lipl2est\], the Laplacian of $T=T^u_{0,r_1}$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_lipdeltaest}
{\left\|\Delta T\right\|}_{L^p(B(0,t))}\leq C(n,\lambda,p)r_1 2^{N} \begin{cases}
{\left(r_2\ r_1^{-1}\right)}^{N-\delta-1} t^{n/p}\ & \text{ for } t \in [0,r_2/(2r_1)]\\
t^{N-\delta-1} t^{n/p} & \text{ for } t \in [r_2/(2r_1),1/2]
\end{cases}
\end{gathered}$$
By $W^{2,p}$ elliptic estimates (see for example [@GT theorem 9.11]), we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_ellest}
r^{2} {\left\|\nabla^{2} T \right\|}_{L^p(B(0,r))} + r {\left\|\nabla T \right\|}_{L^p(B(0,r))} \leq C(n,\lambda,p) {\left\|T \right\|}_{L^p(B(0,2^{1/2}r))}
\end{gathered}$$ The estimates on the Laplacian are an easy consequence of the previous corollary and the fact that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_estd}
\Delta T = \Delta T - \tilde L(T) = {\left(\tilde a^{ij}(0)-\tilde a^{ij}(x)\right)}\partial_i \partial_j T + {\left(\tilde b^i(x) + \partial _j \tilde a^{ij}(x)\right)} \partial_i T\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where the coefficients $\tilde a^{ij}, \ \tilde b^i$ are the ones defined in .
By the Lipschitz condition on $a^{ij}$ and the definition of $T$, we have that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\tilde a^{ij}(0)-\tilde a^{ij}(x)\right|}\leq \lambda C(n,\lambda) r_1 {\left|x\right|}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, the uniform bound on the coefficients $b^i$ and the Lipschitz bounds on $a^{ij}$ imply that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\tilde b^i(x) + \partial _j \tilde a^{ij}(x) \right|} \leq \lambda C(n,\lambda) r_1\, .\end{gathered}$$
Plugging in the estimates in we obtain the result.
Frequency pinching and approximating harmonic functions
-------------------------------------------------------
Following [@han_sing], we use the Green’s kernel of the Laplacian in order to produce a harmonic function which approximates the solution $u$ under suitable pinching conditions.
\[th\_w\] Let $u$ be a solution of with . Suppose that $r_1\leq r_0(n,\lambda)$, and that for some $r_2\leq r_1/4$, $N(x,r_2)\geq N$, where $N$ is any real number. Denote for simplicity $T=T^u_{x,r_1}$. Then there exists a function $w(x)$ such that for ${\left|x\right|} \in [r_2/r_1,1/2]$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_w0}
{\left|w(x)\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda) 8^N r_1 {\left|x\right|} ^{N+1/3}\, , \quad \quad {\left|\nabla w (x)\right|} \leq C(n,\lambda) 16^N r_1 {\left|x\right|} ^{N-1+1/3}\,
\end{gathered}$$ and with $\Delta (w) = \Delta (T)$ on $B(0,1/2)$. Moreover, $w(0)=0$.
As it will be clear from the proof, the function $w$ depends linearly on the function $T$, and in particular on its normalization. Recall that $T$ satisfies $\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} T^2 =1$.
We prove the theorem for $n\geq 3$. Similar estimates hold in the case $n=2$.
#### Estimates on the Green’s kernel.
Let us recall some facts and estimates about the Green’s kernel. Let $G(x,y)$ be the fundamental solution of the Laplace operator in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, i.e., the Green’s kernel. By standard theory, $G(x,y)= c(n) {\left|x-y\right|} ^{2-n}$, where $c(n)$ is chosen in such a way that $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta_x G(x,y) = \delta(x-y)\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Fix some $y\neq 0$, and consider consider the function $G_y(x) = G(x,y)$ on the ball of radius $B(0,{\left|y\right|})$. $G_y$ is harmonic on this ball, and so we can write $$\begin{gathered}
G_y(x) = \sum_k g_k(y) P_k(x)\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $P_k(x)$ are homogeneous harmonic polynomials of degree $k$ normalized by $\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} P_k^2 =1$. For $r<{\left|y\right|}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_k {\left[g_k(y) r^k\right]}^2 = \fint_{\partial B(0,r)} G_y(x)^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ In particular, if we choose $r=2{\left|y\right|} /3$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
g_k(y) \leq {\left(\frac 3 2\right)}^k {\left|y\right|} ^{-k} {\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,3{\left|y\right|} /2)} G_y(x)^2\right)}^{1/2}\leq c(n) {\left(\frac 3 2\right)}^k {\left|y\right|} ^{-n+2-k}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Note also that the function $$\begin{gathered}
S_{y,d}(x)=G(x,y)-\sum_{k=0}^d g_k(y) P_k(x)\end{gathered}$$ is a harmonic function with vanishing order $\geq d+1$ at the origin. Moreover, by the orthogonality properties of $P_k$, $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,2{\left|y\right|} /3)} S_{y,d}(x)^2 \leq \fint_{\partial B(0,2{\left|y\right|} /3)} G(x,y)^2 \leq \frac{c(n)}{{\left|y\right|}^{2(n-2)}}\, .\end{gathered}$$ By growth conditions related to the frequency of $S$ and standard elliptic estimates, we have for ${\left|x\right|} \leq {\left|y\right|} /2$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_d+1est}
{\left|S_{y,d}(x)\right|}\leq c(n) {\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,4{\left|x\right|} /3)} S_{y,d}(x)^2\right)}^{1/2} \leq c(n)2^{d+1} \frac{{\left|x\right|}^{d+1}}{{\left|y\right|} ^{d+1}}{\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,2{\left|y\right|} /3)} S_{y,d}(x)^2\right)}^{1/2}\leq c(n)2^{d+1} \frac{{\left|x\right|}^{d+1}}{{\left|y\right|} ^{n+d-1}}\, .\end{gathered}$$
#### Construction of $w$.
Denote for convenience $$\begin{gathered}
f(y)=\Delta T(y)\, .\end{gathered}$$ By Lemma \[lemma\_liplpest\], $f\in L^p(B(0,1))$ for all $p<\infty$. Let $d$ be the closest integer to $N$ (so that ${\left|N-d\right|}\leq 1/2$), and define the function $w$ by $$\begin{gathered}
w(x) = \int_{{\left|y\right|} \leq 1} {\left(G(x-y)-G(-y)\right)} f(y)dy- \sum_{k=1}^d \int_{r_2/r_1\leq{\left|y\right|} \leq 1} g_k(y) P_k(x) f(y)dy\, .\end{gathered}$$ Assuming that both integrals converge, the sum on the rhs is a harmonic polynomial of degree $\leq d$, and, by the properties of the Green’s kernel, $\Delta (w) = \Delta (T)$. In order to finish the proof, we only need the $C^0$ estimates on $w$.
Rewrite $w$ as $$\begin{gathered}
w(x)= \int_{{\left|y\right|} < r_2/r_1} {\left(G(x-y)-G(-y)\right)} f(y)dy + \int_{r_2/r_1\leq {\left|y\right|} \leq 1} {\left[G(x-y) -\sum_{k=0}^d g_k(y)P_k(x) \right]}f(y)dy\, .\end{gathered}$$ Fix $r_2/r_1<{\left|x\right|}<1/2$, and split the integral in the following fashion: $$\begin{gathered}
I_1 = \int_{{\left|y\right|} \leq 2 {\left|x\right|}} {\left(G(x-y)-G(-y)\right)} f(y) dy\, ,\\
I_2 = -\int_{r_2/r_1\leq {\left|y\right|} \leq 2 {\left|x\right|}} \sum_{k=1}^d g_k(y)P_k(x) f(y) dy\, ,\\
I_3 = \int_{2{\left|x\right|} \leq {\left|y\right|} \leq 1} {\left[G(x-y) -\sum_{k=0}^d g_k(y)P_k(x) \right]} f(y) dy\, .\end{gathered}$$ Let $p=n+1$ and let $p'=(n+1)/n$ be its conjugate exponent. Using the $L^p$ estimates on $f(y)$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|I_1\right|} \leq c(n){\left|x\right|} {\left(\int_{{\left|y\right|} \leq 2 {\left|x\right|}} \frac{1}{{\left|x-y\right|}^{(n-1)p'}} dy \right)}^{1/p'}{\left(\int_{{\left|y\right|} \leq 2 {\left|x\right|}} f(y)^p dy \right)}^{1/p}\leq\\
\leq c(n){\left|x\right|} {\left(\int_{{\left|z\right|} \leq 3 {\left|x\right|}} \frac{1}{{\left|z\right|}^{(n-1)p'}} dz \right)}^{1/p'} C(n,\lambda)2^{2N} r_1 {{\left|x\right|}} ^{N-\delta-1} {\left|x\right|} ^{n/(n+1)} \leq C(n,\lambda)r_1 2^{2N}{\left|x\right|}^{N+1-\delta}\, .\end{gathered}$$ In order to estimate $I_2$ we write $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|I_2\right|} \leq c(n)\sum_{k=1}^d {\left(\frac 3 2\right)}^k{\left|P_k(x)\right|} \sum_{i=0}^{N} \int_{2^{-i}{\left|x\right|} \leq {\left|y\right|} \leq 2^{1-i}{\left|x\right|}} \frac{{\left|f(y)\right|}}{{\left|y\right|} ^{n+k-2} }dy \leq\\
\leq c(n)\sum_{k=1}^d 2^k {\left|x\right|}^k \sum_{i=0}^{N} {\left(\int_{2^{-i}{\left|x\right|} \leq {\left|y\right|} \leq 2^{1-i}{\left|x\right|}} \frac{1}{{\left|y\right|} ^{(n+k-2)p'} }dy \right)}^{1/p'} {\left(\int_{{\left|y\right|} \leq 2^{1-i}{\left|x\right|}} {\left|f(y)\right|}^p dy \right)}^{1/p}\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $N$ is the smallest integer greater or equal to $\log_2 (r_1{\left|x\right|}) - \log_2 (r_2)$.
We use the estimates in Lemma \[lemma\_liplpest\] in order to obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|I_2\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda)2^{d+N}r_1 \sum_{k=1}^d {\left|x\right|} ^k \sum_{i=0}^{N} {\left(\frac{{\left|x\right|}}{2^i}\right)}^{1-k}{\left(\frac{{\left|x\right|}}{2^{i-1}}\right)}^{N-\delta}\leq \\
\leq C(n,\lambda)2^{d+2N} r_1 {\left|x\right|}^{N+1-\delta}\sum_{k=1}^d \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} {\left(2^{k+\delta-1-N}\right)}^i\leq C(n,\lambda)d2^{d+2N}r_1 {\left|x\right|}^{N+1-\delta}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Note that the bounds on the infinite series are a direct consequence of ${\left|d-N\right|}\leq 1/2$, which implies $2^{k+\delta-1-N}\leq 2^{-1/3}$.
With a similar technique, we can estimate $I_3$. Indeed, by we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|I_3\right|} \leq C(n) 2^d{\left|x\right|}^{d+1} \sum_{i=0}^N \int_{2^{-1-i} \leq {\left|y\right|} \leq 2^{-i} } \frac{{\left|f(y)\right|}}{{\left|y\right|} ^{n+d-1}} dy\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where $N$ is the first integer $\geq -\log_2({\left|x\right|})-1$. Thus we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|I_3\right|} \leq C(n,\lambda)2^{d+N}r_1{\left|x\right|}^{d+1} \sum_{i=0}^N {\left(\int_{2^{-1-i} \leq {\left|y\right|} \leq 2^{-i} } \frac{1}{{\left|y\right|} ^{(n+d-1)p'}} dy\right)}^{1/p'}{\left(\int_{{\left|y\right|} \leq 2^{-i} } {\left|f(y)\right|}^p dy\right)}^{1/p}\leq\\
\notag \leq C(n,\lambda)2^{d+N}r_1{\left|x\right|}^{d+1} \sum_{i=0}^N 2^{i(d+\delta-N)}\, .\end{gathered}$$ The last sum can be estimates via integrals. In particular, it is easily seen that $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i=1}^N 2^{\eta i} \leq \int_0 ^ {-\log_2 ({\left|x\right|})} 2^{\eta s} ds \leq \frac{1}{\eta \ln(2)}{\left({\left|x\right|} ^{-\eta}-1\right)}\leq c {\left|x\right|} ^{-\eta} (-\log({\left|x\right|}))\, .\end{gathered}$$ In the end we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|I_3\right|} \leq C(n,\lambda) r_1 2^{d+N} {\left|x\right|}^{N+1-\delta} (-\log({\left|x\right|}))\, .\end{gathered}$$ Since ${\left|N-d\right|}\leq 1/2$, we have proved the $C^0$ estimates for ${\left|x\right|} \in {\left[\frac {r_2}{r_1}, \frac 1 2\right]}$.
With analogous estimates, it is easy to prove that ${\left|w(x)\right|} = O({\left|x\right|})$ as $x\to 0$.
The estimate on the gradient of $w$ is a simple corollary of the elliptic estimate valid for any $p>n$ (see for example [@GT Theorem 9.11]) $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla w(x)\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda,p) {\left|x\right|} ^{-1} {\left({\left\|w\right\|}_{C^0(B(0,2{\left|x\right|})} + {\left|x\right|} ^{2-n/p} {\left\|\Delta w\right\|}_{L^p(B(0,2{\left|x\right|})} \right)}\, .\end{gathered}$$
As a corollary, we obtain the existence of an approximating harmonic function $h$ for $u$. For convenience of notation, we state the theorem with the function $T=T^u_{x,r}$.
\[cor\_ell1\] Let $u$ be a solution of with , and $0<\delta<1/7$. Suppose that $r_1\leq r_0(n,\lambda)$, and that for some $r_2\leq r_1/4$, $u$ has frequency $\delta$-pinched on $[r_2,r_1]$, i.e., ${\left|N(x,s)-N(x,r_1)\right|}\leq \delta$ for all $s\in [r_2,r_1]$. There exists a constant $C(n,\lambda)$ such that if $r_1\leq \delta {\left(C(n,\lambda) 16^N\right)}^{-1}$, then there exists a harmonic function $h$ such that for $r_2/r_1\leq {\left|x\right|} \leq 1/4$: $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|h(x)-T(x)\right|}^2\leq \delta^2 \fint_{\partial B(0,{\left|x\right|})} T^2 dS \, \quad \text{ and }\quad \quad {\left|N^h(0,{\left|x\right|})- N^T(0,{\left|x\right|})\right|} \leq \delta\, .
\end{gathered}$$
Define the function $h(x)=T(x)-w(x)$, which is evidently a harmonic function on $B(0,1/2)$. By the estimates on ${\left|w(x)\right|}$, the pinching of the frequency and the $L^2$ estimates in \[prop\_genfreq\], we obtain immediately the first inequality. Indeed $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_wT}
{\left|w(x)\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda) 8^N r_1 {\left|x\right|} ^{N+1/3} {\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} T^2\right)}^{1/2}\leq C(n,\lambda) 8^N r_1 {\left(\fint_{\partial B(0,{\left|x\right|})} T^2\right)}^{1/2} (1+C(n,\lambda) r_1) {\left|x\right|} ^{1/3-\delta}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ As for the frequency of $h$, consider the ratio between the frequency of $h$ and the generalized frequency of $T$ $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{N(0,r)}{N(0,r)} = \frac{D(r)}{I(r)}\frac{ \int_{B(0,r)} {\left|\nabla h\right|}^2 dV }{ \int_{B(0,r)} {\left\|\nabla T\right\|}_g^2 dV_g } \frac{\int_{\partial B(0,r)} {\left|T\right|}^2 dS_g }{\int_{\partial B(0,r)} {\left|h\right|}^2 dS }\, ,\end{gathered}$$ where we have used the notation introduced in Proposition \[prop\_genfreq\]. Since ${\left|g^{ij}(x)-\delta^{ij}\right|} \leq C(n,\lambda) {\left|x\right|}$, we can easily replace all the integrals wrt $g$ with standard Euclidean integrals up to some small multiplicative constant. More precisely $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\frac{ \int_{B(0,r)} {\left|\nabla T\right|}^2 dV }{ \int_{B(0,r)} {\left\|\nabla T\right\|}_g^2 dV_g } -1\right|} \leq C(n,\lambda) r_1\, , \quad \quad {\left|\frac{\int_{\partial B(0,r)} {\left|T\right|}^2 dS_g }{\int_{\partial B(0,r)} {\left|T\right|}^2 dS }-1\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda)r_1\, .\end{gathered}$$ As for the ratio of the Dirichlet integrals, by definition $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,r)} {\left|\nabla h\right|}^2 = \int_{B(0,r)} {\left|\nabla T\right|}^2 + \int_{B(0,r)} {\left|\nabla w\right|}^2 -2 \int_{B(0,r)} {\left\langle\nabla T\middle\vert\nabla w\right\rangle}\, .\end{gathered}$$ The $C^1$ estimate in the previos theorem and the $L^2$ growth estimates in \[prop\_genfreq\] give $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{B(0,r)} {\left|\nabla w\right|}^2 \leq {\left(C16^N r_1 {\left|x\right|} ^{-1-\delta+1/3} \right)}^2 \fint_{\partial B(0,r)} {\left|T\right|}^2 \leq (1+Ar) {\left(C16^N r_1 r ^{-1-\delta+1/3} \right)}^2 \frac{c(n) r^2}{N-\delta} \fint_{B(0,r)} {\left|\nabla T\right|}^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ In a similar way, one can estimate also the second fraction.
Corollary \[cor\_ell1\] also immediately leads to a generalization of Lemma \[lemma\_Npinch\]:
\[lemma\_ellNpinch\] Let $u$ be a solution to with . There exists constants $r_0(n,\lambda)$ and $C(n,\lambda)$ such that if $N(0,r_0)\leq \Lambda$, $r_1\leq \delta C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda}$ and for some integer $d$, $N(0,r_1)\in [d+\delta,d+1-\delta]$, then $N(0,e^2/4 r_1)\leq N(0,r_1)-\delta/10$. Moreover, if $N(0,r_1)\leq d+1-\delta$, then $N{\left(0,\delta^{C(n,\lambda)} r_1\right)}\leq d+\delta$.
This lemma is an easy consequence of the previous corollary and of Lemma \[lemma\_Npinch\] applied to the approximating harmonic function for $T$.
By applying Corollary \[cor\_ell1\] and the above Lemma, and combining with Theorem \[t:eff\_tan\_con\_uniq\_harm\], we immediately obtain our main result for the subsection, namely the [*effective*]{} tangent cone uniqueness statement, compare for instance to [@hanlin].
\[t:eff\_tan\_con\_uniq\] Let $u$ be a solution of with , $0<\epsilon<1/7$ and $N(x,r_1)\leq d+1$. Then if $r_1\leq r_0(n,\lambda,)\epsilon {\left(C(n,\lambda) 16^d\right)}^{-1}$, and if $u$ has frequency $\epsilon$-pinched on $[r_2,r_1]$, i.e., ${\left|N(x,r_2)-N(x,r_1)\right|}\leq \epsilon$, then there exists a [*unique*]{} homogeneous harmonic polynomial $P_d$ such that:
1. There exists an integer $d$ such that for all $t\in (r_2,r_1/4)$, ${\left| N(0,t)-d\right|}\leq 6\epsilon$,
2. For all $t\in (r_2,r_1/4)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|T_{0,t}^u - P_d\right|}^2 \leq 14\epsilon\, ,
\end{gathered}$$
3. up to a factor $d$, $u$ and $P_d$ are also $W^{1,2}$ close. More precisely, for all $t\in (r_2,r_1/4)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{B(0,1)} {\left|\nabla T_{0,t}^u - \nabla P_d\right|}^2\leq 14d\epsilon\, .
\end{gathered}$$
Another application of Theorem \[th\_w\] leads us to the following:
\[lemma\_ell3/2\] For any $\delta>0$, there exists $r_0(n,\lambda)$ such that if for some $r_1\leq \delta r_0$, $N(x,r_1)\leq 3/2$, then $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\nabla T^u_{x,r_1/8} (x) \right|}^2 \geq \frac{n}{2} (1+\delta) \, .
\end{gathered}$$
First note that if $h$ is harmonic with $N(x,r)<\frac{3}{2}$, then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
|\nabla h|^2(x)\geq \frac{n}{2}\fint_{\partial B_r(x)}(u-u(x))^2\, .\end{aligned}$$
Now in general let $h$ be any suitable harmonic $C^1$ approximation of $T$. One possible way to obtain the approximation $h$ is to adapt the proof of Corollary \[cor\_ell1\]. Indeed, even though we are not assuming any pinching of the frequency, we can use theorem \[th\_w\] with $N=1$ and obtain the existence of a function $w$ such that $h=T-w$ is a good $C^{1,\alpha}$ approximation of $T$. Then applying the above to $h$ and $r_0$ sufficiently small gives us our Lemma.
Although it is not necessary for the scope of this Lemma, it is worth noticing that equation is still valid also in this context. Indeed, by the previous corollary, there exists a constant $c(n,\lambda)<1/2$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,c^k r_1)\leq 1+2^{-k-1}\, .\end{gathered}$$ This and the $L^2$ growth conditions in Proposition \[prop\_genfreq\] imply that there exists a constant $C(n,\lambda)$ (not close to $1$, but still a constant) such that $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,r)} {\left|T\right|}^2 \leq C r^2 \fint_{\partial B(0,1)}{\left|T\right|}^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ Using this estimate, it is easy to check that the proof of Corollary \[cor\_ell1\] carries over also in this context.
Almost cone splitting {#almost-cone-splitting}
---------------------
The aim of this section is to obtain a generalization of Lemma \[lemma\_epsd\] for elliptic equations which will allow us to extend Corollary \[cor\_alcone\] also in this context. The basic idea is quite simple: if we pick a solution $u$ to such that on a small enough ball its generalized frequency is pinched around some $x$, then by Theorem \[th\_w\] we obtain an approximating harmonic function with standard frequency pinched as well. All we need to prove is that if the frequency of $u$ is pinched also at some other point $x'$, then the frequency of $h$ is pinched as well around $x'$.
Throughout this section, we will assume that $u$ has frequency $\delta$-pinched on $[r_2,r_1]$, with $r_1\leq r_0(n,\lambda)$ and $N(0,r_1)\leq \Lambda$. Moreover, we fix the notation $T=T^u_{0,r_1}$ and $N=N(0,r_1)$.
\[prop\_ell\_y\_pinch\] Suppose that $N(0,r_0)\leq \Lambda$, $8r_2\leq r_1\leq \delta C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda}$ and $N(x,r_1)-N(x,r_2)\leq \delta/2$. Let $T=T^u_{0,r_1}$ and $h$ be its harmonic approximation, as in Corollary \[cor\_ell1\]. There exists some $\beta(n)>0$ such that if $x'\in B(x,\beta(n)r_1)$, then $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|{N^T(y,1/8) } - {N^h(y,1/8)} \right|}\leq \delta/2\, .
\end{gathered}$$ In particular, if $N(y,r_1)-N(y,r_2)\leq \delta/2$, then also $N(y,r_1/8)- N(y,r_2)<\delta$.
Although philosophically very similar to the proof of Lemma \[lemma\_ellNpinch\], the proof of this proposition has some minor (albeit annoying) technical details to be addressed. In particular, the fact that $a^{ij}(x)\neq a^{ij}(y)$ will force us to deal with different ellipsoids instead of balls.
Consider the function $T=T^u_{0,r_1}$, which solves , and let $y = r_1^{-1} Q_x(x'-x)$. Given the conditions , it is clear that the constants $C(n,\lambda)$ in the hypothesis can be arranged in such a way that $y\in B(0,1/10)$. Moreover, by the invariance properties of the frequency and the Lipschitz assumption on $a^{ij}$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|N^T(y,s) - \frac{s \int_{E(y,s)} {\left|\nabla T\right|}^2 dV }{\int_{\partial E(y,s)} {\left|T-T(y)\right|}^2 dS } \right|} \leq C(n,\lambda) r_1 \Lambda\, , \quad \text{ where } \quad E(y,s) ={\left\{z \ \ s.t. \ \ \tilde a_{ij} (z-y)^i (z-j)^j < s^2 \right\}}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Since $\tilde a^{ij}(0)=\delta^{ij}$ by definition, there exists $\epsilon\leq C(n,\lambda) r_1$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
B(y,(1-\epsilon) s )\subset E(y,s)\subset B(y,(1+\epsilon)s)\, .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, by standard elliptic estimates and the $L^2$ growth condition in Proposition \[prop\_genfreq\], we can bound the gradient of $T$ by $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|\nabla T\right\|}_{C^0(B(y,1/4))}^2\leq C(n,\lambda) \fint_{\partial E(y,1)} {\left|T\right|}^2 \leq C(n,\lambda) 8^\Lambda \fint_{\partial E(y,1/8)} {\left|T\right|}^2 \, .\end{gathered}$$ We can use this bound to estimate the $L^2(\partial E(y,1/8))$ norm. Indeed $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\frac{\int_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|T-T(y)\right|}^2 dS }{\int_{\partial E(y,1/8)} {\left|T-T(y)\right|}^2 dS } -1 \right|}\leq C(n,\lambda) 8^\Lambda \epsilon {\left\|\nabla T\right\|} \leq C(n,\lambda)^\Lambda r_1\, .\end{gathered}$$ By using the estimates on $w$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|{\fint_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|h-h(y)\right|}^2 } - {\fint_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|T-T(y)\right|}^2 }\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda)^\Lambda r_1 \fint_{\partial B(0,1/16)} {\left|h\right|}^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ As shown in the proof of Theorem \[th\_cN\], there exists $\beta(n)<1/8$ such that for ${\left|y\right|}\leq \beta(n)$: $$\begin{gathered}
h(y)^2\leq \frac 1 2 \fint_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|h\right|}^2 \, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \, \fint_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|h\right|}^2 \leq 2\fint_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|h-h(y)\right|}^2 \, .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover simple geometric considerations lead to $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(0,1/16)} {\left|h\right|} ^2 \leq c(n)\Lambda \fint_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|h\right|}^2 \, .\end{gathered}$$ Putting together these estimates, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\frac{\int_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|T-T(y)\right|}^2 }{\int_{\partial B(y,1/8)} {\left|h-h(y)\right|}^2 } -1\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda)^\Lambda r_1\end{gathered}$$ Arguing as in the proof of Corollary \[cor\_ell1\], we obtain the estimate $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\frac{N^T(y,1/8) }{N(y,1/8)} -1\right|}\leq C(n,\lambda)^\Lambda r_1\, \end{gathered}$$ as desired.
As a corollary of this proposition, we can easily prove a generalization of Lemma \[lemma\_epsd\].
\[cor\_epsd\] Fix some $\epsilon<\epsilon_0(n,\lambda)<<1$ and some integer $d\geq 2$, and suppose that $N(x,r_0)\leq \Lambda$ for all $x\in B(0,r_0)$. Suppose that for some constants $c(n,\lambda)$ and $C(n,\lambda)$
- $N(x,r_1)-N(x,r_2)\leq \epsilon$, with $r_2\leq c(n,\lambda)\Lambda^{-1} r_1$ and $r_1\leq r_0 C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda}\epsilon$,
- $N(y,r_1)-N(y,r_2)\leq \epsilon$, with $r_2\leq c(n,\lambda)\Lambda^{-1} r_1$ and $r_1\leq r_0 C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda}\epsilon$,
- $d(y,x)=\chi r_2$, with $\chi\leq 1$, and $y-x=(\chi,0,\cdots,0)r_2$
Let $h$ be the approximating harmonic function for $T_{x,5 r_2}$ and $h'$ is the approximating harmonic function for $T_{y,5 r_2}$, with $h=\sum a_k' P_k$, $h'=\sum a_k' P_k'$. Then
1. $a_d^2\geq 1-\epsilon$, and $a_d'\geq 1-\epsilon$,
2. ${\left\|P_d-P_d'\right\|}\leq c(n,\lambda)\epsilon$,
3. ${\left\|\partial_1 P_d\right\|}\leq c(n,\lambda) \chi^{-1}\sqrt{\epsilon}{\left\|\nabla P_d\right\|}$ and ${\left\|\partial_1 P_d'\right\|}\leq c(n,\lambda) \chi^{-1}\sqrt{\epsilon}{\left\|\nabla P_d'\right\|}$.
This Corollary is an easy, albeit a little technical, consequence of the previous proposition and Lemma \[lemma\_epsd\].
In turn, we are now in a position to generalize Corollary \[cor\_alcone\] to generic elliptic equations.
\[cor\_alcone\_ell\]\[c:cone\_splitting\] Fix some $0<\tau<1$ and some integer $d\geq 2$, and suppose that $N(x,r_0)\leq \Lambda$ for all $x\in B(0,r_0)$. Let $r_1\leq r_0 C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda} \epsilon$ and set ${\mathcal{V}}$ to be set of points $x\in B(0,r_0)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,r_1)-N(x,r_2)\leq \epsilon\, \quad \text{ with } \quad r_2\leq c(n,\lambda)\Lambda^{-1} r_1 \quad \text { and } \quad {\left|\bar N(x,r_1)-d\right|}\leq 1/3\, ,\end{gathered}$$ There exists $\epsilon_0(n,\tau)$ such that if $\epsilon<\epsilon_0$, then there exists a subspace $V$ of dimension at most $n-2$ such that for all $x\in {\mathcal{V}}$ $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{V}}\cap B(0,r_1)\subset x+B_\tau (V)\, .\end{gathered}$$ Note that the subspace $V$ is indepedent of $x$.
Critical Points and Symmetry for Elliptic Equations {#ss:critical_symmetry_elliptic}
---------------------------------------------------
In order to complete the generalization to elliptic equations, we only have to show that given enough symmetry there cannot exist critical points away from an $n-2$-plane. See Section \[ss:symmetric\_criticalpoints\] for the corresponding statements for harmonic functions.
Since the harmonic approximation given in Theorem \[th\_w\] is a $C^{1,\alpha}$ approximation for the function $T$, it is evident that Propositions \[prop\_crit2\] and \[prop\_n-2\] remain valid for elliptic equations under minor modifications.
As for the effective critical points, we need to show that if $N^h(x,r)\geq 3/2$, then also $N^T(x,r)\geq 3/2$ (or something similar). One may think that as $r$ gets smaller, $h$ must be closer and closer to $T$ in order for this statement to be true. However, we will see that since we are concerned only with points of frequency $3/2$, and not points with generic frequency, the size of $r$ does not matter. Indeed, in some sense the condition $N^h(x,r)\geq 3/2$ is a $C^1$ condition on the function $h$, it states that the gradient of $h$ does not vanish in a quantitative way.
Under the hypothesis and notation of Proposition \[prop\_ell\_y\_pinch\], suppose that $x\in B(0,1)$ is such that ${\left|\nabla h(x)\right|}^2\geq \alpha^2 \fint_{\partial B(0,1)} {\left|h\right|}^2>0$. If $r_1\leq C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda} \alpha$, then $r_c^T\geq c(n,\lambda) r_c^h $.
By the arguments in the proof of Proposition \[prop\_ell\_y\_pinch\], for $r_1\leq r_0(n,\lambda)^\Lambda$, $x\in B(0,1)$ and $r\leq 1$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\frac{N^T(x,r)}{N^T(x,r)}-1\right|}\leq \frac 1 {10}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Since $h$ is harmonic, by the properties of its $L^2$ expansion for any $x$ and $r$ $$\begin{gathered}
\fint_{\partial B(x,r)} {\left|h-h(x)\right|}^2 \geq r^2 {\left|\nabla h(x)\right|}^2\, , \quad \quad {\left|\nabla h(x)\right|}^2 \leq \fint_{B(x,r)} {\left|\nabla h\right|}^2\, .\end{gathered}$$ This implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\fint_{\partial B(x,r)} {\left|w-w(x)\right|}^2 }{\fint_{\partial B(x,r)} {\left|h-h(x)\right|}^2 }\leq \frac{{\left\|\nabla w\right\|}_{\infty, B(x,r)}^2 }{{\left|\nabla h(x)\right|}^2}\leq C(n,\lambda)^{\Lambda} r_1^2 \alpha^{-2}\, ,\\
\frac{\fint_{B(x,r)} {\left|\nabla w\right|}^2}{\fint_{B(x,r)} {\left|\nabla h\right|}^2}\leq \frac{{\left\|\nabla w\right\|}_{\infty, B(x,r)} ^2 }{\alpha^2\fint_{\partial B(0,1)} h^2} \leq C(n,\lambda)^\Lambda r_1^2 \alpha^{-2}\, .\end{gathered}$$ With these estimates we can conclude that, for $r_0(n,\lambda)$ is sufficiently small, $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|\frac{N^T(x,r)}{N^h(x,r)} -1\right|} \leq 1/7\, .
\end{gathered}$$ This in particular implies $N^T(x,r_c(x))\leq 1+5/7<2$. The thesis follows from Lemma \[lemma\_ellNpinch\].
As a Corollary, we obtain immediately the following generalizations of Propositions \[prop\_h2effcrit\] and \[prop\_heffcrit\].
\[cor\_ell2effcrit\] If $u:B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ is a solution to such that for all $x\in B(0,1/2)$ $N(x,r_0)\leq \Lambda$, there exists $\epsilon_0(n,\lambda)$ such that $N(x,r_1)-N(x,r_1/10)\leq \epsilon$ implies $r_c(x)\geq c(n,\lambda)/\Lambda r_1$ for all $x\in \partial B(x,r_1/5)$.
\[cor\_elleffcrit\] Let $u:B(0,1)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a solution to such that $N(x,r_0)\leq \Lambda$ for all $x\in B(0,1/2)$ and $\tau<1$. Suppose also that $\epsilon\leq \epsilon_0(n,\lambda)\tau^\Lambda$ and $r_1\leq c(n,\lambda)^\Lambda \epsilon$. Let $h$ be the approximating harmonic function for $T_{x,r}$, and suppose that $$\begin{gathered}
h=Q_d + \sum_k a_k P_k\, ,
\end{gathered}$$ where $P_k$ are normalized hhPs of degree $k$, and $Q_d$ is a normalized hhP of degree $d$ invariant wrt the $n-2$ dimensional plane $V$. If $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_k {\left|a_k\right|}^2 e^{2{\left|k-d\right|}}\leq \epsilon\, ,\end{gathered}$$ then for all $x\in B(0,1)\setminus B_\tau(V)$, $r_c^T(x)\geq c(n) \tau^{d}$.
Volume estimates for the effective critical set for elliptic equations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximation theorem and the generalization proved in the previous sections allow us to extend the proof of the volume estimates also for elliptic equations. The proofs are the essentially same as in the case of harmonic functions, it is sufficient to replace the propositions and lemmas for harmonic function with their generalizations for generic elliptic equations proved in this section.
In particular, we need to
1. replace the uniform control given by Theorem \[th\_cN\] with Theorem \[th\_ellcN\],
2. replace the statement about frequency drops in Lemma \[lemma\_Npinch\] with Lemma \[lemma\_ellNpinch\],
3. use Corollary \[cor\_ell1\] to extend the results obtained in Theorem \[th\_hNpinch\] under frequency pinching conditions,
4. replace the almost cone splitting in \[cor\_alcone\] with \[cor\_alcone\_ell\],
5. replace the $\epsilon$-regularity theorems in Propositions \[prop\_h2effcrit\] and \[prop\_heffcrit\] with Corollaries \[cor\_ell2effcrit\] and \[cor\_elleffcrit\] respectively.
With these modifications, it is easy to prove that
Let $R\leq r_0(n,\lambda)$ and consider $u:B(0,R)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a solution to with such that $N(0,R)\leq \Lambda$. There exists a constant $C(n,\lambda)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_r ({\mathcal{S}}_r(u))\cap B(0,R/2)\right)} \leq C(n,\lambda)^{\Lambda ^2} {\left(r/R\right)}^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$
The proof is almost identical to the one carried out for harmonic functions in \[th\_vol\_harm\].
However, there is one point which needs a little attention. In many of the statements for elliptic equations, we require that $r_1\leq C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda} \epsilon$. In order to satisfy this request, we cover the ball $B(0,r_0)$, with a minimal covering of balls of radius $r_1=C(n,\lambda)^{-\Lambda} \epsilon$. It is evident that the number of these balls can be bounded above by $C(n,\lambda)^\Lambda \epsilon^{-1}\leq C(n,\Lambda)^{\Lambda^2}$.
On every ball of this covering, we can apply all the statement proved for elliptic equations, and, by the same proof as in the harmonic case, obtain the desired estimate. Given the bound on the number of such balls, the estimate remains essentially unchanged also on $B(0,R)$.
As it is easily seen, also the improved estimate in dimension $2$ can be generalized in a similar way.
Let $R\leq r_0(n,\lambda)$ and consider $u:B(0,R)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a solution to with such that $N(0,R)\leq \Lambda$. There exists a constant $C(n,\lambda)$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_r ({\mathcal{S}}_r(u))\cap B(0,R/2)\right)} \leq C(\lambda)^\Lambda (r/R)^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$ As a corollary, the number of critical points of such a function is bounded above by $C(\lambda)^\Lambda$.
Nodal sets {#sec_nodal}
==========
As anticipated in the introduction, with similar arguments one can obtain Minkowski estimates on the effective nodal set of a solution to an elliptic PDE. The results do not depend on whether (\[eq\_Lu\]) is critical or not, which is to say, whether $c\equiv 0$ or not. One needs only change the symmetry results of Sections \[ss:symmetric\_criticalpoints\] and \[ss:critical\_symmetry\_elliptic\] to reflect the nodal set as opposed to the critical set, and then, with exactly the same technique, it is possible to prove effective $n-1$ volume estimates on the tubular neighborhood of the set $u^{-1}(0)$. In particular, consider the two following simple propositions.
\[prop\_epsnod\] If $u$ is a nonconstant harmonic function and $N(0,1)\leq 1/2$, then $$\begin{gathered}
u(0)^2\geq \frac 1 2 \fint_{\partial B(0,1)} u(x)^2 dS >0\, .
\end{gathered}$$ If $u$ solves , then there exist constants $c(n,\lambda),r_0(n,\lambda)$ such that if $N(0,r_1)\leq 1/2$ with $r_1\leq r_0$, then
$$\begin{gathered}
u(0)^2 \geq \frac 1 2 \fint_{\partial B(0,cr_1)} u(x)^2 dS >0\, .\end{gathered}$$
The proof of the statement for harmonic function is analogous to the proof of Lemma \[l:frequency\_comparison\]. As for more general solutions, one can exploit the approximating harmonic function for $u$ to generalize the previous statement.
In a completely similar way, one can prove the following proposition.
\[prop\_nod\] Let $u$ be a harmonic function. For every $\tau>0$, there exists $\epsilon(n,\tau)>0$ such that if $1-\epsilon \leq N(0,e^{-2})\leq N(0,e^2)\leq 1+\epsilon$, then $u$ does not have zeroes in $B(0,1)\setminus B_\tau(V)$, where $V$ is some $n-1$ dimensional linear subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Moreover, there exists $r_0=r_0(n)$ such for all $x\in B(0,1)\setminus B_r(V)$, $N(x,r_0)\leq \epsilon_0$.
In a similar way, if $u$ solves , there exists $r_0,\epsilon_0$ and $c$ depending only on $n,\lambda$ and $\tau$ such that if $1-\epsilon\leq N(0,r/c)\leq N(0,c r)\leq 1+\epsilon$, with $r\leq r_0$, then there exists an $n-1$ dimensional plane $V$ such that for all $x\in B(0,r)\setminus B_{\tau r} (V)$, $N(x, c r) \leq 1/2$.
If $u$ is harmonic, let $u= u(0) + a_1 P_1 +\sum_{k\geq 2} a_k P_k$. The pinching on $N$ implies that $u(0)^2\leq c \epsilon a_1^2$ and $\sum_{k\geq 2} a_k^2 e^{2k}\leq \epsilon$ as well. This in particular implies that $$\begin{gathered}
{\left|u(x)-a_1P_1(x)\right|}\leq {\left|u(0)\right|} + \sum_{k\geq 2} {\left|a_k\right|} {\left|P_k(x)\right|}\leq \epsilon c(n){\left(1+ \sum_{k\geq 2} e^{-2k} k^{n/2}\right)}\leq c(n)\epsilon\, .\end{gathered}$$ Since $P_1(x)={\left\langleL\middle\vertx\right\rangle}$, where $L$ is a vector of lenght $\sqrt n$, then we easily obtain the thesis.
Again, for more general solutions, the proposition follows from an easy application of the approximation Theorem \[th\_w\].
With these ingredients, it is easy to generalize the estimate proved for the effective critical set and obtain the following
There exists $r_0=r_0(n,\lambda)$ such that if $u$ solves with on $B(0,r_0)\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and if $N(0,r_0)\leq \Lambda$, then $$\begin{gathered}
\operatorname{Vol}{\left(B_r{\left(u^{-1}(0)\right)} \cap B(0,r_0/2)\right)} \leq \operatorname{Vol}{\left[B_r{\left(N(x,r)\leq\epsilon_0\right)} \cap B(0,r_0/2)\right]} \leq {\left(C(n,\lambda)\Lambda\right)}^\Lambda r/r_0\, .
\end{gathered}$$
The proof follows closely the proof of Theorem \[t:main\_critical\]. In this case however we are interested in $n-1$ Minkowski estimates, thus in the covering arguments for the good balls we make a distinction only between functions with $n-1$ or $n$ symmetries, and functions with at most $n-2$ simmetries. In this latter case, a simple covering argument of the whole good ball will do, while if a good ball is close to having at least $n-1$ symmetries, then by the cone splitting proved in \[prop\_alcone\] the dominant degree of this ball is either $0$ or $1$. Thus the $\epsilon$-regularity theorems just proved allow us to conclude the estimate.
Volume estimates on the critical and effective critical set for $n=2$
=====================================================================
In this appendix we give an alternate, simplified, proof of the main results for $n=2$ which allows for an easy improvement of the constants. Namely, we prove that
Let $u:B(0,1)\to{\mathds{R}}$ solve (\[eq\_Lu\]) and satisfy (\[e:coefficient\_estimates\]). There exists $r_0=r_0(n,\lambda)>0$ with $r_0(n,0)=\infty$ and $C=C(n,\lambda)$ such that if $\Lambda\equiv N^u(0,s)$ for some $s\leq r_0$, and if is critical, then $$\begin{gathered}
\#{\left\{x \in B(0,s/2): |\nabla u|(x)=0\right\}} \leq e^{C \Lambda}\, .
\end{gathered}$$ If (\[eq\_Lu\]) is not critical then we have the estimate $$\begin{gathered}
\#{\left\{x \in B(0,s/2):|\nabla u|(x)=u(x)=0\right\}} \leq e^{C \Lambda}\, .
\end{gathered}$$
As before we will focus on the critical case, and we will assume $u$ is harmonic. The technique is such that, verbatim as in Section \[s:general\_elliptic\] of the paper, with the appropriate approximation arguments the results all pass over to the general case.
By theorem \[th\_cN\], $N(x,1/3)\leq C(n)\Lambda$ for all $x\in B(0,1/2)$. According to Proposition \[prop\_h2effcrit\], there exists an $\epsilon_0$ independent of $\Lambda$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
N(x,re^2)- N(x,re^{-3}) \leq \epsilon_0 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad {\mathcal{C}}(u) \cap B(x,r) \setminus B(x,r/e) = \emptyset\, .\end{gathered}$$
This, and monotonicity, means that every point can have at most $$\begin{gathered}
K \leq \frac{4 c \Lambda}{\epsilon_0}\end{gathered}$$ critical scales. That is, for each critical point there are at most $K$ numbers $i$ such that $B(x,e^{-i})\setminus B(x,e^{-i-1})$ contains a critical point.
Now we procede by induction on $i$. Let $A_0<\infty$ be the cardinality of ${\mathcal{C}}(u)\cap B(0,1/2)$. Define $T_i$ to be an infinite vector of zeroes and ones, and let ${\left|T\right|} = \sum_{i=1}^\infty T(i)$.
For $i=1$, consider all the balls of radius $e^{-i}$ centered at $x\in {\mathcal{C}(u)}\cap B(0,1/2)$, and refine this covering of ${\mathcal{C}(u)}$ by considering only a maximal subcovering such that $B(x_j, e^{-i-1})$ are disjoint. This is obviously possible, and by simple volume estimates the number of balls in this covering are at most $c=e^4/4$.
Then refine further the covering by extracting a minimal subcovering with the property that each ball covers at least a point which is not covered by any other ball.
Now consider the ball in this covering that contains the largest number of critical points, say $B(y_1,e^{-i})$, containing $A_i$ critical points. If $A_i = A_{i-1}$, then set $T_i=0$, otherwise evidently we have $$\begin{gathered}
A_{i-1}> A_i \geq c A_{i-1}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Moreover in this case (i.e., if $T(i)=1$) there also exists a critical point $x_i$ such that $e^{-i+1}\geq d(x_i,y_i)\geq e^{-i}$. Indeed, we assumed that the covering was minimal in this sense.
Now we repeat this process by induction and stop when $A_i =1$. Since the number or critical points is finite, the number of induction steps is finite. Set $\bar i$ to be the index relative to the last step. Evidently we have the estimate: $$\begin{gathered}
A_0 \leq c^{{\left|T\right|}} \end{gathered}$$
In order to get a bound on ${\left|T\right|}$, consider what happens if $T(i)=1$. As seen before, in this case there exists two critical points $x_i,y_i$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
e^{-i+1}\geq d(x_i,y_i)\geq e^{-i}\, .\end{gathered}$$ Thus either $x_i$ or $y_i$ have the following property (call $z_i$ the one with the property): ALL the points in $B(y_{i+1},e^{-i-1})$ have distance $\in[e^{-i-1},e^{i+1}]$ from $z_i$.
Now consider the critical point $y_{\bar i}$. Since it belongs to all the balls $B(y_i,e^{-i})$, We know that this point has at least ${\left|T\right|}$ critical scales, and now we can conclude ${\left|T\right|} \leq K\leq 4c\Lambda/\epsilon_0$.
With a similar argument, we can prove an effective version of this theorem.
Let $u:B(0,1)\to{\mathds{R}}$ solve (\[eq\_Lu\]) and satisfy (\[e:coefficient\_estimates\]). There exists $r_0=r_0(n,\lambda)>0$ with $r_0(n,0)=\infty$ and $C=C(n,\lambda)$ such that if $\Lambda\equiv N^u(0,s)$ for some $s\leq r_0$, then $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_r({\mathcal{S}}_r(u))\cap B(0,s/2)\right)} \leq e^{C \Lambda}(r/s)^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$
Consider the set ${\mathcal{S}}_r(u)$ and cover it with a Vitali covering of balls of radius $R=\bar \Lambda r/(5r_0)$. In detail $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{S}}_r(u)\subset \bigcup_{i=1}^M B(x_i,R) \, , \quad \quad x_i\in {\mathcal{S}}_r(u)\, , \quad \quad B(x_i,R_i/5)\cap B(x_j,R_j/5)\neq \emptyset\, .
\end{gathered}$$ Let $y\not \in B(x_i,R_i/5)$, and suppose that ${\left|y-x_i\right|}$ is a good scale for $x_i$, meaning that $N(x_i,e^2 {\left|y-x_i\right|}) -N(x_i,e^{-2}{\left|y-x_i\right|} )\leq \epsilon$. Since we know that $N(x,1/3)\leq \bar \Lambda$ for all $x\in B(0,1/2)$, then $r_c(y)\geq \frac{Rr_0}{\bar \Lambda }\geq r$.
By using the argument of the previous theorem, one proves that the number $M$ of centers of the covering has a uniform upper bound. Thus we obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_{R}({\mathcal{S}}_r(u))\cap B(0,1/2)\right)} \leq e^{c \Lambda}R^2\, \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \, {\operatorname{Vol}}{\left(B_{r}({\mathcal{S}}_r(u))\cap B(0,1/2)\right)} \leq C \Lambda^2 e^{c \Lambda}r^2\leq e^{c \Lambda}r^2\, .
\end{gathered}$$
[^1]: partially supported by GNAMPA
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Hashing based cross-modal retrieval has recently made significant progress. But straightforward embedding data from different modalities into a joint Hamming space will inevitably produce false codes due to the intrinsic modality discrepancy and noises. We present a novel Robust Multilevel Semantic Hashing (RMSH) for more accurate cross-modal retrieval. It seeks to preserve fine-grained similarity among data with rich semantics, while explicitly require distances between dissimilar points to be larger than a specific value for strong robustness. For this, we give an effective bound of this value based on the information coding-theoretic analysis, and the above goals are embodied into a margin-adaptive triplet loss. Furthermore, we introduce pseudo-codes via fusing multiple hash codes to explore seldom-seen semantics, alleviating the sparsity problem of similarity information. Experiments on three benchmarks show the validity of the derived bounds, and our method achieves state-of-the-art performance.'
author:
- 'Ge Song$^{1,2,3}$'
- 'Jun Zhao$^{4}$'
- |
Xiaoyang Tan$^{1,2,3}$[^1] $^1$College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics\
$^2$MIIT Key Laboratory of Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, China\
$^3$Collaborative Innovation Center of Novel Software Technology and Industrialization, China\
$^4$Nanyang Technological University, Singapore\
{sunge, x.tan}@nuaa.edu.cn, [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ijcai20.bib'
title: 'Deep Robust Multilevel Semantic Cross-Modal Hashing'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Cross-modal retrieval, aiming to search similar instances in one modality with the query from another, has gained increasing attention due to its fundamental role in large-scale multimedia applications. The difficulty of the similarity measurement of data from different modals makes this task very challenging, which is known as the heterogeneity gap [@BaltrusaitisAM19]. An essential idea to bridge this gap is mapping different modals into a joint feature space such that they become computationally comparable, and it is widely exploited by previous work [@XuLYDL19; @ZhenHWP19; @Zhan0YZT018]. Among them, hashing-based method [@LiuLZWHJ18; @ShiYZWP19], embedding the data of interest into a low-dimensional Hamming space, has gradually become the mainstream approach due to the low memory usage and high query speed of binary codes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Illustration of robust multilevel semantic codes.[]{data-label="fig:coding_efficiency"}](motivation_r1.pdf "fig:")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While recent works have made significant progress, there are several drawbacks still in existing cross-modal hashing methods. First, embedding different modalities data sharing the same semantic into the unified hash codes is hard, since the inherent modality discrepancy and noises will inevitably cause false codes. Nevertheless, most approaches learn to hash straightforwardly with seldom considerations for this problem. They tend to embed data of different semantics into adjacency vertexes in Hamming space, which dramatically increases the collision probability of correct and false hash codes. We illustrate this in Fig. \[fig:coding\_efficiency\] (a), the different semantics (colors) are coded as ’001’, ’011’, and ’111’, the conflict between the codes of data belonging to ’blue’ and ’red’ semantics happens. Although some work [@Jiang2017Deep] mentioned this problem and introduced the bit balance [@WangZSSS18] constraint for maximizing the information provided by each bit, it is too simple and leads to the burden of seeking proper hyper-parameter for effective learning. Second, the query is always complicated in real applications, involving rich semantics, e.g., multi-labels. But numerous work could not run such queries to return satisfying results that are consistent with the humans’ cognition on semantic similarity. They focus on preserving simple similarity structures (i.e., similar or dissimilar) rather than more fine-grained ones, and the used similarity information is often very sparse.
We observe that if the representation ability of binary codes with fixed length is adequate, hashing functions should attempt to preserve the complete fine-grained similarity structure for more accurate retrieval. Then, we can explicitly impose the distances between codes, whose similarities are zero, to be larger or equal than a specific value $\delta$ to make the learned hash codes more robust. We call $\delta$ as [*robust parameter*]{} and the learned codes as [*robust multilevel semantic codes*]{}. As shown in Fig. \[fig:coding\_efficiency\](b), we hash three semantics into a 3-bit Hamming space according to their subtle similarity such that the distance of irrelevant semantics codes is larger or equal than 3, i.e., the ’red’ and ’green’ semantics, and no conflict happens. Intuitively, the larger $\delta$ is, the more robust learned codes are. We could embody this constraint in the objective of hashing learning. However, endowing too large $\delta$ is not practical due to the limited coding power of length-fixed binary codes and the uncertainty of the hashing. The question thus becomes finding appropriate $\delta$. In theory, as the Hamming space and the semantic similarity information are definite, the assumption that all data are well embedded, i.e., no false codes, can be helpful to reduce uncertainty and ease the derivation of the effective range of $\delta$.
Here, we briefly describe our answer to the above question. We would like to encode semantic and similarity information of data to $K$-bit binary codes. The maximum number of $K$-bit codes with minimum pairwise Hamming distance $\delta$ is certain. According to the coding theory, the log of this number should be larger than the amount of semantic information, and the $\delta$-bits should be able to encode the neighbor similarity information of each point. Based on these facts, we derive the bounds of proper $\delta$ and detail the process in Sec. \[sec:emm\].
Inspired by the above, we propose a novel Robust Multilevel Semantic Hashing (RMSH), which treats preserving the complete semantic similarity structure of cross-modal data with theoretically guaranteed distance constraint between dissimilar data, as the objective to learn hash functions. For this, a margin-adaptive triplet loss is adopted to control the distance of dissimilar points in Hamming space explicitly, meanwhile embedding similar points with a fine-grained level. To alleviate the sparsity problem of similarity information, we further present fusing multiple hash codes at the semantic level to generate pseudo-codes, exploring the seldom-seen semantics. The main contributions are summarized as follows.
- A novel hashing method, named RMSH, is proposed to learn the multilevel semantic-preserving codes for accurate cross-modal retrieval. Notably, to exploit the finite Hamming space for improving the robustness of learned codes, we require the distance between codes of dissimilar points satisfies larger than a specific value. For more effective hash learning, we further perform a theoretical analysis to investigate the bounds of this value.
- To capture the fine-grained semantic similarity structure in coupling with the elaborated distance constraint, we present a margin-adaptive triplet loss. Moreover, a new pseudo-codes network is introduced, tailored to explore more rare and complicated similarity structures.
- Extensive experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the derived bounds, and the proposed RMSH approach yields the state-of-the-art retrieval performance on three cross-modality datasets.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
The cross-modal hashing can be grouped into two types, unsupervised and supervised. The former utilizes the co-occurrence information of the multi-modal pair (e.g., image-text) to maximize their correlation in the common Hamming space. The representative is Collective Matrix Factorization Hashing (CMFH) [@Ding2014Collective], which generates unified hash codes for multiple modalities by performing collective matrix factorization from different views. The supervised ones aim to preserve semantic similarity. Semantic Correlation Maximization (SCM) [@Zhang2014Large] uses hash codes to reconstruct semantic similarity matrix. Semantics-Preserving Hashing (SePH) [@Lin2015Semantics] minimizes KL-divergence between the hash codes and semantics distributions. Recently, the success of deep learning prompted the development of cross-modal hashing. Cross-Modal Deep Variational Hashing (CMDVH) [@LiongLT017] infers fusion binary codes from multi-modal data as the latent variable for model-specific networks to approximate. Self-supervised Adversarial Hashing (SSAH) [@LiDL0GT18] incorporates the adversarial learning into cross-modal hashing. Equally-Guided Discriminative Hashing (EGDH) [@ShiYZWP19] jointly considers semantic structure and discriminability to learn hash functions. Despite their effectiveness, most of them ignore the exploitation of limited representative of binary codes for reducing the impact of the modality gap.
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
The Proposed Approach
=====================
In this section, we fist give the problem definition and effective bounds of the defined robust parameter in Sec. \[sec:intro\]. Then, the configurations of the proposed RMSH are detailed, including two hashing networks, a pseudo-code network, and the corresponding objective function. An overview of the RMSH is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:method\]. \[sec:method\]
The Problem Definition {#sec:problem}
----------------------
Assume that we are given a multi-modal dataset $\mathbf{D}=\{\mathbf{X}$, $\mathbf{Y}$, $\mathbf{L}\}$, where $\mathbf{X}=\{x_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$, $\mathbf{Y}=\{y_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$, $\mathbf{L}=\{l_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$ denotes the image modality, text modality, and corresponding semantic labels, respectively. $x_i$ can be features or raw pixels of images, $y_i$ is textual description or tags; label $l_i\in \{0,1\}^C$. The cross-modal similarity $\mathbf{S}$ is defined as $S_{ij}=\frac{|l_i\cap l_j|}{max\{|l_i|,| l_j|\}}$. Given training data $\mathbf{X}$, $\mathbf{Y}$ and $\mathbf{S}$, our goal is to learn two hash functions: $h^{(x)}(x)=b^{(x)}\in\{-1,1\}^K$ for the image modality and $h^{(y)}(y)=b^{(y)}\in \{-1,1\}^K$ for the text modality such that the similarity relationship $\mathbf{S}$ is preserved and distances between dissimilar data are larger or equal than a positive integer $\delta$ for robustness, i.e., $\forall$ $x_i\in \mathbf{X}$, $y_j$, $y_k\in \mathbf{Y}$, if $S_{ij}\ge S_{ik}$, then the Hamming distance of their binary codes should satisfy $d_{H}(b_i^{(x)},b_j^{(y)})$ $\le$ $d_{H}(b_i^{(x)},b_k^{(y)})$, and vice versa, if $S_{ij}=0$, then $d_{H}(b_i^{(x)},b_j^{(y)})$ $\ge$ $\delta$. Intuitively, a larger $\delta$ makes codes more robust, but it cannot be too large due to the finite representation power of K-bit binary codes. In what follows, we investigate how to properly set this parameter to obtain the balance between robustness and compactness.
Bounds of Robust Parameter {#sec:emm}
--------------------------
In essential, supervised hashing is encoding semantic information $H(\pmb{L})$ and similarity information $H(\pmb{S_{*,:}})$ of data[^2], where $H$ denotes entropy function. According to the coding theory, we have facts: [**(1)**]{} the number of $K$-bit codes satisfying minimum distance $\delta$ should be larger than $2^{H(\pmb{L})}$ to make sure that different semantics have unique codes; [**(2)**]{} $\delta$ bits should be able to encode the neighborhood semantic similarity information $H(\pmb{S_{*,:}})$ of each sample. For simplicity’s sake, let’s assume that all data sharing the same semantic are embedded into the same codes. Based on above facts and assumption, we can derive the bounds of $\delta$ as follows.
[**1) Upper bound.**]{} We first give some definitions.
\[def:number\_of\_minimum\_dis\_codes\] $A(K, \delta)$ denotes the maximum number of K-bit binary codes with pairwise minimum Hamming distance $\delta$.
\[def:hammming\_ball\](Hamming Ball). Let $r$, $K\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $r\le K$. For $\forall$ $x$ $\in \Omega=\{-1,1\}^K$, the ball $B_r^K(x)$ denotes the set of vectors with distance from the $x$ less than or equal to $r$ and is defined as $B_r^K(x)=\{y\in\Omega| d_H(y,x)\le r\}$.
By the fact (1), we have $2^{H(\pmb{L})}\le A(K, \delta)$. Then the question becomes estimating $A(K, \delta)$. However, an accurate estimation of $A(K, \delta)$ is challenging, which is still unsolved. Alternatively, its bounds are well studied [@HelgertS73]. Towards our goal, we thus introduce a well-known lower-bound of $A(K, \delta)$ to derive the upper-bound of the robust parameter.
\[lem:count\_of\_balls\](Gilbert-Varshamov Bound [@gilbert1952comparison]). Given $\delta$, $K\in \mathbb{N}$ be such that $r\le K$, we have: $$\label{eq:count_of_balls}
\begin{aligned}
A(K,\delta)\ge\frac{2^K}{\sum_{i=0}^{\delta-1}\binom{K}{i}}
\end{aligned}$$
Since the computation of $\sum_{i=0}^{\delta-1}\binom{K}{i}$ is hard, we further give the entropy bound on the volume of a Hamming ball.
\[lem:volume\_of\_Hamming\_ball\](Volume of Hamming ball). Given $r$, $K\in \mathbb{N}$ and $r=pK$, $p\in$ $[0,1/2]$, we have: $$\label{eq:volume_of_Hamming_ball}
\begin{aligned}
B^K_r\le 2^{H(p)K}
\end{aligned}$$
By above Lemmas \[lem:count\_of\_balls\] and \[lem:volume\_of\_Hamming\_ball\], we give the main theorem about the upper bound of robust parameter in our problem.
\[thm:dissimilar\_hamming\_distance\_satisfitation\] For information $H(\pmb{L})$, if using $K$-bit binary codes to encode $l\in\pmb{L}$ such that for $\forall$ $l_i\ne l_j$, $d_{H}(b_i,b_j)\geq \delta$, $\delta\le K/2$, then, $\delta$ should satisfy: $$\label{eq:upper_bound}
\begin{aligned}
H\big(\frac{\delta-1}{K}\big) \leq 1-\frac{H(\mathbf{\pmb{L}})}{K}
\end{aligned}$$
\[prf:dissimilar\_hamming\_distance\_satisfitation\] By the the fact (1) and Eq. (\[eq:count\_of\_balls\]) (\[eq:volume\_of\_Hamming\_ball\]), we can obtain the above result.
We estimate $H(\pmb{L})$ $=H(\pmb{L}_1,$$\pmb{L}_2,$$\dots,$$\pmb{L}_C)$ $=$ $\sum_{i=1}^{C}H(\pmb{L}_i)$ by assuming independence between tags. $H(p)$ $=-p\log p-(1-p)\log (1-p)$, and $p(l_i)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N\mathbb{I}(l_{n,i}=1)$, $l\in \mathbf{L}$, where $\mathbb{I}(*)$ is indicator function.
[**2) Lower bound.**]{} Let $H_*$ denote $H(\pmb{S_{*,:}})$, by the fact (2) we have $\delta\ge \mathop{\max}_{*=1:N}\{H_*\}$. However, as $S$ is sparse, we could relax this by making the $\delta$ be larger than most $H_*$ to ensure $\delta$ bits can encode the semantic neighbors of each sample with a certain probability. By Chebyshev’s Inequality, we have: $$\label{eq:lower_bound1}
\begin{aligned}
P\{H_*\le\delta\}\ge 1-\frac{D(H_*)}{(\delta-E(H_*))^2}
\end{aligned}$$ If $P\{H_*\le\delta\}= p$, we have: $$\label{eq:lower_bound}
\begin{aligned}
\delta \ge \sqrt{\frac{D(H_*)}{1-p}}+E(H_*)
\end{aligned}$$ We estimate $H_i=-\sum_{j=1}^{|l_i|}p(s_{i}=\frac{j}{|l_i|})\log p(s_i=\frac{j}{|l_i|})$, $p(s_i=\frac{j}{|l_i|})=\frac{\sum_*\mathbb{I}(S_{i,*}=j/|l_i|)}{\sum_* \mathbb{I}(|l_i\cap l_*|=S_{i,*}\cdot|l_i|)}$, $s_i\in S_{i,:}$. Combing Eq. (\[eq:lower\_bound\]) and Eq. (\[eq:upper\_bound\]), we obtain the final bounds of effective robust parameter. The experimental results in Sec. \[sec:exp3\] demonstrate the effectiveness of derived bounds.
Network Architecture
--------------------
We build image and text hashing as two deep neural networks via adding two fully-connected layers with tanh function on the top feature layer of commonly-used specific-modality deep models, e.g., CNN model ResNet for image modality, BOW or sentence2vector for text modality. These two layers as the hash functions transform the feature $x_i$, $y_i$ into binary-like codes $z_i^{(x)}$, $z_i^{(y)}$$\in$$\mathbb{R}^K$. Then, we obtain the hash codes by $b_i^{(*)}=sgn(z_i^{(*)})$, where $sgn(z)$ is the sign function.
[**Pseudo Codes.**]{} Towards the sparsity problem of similarity, inspired by work [@AlfassyKASHFGB19], we propose pseudo-codes networks to manipulate the binary-like codes at the semantic level for generating codes of rare semantics, which are mixed with original codes to explore complicated similarity structure. We defined two types of code operation, i.e., union and intersection, as two fully-connected networks: $$\begin{aligned}
z_{1\oplus2}&= f_u(z_1,z_2) \equiv tanh(W_u[z_1,z_2])\\
z_{1\otimes2}&= f_t(z_1,z_2) \equiv tanh(W_t[z_1,z_2])\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes the concatenation operation. $W_u,W_t$ $\in \mathbb{R}^{K\times 2K}$ are weights to be learnt. $z_{1\oplus2}=f_{u}(z_1,z_2)$ with label $l_u=l_1\oplus l_2=l_1\cup l_2$. $z_{1\otimes2}=f_{t}(z_1,z_2)$ with label $l_{t}=l_1\otimes l_2$, defined as $l_1\cap l_2$.
Objective Function
------------------
To preserve multilevel semantic similarity and fully exploit the space between dissimilar points in Hamming space, we formulate the goal in Sec \[sec:problem\] as follows: for $\forall$ $b_i$, $b_j$, $b_k$, 1) if $S_{i,j}$$>$$S_{i,k}$, then $d_H(b_i,b_k)$$-$$d_H(b_i,b_j)$$\ge$$(S_{i,j}$$-$$S_{i,k})$$\cdot\delta$. 2) if $S_{i,k}$$=$$0$, then $d_H(b_i,b_k)$$\ge$$\delta$. We couple these two goals in the scheme of margin-adaptive triplets, that is: $$\label{eq:triplet_definition}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{t}(b_i,b_j,b_k)=[d_H(b_i,b_j)-d_H(b_i,b_k)+\alpha]_+\\
\end{aligned}$$
where $[\cdot]_+=max\{0,\cdot\}$, $\alpha=\delta(S_{i,j}-S_{i,k})$, is adaptive to the discrepancy of similarity and $\delta$ controls the distance of dissimilar points. Given a triplet of multi-modal data $x_{\{1,2,3\}}$, $y_{\{1,2,3\}}$ and their labels $l_{\{1,2,3\}}$, we can obtain five hash codes for each modality, i.e., $b_{\{1,2,3\}}$, and $b_4=f_u(b_1,b_2)$, $b_5=f_t(b_1,b_2)$. We partition them into the intra-modality triplets $b_{\{1,2,3\}}$, $b_{\{1,2,4\}}$, $b_{\{1,2,5\}}$, and the inter-modality triplets $\{b_1^{(y)}, b_{\{2,3\}}^{(x)}\}$, $\{b_2^{(y)}, b_{\{1,3\}}^{(x)}\}$, $\{b_3^{(y)}, b_{\{1,2\}}^{(x)}\}$, each of which reflects some aspect of the similarity structure and corresponds to a separate loss term in the final loss.
The final triplet loss for one modality is defined as:
$$\label{eq:triplet_loss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{tr}(&b_{\{1,2,3\}}^{(x)})= \lambda_1(\sum_{i=3}^{5}\mathcal{L}_{t}(b^{(x)}_{\{1,2,i\}})+\lambda_2(\mathcal{L}_{t}(b_1^{(y)},b_{\{2,3\}}^{(x)})\\
&+\mathcal{L}_{t}(b_2^{(y)},b_{\{1,3\}}^{(x)})+\mathcal{L}_{t}(b_3^{(y)},b_{\{1,2\}}^{(x)}))\\
\end{aligned}$$
where $\lambda_1$, $\lambda_2$ control the weight of intra-modal and inter-modal similarity loss, respectively.
Besides, we adopt weighted cross-entropy loss to ensure that each individual hashing codes consistent with its own semantics, especially for the pseudo-codes from fusion, and the loss is defined as follows:
$$\label{eq:classification_loss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{cl}(b)=-\sum_{j=1}^{C}\big(w_{p}\cdot l_j\log(\hat{l_j})+(1-l_j)\log(1-\hat{l_j}) \big)
\end{aligned}$$
where $\hat{l}$ is the predicted value of RMSH, and $w_{p}$ is the weight of positive samples.
Finally, the overall objective for N training triplets $\{b_{i1},$ $b_{i2},$$b_{i3}\}_{i=1}^{N}$ of RMSH is defined as follows: $$\label{eq:final_loss}
\begin{aligned}
\mathop{min}_{\theta_x,\theta_y}\mathcal{L}&=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\big(\sum_{j=1}^{3}\mathcal{L}_{cl}(b^{(x,y)}_{ij})+\mathcal{L}_{tr}(b^{(x,y)}_{i\{1,2,3\}})\\
&+\lambda_{3}(\mathcal{L}_{cl}(b^{(x,y)}_{i4})+\mathcal{L}_{cl}(b^{(x,y)}_{i5}))\big)\\
&s.t.\ b^{(x)},b^{(y)}\in \{-1,1\}^{K}\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_3$ balances the classification loss of pseudo-codes, $ \theta_x,\theta_y$ are parameters of image and text hashing, respectively.
Optimization
------------
Since the Eq. (\[eq:final\_loss\]) is a discrete optimization problem, we relax $b$ as $z$ by introducing quantization error $||z-b||_2^2$, and substitute Hamming distance with Euclidean distance, i.e. $d_H(b_1,b_2)=||b_1-b_2||_{2}^{2}$. The Eq. (\[eq:final\_loss\]) is hence rewritten as follows: $$\label{eq:final_loss1}
\begin{aligned}
\mathop{min}_{\theta_x,\theta_y,b}\mathcal{L}&=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\big(\sum_{j=1}^{3}L_{cl}(z^{(x,y)}_{ij})+\lambda_{3}(\sum_{j=4}^{5}L_{cl}(z^{(x,y)}_{ij}))\\
&+L_{t}(z^{(x,y)}_{i\{1,2,3\}})+\lambda_4\sum_{j=1}^{3}||z^{(x,y)}_{ij}-b_{ij}||_2^2\big)\\
&s.t.\ b \in \{-1,1\}^{K}\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $z^{(*)}_{i4}=f_u(z^{(*)}_{i1},z^{(*)}_{i2})$, $z^{(*)}_{i5}=f_t(z^{(*)}_{i1},z^{(*)}_{i2})$. $\lambda_{4}$ controls the weight of quantization error. In the training phase, we let $b_i$ $=b_i^{(x)}$ $=b_i^{(y)}$ for better performance. We adopt alternating optimization to learn $\theta_x$, $\theta_y$, and $b$.
[**1) Learn $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ with $b$ fixed.**]{} When $b$ are fixed, the optimization for $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ is performed using stochastic gradient descent based on Adaptive Moment Estimation (Adam).
[**2) Learn $b$ with $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ fixed.**]{} When $\theta_x$ and $\theta_y$ are fixed, we can obtain the closed-form solution of $b$ i.e., $b_i=sgn(z^{(x)}_{i}+z^{(y)}_{i})$.
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
  
------------------ ------------------ ------------------
Experiments and Discussions {#sec:exp}
===========================
Datasets
--------
[**Microsoft COCO**]{} contains 82,783 training and 40,504 testing images. Each image is associated with five sentences (only the first sentence is used in our experiments), belonging to 80 most frequent categories. We use all training set for training and sample 4,956 pairs from the testing set as queries.
[**MIRFLICKR25K**]{} [@HuiskesL08mir] contains 25,000 image-text pairs. Each point associates with some of 24 labels. We remove pairs without textual tags or labels and subsequently get 18,006 pairs as the training set and 2,000 pairs as the testing set. The 1386-dimensional bag-of-words vector gives the text description.
[**NUS-WIDE**]{} [@civr09nuswide] contains 260,648 web images, belonging to 81 concepts. After pruning the data without any label or tag information, only the top 10 most frequent labels and the corresponding 186,577 text-image pairs are kept. 80,000 pairs and 2,000 pairs are sampled as the training and testing sets, respectively. The 1000-dimensional bag-of-words vector gives the text description. We sampled 5,000 pairs of the training set for training.
Evaluation protocol and Baselines
---------------------------------
[**Evaluation protocol.**]{} We perform cross-modal retrieval with two tasks. (1) [**Image vs. Text (I vs. T)**]{}: retrieve relevant data in the text training set using an image query. (2) [**Text vs. Image (T vs. I)**]{}: retrieve relevant data in the image training set using a text query. We adopt the commonly-used Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain (NDCG) [@Kalervo2000IR] as the performance metric.
[**Baselines.**]{} We compare our RMSH with five cross-modal hashing methods [**CMFH**]{} [@Ding2014Collective], [**SCM**]{} [@Zhang2014Large], [**SePH**]{} [@Lin2015Semantics], [**SSAH**]{} [@LiDL0GT18]. For a fair comparison, all non-deep methods take the deep off-the-shelf features as inputs, and all deep models are implemented carefully with the same CNN sub-structures for image data and the same multiple fully-connect layers for textual data. The parameters of all baselines are set according to the original papers or experimental validations.
[**Implementation details.**]{} Our RMSH method is implemented with Tensorflow. We use ResNet [@He2015Deep] pre-trained on ImageNet as the CNN model in image hashing. For MS COCO dataset, the 4800-dimensional Skip-thought vector [@KirosZSZUTF15] gives the sentence description. The structure of two hashing layers are $1024\to K$-bit length.
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
 
@MIFLICKR25K @NUS-WIDE
-------------------------------- --------------------------------
Experimental Results {#sec:exp3}
--------------------
[**Comparisons with state-of-the-arts.**]{} Table \[tab:tab\_compare\_cross\_hash\] reports the NDCG@500 results. From Table \[tab:tab\_compare\_cross\_hash\], we observe that the RMSH method substantially outperforms other compared methods on all used datasets. Specifically, compared to the best deep method SSAH, the RMSH obtains the relative increase of 2.1%$\sim$7.8%, 0.8%$\sim$5.1%, and 0.1%$\sim$10% for different bits on MIRFLICKR25K, NUS-WIDE, and MS COCO datasets, respectively. Because the SSAH is learning to preserve the binary cross-modal similarity structures, its hashing codes cannot capture the fine-grained ranking information, thus achieve inferior NDCG scores. In contrast, the RMSH learns the more complicated similarity with more robustness to the modality discrepancy.
To visualize the quality of learned codes by RMSH, we use t-SNE tools to embed the 128 bits testing binary-like features of NUS-WIDE datasets into 2-dimension spaces and visualize their distribution in Fig. \[fig:visualize\_distribution\]. As can be seen, both image and text features provide a better separation between different categories. Also, the features belonging to the same class from different modalities appear to be compact. These results indicate the RMSH well preserves the semantic similarity of both intra-modal and inter-modal.
[**Impact of robust parameter $\delta$.**]{} To validate the correctness of the derived bounds of robust parameter $\delta$ in Sec. \[sec:emm\], we separately tune $\delta$ in $\{K/40$, $K/20$, $K/8$, $3K/20$, $K/4$, $K/3$, $K/2$, $2K/3$ $\}$ with other parameters fixing and report the retrieval performance in Fig. \[fig:effective\_margin\_bound\], where K=128. We also maker the bounds of $\delta$ derived by Eq. (\[eq:upper\_bound\]) and (\[eq:lower\_bound\]). We see that the RMSH method performs better at the range of bounds on all datasets. This result experimentally proves the correctness of the bounds for robust cross-modal hash learning.
---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------
  
---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------
Besides, Fig. \[fig:distance\_of\_margins\] shows the distribution of the Hamming distance of learned codes by RMSH. We observe that 1) too small $\delta$ makes the dissimilar points be more nearly, which cause the difficulties of keeping multilevel similarity structure of the similar points; 2) too large $\delta$ prefer to scatter dissimilar points in the whole Hamming space, which is cline to cause false coding since the number of different codes that satisfy the distance constraint is limited.
[**Ablation Study.**]{} To analyze the effectiveness of different loss terms and the pseudo-codes codes in the proposed RMSH method, we separately remove: $\mathcal{L}_{cl}$, $\mathcal{L}_{tr}$ and pseudo-codes with others remained to evaluate their influence on the final performance. These three models are called [**RMSH-NC**]{}, [**RMSH-NT**]{}, and [**RMSH-NP**]{}. Fig.\[fig:influence\_of\_components\] shows the result. We see that separately removing them will damage the retrieval performance to varying degrees. Notably, 1) the performance gap between RMSH and RMSH-NT is enlarged with bits increasing on MIRFLICKR25K, which confirms the importance of robust parameter for exploiting Hamming space. 2) Because the similarity information on MS COCO (80 concepts) is more sparse, the improvement introduced by the strategy of the pseudo-codes is more significant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
![Evaluations (NDCG@500) of the proposed RMSH method with ablating different components.[]{data-label="fig:influence_of_components"}](mir_compoents_IT.pdf "fig:") ![Evaluations (NDCG@500) of the proposed RMSH method with ablating different components.[]{data-label="fig:influence_of_components"}](mir_compoents_TI.pdf "fig:")
@MIRFLICKR25K (I vs.T) @MIRFLICKR25K (T vs. I)
![Evaluations (NDCG@500) of the proposed RMSH method with ablating different components.[]{data-label="fig:influence_of_components"}](coco_compoents_IT.pdf "fig:") ![Evaluations (NDCG@500) of the proposed RMSH method with ablating different components.[]{data-label="fig:influence_of_components"}](coco_compoents_TI.pdf "fig:")
@MS COCO (I vs.T) @MS COCO (T vs. I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a novel robust multilevel semantic hashing for cross-modal retrieval. The approach preserves the multilevel semantic similarity of data and explicitly ensures the distance between different codes is larger than a specific value for robustness to the modality discrepancy. Mainly, we give an effective range of this value from the information coding theory analysis and characterize the above goal as a margin-adaptive triplet loss. We further introduce a pseudo-codes network for the imbalanced semantics. Our approach yields the state-of-the-art empirical results on three benchmarks.
[^1]: Corresponding author
[^2]: The semantic label $l$ of data can be seen as the i.i.d. random variable from distribution $P(L)$. Because $S$ is constructed by $l$, each row $S_{*,:}$ of $S$ can also be seen as random variable.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The variational principle for conformational dynamics has enabled the systematic construction of Markov state models through the optimization of hyperparameters by approximating the transfer operator. In this note we discuss why lag time of the operator being approximated must be held constant in the variational approach.'
author:
- 'Brooke E. Husic'
- 'Vijay S. Pande'
title: MSM lag time cannot be used for variational model selection
---
Markov state models (MSMs) are a powerful master equation framework for the analysis of molecular dynamics (MD) datasets that involve a complete partition of the conformational space into disjoint states. [@Bowman_Book14] By representing each frame of a MD dataset as its state label, the populations of and conditional pairwise transition probabilities between the states can be counted, leading to thermodynamic and kinetic information about the system, respectively. This information is represented by a transition matrix, which contains all the information necessary to propagate the system forward in time. The transition matrix is the discrete-time approximation to the transfer operator $\mathcal{T}(\tau)$, which is characterized by its lag time $\tau$. The transfer operator propagates the system, represented by a normalized probability density $u_t(x)$, forward by a time step of $\tau$, and admits a decomposition into eigenfunctions and eigenvalues (see Ref. , Ch. 3),
$$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{T}(\tau) \circ u_t(x) = u_{t+\tau}(x), \\
&\mathcal{T}(\tau) \circ \psi_i = \lambda_i \psi_i. \label{eq:gep}\end{aligned}$$
The eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ are real and numbered in decreasing order. The unique highest eigenvalue $\lambda_1=1$ corresponds to the stationary distribution, and the subsequent eigenvalue/eigenfunction pairs represent dynamical processes in the time series. Importantly, the timescale of each process can only be retrieved with knowledge of the lag time at which the operator was defined using the equation,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ts}
t_i = -\frac{\tau}{\log \lambda_i}.\end{aligned}$$
Choosing a lag time at which the system is Markovian depends on what type of system is being modeled. At a long enough lag time for the system to be approximated as a Markov process, intrastate transitions occur much more quickly than interstate transitions. The appropriate lag time depends on the system of study: for protein folding, 50 ns might be appropriate; for electron dynamics, a suitable lag time might be on the order of femtoseconds. If a system is Markovian at a lag time $\tau$ (if the intrastate transitions occur more quickly than $\tau$), then the system will be Markovian at all lag times greater than $\tau$ and the timescales of the subprocesses will be constant for all Markovian lag times. This idea has motivated the use of implied timescales plots to choose a lag time. [@Swope_JPCB04a] Lag times after which the timescales “level out” are assumed to be Markovian, and usually the shortest such time is chosen for the most temporal resolution.
In practice, we usually do not know the true eigenfunctions $\psi$ in and instead need to guess them. For a MSM, this means choosing how to divide phase space into disjoint states. Until recently, choosing how to define the states occupied by a dynamic system represented a bottleneck in MSM methods development, and heuristic, hand-selected states were common. However, the derivation of a variational principle for conformational dynamics by @Noe_MMS13 in 2013 opened the door for a systematic approach to choosing the states of a system. Our guess, or *ansatz* eigenfunctions, $\hat{\psi}_i$ will admit corresponding eigenvalues $\hat{\lambda}_i$. Using our *ansatz*, we can state the variational principle derived by Noé and Nüske, [@Noe_MMS13]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:gmrq}
\text{GMRQ} \equiv \sum_{i=1}^m\hat{\lambda_i} \leq \sum_{i=1}^m\lambda_i,\end{aligned}$$
where GMRQ stands for generalized matrix Rayleigh quotient, which is the form of the approximator when the first $m$ eigenfunctions are estimated simultaneously. By recalling the relation of the eigenvalues and operator lag time $\tau$ to the system timescales in , we see that the variational principle establishes an upper bound on the timescales of the slowest $m$ processes in the dynamical system. In practical cases, the variational bound can be exceeded due to statistically undersampled processes; therefore, the GMRQ must be evaluated under cross-validation as described in Ref. .
When we variationally choose a set of eigenfunctions, we can only compare them if we are trying to approximate the same transfer operator. Therefore, the lag time $\tau$ must not be changed when the *ansatz* is changed, and cannot be variationally optimized using the GMRQ—instead, it must be determined using such techniques as implied timescale plots. In contrast, all transformation and dimensionality reduction choices leading up to the state decomposition are ideal hyperparameters to optimize using the GMRQ. This might include:
- RMSD cutoffs for geometric clustering;
- internal coordinate choices such as dihedral angles or contacts pairs, including which angles and pairs to include, and any transformations thereof;
- internal parameters for time-structure based independent component analysis (tICA) such as tICA lag time, number of components retained, and any transformations of these components;
- clustering algorithm and number of clusters;
but, as discussed above, cannot include:
- the operator lag time, or
- the number of timescales scored.
These choices are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:chart\]. For protein folding, we refer the reader to Ref. for a systematic study of these choices in the context of the VAC.
![The flow chart shows several ways to create a MSM from raw simulation data. The blue box indicates which of the parameters enumerated can be optimized using the GMRQ. The MSM lag time and number of timescales scored must be held constant. This figure is modified with permission from Ref. .[]{data-label="fig:chart"}](chart.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In practice, we recommend starting with reasonable parameters for the system of study and choosing a valid lag time. Then, at the chosen lag time, perform a hyperparameter search for any of the state decomposition choices listed above. This two step process can then be repeated, alternating lag time validation using fixed hyperparameters with hyperparameter searches for a fixed lag time.
Perhaps the most natural way to understand the separate treatment of the lag time is to consider its true role in kinetic model building. While previous MSM approaches have treated it effectively like a hyperparameter (e.g., choosing a lag time based on flattening of implied timescales), in actuality, this approach is fundamentally philosophically incorrect. The lag time must be chosen *a priori* by the researcher, as it directly reflects the resolution of interest to study. Given a method which can directly identify the relevant degrees of freedom, choosing a lag time of picoseconds would bring water dynamics into the state space, vs. nanoseconds for backbone and side chain dynamics or microseconds for longer time slow scale rearrangements. For this reason, it simply doesn’t make sense to let the model choose the lag time and instead one must have the protocol choose the best model given a pre-chosen set lag time.
MSMs are just one example of the general set of models to which the VAC applies. The popular tICA framework [@PerezHernandez_JChemPhys13; @Schwantes_JCTC15] can also be variationally optimized. When using tICA as an intermediate step in MSM construction, the tICA lag time may be varied and optimized. However, in the case where the tICA model is the entity being evaluated, the tICA lag time and number of components scored must be held constant in order to ensure that the same operator is being approximated. Additional extensions of the VAC can be found in Ref. . We also refer the interested reader to Ref. , which presents continuous-time Markov processes that do not have lag times. We would also like to note that the VAC is not a panacea: the slowest dynamical processes are often assumed, but not guaranteed, to be the processes of interest, and it is important to verify this for each analysis. We anticipate this note will help guide hyperparameter optimization when using VAC. The open-source software Osprey [@McGibbon_JOSS16] has been designed for this type of optimization and is available on [msmbuilder.org](msmbuilder.org).
The authors are grateful to Matt Harrigan, Carlos Hern[á]{}ndez, Jade Shi, Anton Sinitskiy, Nate Stanely, and Muneeb Sultan for discussion and manuscript feedback. We acknowledge the National Institutes of Health under No. NIH R01-GM62868 for funding. V.S.P. is a consultant & SAB member of Schrodinger, LLC and Globavir, sits on the Board of Directors of Apeel Inc, Freenome Inc, Omada Health, Patient Ping, Rigetti Computing, and is a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz.
[10]{}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 10.1021/jp037421y) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1137/110858616) [****, ()](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/142/12/10.1063/1.4916292) [****, ()](http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/145/19/10.1063/1.4967809;jsessionid=Td617tvPkXmj4MqYBi1JOe8C.x-aip-live-02) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4811489) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ct5007357) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4926516) [**** ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.21105/joss.00034)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**p-BRANE ACTION FROM GRAVI-DILATON** ]{}
[**EFFECTIVE ACTION**]{}
[** **]{}
[** **]{}
J. A. Nieto[^1] and C. M Yee
[*Facultad de Ciencias Físico-Matemáticas de la Universidad Autónoma*]{}
[*de Sinaloa, C.P. 80010, Culiacán Sinaloa, México*]{}
[**Abstract**]{}
Using a special ansatz for the metric, by straightforward computation we prove that gravi-dilaton effective action in higher dimensions is reduced to the p-brane action. The dual symmetry of the generic type $%
a\longleftrightarrow \frac 1a$ is an important symmetry of the reduced action.
Pacs numbers: 11.10.Kk, 04.50.+h, 12.60.-i
July/2000
In this brief note, by a straightforward computation we prove the surprising result that using a particular ansatz for the metric the gravi-dilaton action in $d+1$ dimensions is reduced to the $p-$brane action. This result may be of special interest in the Randall-Sundrum scenario \[1-2\], string theory \[3\] and M-theory \[4\].
Our starting point is the graviton-dilaton effective action with cosmological constant:
$$S=-%
%TCIMACRO{\tfrac 1{16\pi G_{d+1}}}%
%BeginExpansion
{\textstyle{1 \over 16\pi G_{d+1}}}%
%EndExpansion
\int d^{d+1}y\sqrt{-g}e^{-\phi }(R+(\nabla \phi )^2+2\Lambda ), \label{1}$$
where $G_{d+1\text{ }}$is the Newton constant in $d+1$ dimensions, $\phi
=\phi (y^\alpha )$ is the dilaton field and $R$ is the Ricci scalar obtained from the Riemann tensor
$$R_{\nu \alpha \beta }^\mu =\Gamma _{\nu \beta ,\alpha }^\mu -\Gamma _{\nu
\alpha ,\beta }^\mu +\Gamma _{\sigma \alpha }^\mu \Gamma _{\nu \beta
}^\sigma -\Gamma _{\sigma \beta }^\mu \Gamma _{\nu \alpha }^\sigma \label{2}$$
and the metric tensor $g_{\alpha \beta }$, with $\alpha ,\beta =0,1...,d$. Here, $\Gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu $ is the Christoffel symbol:
$$\Gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\frac 12g^{\mu \nu }(g_{\nu \alpha ,\beta
}+g_{\nu \beta ,\alpha }-g_{\alpha \beta ,\nu }). \label{3}$$
Consider the ansatz
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
g_{AB} & = & \tilde{g}_{AB}(y^{C}), \\
& & \\
g_{ij} & = & a_{k}(y^{C})a_{l}(y^{C})\eta _{ij}^{kl}, \\
& & \\
g_{Ai} & = & 0.
\end{array}
\label{4}$$
Here, the indices $A,B,...etc.$ run from $0$ to $p,$ the indices $%
i,j,...etc. $ run from $p+1$ to $d$ and the only non-vanishing terms of $%
\eta _{ij}^{kl}$ are
$$\eta _{ij}^{kl}=1\text{, when }k=l=i=j. \label{5}$$
Assume that
$$\phi =\phi (y^C). \label{6}$$
From (3), (4) and (6) we find that the only non-vanishing Christoffel symbols are
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\Gamma _{ij}^A & = & -a_k\partial ^Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}, \\
& & \\
\Gamma _{jA}^i & = & a^k\partial _Aa_l\eta _{kj}^{li}, \\
& & \\
\Gamma _{BC}^A & = & \tilde{\Gamma}_{BC}^A,
\end{array}
\label{7}$$
where $\tilde{\Gamma}_{BC}^A$ is the Christoffel symbol associated to $%
\tilde{g}_{AB}.$ Here, $a^i=a_i^{-1},$ so we can take $g^{ij}=a^ka^l\eta
_{kl}^{ij}.$
From (2), (4) and (7) we discover that the only non-vanishing components of the Riemann tensor are
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
R_{BCD}^A & = & \tilde{R}_{BCD}^A, \\
& & \\
R_{iBj}^A & = & -a_kD_B\partial ^Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}, \\
& & \\
R_{AjB}^i & = & -a^kD_B\partial _Aa_l\eta _{kj}^{li}, \\
& & \\
R_{jkl}^i & = & -a^m\partial ^Aa_na_r\partial _Aa_s(\eta _{mk}^{ni}\eta
_{jl}^{rs}-\eta _{ml}^{ni}\eta _{jk}^{rs}).
\end{array}
\label{8}$$
where $D_A$ denotes a covariant derivative in terms of $\tilde{\Gamma}%
_{BC}^A $. From (8) we find that the non-vanishing components of the Ricci tensor $R_{\mu \nu }\equiv R_{\mu \alpha \nu }^\alpha $ are
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
R_{AB} & = & \tilde{R}_{AB}-a^iD_B\partial _Aa_i, \\
& & \\
R_{ij} & = & -(a_kD^A\partial _Aa_l+a^ma_k\partial _Aa_m\partial
^Aa_l-\partial _Aa_k\partial ^Aa_l)\eta _{ij}^{kl}.
\end{array}
\label{9}$$
Thus, the Ricci scalar $R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu \text{ }}$is given by
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
R & = & -2a^iD^A\partial _Aa_i-a^ia^j\partial _Aa_i\partial ^Aa_j \\
& & \\
& & +a^ia^j\partial _Aa_k\partial ^Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}+\tilde{R}.
\end{array}
\label{10}$$
Therefore, the action (1) becomes
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
S & = & -\frac 1{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\Pi a_se^{-\phi
}\{-2a^iD^A\partial _Aa_i-a^ia^j\partial ^Aa_i\partial _Aa_j \\
& & \\
& & +a^ia^j\partial ^Aa_k\partial _Aa_l\eta _{ij}^{kl}+\partial ^A\phi
\partial _A\phi +\tilde{R}+2\Lambda \},
\end{array}
\label{11}$$
where $G_{p+1\text{ }}$is the Newton constant in $p+1$ dimensions. The relation between $G_{p+1\text{ }}$and $G_{d+1\text{ }}$is
$$\frac 1{G_{p+1\text{ }}}=\frac{V_n}{G_{d+1\text{ }}}, \label{12}$$
where $V_n$ is a volume element in $n=d-p$ dimensions. This action can be rewritten as
$$\begin{array}{c}
S=-\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}D^{A}(-2\Pi
a_{s}e^{-\phi }a^{i}\partial _{A}a_{i}) \\
\\
-\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\Pi a_{s}e^{-\phi
}\{a^{i}a^{j}\partial ^{A}a_{i}\partial _{A}a_{j}-2\partial ^{A}\phi
a^{i}\partial _{A}a_{i} \\
\\
+\partial ^{A}\phi \partial _{A}\phi -a^{i}a^{j}\partial ^{A}a_{k}\partial
_{A}a_{l}\eta _{ij}^{kl}+2\Lambda \}-\frac{1}{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y%
\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\Pi a_{s}e^{-\phi }\tilde{R}.
\end{array}
\label{13}$$
Classically, since the first term in (13) is a total derivative we can be drop it. Therefore, we have
$$\begin{array}{c}
S=-\frac 1{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\Pi a_se^{-\phi
}\{a^ia^j\partial ^Aa_i\partial _Aa_j-2\partial ^A\phi a^i\partial _Aa_i+ \\
\\
+\partial ^A\phi \partial _A\phi -a^ia^j\partial ^Aa_k\partial _Aa_l\eta
_{ij}^{kl}+2\Lambda \}-\frac 1{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}%
\Pi a_se^{-\phi }\tilde{R}.
\end{array}
\label{14}$$
Let us define $x^0$ as
$$\Pi a_se^{-\phi }=e^{-x^0}. \label{15}$$
We find
$$x^0=\phi -\sum \ln a_s \label{16}$$
and therefore,
$$\partial _Ax^0=\partial _A\phi -a^s\partial _Aa_s. \label{17}$$
Thus, the action (13) becomes
$$\begin{array}{c}
S=\frac 1{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}e^{-x^0}\{-\partial
^Ax^0\partial _Ax^0+a^ia^j\partial ^Aa_k\partial _Aa_l\eta
_{ij}^{kl}-2\Lambda \} \\
\\
-\frac 1{16\pi G_{p+1}}\int d^{p+1}y\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}e^{-x^0}\tilde{R},
\end{array}
\label{18}$$
It is not difficult to see that (18) is invariant under the duality transformation
$$a_i\longleftrightarrow \frac 1{a_i}.$$
Let us define the p-brane coupling “constant” $\Omega _p$ in the form
$$\frac{e^{-x^0}}{16\pi G_{p+1\text{ }}}=\frac 1{2\Omega _p} \label{19}$$
and the variables $x^i$ as
$$x^i\equiv \ln a_i. \label{20}$$
Using the expression (19) we find that (18) can be rewritten in the form
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
S & = & \frac 12\int \frac{d^{p+1}y}{\Omega _p}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\{-\partial
^Ax^0\partial _Ax^0+a^ia^j\partial ^Aa_k\partial _Aa_l\eta
_{ij}^{kl}-2\Lambda \} \\
& & \\
& & -\frac 12\int \frac{d^{p+1}y}{\Omega _p}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\tilde{R}.
\end{array}
\label{21}$$
If we now consider the definition (20) we find that (21) becomes
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
S & = & \frac 12\int \frac{d^{p+1}y}{\Omega _p}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\{-\partial
^Ax^0\partial _Ax^0+\partial ^Ax^i\partial _Ax^j\delta _{ij}-2\Lambda \}\}
\\
& & \\
& & -\frac 12\int \frac{d^{p+1}y}{\Omega _p}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\tilde{R}.
\end{array}
\label{22}$$
We easily note that (22) can be written as
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
S & = & \frac{1}{2}\int \frac{d^{p+1}y}{\Omega _{p}}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}[\tilde{%
g}^{AB}\partial _{A}x^{\hat{\mu}}\partial _{B}x^{\hat{\nu}}\eta _{\hat{\mu}%
\hat{\nu}}-2\Lambda ] \\
& & \\
& & -\frac{1}{2}\int \frac{d^{p+1}y}{\Omega _{p}}\sqrt{-\tilde{g}}\tilde{R},
\end{array}
\label{23}$$
where $\eta _{\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}=diag(-1,1,...,1).$ Here the indices $\hat{%
\mu},\hat{\nu},...$etc run from $0$ to $n=d-p.$ By setting the cosmological constant $\Lambda $ as
$$\Lambda =\frac{p-1}2, \label{24}$$
we recognize the action (23) as the p-brane action.
Let us make some final comments. We have shown explicitly that the p-brane structure is contained in a higher dimensional effective gravi-dilaton theory. In fact, our result is very general since applies to any higher dimensional effective gravi-dilaton theory and any p-brane. The case of 0-brane (point particle) corresponds to a cosmological model and in fact such a case has already been considered in the literature (see Ref. \[5\] and references there in). The case of 1-brane, corresponding to strings, is of great importance and deserve a special discussion.
From the point of view of the traditional string theory history our result is clearly intriguing and surprising. Since for strings $p=1,$ from (24) we see that $\Lambda =0$ and the action (23) is reduced to the well-known Polyakov action. Let us assume that this reduced action is the bosonic sector of the superstring action. We know that for superstrings, at the quantum level, the Weyl invariance implies that $n+1=10.$ Therefore, in this case the effective action (1) is defined in $d+1=11$ dimensions. Consequently, (1) can be thought as the bosonic sector of eleven dimensional supergravity and in this sense our result is in agreement with M-theory.
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. [**B 429**]{}, 263 (1998); Phys. Rev D [**59**]{} 086004 (1999); I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} [**436**]{}, 257 (1998); N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and J. March-Russell, hep-th/9809124.
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.[** 83**]{}, 3370 (1999).
M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz and E. Witten, [*Superstring Theory Vol. I and II* ]{}(Cambridge, Uk: Univ. Press ( 1987))
E. Witten,Nucl. Phys. [**B443**]{}, 85 (1995); P. Horova and E. Witten, ibid. [**B460,**]{} 506 (1995); [**B475,**]{} 94 (1996).
M. Gasperini; [*Elementary Introduction to Pre-Big-Bang Cosmology and to the Relic Graviton Background,*]{} proceedings of SIGRAV Graduate School in Contemporary Relativity and Gravitational Physics, Villa Olmo, Como, Italy, 19-24 Apr 1999; hep-th/9907067
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
For a family $(F_{t,a} : x \mapsto x + t + a\phi(x))$ of increasing homeomorphisms of $\mathbb R$ with $\phi$ being Lipschitz continuous of period 1, there is a parameter space consisting of the values $(t,a)$ such that the map $F_{t,a}$ is strictly increasing and it induces an orientation preserving circle homeomorphism. For each $\theta \in \mathbb R$ there is an $\mathcal T_\theta$ of $\theta$ in the parameter space. Given a rational $p/q$, it is shown that the boundary $\partial \mathcal T_{p/q}$ is a union of two Lipschitz curves which intersect at $a=0$ and there can be a non zero angle between them. In this direction we compute the first order asymptotic expansion of the boundaries of the rational and irrational tongues in the parameter space around $a=0$.
For the standard family $(S_{t,a} : x \mapsto x + t + a \sin(2\pi x))$, the boundary curves of $\mathcal T_{p/q}$ have the same tangency at $a=0$ for $q\ge 2$ and it is known that $q$ is their . Using the techniques of and , we give a new proof of this. In particular we relate this to the of the map $s_{p/q} : z \mapsto e^{i2\pi p/q}ze^{\pi z}$ at $0$.
address: 'Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France.'
author:
- Kuntal Banerjee
title: 'Boundaries of the Arnol’d tongues and the standard family'
---
Mathematics Subject Classes : 37E10; 26A18; 30D05
Introduction
============
In this article we study certain structures in the parameter space of families of circle homeomorphisms. Poincaré was the first person to study the dynamics of circle homeomorphisms while he was looking at the solutions of differential equations on torus in his 1885 mémoire [@poincare]. Formally, if we start with an increasing homeomorphism $F:\R \to \R$ of the real line such that $F(x+1)=F(x)+1$ for any $x\in \R$, then $F$ will induce an orientation preserving circle homeomorphism $f: \T \to \T$ given by $[x] \mapsto [F(x)]$. Note that we are denoting the circle as the additive group $\T=\R/\Z$. A natural question is how much every point on the real line is translated on average under $F$ or how much every point on the circle is rotated on average under the action of $f$. If we want to look at the average displacement after the $n$-th iterate of $F$ at point $x\in \R$, then we should look at the quantity $\ds \frac{F^{\circ n}(x)-x}{n}$. Poincaré showed that this quantity has a limit as $n\to \infty$ and the limit does not depend on the choice of the point $x$. We will call this limit as the of $F$ and denote this as $\trans(F)$. The translation number modulo 1 will be defined as the $\rho(f)$. This definition of translation and rotation numbers agrees with the fact that the translation number of a translation $T_\theta : x\mapsto x+\theta$ is $\theta$ and the rotation number of a rotation $R_\theta : [x]\mapsto [x+\theta]$ is equal to $\theta$ mod 1.
For a fixed $t$, the translation $x\mapsto x+t$ on the real line induces a circle homeomorphism which is equivalent to a rotation. One can perturb this translation with a non-linear factor and also can consider the map $$F_{t,a}: x \mapsto x+t+a\phi(x)$$ where $\phi$ is a Lipschitz continuous function of period $1$. There are two constants $a_{\min}$ and $a_{\max}$ which depend on $\phi$ such that if $t\in \R $ and $a_{\min}<a<a_{\max}$ then $F_{t,a}$ is monotone increasing homeomorphism and thus $F_{t,a}$ induces a circle homeomorphism. This is the of this family, denoted as $$\cal P \eqdef \{(t,a)~|~t \in \R, a_{\min}<a<a_{\max}\}.$$ Note that for $(t,a)\in \cal P$, the map $F_{t,a}$ induces an orientation preserving circle homeomorphism $f_{t,a}$. A well known example [@Arnold] is the or the of the form $$S_{t,a} : x\mapsto x+t+a \sin (2\pi x).$$ The parameter space of the standard family is $\cal P_S=\{(t,a)~|~t\in \R, -1/2\pi <a < 1/2\pi \}.$ Arnol’d studied this using the translation number and the rotation number of the map corresponding to each point in the parameter space. For $\theta \in \R$ we define the $$\mathcal T_{\theta} \eqdef \{(t,a)\in \cal P~|~\trans(F_{t,a})=\theta\}.$$ The collection $\{\mathcal T_\theta\}_{\theta \in \R}$ gives a partition of the parameter space $\cal P$. In this article we shall study the boundaries of these Arnol’d tongues and this is inspired after the work of Arnol’d, Herman, Hall, Boyland and others (see [@Arnold], [@Herbig], [@Hall], [@boyland]).\
For a rational translation number $p/q$, when $p$ and $q$ are coprime and for a fixed $a\in (a_{\min},a_{\max})$, the set of values of $t$ such that $(t,a) \in \mathcal T_{p/q}$ is an interval $\left[\gamma_{p/q}^l(a),\gamma_{p/q}^r(a)\right]$. And for an irrational $\alpha$ and a fixed $a \in (a_{\min},a_{\max})$ the set of $t$ such that $(t,a) \in \cal T_{\alpha}$ is singleton $\{\gamma_{\alpha}(a)\}$. These define the and three functions $\gamma_{p/q}^{l} : (a_{\min},a_{\max}) \to \R$, $\gamma_{p/q}^{r} : (a_{\min},a_{\max}) \to \R$ and $\gamma_{\alpha} : (a_{\min},a_{\max}) \to \R$; which one has to study to understand the boundaries of the tongues. The existence of the interval $\left[\gamma_{p/q}^l(a),\gamma_{p/q}^r(a)\right]$ and the singleton set $\{\gamma_{\alpha}(a)\}$ are guaranteed by Lemma \[lemma\_transincrease\] and Proposition \[prop\_transincrease\].
Note that when $a=0$, the map $F_{t,a}=F_{t,0}:x\mapsto x+t$ is a translation and any rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ grows (see Figure \[fig\_stdfamily\]) from the level $a=0$ in the parameter plane. A rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ usually looks like union of two horn like regions which are meeting each other at a point at the level $a=0$, whereas an irrational tongue in the parameter space is a curve. Hence to understand how these rational tongues are growing from the level $a=0$, one has to understand well the functions $\gamma_{p/q}^{l}, \gamma_{p/q}^r$; which are the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$. It is interesting to study whether $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ intersects $\gamma_{p/q}^r$ at a non zero angle or they have a common tangency at the level $a=0$. In case of common tangency, for $q\ge2$, we can study the of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$, which is given by the order of terms upto which the asymptotic expansions of the boundary curves at $a=0$ are identical. This is a difficult question in general, we work on it for the standard family.
In this article we study few results on the boundaries of the Arnol’d tongues. We derive the first order asymtotic expansion of the boundary curves $\gamma_{p/q}^l$, $\gamma_{p/q}^r$ and $\gamma_{\alpha}$ near $a=0$. This gives the angle of opening for the boundaries of the rational tongues at $a=0$ and this Theorem \[prop\_angle\] is discussed in section \[sec\_angle\]. In the case of standard family the boundaries of the rational tongues $\cal T_{p/q}$ have the same tangency and the order of contact of these boundaries is obtained in section \[sec\_ooc\] using the technique of guided and admissible family. This is completely a new approach to prove the order of contact and this has further dynamical insight. The order of contact of the boundaries of the rational tongues in the standard family is connected with the parabolic multiplicity (see section 3 for definition) of the guiding family for the first time (see Theorem \[thm\_orderofcontact1st\]). In this way we obtain a result on the characterization of the admissible and guided family of analytic circle diffeomorphisms (see Theorem \[theo\_characteranalytic\]). We also prove that the boundaries of the rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ are analytic curves in the parameter space for the standard family (Theorem \[theo\_bdanalytic\]). We can also derive the order of contact of the boundaries of the rational tongues in the Blaschke fraction family using this technique of admissible and guided family.
\[fig\_stdfamily\] {width="5.5in" height="2.5in"}
Preliminaries
=============
Before we proceed further, we recall some basic facts about translation and rotation numbers. By definition the rotation number is real, so it is either rational or irrational. The two cases and the corresponding dynamics are discussed in the following results. We deal with the case of rational rotation number first. Whenever we write $p/q$ for a rational number, we implicitly assume that $p$ and $q$ are coprime.
\[prop\_transratpq\] If $\rho(f)\in \Q/\Z$ then $f:\T\to \T$ has a periodic point. More precisely, if $\trans(F) =p/q\in \Q$ then there is a point $a\in \R$ such that $F^{\circ q}(a)=a+p$.
Note that $G\eqdef F^{\circ q}-{\rm Id}-p$ vanishes on the whole $F$-orbit of $a$, in particular on the set $\{a, F(a), \ldots,
F^{\circ (q-1)}(a)\}$ with $q$ points whose image in $\T$ is a cycle of $f$. We say that such a cycle has rotation number $p/q$. The derivative of $G$ is constant along the orbit of $a$ under iteration of $F$. As $G$ is analytic, either it has a double zero, or it vanishes at least once with positive derivative and once with negative derivative. This shows that counting multiplicities, $f$ has at least $2$ cycles with rotation number $p/q$.
Next we address the case of irrational rotation number.
\[prop\_semiconjugacy\] If $\rho(f) = \alpha \in \R \setminus\Q$, then $f:\T \to \T$ is semi-conjugate to the rotation $\T \ni [x]\mapsto [x+\alpha] \in
\T$.
In fact, the semiconjugacy may be obtained as follows. The sequence of maps $\Phi_N$ defined as $$\Phi_N(x)\eqdef \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \left(F^{\circ k}(x)-F^{\circ k}(0)\right)$$ converges, as $N\to +\infty$, to a non-decreasing continuous surjective map $\Phi_{F}:\R\to \R$, which satisfies $$\Phi_{F}(x+1) = \Phi_{F}(x)+1\quad\text{and}\quad \Phi_{F}\circ F(x) =
T_\alpha \circ \Phi_{F}(x)$$ where $T_\alpha: x\mapsto x+\alpha$ is the translation by $\alpha$.
The statement of semiconjugacy does not appear in Poincaré’s mémoire [@poincare] but it is equivalent to the following. In [@poincare], he proved that if $\rho(f)=\alpha$ is irrational, the order of points in the orbit of $f$ on the circle is the same as the order of points in the orbit of rotation by $\alpha$ on $\T$. The following result of Denjoy implies that when $F$ is an analytic diffeomorphism, then the semiconjugacy is in fact an actual conjugacy. In other words $\Phi_{F}:\R\to \R$ is an increasing homeomorphism.
If $\rho(f)=\alpha \in \R\setminus\Q$ and if $f$ is a ${\cal C}^2$ diffeomorphism, then $f:\T\to \T$ is conjugate to the rotation by angle $\alpha$.
The following two are basic results which can be found in any standard text in Dynamical Systems ([@katok-hasselblatt], see [@thesis] for \[prop\_transincrease\]). Let $\mathcal{D}^+(\mathbb R)$ be the set of increasing homeomorphisms of the real line which induce orientation presetving circle homeomorphisms. For $F, G \in \mathcal{D}^+(\mathbb R)$, we say $F>G$ if $F(x)>G(x)$ for all $x\in \R$.
\[lemma\_transincrease\] Assume that $F,G \in \mathcal{D}^+(\mathbb R)$. If $F>G$, then $\trans(F) \ge \trans(G)$, and this inequality is strict if one of $\trans(F)$ and $\trans(G)$ is irrational.
\[prop\_transincrease\] Assume that $F\in \cal D^+(\R)$ and $(F_t)_{t\in {\mathbb R}}$ be the one-parameter family of homeomorphisms of the real line defined as $$F_t(x):=F(x)+t.$$ Then $t\mapsto \trans(F_t)$ is continuous, non-decreasing and $$\trans(F_{t+1})=\trans(F_t)+1.$$ For all $\alpha \in {\mathbb R}, \trans^{-1}(\alpha)=I_{\alpha}$ is a closed interval. If $\alpha \in {\mathbb R \setminus \mathbb Q}, I_{\alpha}$ is a point. And for a rational $p/q$, $I_{p/q}$ is reduced to a point $t_0 \iff F_{t_0}^{\circ q}(x)-x \equiv p$.
Boundary points of $\cal T_{p/q}$ and parabolic fixed points
============================================================
In this section our aim is to study the boundaries of the rational Arnol’d tongues in a two parameter real analytic family $(F_{t,a}={\rm Id} + t + a\phi)_{(t,a)\in \cal P}$ where $\phi$ is a real analytic function.
To begin, let us fix one parameter $a=a_0\in (a_{\min},a_{\max})$ in the two parameter family and for simplicity, let us write $F_t$ for $F_{t,a_0}$. Then, the family$(F_t)_{t\in \R}$ is a one parameter increasing family in the sense that $F_{t}>F_{t'}$ if $t>t'$.
Let us fix a rational number $p/q$. As mentioned in the previous section, the function $\cal H:t\mapsto \trans(F_t)$ is non decreasing and the set $\cal H^{-1}(p/q)$ is a closed interval $[t^l,t^r]$ by Proposition \[prop\_transincrease\]. We have the following characterization of $t^l$ and $t^r$.
\[lemma\_parabolicNbdry\] We have the following equivalences:
- $t=t^r$ if and only if $F_t^{\circ q}(x)\geq x+p$ for all $x\in \R$ and $F_t^{circ q}(x_0)= x_0+p$ for some point $x_0\in \R$.
- $t=t^l$ if and only if $F_t^{\circ q}(x)\leq x+p$ for all $x\in \R$ and $F_t^{circ q}(x_0)= x_0+p$ for some point $x_0\in \R$.
- $t\in (t^l,t^r)$ if and only if $F_t^{\circ q}-{\rm Id}-p$ takes both positive and negative values.
Set $G_t\eqdef F_t^{\circ q}-{\rm Id}-p$. According to Proposition \[prop\_transratpq\], $t\in [t^l,t^r]$ if and only if $G_t$ vanishes. So, $G_{t^r}$ vanishes a some point $x_0\in \R$. If $t>t^r$, then $\trans(F_t)>p/q$, thus $G_t$ does not vanish. Since $G_t(x_0)>G_{t^l}(x_0)=0$, we have $G_t>0$ for $t>t^r$. Passing to the limit as $t\to t^r$ shows that $G_{t^r}\geq 0$. Conversely, if $G_t$ vanishes at some point $x_0\in \R$, then $\trans(G_t)=p/q$ and if in addition $G_t\geq 0$, then $G_{t'}>0$ for $t'>t$ and so, $\trans(F_{t'})>p/q$ for $t'>t$. This shows that $t=t^r$.
The characterization of $t^l$ follows similarly.
Finally, if $G_t$ takes both positive and negative values, then $\trans(F_t)=p/q$ and we cannot be in one of the previous cases, so $t\in (t^l,t^r)$. Conversely, if $t\in (t^l,t^r)$, then $G_t$ vanishes and according to the previous cases, the sign of $G_t$ cannot be constant. Thus, $G_t$ takes both positive and negative values.
In particular, we see that when $t=t^l$ or $t=t^r$, any point where $F_t^{\circ q}-{\rm Id}-p$ vanishes is a local extremum of the function. So, if $F_t$ is of class $C^1$ and $t=t^l$ or $t=t^r$, then there is a point $x_0$ such that $$F_{t}^{\circ q}(x_0)=x_0+p \quad \text{and}\quad (F_{t}^{\circ q})'(x_0)=1.$$ The induced map $f_t:\T\to \T$ has a periodic cycle whose rotation number is $p/q$ and whose multiplier is $1$.
A fixed point $z_0$ of an analytic map $f$ is said to be if the multiplier $f'(z_0)$ is a root of unity, i.e. $f'(z_0)=e^{i2\pi p/q}$ for some integers $p$ and $q$, and if $f^{\circ q}$ is not the equal to the identity near $z_0$. It is a fixed point if the multiplier is $1$.
It is well known (see [@milnor] Section 10 for example) that when $z_0$ is a parabolic fixed point of $f$ with multiplier $e^{i2\pi p/q}$, then there exists an integer $\nu \geq 1$ such that $$f^{\circ q}(z)=z+ C(z-z_0)^{\nu q+1}+\cal O((z-z_0)^{\nu q+2})\quad \text{with}\quad C\neq 0.$$ The integer $\nu$ is called the of $z_0$ as a fixed point of $f$. The map $f^{\circ q}$ has $\nu q$ attracting petals which are forward invariant and on which the sequence of iterates $f^{\circ nq}$ converges locally uniformly to $z_0$. Those form $\nu$ cycles of attracting petals. When $f:\C\to \C$ is an entire map, each cycle of attracting petals must attract the orbit of a critical value or an asymptotic value of $f$. In particular, the map $f$ has at least $\nu$ critical or asymptotic values.
\[prop\_boundarystandardmultiple\] In the standard family $(S_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in \cal P_S}$, a point $(t_0,a_0)\in \cal P_S$ is on the boundary of $\cal T_{p/q}$ $\iff$ $S_{t_0,a_0}^{\circ q}-p$ has a multiple fixed point with parabolic multiplicity $\nu =1$.
($\Rightarrow$) It follows from Lemma \[lemma\_parabolicNbdry\] that when $(t,a)$ is on the boundary of the Arnol’ d tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$, then $S_{t,a}^{\circ q}-p$ has a multiple fixed point $x_0\in \R$.
The map $S_{t,a}$ is an entire mapping with finite order of growth. According to a theorem of Ahlfors [@ahlfors], it has at most finitely many asymptotic values. Since $S_{t,a}$ commutes with translation by $1$, $a$ is an asymptotic value of $S_{t,a}$ if and only if $a+1$ is an asymptotic value of $S_{t,a}$. This shows that $S_{t,a}$ has no asymptotic value.
Modulo translation by $1$, the map $S_{t,a}$ has only two critical values. Their orbits under iteration of $S_{t,a}$ are symmetric with respect to the real axis. This shows that modulo translation by $1$, the map $S_{t,a}$ has at most $1$ parabolic cycle in $\R$, and either the parabolic multiplicity is $1$ and the attracting direction is contained in $\R$, or $\nu =2$ and the attracting directions are complex conjugate.
Since the sign of $S_{t,a}^{\circ q}-p$ does not change, there is an attracting direction in $\R$ and so, the parabolic multiplicity is $1$.
($\Leftarrow$) Assume $S_{t,a}^{\circ q}-p$ has a multiple fixed point $x_0\in \R$ then $(t,a)\in \cal T_{p/q}$. We will show that $(t,a)$ is in the boundary of $\cal T_{p/q}$ by contradiction. If it were not in the boundary of the tongue, then $S_{t,a}^{\circ q}-p$ would take both positive and negative values. In particular, there would be a point $x_2$ (which a priori might be equal to $x_0$) such that $S_{t,a}^{\circ q}-p$ takes positive values for $x<x_2$ close to $x_2$ and takes negative values for $x>x_2$ close to $x_2$. Then, $x_2$ would be either an attracting fixed point of $S_{t,a}^{\circ q}-p$ or a multiple fixed point of $S_{t,a}^{\circ q}-p$ with parabolic multiplicity $\nu=2$ and $2$ real attracting directions. The latter is not possible. So, $S_{t,a}$ would have an attracting cycle. Again, this is not possible since this attracting cycle would have to attract the orbit of a critical value of $S_{t,a}$ whereas the orbit of the critical orbits of $S_{t,a}$ are attracted by the cycle of $S_{t,a}$ containing $x_0$.
The regularity of boundary curves
=================================
In this section we try to prove that the boundary of $\cal T_{p/q}$ is the union of two Lipschitz curves. Hall has proved this in [@Hall] under the assumption that $\phi$ is $C^1$, using Implicit function theorem. The proof we present here is simpler and we only assume that $\phi$ is Lipschitz. We also show that the irrational tongues are Lipschitz curves. Let us recall the definition of the of the tongues.
\[def\_bdry\] In the parameter space $\cal P$, the line $a=a_0$ intersects the rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ on an interval $I_{a_0}(p/q)=[\gamma_{p/q}^l(a_0),\gamma_{p/q}^r(a_0)]$ and it intersects the irrational tongue $\cal T_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in \R\setminus\Q$ on a singleton set $\{\gamma_{\alpha}(a_0)\}$. Thus we have three type of functions, namely $\gamma_{p/q}^{l}:(a_{\min},a_{\max})\to \R$, $\gamma_{p/q}^r:(a_{\min},a_{max})\to \R$ and $\gamma_{\alpha}:(a_{\min},a_{\max})\to \R$. These functions define the of the tongues.
\[prop\_lipschbd\] The functions $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r: (a_{\min},a_{\max}) \to \R$ are Lipschitz continuous. More precisely for all $a_0$ and $a_1$ in $(a_{\min},a_{\max})$, $$\begin{aligned}
&-\max \p \le \frac{\gamma_{p/q}^l(a_1)-\gamma_{p/q}^l(a_0)}{a_1-a_0} \le -\min \p \quad \text{and}\\
&-\max \p \le \frac{\gamma_{p/q}^r(a_1)-\gamma_{p/q}^r(a_0)}{a_1-a_0} \le -\min \p. \end{aligned}$$
{width="4in" height="5in"}
To prove this we need the following definition and a lemma.
\[def\_sector\] Let us define some regions of the parameter space $\cal P$ around a base point $(t_0,a_0)$ in the following manner. $$\begin{aligned}
& U_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)=\bigl\{(t,a)\in \cal P~|~ \frac{t-t_0}{a-a_0} < -\max \p \bigr\} \cap
\bigl\{a \ge a_0 \bigr\} \\
& U_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)=\bigl\{(t,a)\in \cal P~|~ \frac{t-t_0}{a-a_0} > -\min \p \bigr\} \cap
\bigl\{a \ge a_0 \bigr\} \\
& U_{\p}(t_0,a_0)=\bigl\{(t,a)\in \cal P~|~-\max \p \le \frac{t-t_0}{a-a_0} \le -\min \p \bigr\} \cap \bigl\{a \ge a_0 \bigr\}\\
& L_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)=\bigl\{(t,a)\in \cal P~|~ \frac{t-t_0}{a-a_0} > -\min \p \bigr\} \cap
\bigl\{a < a_0 \bigr\} \\
& L_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)=\bigl\{(t,a)\in \cal P~|~\frac{t-t_0}{a-a_0} < -\max \p \bigr\} \cap
\bigl\{a < a_0 \bigr\} \\
& L_{\p}(t_0,a_0)=\bigl\{(t,a)\in \cal P~|~ -\max \p \le \frac{t-t_0}{a-a_0} \le -\min \p \bigr\} \cap \bigl\{a < a_0 \bigr\}\end{aligned}$$ Then we define the region $S_{\p}(t_0,a_0)=U_{\p}(t_0,a_0) \cup L_{\p}(t_0,a_0)$, the sectors $S_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)=U_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0) \cup L_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)$ and $S_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)=U_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0) \cup L_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)$.
\[lemma\_sector\] Suppose that $(t,a)\in \cal P$ . Then
- $\trans(F_{t,a})\le \trans(F_{t_0,a_0})$ if $(t,a) \in S_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)$ and
- $\trans(F_{t,a})\ge \trans(F_{t_0,a_0})$ if $(t,a) \in S_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)$.
The inequalities are strict if $\trans(F_{t_0,a_0})$ is irrational.
Note that $F_{t,a}(x)-F_{t_0,a_0}(x)=(t-t_0)+(a-a_0)\p(x)$. The way the sectors $S_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)$ and $S_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)$ are defined, we see that if $(t,a) \in S_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)$ then $F_{t,a}< F_{t_0,a_0}$ and if $(t,a)\in S_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)$ then $F_{t,a} > F_{t_0,a_0}$. Hence the result follows by Lemma \[lemma\_transincrease\].
Let us prove the Lipschitz continuity of $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ first. Assume that $t_0=\gamma_{p/q}^l(a_0)$.
First, according to Lemma \[lemma\_sector\], if $(t_1,a_1) \in S_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)$ then $\trans(F_{t_1,a_1}) \ge p/q= \trans(F_{t_0,a_0})$.
Second, if $(t_1,a_1) \in S_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)$ then there is a point $(t_2,a_0)$ in $S_{\p}^+(t_1,a_1)$ with $t_2<t_0$. According to Lemma \[lemma\_sector\], $\trans(F_{t_1,a_1})\leq \trans(F_{t_2,a_0})$. Since $t_2<t_0$ and $(t_0,a_0)$ is on the left boundary of the Arnol’d tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$, $\trans(F_{t_2,a_0})<\trans(F_{t_0,a_0})=p/q$. Consequently $\trans(F_{t_1,a_1})<p/q$.
It follows that if $t_1=\gamma_{p/q}^l(a_1)$, then $(t_1,a_1)\in S_{\p}(t_0,a_0)$. This shows the Lipschitz continuity of $\gamma_{p/q}^l$: $$-\max \p \le \frac{\gamma_{p/q}^l(a_1)-\gamma_{p/q}^l(a_0)}{a_1-a_0} \le -\min \p.$$ Similarly one can prove that $$-\max \p \le \frac{\gamma_{p/q}^r(a_1)-\gamma_{p/q}^r(a_0)}{a_1-a_0} \le -\min \p.$$ These complete the proof of the Lipschitz continuities of $\gamma_{p/q}^{l}$ or $\gamma_{p/q}^r$.
Since $\gamma_{p/q}^l(0)=p/q=\gamma_{p/q}^r(0)$ we have the following corollary.
When $a \rightarrow 0$, we have $\gamma_{p/q}^{l}(a) \rightarrow p/q$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r(a)\to p/q$.
If for a nonzero $a_0$, $a=a_0$ intersects $\cal T_{p/q}$ on a closed interval of positive length then $\cal T_{p/q}$ has non empty interior and thus it is of positive area.
By construction $\cal T_{p/q}$ is bounded by $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r$. Also by assumption $a=a_0$ intersects $\cal T_{p/q}$ on a closed interval say $I_{a_0}(p/q)$, of positive length. Then by the continuity of $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r$ there is a non empty open neighbourhood of the interior $I_{a_0}(p/q)^{\circ}$ bounded inside $\cal T_{p/q}$. Which proves that $\cal T_{p/q}$ has non empty interior and it is of positive area.
Now we show that the irrational tongues are also Lipschitz continuous.
For an irrational $\alpha$, the function $\gamma_{\alpha}:(a_{\min},a_{\max})\to
\R$ is Lipschitz continuous. More precisely, for all $a_0$ and $a_1$ in $(a_{\min}, a_{\max})$, $$-\max \p \le \frac{\gamma_{\alpha}(a_1)-\gamma_{\alpha}(a_0)}{a_1-a_0} \le -\min \p.$$
In this case we shall concentrate on the irrational tongue $\cal T_{\alpha}$ and the function $\gamma_{\alpha}$. The proof of the fact that $\gamma_{\alpha}$ is Lipschitz is similar to that of Proposition \[prop\_lipschbd\]. For a fixed $a_0\in (a_{\min},a_{\max})$ let $(t_0,a_0)$ be a point on $\gamma_{\alpha}$. From Definition \[def\_sector\] we have the sectors $S_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0), S_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)$ and the region $S_{\p}(t_0,a_0)$ defined. According to Lemma \[lemma\_sector\] we see that $\trans(F_{t,a})<\trans(F_{t_0,a_0})=\alpha$ if $(t,a)\in S_{\p}^-(t_0,a_0)$ and $\trans(F_{t,a})>\trans(F_{t_0,a_0})=\alpha$ if $(t,a)\in S_{\p}^+(t_0,a_0)$. Thus $\trans$ takes the value $\alpha$ in the region $S_{\p}(t_0,a_0)$. Hence $$-\max \p \le \frac{\gamma_{\alpha}(a)-\gamma_{\alpha}(a_0)}{a-a_0} \le -\min \p.$$
The Lipschitz continuity of $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r$ confirms that $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r$ define continuous curves in the parameter space $\cal P$. The same holds true for the curve $\gamma_{\alpha}$. In fact we can prove more when we are in the analytic standard family.
\[theo\_bdrystdanalytic1st\] In the standard family $(S_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in \cal P_S}$, the boundary curves of $\cal T_{p/q}$ are analytic functions of $a$ for $a\in (-1/2\pi,1/2\pi)\setminus \{0\}$.
Suppose that $a_0\ne 0$ is a point in $(-1/2\pi,1/2\pi)\setminus \{0\}$. We shall show that $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r$ are analytic around $a_0$. Let’s consider $\gamma_{p/q}^l$ first. There exist $t_0$ and $x_0$ such that $(t_0,a_0)\in \gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $(a_0,t_0,x_0)$ satisfies the following equations $$\begin{aligned}
P(a,t,x) &=S_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)-x-p=0, \\
Q(a,t,x) &= \frac{\partial}{\partial x}S_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)-1=0.\label{rel3}\end{aligned}$$ We would try to use the implicit function theorem to obtain that $t$ and $x$ could be expressed as analytic functions of $a$ around $a_0$.
Let’s show that $\ds\frac{\partial}{\partial t}S_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)\ge 1$ by induction for any triplet $(a,t,x)$. For a fixed value of $a$ define $S(x)=x+a\sin(2\pi x)$ and $S_t(x)=S(x)+t=S_{t,a}(x)$ so that $S_t^{\circ q}(x)=S_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)$. The statement is true for $q=1$ clearly. Suppose it is true for $q-1$. We note that $$S_t^{\circ q}(x)=S(S_t^{\circ q-1}(x))+t.$$ Thus $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}S_{t}^{\circ q}(x)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}S|_{S_t^{\circ q-1}(x)}\cdot \frac{\partial}{\partial t}S_t^{\circ q-1}(x)+1.$$ Since $\ds \frac{\partial}{\partial x}S(x)=\ds\frac{\partial}{\partial x}S_{t,a}(x)>0$ for $S_{t,a}$ being an increasing diffeomorphism and $\ds \frac{\partial}{\partial t}S_t^{\circ q-1}(x) \ge 1$ by induction, it follow that $\ds \frac{\partial}{\partial t}S_t^{\circ q-1}(x)\ge 1$ for any fixed $a$ within its domain. This implies that $\ds \frac{\partial}{\partial t}P(a,t,x)\ge 1$.
We can see that $\ds \frac{\partial}{\partial x}P(a_0,t_0,x_0)=0$ by Equation (\[rel3\]). By choice $x_0$ is a multiple fixed point of $S_{t_0,a_0}^{\circ q}-p$ and according to Proposition \[prop\_boundarystandardmultiple\], the parabolic multiplicity is $\nu=1$: $$S_{t_0,a_0}^{\circ q}(z)-p=z+C(z-z_0)^{2}+\cal O((z-z_0)^{3})\quad \text{with}\quad C\neq 0.$$ Thus $\ds \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}S_{t_0,a_0}^q=2C$ is non zero at $x_0$. Consequently $\ds \frac{\partial Q}{\partial x}$ is non zero at $(a_0,t_0,x_0)$. Therefore the matrix ${\begin{pmatrix}
\ds\frac{\partial P}{\partial t} & \ds\frac{\partial P}{\partial x} \\
\ds\frac{\partial Q}{\partial t} & \ds\frac{\partial Q}{\partial x}
\end{pmatrix}}$ is invertible when the entries are taken at $(a_0,t_0,x_0)$. Hence by Implicit function theorem $t$ and $x$ can be expressed as analytic function of $a$ around $a_0$. The same proof holds for $\gamma_{p/q}^r$.
Angle between the bounding curves of the rational tongue {#sec_angle}
========================================================
In this section we prove that there are lines tangents to these boundary curves of rational tongues at $(p/q,0)$. A slight modification in the definition of the boundaries $\gamma_{p/q}^{l}$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^r$ gives the angle between them. The average of the translates of $\p$ by $p/q$ plays a role here.
Let us define the average of the translates of $\p$ by $p/q$ as $\cal A_q(\p)$, i.e. $$\cal A_q(\p)(x)=\frac{1}{q}\sum_{k=0}^{q-1}\p(x+kp/q).$$ Moreover we set $$\cal M(\p)=\int_0^1\p(x)\d x, \quad M_{\cal A}=\max \cal A_q(\p)\quad \text{and}\quad
m_{\cal A}=\min \cal A_q(\p).$$
\[prop\_angle\] We have the following asymptotic expansions for the boundaries of the tongues.
- For $\alpha\in \R\setminus \Q$, we have $\gamma_{\alpha}(a)=\alpha-\cal M(\p)a+o(a)$ .
- For $p/q\in \Q$ if $\cal A_q(\p)\equiv \cal M(\p)$ then $\gamma_{p/q}^{l}(a)=p/q-\cal M(\p)a+o(a)$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^{r}(a)=p/q-\cal M(\p)a+o(a)$.
- For $p/q\in \Q$, we have
1. $\gamma_{p/q}^-(a)=p/q-M_{\cal A}a+o(a)$, where $\gamma_{p/q}^-(a)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \gamma_{p/q}^l(a)\;\text{for}\; a\ge 0,\\
\gamma_{p/q}^r(a)\;\text{for}\; a<0. \end{array}\right.$
2. $\gamma_{p/q}^+(a)=p/q-m_{\cal A}a+o(a)$, where $\gamma_{p/q}^+(a)
=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \gamma_{p/q}^r(a)\; \text{for}\; a\ge 0,\\
\gamma_{p/q}^l(a)\;\text{for}\; a<0. \end{array} \right.$
The proof depends on how $F_{t,a}^{\circ q}$ behaves near $(p/q,0)$.
\[lemma\_angle\] For small values of $\e$ and $a$, $$F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ q}(x)=x+p+q\e + qa \cal A_q(\p) (x)+a\Psi_{p/q}(x,a,\e)$$ where $\Psi_{p/q}$ is a uniformly continuous function which is $0$ for all $x$ if $a=\e=0$.
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ q}(x) & = x+p + q\e \\
& \quad + a\p\bigl(F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ 0}(x)\bigr)+ a\p\bigl(F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ 1}(x)\bigl)
+\ldots+ a\p\bigl(F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ q-1}(x)\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ We write $\p(F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ k}(x))=\p(x+kp/q)+\psi_k(x,a,\e)$ for each $0 \le k \le q-1$, where $\psi_k$ is defined as $\psi_k(x,a,\e)=\p(F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ k}(x))-\p(x+kp/q)$. By definition $\psi_k$ is periodic and continuous, thus it is uniformly continuous and $\psi_k(x,0,0)=0$ for all $x$.
Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
F_{p/q+\e,a}^{\circ q}(x)& =x+p+q\e + a\sum_{k=0}^ {q-1}\p(x+ kp/q) +
a\sum_{k=0}^{q-1}\psi_k(x,a,\e) \\
& = x+p+q\e + aq\cal A_q(\p) (x)+ a\Psi_{p/q}(x,a,\e);\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi_{p/q}(x,a,\e)=\ds \sum_{ k=0}^{q-1}\psi_k(x,a,\e)$ and $\Psi_{p/q}(x,0,0)=
\ds \sum_{k=0}^{q-1}\psi_k(x,0,0)=0$.
\[Proof of Proposition \[prop\_angle\]\] First we look at the boundaries of the rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ assuming their modified definition. We consider a particular case here, when we are approaching the left boundary curve $\gamma_{p/q}^-$ from above i.e. $a>0$. Define $$\lambda(a)=\displaystyle\frac{\gamma_{p/q}^-(a)-p/q}{a}.$$ It is enough to show that $\lambda(a) \rightarrow
-M_{\cal A}$ as $a \rightarrow 0$ with $a>0$. In other words for a given $\delta >0$ we have to show that $|\lambda(a)+M_{\cal A}|\le \delta$ as $a \rightarrow 0$ with $a>0$.
By the continuity of $\Psi_{p/q}$ we can choose $r_1>0$ so that if $|a|\le r_1$ and $|\e|\le r_1$ then $\bigl|\displaystyle\frac{1}{q}\Psi_{p/q}(x,a,\e)\bigr| \le \delta$ for any $x$. Choose $r_2>0$ using the continuity of $\gamma_{p/q}^-$ such that if $|a|<r_2$ then $|\gamma_{p/q}^-(a)-p/q|<r_1$. Now fix $r=\min(r_1,r_2)$ and take $0<a<r$.
For $\e(a)=a.\lambda(a)$, we are on $\gamma_{p/q}^-$ i.e. we are are on the tongue. Which implies that there is an $x_a$ such that $F_{p/q+\e(a),a}^{\circ q}(x_a) = x_a+p$. By Lemma \[lemma\_angle\] we see that $$\lambda(a)+\cal A_q(\p) (x_a)+\frac{1}{q}\Psi_{p/q}(x_a,a,\e(a))=0$$ $$\Rightarrow \lambda(a)=-\cal A_q(\p) (x_a)-\frac{1}{q}\Psi_{p/q}(x_a,a,\e(a)) \ge -M_{\cal A}-\delta$$ $$\Rightarrow \lambda(a)+M_{\cal A}\ge-\delta.$$
For the other inequality assume that $x_0$ is a point such that $\cal A_q(\p) (x_0)=M_{\cal A}$. Since we are considering the left boundary of the tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$, we note that the graph of the function $F_{p/q+\e(a),a}^{\circ q}$ lies below the graph of the function $y=x+p$. Thus $$F_{p/q+\e(a),a}^{\circ q}(x_0)\le x_0+p$$ $$\Rightarrow \lambda(a)+\cal A_q(\p) (x_0)+\frac{1}{q}\Psi_{p/q}(x_0,a,\e(a))\le0 \;\ (\mbox {By Lemma \ref{lemma_angle}})$$ $$\Rightarrow \lambda(a)+M_{\cal A}\le -\frac{1}{q}\Psi_{p/q}(x_0,a,\e(a))\le \delta.$$
The other cases follow similarly. When the function $\cal A_q(\p)$ is constant, then $m_{\cal A} = M_{\cal A}=\cal M(\p)$. So, $$\gamma_{p/q}^{l}(a)=p/q-\cal M(\p)a+o(a)\quad \text{and}\quad
\gamma_{p/q}^{r}(a)=p/q-\cal M(\p)a+o(a).$$
According to a Theorem of Herman ([@Hershort], see also Theorem 4.2 in [@widths] for a simpler version) for all $s\in \R$, $$\trans(F_{\alpha+sa, a}) = \alpha + a\cdot (s+\cal M_\p)+ o(a).$$ As a consequence, if $s>-\cal M_\p$ and $a$ is sufficiently close to $0$, then $\trans(F_{\alpha+sa, a}) >\alpha$ . If $s<-\cal M_\p$ and $a$ is sufficiently close to $0$, then $\trans(F_{\alpha+sa, a}) <\alpha$. Hence $$\gamma_{\alpha}(a)=\alpha-\cal M(\p)a+o(a).$$
A small calculation gives the following corollary.
The angle between the left and right bounding curves of $\cal T_{p/q}$ is $$\arctan \frac {(M_{\cal A}-m_{\cal A})(1+m_{\cal A}M_{\cal A})}{(m_{\cal A}M_{\cal A})^2}.$$
For a fixed $q$ the angle between the two bounding curves of $\cal T_{p/q}$ remains same for all $p$ coprime to $q$.
If $\cal A_q(\p) $ is non constant for some well chosen $\p$ then we have a non zero angle between the boundaries of the $p/q$ tongue. Checking the Fourier expansion of $\p$ we note that if all the Fourier coefficients of $\p$ are non zero then we would have angle between the boundaries of each rational tongue. Such an example is $$\p(x)=e^{\cos (2\pi x)}\sin(\sin(2\pi x))=\displaystyle {\sum_{n\ge0} \frac{\sin(2\pi nx)}{n!}}.$$ For this choice of $\p$ we have $$\cal A_q(\p) (x)=\displaystyle{\sum_{m\ge0} \frac{\sin(2\pi mqx)}{m!}};$$ which is non constant for every $q$, thus we have non trivial angle between the boundaries of each rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$. We call this the . $\blacklozenge$
{width="5in" height="2.5in"}
Order of contact of the boundaries of the rational tongue {#sec_ooc}
=========================================================
In the previous section we discussed about the possible angle between the boundaries of the rational tongue in a two parameter family. In many known example the function $\cal A_q(\phi)$ is constant and consequently the angle between these boundaries is zero. This is the case for the standard family $S_{t,a}$ for any rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ with $q\geq 2$. In this situation it is interesting to study the .
Assume that for a certain two parameter family $F_{t,a}:\R\to \R$, the boundaries of the rational tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ are functions of $a$ and the function $\cal A_q(\p) $ is constant for $q\ge 2$. Then we say that $k$ is the order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ for $q\ge 2$ if $$|\gamma_{p/q}^r(a)-\gamma_{p/q}^l(a)|\underset{a\to 0}=\cal O(a^k)\quad\text{but}\quad |\gamma_{p/q}^r(a)-\gamma_{p/q}^l(a)|\underset{a\to 0}\ne\cal O(a^{k+1}).$$
The order of contact of the boundaries of the rational tongues in the standard family is a known fact. Arnol’d has shown that the order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ is at least $q$ in [@Arnoldcontact] when Broer, Símo and Tatjer have proved that the order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ is exactly $q$ in [@broeretal]. It is not known that this phenomenon is related to the fact that the parabolic multiplicity of $0$ as a fixed point of the map $z\mapsto e^{i2\pi p/q}ze^{\pi z}$ is equal to $1$.
The positive order of contact in the standard family $(S_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in\cal P_S}$ is due to some of its properties: the map $\Pi_a:x\mapsto ae^{i2\pi x}$ semiconjugates $S_{t,a}:\R\to \R$ to $s_{t,a}:C_{|a|}\to C_{|a|}$ where $s_{t,a}:\C^*\to \C^*$ is defined by $$s_{t,a}(z)=e^{i2\pi t}ze^{\pi (z-a^2/z)},$$ and as $a\to 0$, the maps $s_{t,a}$ converge uniformly to $s_t:z\mapsto e^{i2\pi t}ze^{\pi z}$ on compact subsets of $\C^*$. To study the order of contacts in similar families like the standard family, we introduce the notion of and family. Our aim would be to show that the order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ is a multiple of $q$ in an admissible guided family.
Let $I$ and $J$ be open intervals of $\mathbb R$ such that $p/q\in I$ and $0 \in J$. A family $(F_{t,a}:\mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R)_{(t,a) \in I \times J}$ is if
- The map $J \times I \times \mathbb R \ni (a,t,x) \mapsto F_{t,a}(x) \in \mathbb R$ is $\mathbb R$-analytic.
- For all $(t,a)\in I\times J$, we have $F_{t,a}(x+1) = F_{t,a}(x) +1$.
- For all $t\in I$, the map $F_{t,0}$ is the translation $T_{\theta(t)}$.
An admissible family $(F_{t,a}:\R\to \R)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is by a family of holomorphic maps $(f_t :D_r\to \C)_{t\in I}$ if there exists an analytic family of holomorphic maps $(f_{t,a}:A_{a,r}\to \C^*)_{(t,a)\in I\times J_r}$ with $J_r := J\cap (-r,r)$ such that
- For all $(t,a)\in I\times J_r$, we have $f_{t,a}\circ \Pi_a = \Pi_a\circ F_{t,a}$ on $\R$.
- $f_{t,0} = f_t $ on $D_r\setminus\{0\}$.
From the definition of the admissible family we see that $$F_{t,a}(x)=x+\theta(t)+ a \xi(a,t,x);$$ where $\xi$ is an analytic function defined on a neighbourhood of $J \times I \times \R$ which is also periodic of period 1 in $x$. It is [guided]{} by a holomorphic family $(f_t:D_r\to \C)_{t\in I}$ if there is an analytic family of maps $(f_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in I\times J_r}$ defined on the annulus $A_{a,r}$ to $\C^*$ such that
- $x\mapsto ae^{2i\pi x}$ semiconjugates $F_{t,a}$ to $f_{t,a}$.
- $f_{t,a} \underset{a \to 0}\longrightarrow f_t$ locally uniformly on $D(0,r)\setminus\{0\}$.
It is easy to see that the standard family $(S_{t,a}:x\mapsto x+t+a\sin(2\pi x))_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is admissible. Here $I=\R$ and $J=(-1/2\pi,1/2\pi)$. For $J_{r}=J\cap(-r,r)$ we try to define another family $(s_{t,a} : A_{a,r}\to \C^*)_{(t,a) \in I\times J_r}$. Let’s define $s_{t,a}$ on $|z|=|a|$ first. $$s_{t,a} (ae^{i2 \pi x}) =\displaystyle ae^{i2 \pi (x+t)}e^{ i2\pi a\ds [\frac{e^{i2 \pi x}}{2i}- \frac{e^{-i2 \pi x}}{2i}]}
= \displaystyle {ae^{i2 \pi (x+t)}e^{a\pi{e^{i2 \pi x}}-{a\pi e^{-i2 \pi x}}}}.$$ Assuming $ae^{i2 \pi x}=z$ we see that, $$s_{t,a} (z)= e^{ i2 \pi t}ze^{\ds \pi z -\frac{a^2\pi}{z}}.$$ This gives a well defined family $s_{t,a}:A_{a,r}\to \C^*$ such that $s_{t,a} \circ \Pi_a(x)=\Pi_a \circ S_{t,a} (x)$ for any $(t,a) \in I\times J_r$. This implies that as $a\to 0$ we see that $s_{t,a} \to s_t : z \mapsto e^{i2 \pi t}ze^{\pi z}$. Consequently the standard family is guided by $(s_t :D_r\to \C)_{t \in I }$ such that $s_t (z)=e^{i2 \pi t}ze^{\pi z}$. $\blacklozenge$
\[example\_Bla\] Another interesting family is the . In this case the family of circle homeomorphisms is given by $$\widehat{B}_{t,a}: z\mapsto e^{i2\pi t}z\frac{1-az}{1-a/z}$$ when we take $z$ on the unit circle. The parameter space for this family is $\cal P_B=\{(t,a)~|~ t\in \R, -1/\sqrt{2}<a < 1/\sqrt{2}\}$. Here we take $I=\R$ and $J=(-1/\sqrt 2,1/\sqrt 2)$. One could argue that the family is induced by a family of homeomorphisms of the real line given by $$B_{t,a}:x\mapsto x+t+2\arctan {\frac{a\sin(2\pi x)}{1-a\cos(2\pi x)}}.$$ The map $z\mapsto az=w$ semiconjugates $\widehat{B}_{t,a}(z)$ to the rational function $b_{t,a}:w\mapsto e^{i2\pi t}w\ds\frac{1-w}{1-a^2/w}$. Also $b_{t,a}$ tends to the quadratic family $b_t:w\mapsto e^{i2\pi t}w(1-w)$ uniformly on the compact subsets $D_r\setminus\{0\}$ as $a\to 0$. Thus $(B_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is an admissible family guided by $(b_t)_{t\in I}$. $\blacklozenge$
In the following discussions we assume that $(F_{t,a}:\R\to \R)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is an admissible family guided by a holomorphic family $(f_t :D_r\to \C)_{t \in I}$. We would try to understand the properties of these families and characterise them according to some properties. First we show that for all $t\in I$, the map $f_t $ has one indifferent fixed point at $z=0$.
\[lemma\_adgdd1\] For all $t\in I$, we have $$f_t (0)=0\quad \text{and}\quad f_t '(0) = e^{i2\pi \theta(t)}.$$
Let $(g_{t,a}:\mathbb S^1\to \mathbb S^1)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ be the family of maps defined by the following relation $$g_{t,a}\circ \Pi = \Pi \circ F_{t,a};$$ so that for all $z\in \mathbb S^1$, we have $f_{t,a}(az) = a g_{t,a}(z)$.
Looking at the Laurent series coefficients $d_k$ of $f_{t,a}$ and $g_{t,a}$ we see that $$d_k(f_{t,a})\underset{a\to 0}\longrightarrow d_k(f_t )\quad\text{and}\quad d_k(g_{t,a})\underset{a\to 0}\longrightarrow d_k(R_{\theta(t)});$$ with $d_k(R_{\theta(t)})=0$ for $k\neq 1$ and $d_k(R_{\theta(t)})=e^{i2\pi \theta(t)}$ for $k=1$. Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
d_k(f_{t,a}) =
\frac{1}{i2\pi}\int_{C(0,|a|)} \frac{f_{t,a}(z)}{z^{k+1}}\ \d z &=
\frac{1}{i2\pi}\int_{C(0,1)}
\frac{f_{t,a}(aw)}{(aw)^{k+1}}\ \d (aw) \\
&= \frac{1}{ a^{k-1}}\cdot\frac{1}{i2\pi}\int_{C(0,1)}
\frac{g_{t,a}(w)}{w^{k+1}}\ \d w \\
&=\frac{1}{ a^{k-1}}\cdot d_k(g_{t,a}).\end{aligned}$$ We obtain the result by taking the limit when $a$ tends to $0$ for $k=0$ and $k=1$.
Note that if $(F_{t,a}:\R\to \R)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is an admissible family guided by a holomorphic family $(f_t :D_r\to \C)_{t\in I}$, then for all $k\geq 0$ there exists $r'>0$ such that the family $(F_{t,a}^{\circ k}:\R\to \R)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ becomes admissible and guided by the holomorphic family $(f_t^{\circ k}:D_{r'}\to \C)_{t \in I}$. It is sufficient to choose $r'\in (0,r)$ so that $f_t^{\circ k}$ is defined on $D_{r'}$ for all $t\in I$.
\[prop\_adgddch\] Suppose $(F_{t,a}:\R \rightarrow \R)_{(t,a)\in I \times J}$ is guided and admissible and $$F_{t,a}(x)=x+\theta(t)+\sum_{n\ge 1} \Xi_{n}(t,x)a^n,$$ then $\Xi_{n}(t,x)$ is a trigonometric polynomial of degree $\le n$ in $x$. In other words $$\Xi_{n}(t,x)=\displaystyle\sum_{|k|\le n}c_{n,k}(t)e^{i2\pi kx}$$ where $c_{n,k}(t)$ is the $k$-th Fourier coefficient of $\Xi_n(t,x)$.
We have to show that the Fourier expansion of $\Xi_n(t,x)$ does not contain any non zero terms outside the $-n$-th and $n$-th terms. We write $$F_{t,a}(x)=G_{t,a}(x)+a^{n_0}H(a,t,x),$$ where $n_0$ is the least $n$ such that $\Xi_n(t,x)$ is not a trigonometric polynomial of degree $\le n$ in $x$; i.e. there is a $k>n$ and $c_{n,k}(t)\neq 0$.
The first part of the proof contains showing that $(G_{t,a}:\R \to \R)_{(t,a)\in I \times J}$ is guided and admissible. Note that $G_{t,a}(x)=x+\theta(t)+\displaystyle\sum_{1\le n < n_0} \Xi_n(t,x)a^n$, where $\Xi_n(t,x)=\displaystyle\sum_{|k|\le n}c_{n,k}(t)e^{i2\pi kx}$. The way $G_{t,a}$ is chosen it follows that it is admissible. We claim that it is guided.
Define $g_{t,a}:\C^*\to \C^*$ as $$g_{t,a}(z)= ze^{i2\pi \theta(t)}\displaystyle\prod_{1 \le n <n_0}e^{i2\pi a^n{\displaystyle\sum_{|k|\le n}}c_{n,k}(t)(z/a)^k}
= ze^{i2\pi \theta(t)}\displaystyle\prod_{1 \le n <n_0}e^{i2\pi{\displaystyle\sum_{|k|\le n}}a^{n-k}c_{n,k}(t)z^k}.$$ This implies that $g_{t,0}(z)=ze^{i2\pi \theta(t)}{\displaystyle\prod_{1 \le n <n_0}}e^{i2\pi c_{n,n}(t)z^n}$. We define $ g_{t}: \C \to \C$ by $g_t=g_{t,0}$. By construction, the family $(g_{t,a}:A_{a,r}\to \C^*)_{(t,a)\in I \times J_r}$ is analytic where $J_r := J\cap (-r,r)$. In addition we also have $g_{t,a}\circ \Pi_a = \Pi_a\circ G_{t,a}$ on $\R$. So $(G_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is guided by $(g_t:D_r \to \C)_{t\in I}$.
As $F_{t,a}$ is guided and admissible, for $x\in \R$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_{t,a}(ae^{i2\pi x}) &= ae^{i2\pi F_{t,a}(x)}\\
&= ae^{i2\pi(G_{t,a}(x)+a^{n_0}H(a,t,x))}\\
&= g_{t,a}(x)e^{i2\pi a^{n_0}H(a,t,x)}\\
\Rightarrow \frac{f_{t,a}(ae^{i2\pi x})}{g_{t,a}(ae^{i2\pi x})}&=e^{i2\pi a^{n_0}H(a,t,x)}\label{rel1}\end{aligned}$$ Since $g_{t,a}:\C^* \to \C^*$ does not have any zeros on $\C^*$, $\displaystyle\frac{f_{t,a}}{g_{t,a}}$ defines a holomorphic function on $A_{a,r} \subset \C^* $. Similarly $\displaystyle\frac{f_{t}}{g_{t}}$ is holomorphic on $D_r\setminus\{0\}$; in fact it is holomorphic on $D_r$ by Lemma \[lemma\_adgdd1\]. Which means $\Bigl(\displaystyle\frac{f_{t,a}}{g_{t,a}}:A_{a,r} \to \C^*\Bigr)_{(t,a)\in I_r\times J}$ and $\Bigl(\displaystyle\frac{f_{t}}{g_{t}}:D_r \to \C\Bigr)_{(t \in I)}$ are families of analytic maps. The next observation is that as $a\rightarrow 0, \displaystyle\frac{f_{t,a}(z)}{g_{t,a}(z)} \rightarrow
\displaystyle\frac{f_{t}(z)}{g_{t}(z)}$ uniformly on compact subsets of $A_{a,r}$. Since $A_{a,r}\rightarrow D_r\setminus \{0\}$ with $a\rightarrow 0$, the above convergence is true on $D_r\setminus\{0\}$.
Define two new functions $L_{t,a}$ and $K_{t,a}$ when $(t,a) \in I\times J$ and $x\in \R$ by the following equations as follows. $$\label{rel2}
L_{t,a}(x)=e^{i2\pi(F_{t,a}(x)-G_{t,a}(x))}= e^{i2\pi a^{n_0}H(a,t,x)}= 1+a^{n_0}K_{t,a}(x)$$ By choice $K_{t,a}(x)=\displaystyle\sum_{j\ge 1} \frac{(i2\pi)^j}{j!}a^{n_0(j-1)}(H(a,t,x))^j$, which is analytic on a neighbourhood of $J\times I\times \R$. And it is also evident that $L_{t,a}(x)$ is analytic on the same domain. Moreover $K_{t,0}(x)=H(0,t,x)$. As $a\rightarrow 0$, $K_{t,a}(x)\rightarrow K_{t,0}(x)$ uniformly on compact subsets of $D_r\setminus\{0\}$. Take $a$ small enough such that the circle $|z|=r/2$ is inside $A_{a,r}$. Assume that $k\in \N$, looking at the Fourier coefficients of $L_{t,a}$ and $K_{t,a}$ we have $$c_k(L_{t,a})\underset{\ref{rel2}}=a^{n_0}c_k(K_{t,a}).$$ Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
c_k(L_{t,a})&=\int_0^1 L_{t,a}(x)e^{-i2\pi kx}\d x \\
&\underset{\ref{rel1}}=\int_0^1 \frac{f_{t,a}(ae^{i2\pi x})}{g_{t,a}(ae^{i2\pi x})}e^{-i2\pi kx}\d x \\
&=\frac{1}{i2\pi}\int_{|z|=a} \frac{f_{t,a}(z)}{g_{t,a}(z)}\frac{a^k}{z^{k+1}}\d z\,\ (ae^{i2\pi x}=z)\\
&=\frac{a^k}{i2\pi}\int_{|z|=r/2}\frac{f_{t,a}(z)}{g_{t,a}(z)z^{k+1}}\d z\\
&=\frac{a^k}{i2\pi}d_k\Bigl(\frac{f_{t,a}}{g_{t,a}}\Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ $$\therefore c_k(K_{t,a})=\frac{a^{(k-n_0)}}{i2\pi} d_k\Bigl(\frac{f_{t,a}}{g_{t,a}}\Bigr).$$
With $a\rightarrow 0, K_{t,a}(x)\rightarrow K_{t,0}(x)=H(0,t,x)$ and $\displaystyle\frac{f_{t,a}(z)}{g_{t,a}(z)} \rightarrow
\displaystyle\frac{f_{t}(z)}{g_{t}(z)}$ by uniform continuity on $|z|=r/2$. Which implies that $c_k(K_{t,0})=0$ if $k>n_0$. Since $F_{t,a}(x)\in \R$ for $(a,t,x)\in J\times I\times \R$, we note that $\Xi_{n_0}(t,x)\in \R$ for $(t,x)\in I\times\R$; and $c_{n_0,-k}(t)=\overline{c_{n_0,k}(t)}$ for $k>0$. Thus $c_k(K_{t,0})=0$ if $|k|>n_0$. Hence we arrive at a contradiction. This completes the proof.
The following is the analytic characterization of the admissible and guided family of analytic circle diffeomorphisms.
\[theo\_characteranalytic\] Suppose that $(F_{t,a}:\R \rightarrow \R)_{(t,a)\in I \times J}$ is an analytic family and $$F_{t,a}(x)=x+\theta(t)+\sum_{n\ge 1} \Xi_{n}(t,x)a^n.$$ The family $(F_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in I \times J}$ is admissible and guided $\iff$ for any $n\in \N$, $\Xi_{n}(t,x)$ is a trigonometric polynomial of degree $\le n$ in $x$, in other words $$\Xi_{n}(t,x)=\displaystyle\sum_{|k|\le n}c_{n,k}(t)e^{i2\pi kx};$$ where $c_{n,k}(t)$ is the $k$-th Fourier coefficient of $\Xi_n(t,x)$.
($\Rightarrow$) This part is done in Proposition \[prop\_adgddch\].
($\Leftarrow$) It is evident that the family is admissible. We have to show that it is guided. Let’s define a complex valued function $f_{t,a}$ on $\{|z|=|a|\}$ by the following relation $$f_{t,a}(ae^{i2\pi x})=ae^{i2\pi(x+\theta(t))}\prod_{n\ge 1}e^{i2\pi \ds \sum_{|k|\le n} c_{n,k}(t)a^ne^{i2\pi kx}}.$$ It is well defined on the circle $|z|=|a|$. If we take $ae^{i2\pi x}=z$ in the previous relation then we have $$f_{t,a}(z)=ze^{i2\pi \theta(t)}\prod_{n\ge 1}e^{i2\pi \ds\sum_{|k|\le n}a^{n-k}c_{n,k}(t)z^k}.$$ Note that $f_{t,a}:\C^*\to \C^*$ gives an analytic map. We set $f_t:=f_{t,0}$. Thus $$f_t(z)=ze^{i2\pi \theta(t)}\prod_{n\ge 1}e^{i2\pi c_{n,n}(t)z^n}.$$ By construction the analytic families $(f_{t,a}:A_{a,r}\to \C^*)_{(t,a)\in I\times J_r}$ and $(f_t:D_r\to \C)_{t\in I}$ satisfy the conditions that $(F_{t,a})_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is guided.
We define an analytic function $\Phi$ on a neighbourhood of $J \times I\times \R$ in the following way. $$\Phi(a,t,x)\eqdef x+p-F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x).$$
Our next target is to study the function $\Phi$ so that we can express $t$ as a power series of $a$, for $(t,a)$ in the boundary of $\cal T_{p/q}$.
\[lemma\_induction\] Suppose $(F_{t,a}:\mathbb R \rightarrow \mathbb R)_{(t,a)\in I \times J}$ is an admissible family guided by a holomorphic family $(f_t:D_r\to \C)_{t \in I}$. Assume $t_0\in I, \theta(t_0)=p/q$ and $\theta'(t_0)=1$. For $n\in [1,q]$, there exists
- real numbers $c_{n-1}$, $M_n$,
- an analytic function $\Phi_n$ in a neighbourhood of $\{0\}\times [-M_n,M_n]\times \R$ and
- a function $\phi_n:\R\to \R$
such that
- if $(t,a)\in {\mathcal T}_{p/q}$, then $t = c_0 + ac_1 + \cdots + a^{n-1}c_{n-1}+ a^n \tau_n$ with $|\tau_n|\leq M_n$,
- $\Phi(a,c_0 + ac_1 + \cdots + a^{n-1}c_{n-1}+ a^n \tau_n,x) = a^n\Phi_n(a,\tau_n,x)$ and
- $\Phi_n(0,\tau_n,x)= \phi_n(x)-q\tau_n$.
Before proving this lemma let us prove the following proposition which could arise in a more general situation starting with just an admissible family.
\[prop\_periodicpart\] Suppose $(F_{t,a}:x \mapsto x+\theta(t)+a\xi(a,t,x))_{(t,a)\in I \times J}$ is an admissible family and $\phi_n:\R\to \R$, $\Psi_n:J\times [-M_n,M_n]\times \R \to \R$ are analytic for a constant $M_n$. Also assume that $(t_0,0)\in \mathcal T_{p/q}, \theta(t_0)=p/q$ and if $(t,a)\in {\mathcal T}_{p/q}$ then
- $t = c_0 + ac_1 + \cdots + a^{n-1}c_{n-1}+ a^n \tau_n$ for constants $c_0=t_0,c_1,\cdots,c_{n-1}$ with $|\tau_n|\leq M_n$,
- $F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)=x+p-\Phi(a,t,x)=x+p-a^n(\phi_n(x)-q\tau_n)-a^{n+1}\Psi_n(a,\tau_n,x).$
In this case $\phi_n$ is $p/q$ periodic.
Let us calculate $F_{t,a}^{\circ q+1}$ in two different ways and compare. Note that for $(t,a)\in \mathcal T_{p/q}$ we have $$F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)=x+p-\Phi(a,t,x)=x+p-a^n(\phi_n(x)-q\tau_n)-a^{n+1}\Psi_n(a,\tau_n,x).$$ And we assumed in the beginning that $F_{t,a}(x)=x+\theta(t)+ a \xi(a,t,x) $. Then $$\begin{aligned}
F_{t,a}^{\circ q+1}(x)=F_{t,a}^{\circ q}\circ F_{t,a}(x)&=x+\theta(t)+a\xi(a,t,x)+p-a^n\phi_n(x+\theta(t)+a\xi(a,t,x))+a^nq\tau_n\\
& -a^{n+1}\Psi_n(a,\tau_n,x+\theta(t)+a\xi(a,t,x)).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly $$\begin{aligned}
F_{t,a}^{\circ q+1}(x)=F_{t,a}\circ F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)&=x+p-a^n\phi_n(x)+a^nq\tau_n+\theta(t)+a\xi(a,t,F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x))\\
& -a^{n+1}\Psi_n(a,\tau_n,x).\end{aligned}$$ As $\xi$ is 1-periodic with respect to $x$ we see that $$\xi(a,t,F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x))=\xi(a,t,x+p+\mathcal O(a^n))=\xi(a,t,x)+\mathcal O(a^n).$$ Comparing the above two we see that $$\begin{aligned}
a^n\bigl(\phi_n(x)-\phi_n(x+\theta(t)+a\xi(a,t,x))\bigr)&=a^{n+1}\bigl(\Psi_n(a,\tau_n,F_{t,a}(x))-\Psi_n(a,\tau_n,x)\bigr)\\
&+a\xi(a,t,F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x))-a\xi(a,t,x)\\
&=\mathcal O(a^{n+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Dividing two sides by $a^n$ and taking the limit as $a \to 0$ and $t \to t_0$ we see $\phi_n(x)=\phi_n(x+p/q)$.
We prove this lemma by induction. To begin the arguments we prove the base case $n=1$ first. Choose a compact subinterval $J'\subset J$ containing $0$. As $\theta'(t_0)=1$, we can choose a compact subinterval $I'\subset I$ containing $t_0$ such that $$m\eqdef \min_{t\in I'} \frac{\theta(t)-p/q}{t-t_0}>0.$$
For all $(t,x)\in I\times \R$, we have $\Phi(0,t,x) = p-q\theta(t)$. This implies that $$\Phi(a,t,x) = p-q\theta(t) + a\Psi(a,t,x),$$ where $\Psi$ is an analytic map on a neighbourhood of $J\times I\times \R$. The function $\Psi$ is $1$-periodic with respect to $x$, which implies that it is bounded and reaches its bounds on $J'\times I'\times \R$. Take $$M\eqdef \max_{(a,t,x)\in J'\times I'\times \R} \bigl|\Psi(a,t,x)\bigr|.$$
If $(t,a)\in I' \times J'\cap {\mathcal T}_{p/q}$, the function $\Phi$ vanishes on $\R$ and hence $$|t-t_0|\leq \frac{q\theta(t)-p}{qm} \leq \frac{M|a|}{qm}.$$ Take $c_0\eqdef t_0$ and $M_1\eqdef M/(qm)$. If $(a,c_0+a\tau_1)\in I'\times J'\cap {\mathcal T}_{p/q}$, then $|\tau_1|\leq M_1$.
Now consider the map $$\Upsilon:(a,\tau_1,x)\mapsto \Phi(a,c_0+a\tau_1,x).$$ For all $(t,x)\in I'\times \R$ such that $t=c_0+a\tau_1$ and $\{(c_0+a\tau_1,a)\} \cap \mathcal T_{p/q} \ne \emptyset$ for $a$ in subinterval $J_0$ of $J'$ containing 0; we have $\Upsilon(0,\tau_1,x) = \Phi(0,t_0,x) = 0$. Which implies the existance of an analytic function $\Phi_1$ on a neighbourhood of $\{0\}\times [-M_1,M_1]\times \R$ such that $$\Phi(a,c_0+a\tau_1,x) = \Upsilon(a,\tau_1,x)= a\Phi_1(a,\tau_1,x).$$ Let $\phi_1:\R\to \R$ is defined by $$\phi_1(x) \eqdef \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial a}(0,c_0,x).$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_1(0,\tau_1,x) = \frac{\partial \Upsilon}{\partial a}(0,\tau_1,x) &=
\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial a}(0,c_0,x) + \frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial t}(0,c_0,x)\cdot \tau_1 \\
&=\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial a}(0,c_0,x) + \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(p-q\theta(t))|_{c_0}\cdot \tau_1\\
&= \phi_1(x)-q \tau_1.\end{aligned}$$
Suppose now that the statement is true for $n$; and assume that $n+1 \le q$. So if $(t,a)\in \mathcal T_{p/q}$, then $t = c_0 + ac_1 + \cdots + a^{n-1}c_{n-1}+ a^n \tau_n$ with $|\tau_n|\leq M_n$. Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(a,c_0 + ac_1 + \cdots + a^{n-1}c_{n-1}+ a^n \tau_n,x) &= a^n\Phi_n(a,\tau_n,x)\\
&=a^n(\phi_n(x)-q\tau_n)+a^{n+1}\Psi_n(a,\tau_n,x);\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_n$ is a real valued function defined on $\R$, also $\Phi_n$ and $\Psi_n$ are analytic with respect to $a, \tau_n$ and $x$ on a neighbourhood of $J_{n-1}\times [-M_n,M_n]\times \R$ with $0\in J_{n-1}\subset J'$.
From Proposition \[prop\_periodicpart\] we see that $\phi_n$ is $p/q$ periodic. This implies that the all non zero terms in the Fourier series expansion of $\phi_n$ could only be those which are multiples of $q$. On the other hand we have a guided admissible family. Consequently by 5.6 $\phi_n$ is a trigonometric polynomial of degree $n$. By assumption $n<q$. Hence $\phi_n$ is a constant. Assume that $\phi_n(x)=qc_n$ for some constant $c_n$ for any $x$.
Take $\tau_n=c_n+a\tau_{n+1}$ so that $t=c_0+ac_1+\cdots+a^nc_n+a^{n+1}
\tau_{n+1}$ and $(t,a)\in I' \times J' \cap \mathcal T_{p/q} \ne \emptyset$ for $a\in J_n\subset J'$. Then we have $$\Phi(a,t,x)=a^{n+1}\bigl(-q\tau_{n+1}-\Psi_n(a,c_n+a\tau_{n+1},x)\bigr)=a^{n+1}
\Phi_{n+1}(a,\tau_{n+1},x)$$ for some function $\Phi_{n+1}$ analytic with respect to $a, \tau_{n+1}$ and $x$. Moreover $|\tau_{n+1}|\le M_{n+1}$ where $$M_{n+1} \eqdef \frac{1}{q}\displaystyle \max_{(a,\tau_n,x)\in J'\times [-M_n,M_n]\times \R}\bigl| \Psi_n(a,\tau_n,x)\bigr|.$$ Thus $\Phi_{n+1}$ and $\Psi_{n+1}$ are analytic on a neighbourhood of $J_n\times[-M_{n+1},M_{n+1}]\times \R$.
Define $\phi_{n+1}:\R \to \R$ such that $\phi_{n+1}(x)=\Psi_{n}(0,c_n,x)$. Which implies that $$\Phi_{n+1}(0,\tau_{n+1},x)=\phi_{n+1}(x)-q\tau_{n+1}.$$ Hence we finish the proof by induction.
Recently Bonifant, Buff and Milnor have used the approach of Lemma \[lemma\_induction\] in their work [@buff-bonifant-milnor] for proving the existence of tongues in their family of cubic rational maps which are antipode preserving.
Now we are ready to discuss the main theorem of this section where we derive the order of contact of the boundaries of the rational tongues in admissible and guided families under some assumptions.
\[thm\_orderofcontact1st\] Let $(F_{t,a}:\R\to \R)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ be an admissible family of maps guided by a holomorphic family $(f_t:D_r\to \C)_{t\in I}$. We assume that $t_0\in I, \theta(t_0)=p/q$ with $\gcd(p,q)=1$, $\theta'(t_0)=1$ and $f_{t_0}^{\circ q}(z) = z +C_{t_0}z^{q+1} + \mathcal{O}(z^{q+2})$ with $C_{t_0}\neq 0$. Then, there exist
- an interval $\hat J$ of $0$ with $\hat J\subset J$,
- an interval $\hat I$ of $t_0$ with $\hat I\subset I$ and
- two analytic maps $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm:\hat J\to \hat I$
such that
- $(t,a)\in {\mathcal T}_{p/q}\cap (\hat I\times \hat J)$ if and only if $t$ is in between $\gamma_{t_0}^-(a)$ and $\gamma_{t_0}^+(a)$ and
- $\displaystyle \gamma_{t_0}^+(a)-\gamma_{t_0}^-(a) \underset{a\to 0}\sim \frac{2|C_{t_0}|}{\pi q}a^{q}.$
For $a\geq 0$, $\gamma_{p/q}^-=\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^+=\gamma_{p/q}^r$. For $a<0$, $\gamma_{p/q}^-=\gamma_{p/q}^l$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^+=\gamma_{p/q}^r$ if $q$ is odd and $\gamma_{p/q}^-=\gamma_{p/q}^r$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^+=\gamma_{p/q}^l$ if $q$ is even.
We choose subintervals $$\hat I=I'\quad \text{and}\quad \hat J= \bigcap_{k=0}^{q-1} J_k$$ where $I'$ and $J_k$ are taken as Lemma \[lemma\_induction\]. For a fixed $a$, the set of $t$ such that $(t,a) \in \mathcal T_{p/q}$ is an interval $[\gamma_{t_0}^-(a),\gamma_{t_0}^+(a)]$ for $a\ge0$. Thus $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm$ are defined for $a\ge 0$ first. We would try to show that $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm$ are analytic near $a=0$. And their continuation for $a<0$ would be determined by that. For $(t,a)\in \mathcal{T}_{p/q}\cap \hat I\times \hat J$, Lemma \[lemma\_induction\] implies that there is $M_q\ge 0$ and $t=c_0+ac_1+\cdots +a^{q-1}c_{q-1}+a^q\tau$ for $|\tau|\le M_q$ with $$\Phi(a,c_0 + ac_1 + \cdots + a^{q-1}c_{q-1}+ a^q \tau,x) = a^q\Phi_q(a,\tau,x)=
a^q(\phi_q(x)-q\tau)+a^{q+1}\Psi_q(a,\tau,x)$$ where $\phi_q$ is a real valued analytic function defined on $\R$ and $\Psi_q$ is analytic with respect to $a, \tau$ and $x$. As $(t,a)\in \mathcal{T}_{p/q}$ there is $x'$ such that $\Phi(a,t,x')=0$. Which implies $$\phi_q(x')-q\tau+a\Psi_q(a,\tau,x')=0.$$ Taking $a=0$ we see $$\phi_q(x')=q\tau.$$ By Proposition \[prop\_adgddch\], $\phi_q$ is a trigonometric polynomial of degree $q$ and by Proposition \[prop\_periodicpart\] $\phi_q$ is $p/q$ periodic. This implies that there are $b_0,\beta \in \R$ and $b_q \in \C$ such that $$\phi_q(x) =b_0+b_q e^{i2\pi qx}+\overline{b_q}e^{-i2\pi qx}=b_0+2|b_q|\sin(2\pi qx+\beta).$$
From previous calculations we know that $$F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)=x+p-a^q(\phi_q(x)-q\tau)-a^{q+1}\Psi_q(a,\tau,x).$$ The family $(F_{t,a}:\R\to \R)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is admissible and it is guided by the analytic family $(f_t:D_r\to \C)_{t\in I}$. Which gives that $(F_{t,a}^{\circ q}:\R\to \R)_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is admissible and guided by $(f_t^{\circ q}:D_{r'}\to \C)_{t\in I}$ for $r'<r$ such that $f_t^{\circ q}$ is defined on $D_{r'}$ for all $t\in I$. So we have an analytic family $(f_{t,a}^{\circ q}: A_{a,r'}\to \C^*)_{(t,a)\in I\times J_{r'}}$ where $J_{r'}=J\cap(-r',r')$ and $f_{t,a}^{\circ q}\circ \Pi_a(x)=\Pi_a \circ F_{t,a}^{\circ q}(x)$ for any $x$ and $(t,a)\in I\times J_{r'}'$. This means that $$f_{t,a}^{\circ q}(ae^{i2\pi x})=\displaystyle
{ae^{i2\pi(x+p)}e^{i2\pi[-a^q(\phi_q(x)-q\tau)-a^{q+1}\Psi_q(a,\tau,x)]}}.$$ Replacing $ae^{i2 \pi x}=z$ we see that $$f_{t,a}^{\circ q}(z)=\displaystyle
ze^{2i\pi[-a^q(b_0-q\tau)-b_qz^q-a^{2q}\overline{b_q}z^{-q}+\mathcal{O}(z^{q+1})+\mathcal O(a)]}.$$ As $a\to 0$, we have $$f_{t,a}^{\circ q}(z) \to ze^{i2\pi[-b_qz^q+\mathcal{O}(z^{q+1})]}= z(1-i2 \pi b_qz^q+\mathcal O(z^{q+1})).$$ By assumption $$f_{t,a}^{\circ q}(z) \underset{a \to 0}\to f_{t_0}^{\circ q}(z)=z(1+C_{t_0}z^q+\mathcal{O}(z^{q+1})).$$ This implies that $|b_q|=\displaystyle \frac{|C_{t_0}|}{2\pi}$. Thus $b_q\ne 0$ as $C_{t_0}\ne 0$.
Define a function $G:(a,\tau,x)\mapsto \phi_q(x)-q\tau+a\Psi_q(a,\tau,x)$. We obtain the following equations $$\begin{aligned}
G(0,\tau,x) =\phi_q(x)-q\tau& =b_0+2|b_q|\sin(2\pi qx+\beta)-q\tau=0, \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}G(0,\tau,x)= \frac{\partial \phi_q(x)}{\partial x}& = 4\pi q|b_q|\cos(2\pi qx+\beta)=0.\end{aligned}$$ There are two sets of solutions to this above system $$\tau^\pm(0) = \displaystyle\frac{1}{q}(b_0 \pm 2|b_q|)\quad \text{and}\quad 2\pi qx^+(0)+\beta=\pi/2, 2\pi qx^-(0)+\beta=3\pi/2.$$ Using implicit Function theorem we would show that $\tau^\pm(a)$ and $x^\pm(a)$ can be expressed as analytic functions of $a$ starting with these two solutions near $a=0$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\partial G}{\partial \tau}(0,\tau^\pm(0),x^\pm(0))=-q,& \frac{\partial G}{\partial x}(0,\tau^\pm(0),x^\pm(0))=0, \\
& \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}\frac{\partial G}{\partial x}(0,\tau^\pm(0),x^\pm(0))=0, &\frac{\partial^2 G}{\partial x^2}
(0,\tau^\pm(0),x^\pm(0))=\pm8\pi^2q^2|b_q|\ne0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the concerned matrices ${\begin{pmatrix}
-q & 0 \\
0 & \pm8\pi^2q^2|b_q|
\end{pmatrix}}$ are invertible corresponding to the two sets of solutions $\{\tau^+(0),x^+(0)\}$ and $\{\tau^-(0),x^-(0)\}$. Starting from these two sets of solutions, $\tau^\pm(a)$ can be expressed analytically as a function of $a$ near $a=0$. This implies that if $(t,a)$ is in the boundary of $\mathcal T_{p/q}$ and $(t,a)\in \hat I\times \hat J$ then $$t=c_0+ ac_1+\cdots+a^{q-1}c_{q-1}+a^q\tau^\pm(a).$$ And this means that $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm(a)$ are analytic in $a$ near $0$. We have defined $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm(a)$ for $a\ge 0$. Now when we know that $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm(a)$ are parts of analytic curves near $a=0$, following these curves we can define $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm(a)$ accordingly for $a<0$. If $q$ is even and $a<0$ we define $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm(a)$ as the maximum and minimum values of $t$ such that $(t,a) \in \mathcal T_{p/q}$. When $q$ is odd and $a<0$ we define $\gamma_{t_0}^\pm(a)$ as the minimum and maximum values of $t$ such that $(t,a) \in \mathcal T_{p/q}$. Now it remains to prove the estimate of the difference $\gamma_{t_0}^+(a)-\gamma_{t_0}^-(a)$ near $a=0$.
We have seen that $\tau^\pm(0)=\ds\frac{1}{q}(b_0\pm2|b_q|)$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{t_0}^+(a)-\gamma_{t_0}^-(a)&=(\tau^+(0)-\tau^-(0))a^q+\mathcal
O(a^{q+1})\\
& \underset{a \to 0}\sim \frac{2|C_{t_0}|}{\pi q}a^q.\end{aligned}$$
Application to the Standard family
----------------------------------
Our next goal is to prove that in the case of the standard family $(S_{t,a}:x \mapsto x+t+a\sin (2\pi x))$ the order of contact of the boundaries of the rational tongue $\mathcal T_{p/q}$ is exactly $q$. For proving this we need the following proposition.
\[prop\_cyclestdfmly\] Let $I$ and $J$ be open intervals containing $p/q$ and $0$ such that $I=\R$ and $J=(-1/2\pi,1/2\pi)$. Then the standard family $(S_{t,a}:x \mapsto x+t+a\sin (2\pi x))_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is admissible and guided by $(s_t :D_r\to \C)_{t \in I }$ such that $s_t (z)=e^{i2 \pi t}ze^{\pi z}$. Moreover there is a constant $C_{p/q}\ne 0$ such that $s_{p/q} ^{\circ q}(z)=z+C_{p/q}z^{q+1}+\mathcal O(z^{q+2})$.
We have already seen that the standard family $(S_{t,a} :x \mapsto x+t+a\sin (2\pi x))_{(t,a) \in I\times J}$ is admissible and guided by $(s_t:D_r\to \C)_{t\in I}$ such that $s_t:z\mapsto e^{i2\pi}ze^{\pi z}$.
The map $s_{p/q} $ has one critical point and one asymptotic value at $0$, which is a parabolic fixed point. Therefore there is only one cycle of petals. This implies that there is a non zero constant $C_{p/q}$ such that $s_{p/q} ^{\circ q}(z)=z+C_{p/q}z^{q+1}+\mathcal O(z^{q+2})$.
An immediate consequence of Proposition \[prop\_cyclestdfmly\] with Theorem \[thm\_orderofcontact1st\] is the following Theorem on the order of contact of the boundaries of the rational tongues in the standard family.
\[theo\_orderofcontactstd\] Let $I$ and $J$ be open intervals containing $p/q$ and $0$. The standard family $(S_{t,a} :x \mapsto x+t+a\sin (2\pi x))_{(t,a) \in I\times J}$ is admissible and guided by $(s_t :D_r\to \C)_{t \in I }$ such that $s_t (z)=e^{i2 \pi t}ze^{\pi z}$. For $t=p/q$ there is a constant $C_{p/q}\ne 0$ such that $s_{p/q} ^{\circ q}(z)=z+C_{p/q}z^{q+1}+\mathcal O(z^{q+2})$. Moreover there exists
- an interval $\hat J$ of $0$ with $\hat J\subset J$ and
- an interval $\hat I$ of $p/q$ with
- two analytic maps $\gamma_{p/q}^\pm:\hat J\to \hat I$
such that
- $(t,a) \in {\mathcal T}_{p/q}\cap (\hat I\times \hat J)$ if and only if $t$ is in between $\gamma_{p/q}^-(a)$ and $\gamma_{p/q}^+(a)$ and
- $\displaystyle \gamma_{p/q}^+(a)-\gamma_{p/q}^-(a) \underset{a\to 0}\sim \frac{2|C_{p/q}|}{\pi q}a^{q}.$
Now we have proved that the order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ is exactly $q$ in the standard family. The dependance of $|C_{p/q}|$ on $p/q$ has been studied by Chéritat in his PhD thesis [@arnaud] (this is related to the asymptotic size and to the conformal radius of Siegel disks). This behaviour and its connections to the Brjuno function have then been more extensively studied by Buff and Chéritat. Using the results of Buff and Chéritat, our previous result partially answers questions raised by Broer, Símo and Tatjer [@broeretal]
In the course of proving Theorem \[theo\_orderofcontactstd\] we also showed that the boundary curves $\gamma_{p/q}^\pm$ are analytic functions of the variable $a$ near $a=0$. We would apply this fact in proving that the boundaries $\gamma_{p/q}^\pm$ are analytic in the standard family.
\[theo\_bdanalytic\] The boundary curves of $\cal T_{p/q}$ are analytic functions in the standard family within the parameter space $\cal P_S$.
By Theorem \[theo\_orderofcontactstd\] the boundary curves $\gamma_{p/q}^\pm$ are analytic in $a$ in a neighbourhood of 0. Precisely there are intervals $\hat J\ni 0$ and $\hat I$ such that $\gamma_{p/q}^\pm:\hat J \to \hat I$ are analytic. From the Theorem \[theo\_bdrystdanalytic1st\] we know that the boundaries $\gamma_{p/q}^\pm$ are analytic functions of $a$ for $a\ne 0$. Considering these two results together it is proved that the boundary curves of $\cal T_{p/q}$ in the standard family are analytic functions of $a$.
Application to the Blaschke family
----------------------------------
We can study the Blaschke fraction family like the standard family. This family behaves pretty much like the standard family when we consider the order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ or their analyticity. Let us prove that the order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ in the Blaschke family is exactly $q$.
Let $I=\R$ and $J=(-1/\sqrt2,1/\sqrt2)$. The Blaschke family $(B_{t,a}:x\mapsto x+t+ 2\arctan \ds\frac{a\sin(2\pi x)}{1-a\cos(2\pi x)})_{(t,a)\in I\times J}$ is admissible and guided by the quadratic family $(b_t:w\mapsto e^{i2\pi t}w(1-w))_{t\in I}$. The map $b_{p/q}$ is such that $b_{p/q}^{\circ q}(w)=w+B_{p/q}w^{q+1}+\cal O(w^{q+2})$ where $B_{p/q}\ne 0$ is a constant.
The first part of the proposition follows from Example \[example\_Bla\]. And the map $b_{p/q}$ has a parabolic fixed point at 0 with multiplier $e^{i2\pi p/q}$. We also note that $b_{p/q}$ has only one critical point being a quadratic polynomial. Also this map does not have any finite asymptotic value. Thus $b_{p/q}$ has only a single cycle of petals. Therefore there exists a constant $B_{p/q}\ne 0$ such that $$b_{p/q}^{\circ q}(w)=w+B_{p/q}w^{q+1}+\cal O(w^{q+2}).$$
Arguing exactly like Theorem \[theo\_orderofcontactstd\] we obtain the order of contact in this case.
The order of contact of the boundaries of $\cal T_{p/q}$ in the Blachke family is exactly $q$.
Exactly same like Theorem \[theo\_bdanalytic\] one can prove that the boundary curves of the tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ are always analytic in this family.
The boundary curves of the tongue $\cal T_{p/q}$ are analytic in the Blaschke family within the parameter space.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} This paper is a part of the author’s doctoral thesis, which was funded mainly by the EU Research Training Network on Conformal Structures and Dynamics (CODY), Marie-Curie Research Training Networks and partially by CNRS and ANR grant ANR-08-JCJC-0002. The author would like to thank his advisor Xavier Buff for posing the problem and his guidance.
[BFGH]{}
L. Ahlfors, [*Über die asymptotischen Werte der ganzen Funktionen endlicher Ordnung.*]{}, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae [**32**]{} (1929) (6): 15.
V.I. Arnol’d, [*Small denominators. I. Mappings of the circumference onto itself*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2, Vol. [**46**]{}, (1965), 213-284. V.I. Arnol’d, [*Remarks on the perturbation theory for problems of Mathieu type*]{}, 1983 Russ. Math. Surv. [**38**]{} 215-233.
K. Banerjee, PhD Thesis on [*On the Arnol’d Tongues for circle homeomorphisms*]{}, 2010, Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse [III]{}.
K. Banerjee, [*On the widths of the Arnol’d tongues*]{}, Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, May 2013, 13 pages, [(doi: 10.1017/etds.2013.11)](http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0143385713000114).
P. Boyland. [*Bifurcations of circle maps: Arnol’d tongues, bistability and rotation intervals.*]{} Comm. Math. Phys. [**106**]{} (1986), 353-381.
A. Bonifant, X. Buff, J. Milnor, [*On Antipode Preserving Cubic Rational Maps*]{}, in preparation.
H.W. Broer, C. Simó, J.C. Tatjer, [*Towards global models near homoclinic tangencies of dissipative diffeomorphisms*]{}, Nonlinearity [**11**]{} (1998) 667-770.
X. Buff, N. Fagella, L. Geyer, C. Henriksen, [*Herman Rings and Arnold Disks*]{}, J. of the London Math. Soc. (2005), 72/2, 689-716.
A. Chéritat, PhD Thesis on [*Recherche d’ensembles de Julia de mesure de Lebesgue positive*](http://www.math.univ-toulouse.fr/~cheritat/e_publi2.php), 2001, Université Paris-Sud XI - Orsay.
A. Denjoy, [*Sur les courbes définies par les équations différentielles à la surface du tore*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9), [**11**]{}, (1932), 333-375.
G. R. Hall, [*Resonance zones in two-parameter families of circle homeomorphisms*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., [**15**]{} (1984), no. 6, 1075-1081.
M. R. Herman, [*Sur la conjugaison différentiable des difféomorphismes du cercle à des rotations*]{}, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., No. 49, (1979), 5-233.
M. R. Herman, [*Mesure de Lebesgue et Nombre de Rotation*]{}, Geometry and Topology (Proc. III Latin Amer. School of Math., Inst. Mat. Pura Aplicada CNPq, Rio de Janeiro, 1976), Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 597, Springer, Berlin, 1977, 271-293.
A. Katok, B. Hasselblatt, [*Introduction to the modern theory of Dynamical Systems.*]{} Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995.
J. Milnor, [*Dynamics in One Complex Variable*]{}, Third edition. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 160. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006.
H. Poincaré, *Mémoire sur les courbes définies par une équation différrentielle III.* J. Math. Pures Appl. [**4**]{} (1885), 167-244 \[Chapter XV\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
title: 'Energy spectra of KASCADE-Grande based on shower size measurements and different hadronic interaction models'
---
Introduction
============
Investigations of the energy spectra of elemental groups and mass composition of primary cosmic rays in the knee region around 10$^{17}$ eV give an important clue to examine theoretical models of the cosmic ray origin, acceleration and propagation. The multi-detector array of KASCADE-Grande is designed for observations of cosmic ray air showers, in particular, in the energy range of the transition region. Recent results of the KASCADE-Grande measurements have shown two spectral features in the all-particle energy spectrum [@bib:KG]: a knee-like structure at 90 PeV [@bib:PRL] and a hardening of the spectrum [@bib:PRD] around 20 PeV. In general, interpretations of the measurements are related to numerical simulations of extensive air showers to obtain shower properties including the nature of the primary particles. The relation between the observables and the primary energy depends on the hadronic interaction models, so that, on energy estimations, a large uncertainty in these simulations comes from the models which describe the hadronic interactions. In this contribution, results from different hadronic interaction models are therefore discussed how their features affect the energy assignment, based on the measurements of shower size ($N_{ch}$), i.e. the total number of charged particles.
The KASCADE-Grande experiment covering an area of about 0.5 km$^{2}$ is optimized to measure extensive air showers up to primary energies of 1 EeV [@bib:NIM]. It consists of 37 scintillation detector stations located on a hexagonal grid with an average spacing of 137 m for the measurements of electromagnetic and muonic shower components. Each of the detector stations is equipped with plastic scintillator sheets covering a total area of 10 m$^{2}$. Full efficiency for the total number of charged particles is reached at around 10$^{6}$, which corresponds to a primary energy of about10$^{16}$ eV. The limit at high energy is due to the restricted area of the Grande array.
Hadronic interaction models
===========================
The CORSIKA [@bib:Heck] program has been used for the air shower simulations, applying different hadronic interaction models. High-energy interactions were used with different models of QGSJET-II-2 [@bib:Ostapchenko], EPOS 1.99 [@bib:Pierog], SIBYLL 2.1 [@bib:Ahn]. and QGSJET-II-4[@bib:Ostapchenko2011]. For hadronic interactions at low energies, the FLUKA [@bib:Fasso] (E $<$ 200 GeV) model has been used. The response of all detector components is taken into account by using the GEANT package. The predicted observables at ground level, such as e.g. the number of electrons, muons and hadrons are then compared to the measurements.
Showers induced by five different primaries (p, He, O, Si, and Fe) have been simulated. The simulations covered the energy range of 10$^{14}$ to 3$\times$10$^{18}$ eV with zenith angles in the interval 0$^{\circ}$ - 42$^{\circ}$. The spectral index in the simulations was -2 and for the analysis it is weighted to a slope of -3. The simulated events are analyzed by the same method as the experimental data, in order to avoid biases by pattern recognition and reconstruction algorithms. The systematic uncertainty of the total number of charged particles is smaller than 5% and its statistical accuracy is better than 15%.
![ The 2-dimensional shower size spectrum measured by KASCADE-Grande (color-coded area), along with proton and iron induced showers for QGSJET-II-2, QGSJET-II-4, EPOS 1.99 and SIBYLL 2.1 simulations.[]{data-label="fig1"}](icrc2013-0521-fig1.eps){width="83mm"}
![ Relation between the number of charged particles $N_{ch}$ and the muon numbers $N_{\mu}$ as a function of $N_{ch}$ for four different simulations. The errors of mean values are plotted here.[]{data-label="fig2"}](icrc2013-0521-fig2.eps){width="90mm"}
All-particle energy spectra
===========================
The analysis presented here is based on the data of 1753 days with increasing statistics, where all detector components were operating without failures in data acquisitions. The quality cuts on the fiducial area and zenith angles smaller than 40$^{\circ}$ result in approximately 2$\cdot$10$^{7}$ events for the further analysis.
The studies of QGSJET-II-2, EPOS 1.99 and SIBYLL 2.1 models with KASCADE-Grande data can be found in Ref. [@bib:Kang]. Therefore, predictions of the most recent version of QGSJET-II-4 model will be mainly investigated in this paper.
Figure \[fig1\] represents the measured 2-dimensional shower size spectrum, including the full detector response by simulations. The symbols correspond to the primary protons and iron nuclei, as predicted by the different interaction models. In the QGSJET-II-4 model, one obtained about 20% enhancement for the shower muon content of extensive air showers, due to the effects of the modified treatment of charge exchange processes in pion collisions. Therefore, the most probable values for QGSJET-II-4 in Fig. \[fig1\] show a similar tendency to the EPOS 1.99 model, which has also about 15% more muons than QGSJET-II-2 at KASCADE-Grande energies. This implies that a dominant light mass composition is predicted if the QGSJET-II-4 model is used to reconstruct the mass of primary particles from the measured data. Figure \[fig2\] shows the ratio of the number of charged particles ($N_{ch}$) to the muon number ($N_{\mu}$) as a function of $N_{ch}$. Both QGSJET-II-2 and SIBYLL 2.1 models have a similar abundance ratio of $N_{ch}$ to $N_{\mu}$, while the QGSJET-II-4 and EPOS 1.99 have approximately 10% and 20% more muons, respectively, comparing to QGSJET-II-2.
For the estimation of the primary energy, the first step is that the shower size per individual event is corrected for attenuations in the atmosphere by the Constant Intensity Cut (CIC) method. To determine the correlation between the number of charged particles and the primary energy, Monte-Carlo simulations were used then, based on different hadronic interaction models. The correlation of the primary energy as a function of the number of charged particles is plotted in Fig. \[fig3\] for the assumption of primary protons and iron nuclei, respectively, as well as for the different interaction models. Assuming a linear dependence in logarithmic scale: lg$E$ = $a + b\cdot$lg($N_{ch}$) and a primary composition, the linear fit is applied in the range of full efficiencies. The energy calibration depends on the hadronic interaction models, so that the fittings are performed individually and the resulting coefficients of the energy calibration for QGSJET-II-4 are $a = 1.28 \pm 0.32$ and $b = 0.93 \pm 0.03$, and $a = 1.95 \pm 0.22$ and $b = 0.87 \pm 0.03$ with a reduced $\chi^{2}$ of 1.27 for proton and 0.88 for iron, respectively. The fit results of QGSJET-II-2, EPOS 1.99 and SIBYLL 2.1 models are summarized in Ref. [@bib:Kang].
Figure \[fig4\] presents the resulting all-particle energy spectra obtained after applying the energy reconstruction functions, based on the assumption of iron and proton for QGSJET-II-4, together with the results for QGSJET-II-2, EPOS 1.99 and SIBYLL 2.1 models, where the shower to shower fluctuations were not properly taken into account yet. Assuming the iron showers, the spectrum of the QGSJET-II-4 model tends to be close to the one of QGSJET-II-2. The spectral slopes of all four models show a slight discrepancy over the whole energy range. It is because of the different ratio of $N_{ch}/N_{\mu}$ of the different hadronic interaction models, so that the total fluxes are shifted. However, all the spectra show a similar feature, as well as a similar tendency concerning the assumption of primary masses. In addition, the resulting all-particle energy spectra of four different interaction models show that they cannot be described by a single power law. Such thing could imply possibly different elemental composition in the transition region from galactic to extragalactic origin of cosmic rays.
The total systematic uncertainty of QGSJET-II-2 for proton and iron is 21% and 10%, respectively, at the primary energy of 10$^{17}$ eV. The estimations of systematic uncertainties for QGSJET-II-4, are currently being performed. It is, however, expected to be about the same order of other models.
![Energy calibration functions for assumed pure proton and iron primaries for the observable $N_{ch}$ for different interaction models.[]{data-label="fig3"}](icrc2013-0521-fig3.eps){width="90mm"}
![ Reconstructed all-particle energy spectra from KASCADE-Grande shower size for assuming proton and iron composition, based on different hadronic interaction models of QGSJET-II-2, EPOS 1.99, SIBYLL 2.1 and QGSJET-II-4.[]{data-label="fig4"}](icrc2013-0521-fig4.eps){width="90mm"}
![The shower size ratio of $Y_{CIC} = lg (N_{\mu}) / lg (N_{ch})$ as a function of the true primary energy for the QGSJET-II-4 model.[]{data-label="fig5"}](icrc2013-0521-fig5.eps){width="90mm"}
$lg(E_{k}$/GeV) $\gamma_{1}$ $\gamma_{2}$ $\Delta \gamma$ $\chi^{2}$/ndf
------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------
QGSJET-II-2 7.76 $\pm$ 0.06 2.92 $\pm$ 0.01 3.11 $\pm$ 0.03 0.19 0.69
SIBYLL 2.1 7.75 $\pm$ 0.09 2.87 $\pm$ 0.03 3.15 $\pm$ 0.05 0.28 1.28
EPOS 1.99 7.71 $\pm$ 0.06 2.76 $\pm$ 0.03 3.18 $\pm$ 0.06 0.42 0.98
QGSJET-II-4 7.73 $\pm$ 0.14 2.88 $\pm$ 0.03 3.18 $\pm$ 0.04 0.30 0.96
Spectra of individual mass groups
=================================
Air showers induced by heavier primary particles develop earlier in the atmosphere due to their larger cross section for interacting with air nuclei, and produce relatively larger muon numbers at ground level. Therefore, the fraction of muons to the all charged particles at observation level characterize the mass of the primary particles, i.e. electron-rich showers are generated by light primary nuclei and electron-poor showers by heavy nuclei, respectively. Since KASCADE-Grande measures the particle numbers well after the shower maximum, the measured showers were separated into electron-poor and electron-rich events representing heavy and light mass groups. For this method, the shower size ratio of $Y_{CIC} = lg N_{\mu} / lg N_{ch}$ is used to separate the events, where $N_{\mu}$ and $N_{ch}$ are the muon and the charged particle numbers corrected for attenuation effects in the atmosphere by the CIC method.
In Fig. \[fig5\], the ratio of the shower size as a function of the true primary energy for five different primaries is plotted. For the QGSJET-II-4 model, the optimal separation value in between electron-rich and electron-poor mass groups is $Y_{CIC}$ = 0.85, while it is 0.84 for QGSJET-II-2 and SIBYLL 2.1, and 0.86 for EPOS 1.99. I.e. the events larger than the value of 0.85 are taken as heavy mass group into account, whereas events smaller than 0.85 as light mass group. After applying the $Y_{CIC}$ selection, the energy spectra of electron-rich and electron-poor are reconstructed only by using the shower size, where the energy is calibrated by simulations based on the four different hadronic models, shown in Fig. \[fig6\]. Figure \[fig7\] shows the the reconstructed energy spectra of heavy and light mass groups. Performing the fit of a broken power law, the breaking positions and the spectral slopes are summarized in Table \[table\]. In the spectra of the heavy primaries, i.e. electron-poor events, a clear knee-like feature can be seen at just below 10$^{17}$ eV for all four different models. A remarkable hardening feature above 10$^{17}$ eV in the spectrum of the light primaries is observed as well in all hadronic interaction models.
![ Energy calibration functions for electron-poor and electron-rich mass groups for different interaction models.[]{data-label="fig6"}](icrc2013-0521-fig6.eps){width="90mm"}
![Reconstructed energy spectra of the electron-poor and electron-rich components, based on different hadronic interaction models of QGSJET-II-2, EPOS 1.99, SIBYLL 2.1 and QGSJET-II-4. The lines show the applied broken power law fits.[]{data-label="fig7"}](icrc2013-0521-fig7.eps){width="90mm"}
Conclusions
===========
Based on simulations with the different hadronic interaction models of QGSJET-II-2, EPOS 1.99, SIBYLL 2.1 and QGSJET-II-4, their influences on the reconstructed all-particle energy spectrum are investigated by means of the shower size measurements of the charged particle component measured by KASCADE-Grande. For the all-particle energy spectrum, the spectral shapes and structures are in reasonable agreement among four interaction models. Even if the different hadronic models would give some different values of $Y_{CIC}$, the spectral shapes of the resulting energy spectra of these mass components present a similar tendency for four different interaction models. Moreover, this result is consistent with another KASCADE-Grande analysis based on different observables. In the KASCADE-Grande measurements, we observed similar structures of the all-particle energy spectrum, as well as the spectra of the heavy and light mass components, for different hadronic interaction models.
[100]{}
W.D. Apel et al., KASCADE-Grande Coll., Astroparticle Physics 36 (2012) 183-194.
W.D. Apel et al., KASCADE-Grande Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 171104.
W.D. Apel et al., KASCADE-Grande Coll., Phys. Rev. [**D 85**]{} (2012) 071101.
W.D. Apel et al., KASCADE-Grande Coll., Nucl. Instr. Meth. [**A 620**]{} (2010) 202-215.
D. Heck et al., Rep. FZKA 6019, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (1998).
S.S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. [**D 74**]{} (2006) 014026.
T. Pierog et al., Proc. 31st Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Lodz, Report FZKA 7516, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (2009) 133.
E.J. Ahn et al., Phys. Rev. [**D 80**]{} (2009) 094003.
S.S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. [**D 83**]{} (2011) 014018.
A. Fassò et al., CERN-2005-10, INFN/TC-05/11, SLAC-R-773 (2005).
D. Kang et al., KASCADE-Grande Coll., J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 409 (2013) 012101
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\lambda$ is an abstraction of both the integral operator (when $\lambda=0$) and the summation operator (when $\lambda=1$). We similarly define a differential operator of weight $\lambda$ that includes both the differential operator (when $\lambda=0$) and the difference operator (when $\lambda=1$). We further consider an algebraic structure with both a differential operator of weight $\lambda$ and a Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\lambda$ that are related in the same way that the differential operator and the integral operator are related by the First Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. We construct free objects in the corresponding categories. In the commutative case, the free objects are given in terms of generalized shuffles, called mixable shuffles. In the noncommutative case, the free objects are given in terms of angularly decorated rooted forests. As a byproduct, we obtain structures of a differential algebra on decorated and undecorated planar rooted forests.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ 07102'
author:
- Li Guo
- William Keigher
title: 'On Differential Rota-Baxter algebras'
---
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\][[^1]]{}
\[1\][[^2]]{}
\[1\][\[\#1\]]{}
\[1\]
\[1\][\[\#1\]]{}
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[section\] \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[section\] \[section\] \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[section\] \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Assumption]{} \[theorem\][Question]{}
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
[[k]{}]{}
\[1\]
\[2\][ (\_)]{}
\[2\]
(
[c]{}\
)
\[2\][ ( [ ]{} )]{}
\[2\]
[c]{}\#1\
\
\#2
[|[S]{}]{}
[|]{}
[é]{}
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\][{\#1}]{}
\[1\]
\[1\]
[ ]{}
[ ]{}
[\[]{}
[\]]{}
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\][|[\#1]{}]{}
\[1\]
{
[c]{}\
.
.
[c]{}\
}
|
[c]{}\
.
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\]
\[1\][[\#1]{}]{}
\[1\]
[[**Proof:** ]{}]{}
[$\blacksquare$ ]{}
[[\^[NC]{}]{}]{}
[[\^[NC,0]{}]{}]{}
[\^0]{}
[\^r]{}
[\^r]{}
[\_l]{}
[\_r]{}
[\_a]{}
[\_e]{}
\[1\][\#1]{}
\[1\][([\#1]{})]{}
[\_X]{}
\[2\][[\#2]{}\^[\#1]{}]{}
\[1\]
[[R-[tf]{}]{}]{}
[[R-[tor]{}]{}]{}
[[d]{}]{}
[[Div]{}]{}
[char]{}
[[\_]{}]{}
[[\_p]{}]{}
[[RBA ]{}]{}
[[RBAs ]{}]{}
[[RBW ]{}]{}
[[RBWs ]{}]{}
[[controlled]{}]{}
[[div]{}]{}
[[tf]{}]{}
[[tor]{}]{}
[\^0]{}
[\^0]{}
[\^0]{}
[[**k**]{}]{}
[[**1**]{}]{}
\[1\][[a\_[\#1]{}]{}]{}
[ [**Need more detail!**]{} ]{}
[[**Incomplete!!**]{} ]{}
[[**Remarks:** ]{}]{}
[[A]{}]{}
[[C]{}]{}
[[D]{}]{}
[[E]{}]{}
[[F]{}]{}
[[G]{}]{}
[[H]{}]{}
[[L]{}]{}
[[N]{}]{}
[[Q]{}]{}
[[R]{}]{}
[[T]{}]{}
[[V]{}]{}
[[Z]{}]{}
[[A]{}]{}
[[C]{}]{}
[[D]{}]{}
[[E]{}]{}
[[F]{}]{}
[[[F]{}\^[r]{}]{}]{}
[[F]{}\^0]{}
[[F]{}\^[r,0]{}]{}
[[G]{}]{}
[[H]{}]{}
[[I]{}]{}
[[J]{}]{}
[[L]{}]{}
[[M]{}]{}
[[N]{}]{}
[[O]{}]{}
[[P]{}]{}
[[R]{}]{}
[[T]{}]{}
[[T]{}\^[r]{}]{}
[[U]{}]{}
[[V]{}]{}
[[W]{}]{}
[[X]{}]{}
[[a]{}]{}
[[B]{}]{}
[[b]{}]{}
[[d]{}]{}
[[F]{}]{}
[[g]{}]{}
[[m]{}]{}
[[M]{}]{}
[[M]{}\^0]{}
[[p]{}]{}
[[S]{}]{}
[[S]{}\^0]{}
[[s]{}]{}
[[T]{}]{}
[[X]{}]{}
[[X]{}\^0]{}
[[x]{}]{}
[\^a]{}
[\^0]{}
[\^[a,0]{}]{}
[[y]{}]{}
[[z]{}]{}
=wncyr10
1
2
3
31
4
41
42
43
43
44
5
51
52
53
54
55
31[]{}
31[]{}
31[]{} 41r[]{} 43[]{} 31[]{}
44[]{}
[**Keywords:** ]{} Differential algebra of weight $\lambda$, Rota-Baxter algebra, differential-Rota-Baxter algebra, construction of free algebras, shuffle product, planar trees.
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
The First Fundamental Theorem of Calculus states that (under suitable conditions) $$\frac{d}{dx} \Big(\int_a^x f(t)dt\Big) = f(x).
\mlabel{eq:cal}$$ Thus the integral operator $P(f)(x)=\int_a^x f(t)dt$ is the right inverse of the differential operator $d(f)(x)=\frac{d f}{dx}(x)$, so that $(d \circ P)(f)=f$. A similar relation holds for the difference operator and summation operator (see Example .()). The abstraction of the differential operator and difference operator led to the development of differential algebra and difference algebra . Likewise, the integral operator $P$ and summation operator have been abstracted to give the notion of Rota-Baxter operators (previously called Baxter operators) and Rota-Baxter algebras . In the last few years, major progresses have been made in both differential algebra and Rota-Baxter algebra, with applications in broad areas in mathematics and physics . For instance, both operators played important roles in the recent developments in renormalization of quantum field theory .
This paper studies the algebraic structure reflecting the relation between the differential operator and the integral operator as in the First Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. By analogy to a Rota-Baxter operator that unifies the notions of an integral operator and a summation operator, we first unify the concepts of the differential operator and the difference operator by the concept of a $\lambda$-differential operator, where $\lambda$ is a fixed element in the ground ring, that gives the differential (resp. difference) operator when $\lambda$ is 0 (resp. 1). We then introduce the concept of a differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$ consisting of an algebra with both a $\lambda$-differential operator and a $\lambda$-Rota-Baxter operator with a compatibility condition between these two operators.
Definitions and preliminary examples
------------------------------------
Let $\bfk$ be a unitary commutative ring. Let $\lambda\in \bfk$ be fixed.
1. A [**differential $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$**]{} (also called a [**$\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebra**]{}) is an associative $\bfk$-algebra $R$ together with a linear operator $d:R\to R$ such that $$d(xy)=d(x)y+x d(y)+ \lambda d(x)d(y), \forall\, x,y\in R, \mlabel{eq:diff}$$ and $$d(1)=0.
\mlabel{eq:diffc}$$ Such an operator is called a [**differential operator of weight $\lambda$**]{} or a [**derivation of weight $\lambda$**]{}. It is also called a [**$\lambda$-differential operator**]{} or a [**$\lambda$-derivation**]{}. The category of differential algebras (resp. commutative differential algebras) of weight $\lambda$ is denoted by $\Dif_\lambda$ (resp. $\CDif_\lambda$).
2. A [**Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$**]{} is an associative $\bfk$-algebra $R$ together with a linear operator $P:R\to R$ such that $$P(x)P(y)=P(xP(y))+P(P(x)y)+ \lambda P(xy), \forall\, x,y\in R.
\mlabel{eq:rba}$$ Such an operator is called a [**Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\lambda$**]{} or a [**$\lambda$-Rota-Baxter operator**]{}. The category of Rota-Baxter algebras (resp. commutative Rota-Baxter algebras) of weight $\lambda$ is denoted by $\RB_\lambda$ (resp. $\CRB_\lambda$).
3. A [**differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$**]{} (also called a [**$\lambda$-differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra**]{}) is an associative $\bfk$-algebra $R$ together with a differential operator $d$ of weight $\lambda$ and a Rota-Baxter operator $P$ of weight $\lambda$ such that $$d\circ P= \id_R.
\mlabel{eq:Baxdiff}$$ The category of differential Rota-Baxter algebras (resp. commutative differential Rota-Baxter algebras) of weight $\lambda$ is denoted by $\DRB_\lambda$ (resp. $\CDRB_\lambda$).
We also use $\Alg=\Alg_\bfk$ to denote the category of $\bfk$-algebras. When there is no danger of confusion, we will suppress $\lambda$ and $\bfk$ from the notations. We will also denote $\NN$ for the set of non-negative integers and $\NN_+$ for the set of positive integers.
Note that we require that a differential operator $d$ satisfies $d(1)=0$. A linear operator $d$ satisfying Eq. () is called a [**weak differential operator of weight $\lambda$**]{}. A weak differential operator of weight $\lambda$ with $d(1)\neq 0$ is called a [**degenerated differential operator**]{} of weight $\lambda$ for the reason given in Remark , and will be discussed in Section .
We give some simple examples of differential, Rota-Baxter and differential Rota-Baxter algebras. Further examples will be given in later sections.
1. A $0$-derivation and a $0$-differential algebra is a derivation and differential algebra in the usual sense .
2. Let $\lambda \in \RR$, $\lambda \neq 0$. Let $R=\Cont(\RR)$ denote the $\RR$-algebra of continuous functions $f: \RR\to \RR$, and consider the usual “difference quotient” operator $d_\lambda$ on $R$ defined by $$(d_\lambda(f))(x) = (f(x+\lambda) - f(x))/\lambda.
\mlabel{eq:ldiff}$$ Then it is immediate that $d_\lambda$ is a $\lambda$-derivation on $R$. When $\lambda=1$, we obtain the usual difference operator on functions. Further, the usual derivation is $\disp{d_0:= \lim_{\lambda \to 0} d_\lambda.}$
3. A difference algebra is defined to be a commutative algebra $R$ together with an injective algebra endomorphism $\phi$ on $R$. It is simple to check that $\phi-\id$ is a differential operator of weight $1$.
4. By the First Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in Eq. (), $(\Cont(\RR),d/dx, \int_0^x)$ is a differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight 0.
5. Let $0<\lambda \in \RR$. Let $R$ be an $\RR$-subalgebra of $\Cont(\RR)$ that is closed under the operators $$P_0(f)(x)=-\int_x^\infty f(t)dt,\quad P_\lambda(f)(x)=-\lambda\sum_{n\geq 0} f(x+n\lambda).$$ For example, $R$ can be taken to be the $\RR$-subalgebra generated by $e^{-x}$: $R=\sum_{k\geq 1} \RR e^{-kx}$. Then $P_\lambda$ is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\lambda$ and, for the $d_\lambda$ in Eq. (), $$d_\lambda\circ P_\lambda=\id_R, \forall\ 0\neq \lambda\in \RR,$$ reducing to the fundamental theorem $ d_0\circ P_0=\id_R$ when $\lambda$ goes to $0$. So $(R,d_\lambda,P_\lambda)$ is a differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$.
Main results and outline of the paper
-------------------------------------
Our main purpose in this paper is to construct free objects in the various categories of $\lambda$-differential algebras and $\lambda$-differential Rota-Baxter algebras.
In Section , we first prove basic properties of $\lambda$-differential algebras. We then construct the free objects in $\Dif_\lambda$ in Theorem and cofree objects in $\Dif_\lambda$ in Corollary . The construction of free objects in $\CDRB_\lambda$ is carried out in Section (Theorem ) and the construction of free objects in $\DRB_\lambda$ is carried out in Section (Theorem ). Both constructions rely on the explicit construction of free Rota-Baxter algebras, in the commutative case in and in the noncommutative case in . Consequently, we obtain a structure of a differential algebra on the mixable shuffle and shuffle algebras, and on angularly decorated rooted trees. We further obtain the structure of a $\lambda$-differential algebra on planar rooted forests in Section (Theorem ). It would be interesting to see how this is related to the work of Grossman and Larson on differential algebra structures on trees.
[**Acknowledgements:** ]{} The first named author acknowledges support from NSF grant DMS-0505643.
Differential algebras of weight $\lambda$
=========================================
We first give some basic properties of $\lambda$-differential algebras, followed by a study of free and cofree $\lambda$-differential algebras.
Basic properties and degenerated differential operators
-------------------------------------------------------
Some basic properties of differential operators can be easily generalized to $\lambda$-differential operators. The following proposition generalizes the power rule in differential calculus and the well-known result of Leibniz [@Kol p.60]. It holds without the assumption that $d(1)=0$.
Let $(R,d)$ be a differential $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$.
1. Let $x\in R$ and $n\in \NN_+$. Then $$d(x^n) =\sum_{i=1}^n \bincc{n}{i} \lambda^{i-1} x^{n-i} d(x)^i.$$
2. Let $x,y \in
R$, and let $n \in \NN$. Then $$d^{n}(xy) =
\sum_{k=0}^{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-k}\binc{n}{k}\binc{n-k}{j}
\lambda^{k}d^{n-j}(x)d^{k+j}(y).
\label{eq:der2}$$
() The proof is similar to the inductive proof on $n$ for the usual power rule, using an index shift and Pascal’s rule.
() The proof is again similar to the case for differential operators. Proceeding by induction on $n$, the case $n = 0$ is trivial, so assume that equation (\[eq:der2\]) holds for $n$, and consider $$d^{n+1}(xy) = d^{n}(d(xy))
= d^{n}(d(x)y) + d^{n}(xd(y)) + \lambda d^{n}(d(x)d(y))).
\mlabel{eq:prodpf}$$ Applying the induction hypothesis to the first term gives Doing the same to the second term in Eq. () followed by an index shift gives
Thus by Pascal’s rule, For the same reason, the third term in Eq. () gives Therefore another application of Pascal’s rule gives This completes the induction.
We now briefly study degenerated $\lambda$-differential operators, that is, weak differential operators $d$ for which $d(1)\neq 0$.
We first note that, for any $\lambda\in \bfk$ and any $\bfk$-algebra $R$, the zero map $$d: R\to R,\ d(r)=0,\ \forall\, r\in R$$ is a differential operator of weight $\lambda$, called the [**zero differential operator**]{} of weight $\lambda$.
We next note that for any $\lambda\in \bfk$ that is invertible and for any $\bfk$-algebra $R$, the map $$d: R\to R,\ d(r)=-\lambda^{-1} r,\ \forall\, r\in R,
\mlabel{eq:scadiff}$$ is a weak differential operator of weight $\lambda$. We call such an operator (resp. algebra) a [**scalar differential operator (resp. algebra) of weight $\lambda$**]{}. We remark that by our definition, the zero map is not a scalar differential operator even though the zero map is given by a scalar multiplication.
For $\lambda\in \bfk$ invertible, it is also easy to check that $$P_\lambda: R\to R, P_\lambda(r)=-\lambda\, r,\quad \forall\, r\in\, R,$$ is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\lambda$. Further $d_\lambda \circ P_\lambda=\id$. This gives an instance of a degenerated differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$.
Let $\lambda \in \bfk$. Let $(R,d)$ be a weak differential $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$ with no zero divisors. Then the following statements are equivalent.
1. $\lambda$ is invertible and $d$ is a scalar differential operator of weight $\lambda$.
2. $\lambda$ is invertible and $d(1)=-\lambda^{-1}.$
3. $d(1)\neq 0$.
4. For every $r\in R$, $d(r)$ is a non-zero $\bfk$-multiple of $r$.
We clearly have () $\Rightarrow$ () $\Rightarrow$ () and () $\Rightarrow$ (). So we only need to prove () $\Rightarrow$ () and () $\Rightarrow$ ().
[**() $\Rightarrow$ ():** ]{} By Eq. (), for any $x\in R$, we have $$d(x)=d(1)x+d(x)+\lambda d(1)d(x).$$ Thus $d(1)\big(x+\lambda d(x)\big)=0.$ Since $R$ has no zero divisors, if $d(1)\neq 0$, then we have $$x+\lambda d(x)=0.
\mlabel{eq:diffsc}$$ Letting $x=1$, we have $ 0=1+\lambda d(1) = 1+ d(1) \lambda$ since $\lambda\in \bfk$. Thus $\lambda$ is invertible and Eq. () gives $d(x)=-\lambda^{-1} x,$ as needed.
[**() $\Rightarrow$ ():** ]{} Taking $r=1$ in () we have $d(1)=\alpha(1)\neq 0$. Thus we have ().
Let $(R,d)$ be a weak differential algebra of weight $\lambda$ that has no zero divisors. If $d$ is not a scalar differential operator, then it is a differential operator of weight $\lambda$.
[Since a scalar differential algebra is just an algebra with a fixed scalar multiplication, its study can be reduced to the study of algebras. By Corollary , a non-scalar weak differential algebra is a differential algebra under a mild restriction. This justifies the requirement in our Definition that a $\lambda$-differential algebra be nondegenerated. A more careful study of degenerated differential operators will be carried out in another study. ]{}
Free differential algebras of weight $\lambda$
----------------------------------------------
Using the same construction as for free differential algebras (of weight 0), we obtain free differential algebras of weight $\lambda$ in both the commutative and non-commutative case.
Let $X$ be a set. Let $$\diffs(X)=X\times \NN= \{ x^{(n)}\, \big|\, x\in X, n\geq 0\}.$$
1. Let $\bfk\diffa{X}$ be the free commutative algebra $\bfk[\diffs{X}]$ on the set $\diffs{X}$. Define $d_X: \bfk\diffa{X} \to \bfk\diffa{X}$ as follows. Let $w=u_1\cdots u_k, u_i\in \diffs{X}$, $1\leq i\leq k$, be a commutative word from the alphabet set $\Delta(X)$. If $k=1$, so that $w=x^{(n)}\in \Delta(X)$, define $d_X(w)=x^{(n+1)}$. If $k>1$, recursively define $$d_X(w)=d_X(u_1)u_2\cdots u_k+u_1d_X(u_2\cdots u_k)+\lambda d_X(u_1)d_X(u_2\cdots u_k).
\mlabel{eq:prodind}$$ Further define $d_X(1)=0$ and then extend $d_X$ to $\bfk\diffa{X}$ by linearity. Then $(\bfk\diffa{X},d_X)$ is the free commutative differential algebra of weight $\lambda$ on the set $X$.
2. Let $\bfk^{NC}\diffa{X}$ be the free noncommutative algebra $\bfk^{NC}[\diffs{X}]$ on the set $\diffs{X}$. Define $d^{NC}_X: \bfk^{NC}\diffa{X} \to \bfk^{NC}\diffa{X}$ on the noncommutative words from the alphabet set $\diffs{X}$ in the same way as $d_X$ is defined in (). Then $(\bfk^{NC}\diffa{X},d_X^{NC})$ is the free noncommutative differential algebra of weight $\lambda$ on the set $X$.
We just give a proof of (). The proof of () is the same. In either case, it is similar to the proof of the $\lambda=0$ case [@Kol p.70].
Let $(R,d)$ be a commutative $\lambda$-differential algebra and let $f:X\to R$ be a set map. We extend $f$ to a $\lambda$-differential algebra homomorphism $\free{f}: \bfk\diffa{X} \to R$ as follows.
Let $w=u_1\cdots u_k, u_i\in \diffs{X}$, $1\leq i\leq k$, be a commutative word from the alphabet set $\diffs{X}$. If $k=1$, then $w=x^{(n)}\in \diffs{X}$. Define $$\free{f}(w)=d^n(f(x)).
\mlabel{eq:diffred1}$$ Note that this is the only possible definition in order for $\free{f}$ to be a $\lambda$-differential algebra homomorphism. If $k>1$, recursively define $$\free{f}(w)=\free{f}(u_1)\free{f}(u_2\cdots u_k).$$ Further define $\free{f}(1)=1$ and then extend $\free{f}$ to $\bfk\diffa{X}$ by linearity. This is the only possible definition in order for $\free{f}$ to be an algebra homomorphism.
Since $\bfk\diffa{X}$ is the free commutative algebra on $\diffs{X}$, $\free{f}$ is an algebra homomorphism. So it remains to verify that, for all commutative words $w=u_1\cdots u_k$ from the alphabet set $\diffs{X}$, $$\free{f} (d_X(w))=d(\free{f}(w)),
\mlabel{eq:diffind1}$$ for which we use induction on $k$. The case when $k=1$ follows immediately from Eq. (). For the inductive step, by Eq. (): $$\begin{aligned}
\free{f}( d_X(w))&=&\free{f}(d_X(u_1)u_2\cdots u_k) + \free{f}(u_1d_X(u_2\cdots u_k))+\lambda \free{f}(d_X(u_1)d_X(u_2\cdots u_k))\\
&=& \free{f}(d_X(u_1))\free{f}(u_2\cdots u_k) + \free{f}(u_1)\free{f}(d_X(u_2\cdots u_k))+\lambda \free{f}(d_X(u_1))\free{f}(d_X(u_2\cdots u_k)).\end{aligned}$$ Then by Eq. (), the induction hypothesis on $k$ and the $\lambda$-differential algebra relation for $d$, the last sum equals to $d(\free{f}(w))$.
Cofree differential algebras of weight $\lambda$
------------------------------------------------
For any $\bfk$-algebra $A$, let $A^{\NN}$ denote the $\bfk$-module of all functions $f:\NN \rightarrow A$. We define a product on $A^{\NN}$ by defining, for any $f, g \in A^{\NN}$, $fg \in A^{\NN}$ by $$(fg)(n) = \sum_{k=0}^{n}\sum_{j=0}^{n-k}\binc{n}{k}\binc{n-k}{j}
\lambda^{k}f(n-j)g(k+j).$$ Note that this definition is motivated by Proposition .(). It is easily checked that this product is commutative, associative, distributive over addition, and has an identity $\bfone_{A^{\NN}}$ defined by $\bfone_{A^{\NN}}(n) = 0$ if $n \neq 0$ and $\bfone_{A^{\NN}}(0) = \bfone_{A}$. We call this product the [**$\lambda$-Hurwitz product**]{} on $A^{\NN}$, since if we take $\lambda = 0$, the product reduces to $$(fg)(n) = \sum_{k = 0}^{n}\binc{n}{k}f(n-k)g(k),$$ which is the usual Hurwitz product defined in [@Ke]. We denote the $\bfk$-algebra $A^{\NN}$ with this product by $DA$, and call it the $\bfk$-algebra of [**$\lambda$-Hurwitz series over $A$**]{}. Also, there is, for any $\bfk$-algebra $A$, a homomorphism $\kappa_{A}:A \rightarrow DA$ of $\bfk$-algebras defined by $\kappa_A(a) = a\bfone_{A^{\NN}}$. This makes $DA$ into an $A$-algebra, where for any $a \in A$ and any $f \in DA$, $af \in DA$ is given by $(af)(n) = a(f(n))$.
The $\bfk$-algebra $DA$ behaves much like the ring of Hurwitz series. The following proposition is one instance of this. We first define a map $$\partial_A:DA \rightarrow DA, \quad (\partial_A(f))(n) = f(n+1), n\in \NN, f\in DA.
\mlabel{eq:hurw}$$
The map $\partial_A$ is a $\lambda$-derivation on $DA$.
It is clear that $\partial_A$ is a mapping of $\bfk$-modules, so all that remains is to show that for any $f,g \in DA$, $$\partial_A(fg) = \partial_A(f)g + f\partial_A(g)
+ \lambda\partial_A(f)\partial_A(g).$$ But because of the definition of the $\lambda$-Hurwitz product, the proof of this equation is virtually identical to the proof of Proposition \[pp:basic\].() and is left to the reader.
It follows from Proposition \[prop:deriv\] that $(DA, \partial_A)$ is a $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebra. If $h:A \rightarrow B$ is a $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism, one checks that $Dh:DA \rightarrow DB$ defined by $((Dh)(f))(n) = h(f(n))$ is a morphism of $\bfk$-algebras, and that $\partial_B \circ Dh = Dh \circ \partial_A$. Recalling that $\Dif=\Dif_\lambda$ denotes the category of $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebras, we see that we have a functor $G:\Alg_{\bfk} \rightarrow \Dif$ given on objects $A \in \Alg $ by $G(A) = (DA, \partial_A)$ and on morphisms $h:A \rightarrow B$ in $\Alg $ by $G(h) = Dh$ as defined above. Letting $V:\Dif \rightarrow \Alg $ denote the forgetful functor defined on objects $(R,d) \in \Dif$ by $V(R,d) = R$ and on morphisms $f:(R,d) \rightarrow (S,e)$ in $\Dif$ by $V(f) = f$, we have the following characterization of $G(A)$.
The functor $G:\Alg \rightarrow \Dif$ defined above is the right adjoint of the forgetful functor $V:\Dif \rightarrow \Alg $.
By [@Ma], it is equivalent to show that there are two natural transformations $\eta: id_{\Dif} \rightarrow GV$ and $\varepsilon: VG \rightarrow id_{\Alg }$ satisfying the equations $G\varepsilon \circ \eta G = G$ and $\varepsilon V \circ V\eta = V$. Here $id_{\Dif}$ denotes the identity functor on $\Dif$, and similarly for $id_{\Alg }$.
For any $A \in \Alg $, define $\varepsilon_A: DA \rightarrow A$ for any $f \in DA$ by $\varepsilon_A(f) = f(0).$ One checks that $\varepsilon_A$ is a morphism of $\bfk$-algebras, and that if $h:A \rightarrow B$ is any morphism of $\bfk$-algebras, then $\varepsilon_B \circ Dh = h \circ \varepsilon_A$, i.e., $\varepsilon$ is a natural transformation as desired.
For any $(R,d) \in \Dif$, $x \in R$ and $n \in \NN$, define $\eta_{(R,d)}:(R,d) \rightarrow (DR, \partial_R)$ by $(\eta_{(R,d)}(x))(n) = d^{(n)}(x)$. It is not difficult to see that $\eta_{(R,d)}$ is $\bfk$-linear, and it is immediate from Proposition .() that for any $x, y \in R$, $(\eta_{(R,d)}(x))(\eta_{(R,d)}(y)) = (\eta_{(R,d)}(xy)).$ Also, it is clear that $\partial_R \circ \eta_{(R.d)} =
\eta_{(R.d)} \circ d$, so that $\eta_{(R,d)}$ is a morphism in $\Dif$. Further, if $f:(R,d) \rightarrow (S,e)$ is a morphism in $\Dif$, then one sees that $\eta_{(S,e)} \circ f = Df \circ \eta_{(R,d)}.$ Hence $\eta$ is a natural transformation.
To see that $G\varepsilon \circ \eta G = G$, let $A \in \Alg $, $f \in DA$ and $n \in \NN$. Then $$((D\varepsilon_A)(\eta_{(DA,\partial_A)}(f)))(n) =
\varepsilon_A(\eta_{(DA,\partial_A)}(f)(n)) =
\varepsilon_A(\partial_A^{(n)}(f)) =
(\partial_A^{(n)}(f))(0) =f(n).$$
Similarly, to see that $\varepsilon V \circ V\eta = V$, let $(R,d) \in \Dif$, and $x \in R$. Then $\varepsilon_R(\eta_{(R,d)}(x)) =
(\eta_{(R,d)}(x))(0) = d^{(0)}(x) = x.$
The following corollary gives a “universal mapping property” characterization of the $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebra of $\lambda$-Hurwitz series as the cofree $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebra on any $\bfk$-algebra $A$.
Let $(R,d)$ be any $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebra, and let $A$ be any $\bfk$-algebra. For any $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism $f:R \rightarrow A$, there is a unique morphism of $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebras $\tilde{f}:(R,d) \rightarrow (DA,\partial_A)$ such that $\varepsilon_A \circ V\tilde{f} = f.$
This follows from page 81, Theorem 2 in [@Ma].
We next show that $DA$ provides another example of differential Rota-Baxter algebras. Define $$\pi_A: DA\to DA, \quad (\pi_A(f))(n)=f(n-1), n\geq 1,
(\pi_A(f))(0)=0, f\in DA.
\mlabel{eq:hurwrb}$$
The triple $(DA,\partial_A, \pi_A)$ is a differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$.
Since $$(\pi_A (\partial_A(f)))(n)=(\pi_A(f))(n+1)=f(n)$$ for $f\in DA$, we have $\pi_A\circ \partial_A=\id_{DA}$. Thus we only need to verify that $\pi_A$ is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\lambda$. Let $H\in DA$ be defined by $$H=\pi_A(f)\pi_A(g)-\pi_A(\pi_A(f)g)-\pi_A(f\pi_A(g))- \lambda \pi_A(fg).
\mlabel{eq:pirb}$$ By Proposition , we have $\partial_A(H)=0$. Thus $H$ is of the form $H:\NN\to A$ with $H(n)=0, n>0$ and $H(0)=k$ for some $k\in \bfk$. But by definition, $\pi_A(0)=0$. Thus $H(0)=0$ and so $H=0$. This shows that $\pi_A$ is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight $\lambda$.
Free commutative differential Rota-Baxter algebras
==================================================
We briefly recall the construction of free commutative Rota-Baxter algebras in terms of mixable shuffles . Let $A$ be a commutative $\bfk$-algebra. Define $$\sha (A)= \bigoplus_{k\in\NN}
A^{\otimes (k+1)}
= A\oplus A^{\otimes 2}\oplus \ldots.$$ Let $\fraka=a_0\ot \cdots \ot a_m\in A^{\ot (m+1)}$ and $\frakb=b_0\ot \cdots \ot b_n\in A^{\ot (n+1)}$. If $m=0$ or $n=0$, define $$\fraka \shpr \frakb =\left \{\begin{array}{ll}
(a_0b_0)\ot b_1\ot \cdots \ot b_n, & m=0, n>0,\\
(a_0b_0)\ot a_1\ot \cdots \ot a_m, & m>0, n=0,\\
a_0b_0, & m=n=0.
\end{array} \right .$$ If $m>0$ and $n>0$, recursively define $$\begin{aligned}
\fraka \shpr \frakb & = &
(a_0b_0)\ot \Big(
a_1\ot \big( (a_2\ot \cdots \ot a_m) \shpr (b_1\ot \cdots \ot b_n)\big) \notag \\
&&
\qquad \qquad +
\;b_1\ot \big( (a_1\ot \cdots \ot a_m) \shpr (b_2\ot \cdots \ot b_n)\big) \mlabel{eq:shpr}\\
&& \qquad \qquad +
\lambda\, a_1b_1\ot \big( (a_2\ot \cdots \ot a_m) \shpr (b_2\ot \cdots \ot b_n)\big)\Big)
\notag\end{aligned}$$ with the convention that $$\begin{aligned}
&&(a_2\ot \cdots \ot a_m) \shpr (b_1\ot \cdots \ot b_n)
=b_1\ot \cdots \ot b_n, {\rm\ if\ } m=1, n>1;\\
&&(a_1\ot \cdots \ot a_m) \shpr (b_2\ot \cdots \ot b_n)
=a_1\ot \cdots \ot m_n, {\rm\ if\ } m>1, n=1;\\
&&a_1b_1\ot \big( (a_2\ot \cdots \ot a_m) \shpr (b_2\ot \cdots \ot b_n)\big)=a_1b_1, {\rm\ if\ } m=n=1.\end{aligned}$$ Extending by additivity, we obtain a $\bfk$-bilinear map
$$\shpr: \sha (A) \times \sha (A) \rar \sha (A),$$ called the mixable shuffle product on $\sha(A)$. Define a $\bfk$-linear endomorphism $P_A$ on $\sha (A)$ by assigning $$P_A( x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots \otimes x_n)
=\bfone_A\otimes x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots\otimes x_n,$$ for all $x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots\otimes x_n\in A^{\otimes (n+1)}$ and extending by additivity. Let $j_A:A\rar \sha (A)$ be the canonical inclusion map.
The pair $(\sha (A),P_A)$, together with the natural embedding $j_A:A\rightarrow \sha (A)$, is a free commutative Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra on $A$ of weight $\lambda$. In other words, for any Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra $(R,P)$ and any $\bfk$-algebra map $\varphi:A\rar R$, there exists a unique Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism $\tilde{\varphi}:(\sha (A),P_A)\rar (R,P)$ such that $\varphi = \tilde{\varphi} \circ j_A$ as $\bfk$-algebra homomorphisms.
It is proved in [@G-K1] that $\sha(A)$ with the mixable shuffle product is the free commutative Rota-Baxter algebra on $A$. The mixable shuffle product is shown to be the same as the quasi-shuffle product .
Since $\shpr$ is compatible with the multiplication in $A$, we will often suppress the symbol $\shpr$ and simply denote $x y$ for $x\shpr y$ in $\sha (A)$, unless there is a danger of confusion.
Let $(A,d_0)$ be a commutative differential $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$. Define an operator $d_A$ on $\sha (A)$ by assigning $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ d_A(x_0\otimes x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)}\\
&=&
d_0(x_0)\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots \otimes x_n + x_0x_1\otimes
x_2 \otimes \ldots \otimes x_n +\lambda d_0(x_0) x_1\otimes x_2\otimes
\ldots \otimes x_n\end{aligned}$$ for $x_0\otimes \ldots \otimes x_n\in
A^{\otimes (n+1)}$ and then extending by $\bfk$-linearity. Here we use the convention that when $n=0$, $d_A(x_0)=d_0(x_0)$.
Let $(A,d_0)$ be a commutative differential $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$.
1. $(\sha (A),d_A,P_A)$ is a commutative differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$. The $\bfk$-algebra embedding $$j_A: A \rar \sha (A)$$ is a morphism of differential $\bfk$-algebras of weight $\lambda$.
2. The quadruple $(\sha (A),d_A,P_A,j_A)$ is a free commutative differential Baxter $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$ on $(A,d_0)$, as described by the following universal property: For any commutative differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra $(R,d,P)$ of weight $\lambda$ and any $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebra map $\varphi: (A,d_0)\rar (R,d)$, there exists a unique $\lambda$-differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism $\tilde{\varphi}:(\sha (A),d_A,P_A)\rar (R,d,P)$ such that the diagram $$\xymatrix{
(A,d_0) \ar[r]^-{j_A} \ar[dr]_{\varphi}
& (\sha (A),d_A) \ar[d]^{\tilde{\varphi}} \\
& (R,d) }$$ commutes in the category of commutative differential $\bfk$-algebras of weight $\lambda$.
3. Let $X$ be a set and let $\bfk\diffa{X}$ be the free commutative differential algebra of weight $\lambda$ on $X$. The quadruple $(\sha (\bfk\diffa{X}),d_{\bfk\diffa{X}},P_{\bfk\diffa{X}},j_X)$ is a free commutative differential Baxter $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$ on $X$, as described by the following universal property: For any commutative differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra $(R,d,P)$ of weight $\lambda$ and any set map $\varphi: X\to R$, there exists a unique $\lambda$-differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism $\tilde{\varphi}:(\sha (\bfk\diffa{X}),d_{\bfk\diffa{X}},
P_{\bfk\diffa{X}})\rar (R,d,P)$ such that $\tilde{\varphi}\circ j_X = \varphi.$
(). For any $x=x_0\otimes \ldots\otimes x_m\in A^{\otimes
(m+1)}$, by definition we have $$d_A (P_A(x))= d_A(1\otimes x_0\otimes \ldots \otimes
x_m)= x_0\otimes \ldots \ot x_m.$$ Thus $d_A\circ P_A$ is the identity map on $\sha(A)$. So it remains to prove that for any $m,\ n\in
\NN_+$ and $x=x_0\otimes \ldots \otimes x_m\in A^{\otimes (m+1)}$ and $y=y_0\otimes \ldots \otimes y_n\in A^{\otimes (n+1)}$, we have $$d_A(x\shpr y) = d_A(x) \shpr y+ x\shpr d_A(y)
+\lambda d_A(x)\shpr d_A(y).
\mlabel{eq:dif}$$ If $m=0$ or $n=0$, then the equation follows from the definition of $d_A$. Now consider the case when $m,\ n\in \NN_+$. Denoting $x^+= x_1\otimes \ldots \otimes x_{m}$ and $y^+= y_1 \otimes
\ldots \otimes y_{m}$, we have $x= x_0\shpr P_A(x^+)$, $y=
y_0\shpr P_A(y^+)$ and Eq. () can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
x\shpr y &=& (x_0 y_0)\shpr (P_A(x^+) \shpr P_A(y^+)) \\
&=& (x_0 y_0)\shpr \left ( P_A(x^+\shpr P_A(y^+))+P_A(y^+\shpr P_A(x^+))
+ \lambda P_A(x^+ \shpr y^+)\right ) \\
&=& (x_0 y_0) \shpr P_A(x^+\shpr P_A(y^+)+y^+\shpr P_A(x^+)
+\lambda (x^+\shpr y^+)).\end{aligned}$$ It follows from the definition of $d_A$ that, for any $z_0\in A$ and $z\in \sha (A)$, $$\begin{aligned}
d_A(z_0\shpr P_A(z))&=& d_0(z_0)\shpr P_A(z) + z_0\shpr
d_A(P_A(z))
+\lambda d_0(z_0)\shpr d_A(P_A(z))\\
&=& d_0(z_0) \shpr P_A(z) + z_0 \shpr z
+\lambda d_0(z_0) \shpr z.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{d_A (x\shpr y)}\\
&=&
d_A( (x_0 y_0)\shpr P_A(x^+\shpr P_A(y^+)
+y^+\shpr P_A(x^+)
+ \lambda (x^+ \shpr y^+)))\\
&=& d_0(x_0y_0) \shpr P_A(x^+\shpr P_A(y^+)
+y^+\shpr P_A(x^+)
+ \lambda (x^+ \shpr y^+))\\
&&+ (x_0 y_0) \shpr (x^+\shpr P_A(y^+)
+y^+\shpr P_A(x^+)
+ \lambda (x^+ \shpr y^+) )\\
&&+ \lambda d_0(x_0 y_0) \shpr (x^+\shpr P_A(y^+)
+y^+\shpr P_A(x^+)
+ \lambda (x^+ \shpr y^+))\\
&=&(d_0(x_0)y_0 +x_0 d_0(y_0)+\lambda d_0(x_0)d_0(y_0)) \shpr
(P_A(x^+) \shpr P_A(y^+))\\ &&+(x_0 y_0) \shpr (x^+\shpr
P_A(y^+)+y^+\shpr P_A(x^+)
+x^+ \shpr y^+)\\
&& +\lambda (d_0(x_0)y_0 +x_0 d_0(y_0)+\lambda d_0(x_0)
d_0(y_0))\\ && \shpr (x^+\shpr P_A(y^+)+y^+\shpr P_A(x^+)+x^+
\shpr y^+).\end{aligned}$$ Also $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ x\shpr d_A(y) +y\shpr d_A(x)+\lambda d_A(x)\shpr
d_A(y)}\\ &=& (x_0 \shpr P_A(x^+)) \shpr d_A(y_0\shpr P_A(y^+)) +
(y_0\shpr P_A(y^+))\shpr d_A(x_0\shpr P_A(x^+))\\ && + \lambda
d_A(x_0\shpr P_A(x^+))\shpr d_A(y_0\shpr P_A(y^+))\\ &=& (x_0\shpr
P_A(x^+))\shpr \left (d_0(y_0) \shpr P_A(y^+) + y_0\shpr y^+
+\lambda d_0(y_0)\shpr y^+)
\right )\\
&&+ (y_0\shpr P_A(y^+))\shpr \left (d_0(x_0) \shpr P_A(x^+) +
x_0\shpr x^+ +\lambda d_0(x_0)\shpr x^+
\right )\\
&&+\lambda \left (d_0(x_0) \shpr P_A(x^+) x_0\shpr x^+ +\lambda
d_0(x_0)\shpr x^+
\right )\\
&&\ \ \ \shpr \left (d_0(y_0) \shpr P_A(y^+) y_0\shpr y^+ +\lambda
d_0(y_0)\shpr y^+
\right ).\end{aligned}$$ Comparing last terms of the above two equations, we see that equation (\[eq:dif\]) holds.
The second statement follows directly from the definition of $d_A$.
(). Now let $(R,d,P)$ be a commutative differential Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra of weight $\lambda$ and let $\varphi: (A,d_0)\rar (R,d)$ be a $\lambda$-differential $\bfk$-algebra map. Then in particular $\varphi$ is a $\bfk$-algebra map. So by Theorem \[thm:shua\], there is a unique Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra map $\tilde{\varphi}: (\sha (A),P_A)\rar (R,P)$ such that $$\varphi=\tilde{\varphi}\circ j_A
$$ in the category of $\bfk$-algebras. We next show that $\tilde{\varphi}$ is a differential $\bfk$-algebra map.
For any $x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots \otimes x_n\in A^{\otimes
(n+1)}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ d (\tilde{\varphi}(x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots
\otimes x_n))
= d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0 \shpr P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes
x_n)))}
\\ &=& d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0)
\tilde{\varphi}(P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots \otimes x_n)))\\
&=& d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0)
P(\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)))\\
&=& d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0))
P(\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n))
+ \tilde{\varphi}(x_0)
d(P(\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)))\\
&& + \lambda d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0))
d(P(\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)))\\
&=& d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0))
\tilde{\varphi}(P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n))
+ \tilde{\varphi}(x_0)
\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)\\
&& + \lambda d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0))
\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n).\end{aligned}$$ Also $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots\otimes x_n)) = \tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0\shpr
P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)))}\\
&=&
\tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0)\shpr P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n) +
x_0 \shpr d_A(P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n))\\
&&+ \lambda\,d_A(x_0)
\shpr d_A(P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)))\\
&=&
\tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0)\shpr P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n) +
x_0 \shpr (x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n)\\
&&+ \lambda\, d_A(x_0) \shpr
(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n))\\
&=& \tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0))
\tilde{\varphi}(P_A(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_n))
+ \tilde{\varphi}(x_0)\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes
x_n)\\
&&
+\lambda\,\tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0))\tilde{\varphi}(x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes
x_n).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
d(\tilde{\varphi}(x_0))&=&d(\tilde{\varphi}(j_A(x_0)))
= d(\varphi(x_0))= \varphi(d_0(x_0)) \\
&=&
\tilde{\varphi}(j_A(d_0(x_0))) =
\tilde{\varphi}(d_A(j_A(x_0))) = \tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0)),\end{aligned}$$ we have proved that $$d (\tilde{\varphi}(x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots
\otimes x_n))=
\tilde{\varphi}(d_A(x_0\otimes x_1\otimes \ldots\otimes x_n)).$$ This shows that $\tilde{\varphi}$ is a differential $\bfk$-algebra homomorphism. Since $\varphi$ and $j_A$ are differential $\bfk$-algebra homomorphisms, we see that equation (\[eq:diff\]) holds in the category of differential $\bfk$-algebras.
(). The forgetful functor from the category $\DRB_\lambda$ to the category $\Set$ of sets is the composition of the forgetful functors from $\DRB_\lambda$ to $\Alg$ and from $\Alg$ to $\Set$. By Theorem 1 in page 101 of , the adjoint functor of a composed functor is the composition of the adjoint functors. This proves ().
Free noncommutative differential Rota-Baxter algebras
=====================================================
We now consider the noncommutative analog of Section .
Free noncommutative Rota-Baxter algebras
----------------------------------------
We first summarize the construction of free noncommutative Rota-Baxter algebras on a set $X$ in terms of angularly decorated planar rooted trees. See (as well as ) for further details.
### Rota-Baxter algebra on rooted trees
We follow the notations and terminologies in [@Di; @We]. A free tree is an undirected graph that is connected and contains no cycles. A [**rooted tree**]{} is a free tree in which a particular vertex has been distinguished as the [**root**]{}. A [**planar rooted tree**]{} is a rooted tree with a fixed embedding into the plane. For example, $$\ta1 \;\quad
\tb2 \quad\;
\tc3 \quad\;
\td31 \quad\;
\te4 \quad\;
\tf41 \quad\;
\tg42 \;\quad
\thj44 \quad\;
\th43 \;\quad
{} \cdots$$ The depth $\depth(T)$ of a rooted tree $T$ is the length of the longest path from its root to its leaves.
Let $\calt$ be the set of planar rooted trees. A [**planar rooted forest**]{} is a noncommutative concatenation of planar rooted trees, denoted by $T_1\sqcup \cdots \sqcup T_b$ with $T_1,\cdots, T_b\in\calt$. $b=\bread(F)$ is called the breadth of $F$. The depth $\depth(F)$ of $F$ is the maximal depth of the trees $T_i, 1\leq i\leq b$. Let $\calf$ be the set of [planar rooted forests]{}. Then $\calf$ is the free semigroup generated by $\calt$ with the product $\sqcup$, and $\bfk\,\calf$ with the product $\sqcup$ is the free noncommutative nonunitary $\bfk$-algebra on the alphabet set $\calt$. We are going to define, for each fixed $\lambda\in\bfk$, another product $\shpr=\shpr_\lambda$ on $\bfk\,\calf$, making it into a unitary Rota–Baxter algebra (of weight $\lambda$). We will suppress $\lambda$ to ease notation.
For the rest of this paper, a tree or forest means a planar rooted tree or a planar rooted forest unless otherwise specified. Let $\lc T_1\sqcup \cdots \sqcup T_b\rc$ denote the usual [**grafting**]{} of the trees $T_1,\cdots,T_b$ by adding a new root together with an edge from the new root to the root of each of the trees $T_1,\cdots, T_b$. Let $\calf_n$, $n\geq 0$, be the set of planar rooted forests with depth less or equal to $n$. Then we have the depth filtration $ \calf_0 \subseteq \calf_1 \subseteq \cdots$ such that $\calf=\cup_{n\in \NN} \calf_n$.
By using the grafting and the filtration $\calf_n$, we recursively defined in a map $$\shpr: \calf \times \calf \to \bfk\, \calf$$ with the following properties
1. For trees $F$ and $F'$, $$F \shpr F' =\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
F, & {\rm\ if\ } F'=\onetree,\\
F', & {\rm\ if\ } F=\onetree,\\
\lc \oF\shpr \lc \oF' \rc \rc
+\lc \lc \oF \rc \shpr \oF'\rc
+\lambda\lc \oF \shpr \oF'\rc,
& {\rm\ if\ } F=\lc \oF\rc, F'=\lc \oF'\rc,
\end{array} \right .
\mlabel{eq:shprt1}$$
2. For forests $F=T_1\sqcup\cdots\sqcup T_b$ and $F'=T'_1\sqcup \cdots\sqcup T'_{b'}$, $$F \shpr F'= T_1\sqcup\cdots \sqcup T_{b-1}\,
\sqcup\,(T_b\shpr T'_1)\,\sqcup \,
T'_{2}\,\cdots\,\sqcup T_{b'}.
\mlabel{eq:shprt2}$$
Then $\shpr$ extends to a binary operation $\shpr$ on $\bfk\calf$ by bilinearity. As an example, we have $$\td31 \shpr \tb2 = \lc \ta1\sqcup \ta1\rc \shpr \lc \ta1 \rc
= \lc (\ta1 \sqcup \ta1) \shpr \lc \ta1\rc\rc
+ \lc \lc \ta1 \sqcup \ta1\rc \shpr \ta1\rc
+ \lambda \lc (\ta1\sqcup\ta1) \shpr \ta1\rc
= \tg42 + \thj44 + \lambda \td31.
\mlabel{eq:treeex}$$ It was shown in that $(\bfk\calf,\shpr)$ is a Rota-Baxter $\bfk$-algebra.
### Free Rota-Baxter algebra on a set $X$
Let $X$ be a non-empty set. Let $F\in \calf$ with $\leaf=\leaf(F)$ leaves. Let $X^F$ denote the set of pairs $(F;\vec{x})$ where $\vec{x}$ is in $X^{(\ell(F)-1)}$. Then $(F;\vec{x})$ can be identified with the forest $F$ together with an ordered decoration of $\vec{x}$ on the angles of $F$. We use the convention that $X^{\onetree}=\{(\onetree;1)\}$. For example, we have $$\big( {\scalebox{1.15}{\tg42}}\ ;\ x \big) = \begin{array}{l}\\[-.7cm] \xldec41r \end{array}, \quad
\big( {\scalebox{1.15}{\thII43}}\ ;\ (x, y) \big) = \begin{array}{l}\\[-.5cm] \xyldec43 \end{array}, \quad
\big( \ta1\ \sqcup\ {\scalebox{1.1}{\td31}}\ ;\ (x, y) \big)= \ta1\, {x} \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm]
\yldec31 \end{array}.$$ $\ta1\, {x} \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm]
\yldec31 \end{array}$ is denoted by $\ta1 \sqcup_{x} \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm]
\yldec31 \end{array}$ in [@E-G0].
Let $(F;\vec{x})\in X^F$. Let $F=T_1\sqcup \cdots \sqcup T_b$ be the decomposition of $F$ into trees. We consider the corresponding decomposition of decorated forests. If $b=1$, then $F$ is a tree and $(F;\vec{x})$ has no further decompositions. If $b>1$, denote $\leaf_i=\leaf(T_i), 1\leq i\leq b$. Then $$(T_1;(x_1,\cdots, x_{\leaf_1-1})),\
(T_2; (x_{\leaf_1+1}, \cdots, x_{\leaf_1+\leaf_2-1})),
\cdots,
(T_b; (x_{\leaf_1+\cdots+\leaf_{b-1}+1}, \cdots, x_{\leaf_1+\cdots+\leaf_b}))$$ are well-defined angularly decorated trees when $\leaf(T_i)>1$. If $\leaf(T_i)=1$, then $x_{\leaf_{i-1}+\leaf_i-1}=x_{\leaf_{i-1}}$ and we use the convention $(T_i;x_{\leaf_{i-1}+\leaf_i-1})=(T_i;\bfone)$. With this convention, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
(F;(x_1,\cdots, x_{\leaf-1}))&=&
(T_1;(x_1, \cdots, x_{\leaf_1-1})){x_{\leaf_1}}
(T_2; (x_{\leaf_1+1},\cdots, x_{\leaf_1+\leaf_2-1}))
{x_{\leaf_1+\leaf_2}}
\\
&&\cdots {x_{\leaf_1+\cdots+\leaf_{b-1}}}
(T_b; (x_{\leaf_1+\cdots+\leaf_{b-1}+1}, \cdots, x_{\leaf_1+\cdots+\leaf_b})).\end{aligned}$$ We call this the [**standard decomposition**]{} of $(F;\vec{x})$ and abbreviate it as $$\begin{aligned}
(F;\vec{x})&=&(T_1;\vec{x}_1){x_{i_1}}
(T_2;\vec{x}_2) {x_{i_2}} \cdots {x_{i_{b-1}}}
(T_b;\vec{x}_b)
= D_1 {x_{i_1}} D_2 {x_{i_2}} \cdots {x_{i_{b-1}}} D_b
\mlabel{eq:stdecm}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_i=(T_i;\vec{x}_i), 1\leq i\leq b$. For example, $$\big(\ta1\sqcup {\scalebox{1.15}{\tg42}} \sqcup {\scalebox{1.15}{\td31}}; (v, x, w, y) \big)
= \big(\ta1;\bfone \big)\, v \big({\scalebox{1.15}{\tg42}};x)\, w \big({\scalebox{1.15}{\td31}};y \big)
= \ta1 \,{v} \begin{array}{l}\\[-.7cm] \xldec41r \end{array} \,{w} \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \yldec31 \end{array}$$
Let $\bfk^{NC}[X]=\bigoplus_{n\geq 0} \bfk\,X^{n}$ be the noncommutative polynomial algebra on $X$. Denote its basis elements by vectors and its product by vector concatenation: for $\vec{x}=(x_1,\cdots,x_m),
\vec{x}'=(x'_1,\cdots,x'_n)$, define $$(\vec{x},\vec{x}')=(x_1,\cdots,x_m,x'_1,\cdots,x'_n).$$
Define the $\bfk$-module $$\ncsha(X)= \bigoplus_{F\in\, \calf} \bfk\, X^{F}.$$ For $D=(F;\vec{x})\in X^F$ and $D'=(F';\vec{x}')\in X^{F'}$, define $$D\shprm D' = (F\shpr F'; (\vec{x}, \vec{x}')),
\mlabel{eq:shprm1}$$ where $\shpr$ is defined in Eq. () and Eq. (). For example, from Eq. () we have $$\begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array} \, \shprm \ \tb2
= \begin{array}{l}\\[-.7cm] \xldec41r \end{array}
+ \begin{array}{l}\\[-.7cm] \xthj44 \end{array}
+ \lambda \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array}.
\mlabel{eq:treexdec}$$
Extending the product $\shprm$ biadditively, we obtain a binary operation $$\shprm: \ncsha (X)\otimes \ncsha(X) \to \ncsha(X).$$ For $(F;\vec{x}) \in X^F$, define $$P_X(F; \vec{x})=\lc (F;\vec{x})\rc=(\lc F \rc\, ; \vec{x})\in X^{\lc F\rc},
\mlabel{eq:RBopm}$$ extending to a linear operator on $\ncsha(X)$. Let $$j_X: X \to \ncsha(X)
\mlabel{eq:jm}$$ be the map sending $a\in X$ to $(\onetree \sqcup \onetree;a)$. The following theorem is proved in .
The quadruple $(\ncsha(X),\shprm,P_X,j_X)$ is the free unitary Rota–Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$ on the set $X$. More precisely, for any unitary Rota–Baxter algebra $(R,P)$ and map $f:X\to R$, there is a unique unitary Rota–Baxter algebra morphism $\free{f}: \ncsha(X) \to R$ such that $f=\free{f}\circ j_X.$
Free noncommutative differential Rota-Baxter algebras
-----------------------------------------------------
The following is the noncommutative analog of Theorem .
Let $(\bfk^{NC}\diffa{X},d^{NC}_X)
=(\bfk^{NC}[\diffs{X}],d^{NC}_X)$ be the free noncommutative differential algebra of weight $\lambda$ on a set $X$, constructed in Theorem . Let $\ncsha(\diffs{X})$ be the free noncommutative Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$ on $\diffs{X}$, constructed in Theorem .
1. There is a unique extension $\free{d}^{NC}_X$ of $d^{NC}_X$ to $\ncsha(\diffs{X})$ so that $(\ncsha(\diffs{X}),\free{d}^{NC}_X,P_{\diffs{X}})$ is a differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$.
2. The differential Rota-Baxter algebra $\ncsha(\diffs{X})$ thus obtained is the free differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$ over $X$.
(). We define a $\lambda$-derivation $\free{d}^{NC}_X$ on $\ncsha(\diffs{X})$ as follows. Let $F\in \calf$ and let $D\in (\diffs{X})^F$ be the forest $F$ with angular decoration by $\vec{y}\in (\diffs{X})^{\leaf(F)-1}$. Let $$D=(F;\vec{y})
=(T_1;\vec{y}_1){y_{i_1}}
(T_2;\vec{y}_2) {y_{i_2}} \cdots {y_{i_{b-1}}}
(T_b;\vec{y}_b)$$ be the standard decomposition of $D$ in Eq. (). We define $\free{d}^{NC}_X$ by induction on the breadth $b=b(F)$ of $F$. If $b=1$, then $F$ is a tree so either $F=\onetree$ or $F=\lc \oF \rc$ for a forest $\oF$. Accordingly we define $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(F;\vec{y})=\left \{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & {\rm if\ } F=\onetree, \\
(\oF;\vec{y}), & {\rm if\ } F=\lc \oF\rc
\end{array} \right .
\mlabel{eq:difftree}$$ We note that this is the only way to define $\free{d}^{NC}_X$ in order to obtain a differential Rota-Baxter algebra since $\onetree$ is the identity and $(F;\vec{y})=\lc (\oF;\vec{y})\rc$.
If $b>1$, then $F=T_1\sqcup F_t$ for another forest $F_t=T_2\sqcup \cdots \sqcup F_b$ (t in $F_t$ stands for the tail). So $$D=(F;\vec{y})=(T_1;\vec{y}_1)y_{i_1}(F_t;\vec{y}_t)
=D_1y_{i_1}D_t$$ where $D_1=(T_1;\vec{y}_1)$ and $D_t=(T_2;\vec{y}_2) {y_{i_2}} \cdots {y_{i_{b-1}}}
(T_b;\vec{y}_b).$ We then define $$\begin{aligned}
\free{d}^{NC}_X(D)&=&\free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1) y_{i_1} (F_t;\vec{y}_t)
+(T_1;\vec{y}_1) d(y_{i_1}) (F_t;\vec{y}_t)
+(T_1;\vec{y}_1) y_{i_1} \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t) \notag\\
&&+\lambda \big(\free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1) d(y_{i_1}) (F_t;\vec{y}_t)
+ \free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1) y_{i_1} \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t)
\mlabel{eq:diffind}\\
&&+ (T_1;\vec{y}_1) d(y_{i_1}) \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t)\big) + \lambda^2 \free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1) d(y_{i_1}) \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t),
\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1)$ is defined in Eq. () and $\free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t)$ is defined by the induction hypothesis. Note that by Eq. (), $$(T_1;\vec{y}_1)y_{i_1}(F_t;\vec{y}_t)=
(T_1;\vec{y}_1)\shpr (\onetree y_{i_1}\onetree) \shpr (F_t;\vec{y}_t).$$ So if $\free{d}^{NC}_X$ were to satisfy the $\lambda$-Leibniz rule Eq. () with respect to the product $\shprm$, then we must have $$\begin{aligned}
\free{d}^{NC}_X(D)&=&\free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1)\shpr (\onetree y_{i_1} \onetree) \shpr (F_t;\vec{y}_t)
+(T_1;\vec{y}_1)\shpr \free{d}^{NC}_X(\onetree y_{i_1} \onetree) \shpr (F_t;\vec{y}_t) \notag \\
&& +\, (T_1;\vec{y}_1) \shpr (\onetree y_{i_1} \onetree) \shpr \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t)
+\lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1) \shpr (\onetree d^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}) \onetree) \shpr (F_t;\vec{y}_t) \notag \\
&& +\, \lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1) \shpr (\onetree y_{i_1} \onetree) \shpr \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t)
+ \lambda (T_1;\vec{y}_1) \shpr (\onetree d^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}) \onetree) \shpr \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t)
\mlabel{eq:diffind2}\\
&& +\, \lambda^2 \free{d}^{NC}_X(T_1;\vec{y}_1) \shpr (\onetree d^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}) \onetree) \shpr \free{d}^{NC}_X(F_t;\vec{y}_t).
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Since $\free{d}^{NC}_X$ is to extend $d_X^{NC}:\bfk^{NC}\diffa{X} \to
\bfk^{NC} \diffa{X}$, we have $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(\onetree\, y_{i_1} \onetree)
=\free{d}^{NC}_X(j_{\diffs{X}}(y_{i_1}))= j_{\diffs{X}}(d^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}))=\onetree \, d^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}) \onetree.$$ So by Eq. (), Eq. () agrees with Eq. (). Thus $\free{d}^{NC}_X(D)$ is the unique map that satisfies the $\lambda$-Leibniz rule ().
We also have the short hand notation, $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(D)=\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_1)y_{i_1}D_t+D_1 \free{d}^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}D_t) +\lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(D_1)\free{d}^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}D_t),
\mlabel{eq:difft}$$ where $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(y_{i_1}D_t):= d^{NC}_X(y_{i_1})D_t +y_{i_1}\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_t) +\lambda d^{NC}_X(y_{i_1})\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_t).$$ Similarly, we can also write $D=D_h y_{i_{b-1}} D_{b}$ where $D_h$ ($h$ stands for the head) is a angularly decorated forest and $D_{b}$ is a angularly decorated tree. Then $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(D)=\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_hy_{i_{b-1}})D_{b}+D_hy_{i_{b-1}} \free{d}^{NC}_X(D_{b})+\lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(D_hy_{i_{b-1}})\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_{b}).
\mlabel{eq:diffh}$$ In fact, write $$D=v_1v_2\cdots v_{2b-1},$$ where $$v_j=\left \{\begin{array}{ll}
D_{(j-1)/2}, & j {\rm\ odd}, \\
y_{i_{j/2}}, & j {\rm\ even}.
\end{array} \right .$$ Then using Eq. () and an induction on $b$, we obtain the “general Leibniz formula" of weight $\lambda$ with respect to the concatenation product: $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(D)=\sum_{I\subseteq [2b-1]} \lambda^{|I|-1} v_{I,1}v_{I,2}\cdots v_{I,2b-1},
\mlabel{eq:diffgen}$$ where $[2b-1]=\{1,\cdots,2b-1\}$ and $$v_{I,j} =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
v_j, j\not\in I, \vspace{.2cm}\\
\free{d}^{NC}_X(v_j), j\in I, j {\rm\ odd},
\vspace{.2cm}\\
d^{NC}_X(v_j), j\in I, j {\rm\ even}.
\end{array} \right .$$
We now prove that $\free{d}^{NC}_X$ is a derivation of weight $\lambda$ with respect to the product $\shprm$. Let $D$ and $D'$ be angularly decorated forests and write $$D=(F;\vec{y})=(T_1;\vec{y}_1){y_{i_1}}
(T_2;\vec{y}_2) {y_{i_2}} \cdots {y_{i_{b-1}}}
(T_{b};\vec{y}_{b})
=D_h y_{i_{b-1}} D_b$$ and $$D'
=(F';\vec{y}')=(T'_1;\vec{y}'_1){y'_{i_1}}
(T'_2;\vec{y}'_2) {y'_{i_2}} \cdots {y'_{i_{b'-1}}}
(T'_{b'};\vec{y}'_{b'})
=D'_1 y'_{i_1}D'_t$$ be as above with angularly decorated trees $D_b$, $D'_1$, angularly decorated forests $D_h$, $D'_t$ and $y_{i_{b-1}},y'_{i_1}\in \diffs{X}$. Then by Eq. () (see for further details), $D \shprm D'$ has the standard decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
D \shprm D' &=&(T_1;\vec{y}_1){y_{i_1}} \cdots {y_{i_{b-1}}}
\big((T_b;\vec{y}_b)\shprm (T'_1;\vec{y}'_1)\big) {y'_{i_1}}
\cdots {y'_{i_{b'-1}}} (T'_{b'};\vec{y}'_{b'}) \notag\\
&=& D_h y_{i_{b-1}} (D_b\shpr D'_1) y'_{i_1}D'_t
\mlabel{eq:shprm2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{D_b\shpr D'_1=(T_b;\vec{y}_b)\shprm (T'_1;\vec{y}'_1)} \mlabel{eq:shprm3}\\
&=& \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
(\onetree; \bfone), & {\rm if\ } T_b=T'_1=\onetree \ ({\rm so\ }
\vec{y}_b=\vec{y}'_1=\bfone),\\
(T_b,\vec{y}_b), & {\rm if\ } T'_1=\onetree, T_b\neq \onetree, \\
(T'_1,\vec{y}'_1), & {\rm if\ } T'_1\neq\onetree, T_b= \onetree, \\
\lc (T_b;\vec{y})\shprm (\oF'_1;\vec{y}')\rc + \lc (\oF_b;\vec{y})\shprm (T'_1;\vec{y}') \rc & \\
+\lambda \lc (\oF_b;\vec{y})\shprm (\oF'_1;\vec{y}')\rc, &
{\rm if\ } T'_1=\lc \oF'_1\rc \neq\onetree, T_b=\lc \oF_b\rc \neq \onetree.
\end{array} \right .
\notag\end{aligned}$$
By Eq. () and Eq. (), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\free{d}^{NC}_X(D\shprm D')&=&
\free{d}^{NC}_X\big((D_h y_{i_{b-1}})(D_b\shprm D'_1)(y'_{i_1}D'_{b'})\big) \notag\\
&=& \free{d}^{NC}_X(D_h y_{i_{b-1}})(D_b\shprm D'_1)(y'_{i_1}D'_{b'})
+ (D_h y_{i_{b-1}})\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_b\shprm D'_1)(y'_{i_1}D'_{b'})
\notag \\
&&+ (D_h y_{i_{b-1}})(D_b\shprm D'_1)\free{d}^{NC}_X(y'_{i_1}D'_{b'})
+\lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(D_h y_{i_{b-1}})\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_b\shprm D'_1) (y'_{i_1}D'_{b'}) \mlabel{eq:diffprod}\\
&& + \lambda\, \free{d}^{NC}_X(D_h y_{i_{b-1}})(D_b\shprm D'_1) \free{d}^{NC}_X(y'_{i_1}D'_{b'})
+ \lambda\, (D_h y_{i_{b-1}})\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_b\shprm D'_1) \free{d}^{NC}_X(y'_{i_1}D'_{b'}) \notag\\
&&+\lambda^2
\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_h y_{i_{b-1}})\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_b\shprm D'_1) \free{d}^{NC}_X(y'_{i_1}D'_{b'}). \notag\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. (), we have $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(D_b\shprm D'_1)=
\free{d}^{NC}_X (D_b)\shprm D'_1 +D_b\shprm \free{d}^{NC}_X(D'_1)
+\lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(D_b)\shprm \free{d}^{NC}_X(D'_1).
\mlabel{eq:diffirr}$$ Applying this to Eq. (), we find that the resulting expansion for $\free{d}^{NC}_X(D\shprm D')$ agrees with the expansion of $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(D) \shprm D'+ D\shprm \free{d}^{NC}_X(D')
+ \lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(D) \shprm \free{d}^{NC}_X(D')$$ after applying Eq. () to $\free{d}^{NC}_X(D)$ and applying Eq. () to $\free{d}^{NC}_X(D')$.
As an example, from Eq. (), we have $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(\begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array} \, \shprm \ \tb2)
= \free{d}^{NC}_X\big( \begin{array}{l}\\[-.7cm] \xldec41r \end{array}
+ \begin{array}{l}\\[-.7cm] \xthj44 \end{array}
+ \lambda \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array}\big)
= \onetree\, x \tb2
+ \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array}
+ \onetree\, x \onetree\,.
\mlabel{eq:treexdecd}$$ This agrees with $$\free{d}^{NC}_X(\begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array}) \, \shprm \ \tb2
+ \begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array} \, \shprm \ \free{d}^{NC}_X(\tb2)
+ \lambda \free{d}^{NC}_X(\begin{array}{l}\\[-.3cm] \xtd31 \end{array}) \, \shprm \ \free{d}^{NC}_X(\tb2).$$
(). The proof of the freeness of $\ncsha(D(X))$ as a free differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$ is the same as the proof of the freeness of $\sha(D(X))$ in Theorem .
Structure of a differential algebra on forests
==============================================
We now give the structure of a differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$ to rooted forests without decorations. It should be possible to derive this as a special case from a suitable generalization of the construction in Theorem . To avoid making the process too complicated, we give a direct construction. See for the work of Grossman and Larson on differential algebra structures on their Hope algebra of trees.
Let $(\bfk \calf, \shpr, \lc\ \rc)$ be the Rota-Baxter algebra of planar rooted forests defined in Section . Let $F\in \calf$ be a rooted forest. By Eq. (), the unique decomposition $F=T_1\sqcup \cdots \sqcup T_b$ into rooted trees $T_1,\cdots,T_b\in \calt$ gives the decomposition $$F= T_1 \shpr (\onetree\sqcup \onetree) \shpr \cdots
\shpr (\onetree \sqcup \onetree) \shpr T_b.
\mlabel{eq:treedecomp1}$$ Denote this by $$F=V_1 \shpr V_2 \shpr \cdots \shpr V_{2b-1},
\mlabel{eq:treedecomp2}$$ where $$V_i=\left \{\begin{array}{ll}
T_{(i+1)/2}, & i {\rm\ odd},\\
(\onetree\sqcup\onetree), & i {\rm\ even}
\end{array} \right .$$ We call Eq. () the [**$\shpr$-standard decomposition**]{} of $F$. This decomposition is unique since it is uniquely determined by the unique decomposition of $F$ into rooted trees.
We define a linear operator $$d_\calf: \bfk \calf \to \bfk \calf.
\mlabel{eq:treediff1}$$ as follows. First let $V$ be either $\onetree \sqcup \onetree$ or a tree, hence of the form $\onetree$ or $\lc \oV \rc$ for a forest $\oV$. Define $$d_\calf(V) = \left \{\begin{array}{ll}
0, & V= \onetree, \\
1, & V=\onetree \sqcup \onetree, \\
\oV, & V=\lc \oV \rc.
\end{array} \right .
\mlabel{eq:treediff2}$$ Next let $F\in \calf$ have the $\shpr$-standard decomposition in Eq. (). Define $$d_\calf(F)=\sum_{\emptyset \neq I\subseteq [k]}
\lambda^{|I|-1} V_{I,1} \shpr \cdots \shpr V_{I,k},
\mlabel{eq:treediff3}$$ where for $I\subseteq [k]$, $$V_{I,i}=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
V_i, & i\not\in I, \\
d_\calf(V_i), & i\in I
\end{array} \right .
\mlabel{eq:treediff4}$$ with $d_\calf(V_i)$ as defined in Eq. (). Finally extend $d_\calf$ to $\bfk \calf$ by $\bfk$-linearity.
It is clear that $d_\calf$ satisfies the recursive relation $$d_\calf(F) = d_\calf(V_1)\shpr (V_2\shpr \cdots \shpr V_k)
+ V_1 \shpr d_\calf(V_2\shpr \cdots \shpr V_k)
+ \lambda d_\calf(V_1) \shpr d_\calf(V_2\shpr \cdots \shpr V_k).
\mlabel{eq:treediff5}$$
We give some examples. By the third case in Eq. (), we have $$d_\calf(\td31)=\onetree\sqcup \onetree,\quad
d_\calf(\tg42)= \onetree\sqcup \tb2.$$ Further, since $\onetree \sqcup \tb2=
(\onetree\sqcup \onetree) \shpr \tb2$, we have $$d_\calf(\onetree \sqcup \tb2)
= \onetree\shpr \tb2 + (\onetree\sqcup\onetree) \shpr \onetree +\lambda (\onetree \shpr \onetree)\\
= \tb2 + \onetree\sqcup \onetree + \lambda\, \onetree.
\mlabel{eq:treeex1}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
d_\calf(\td31 \sqcup \onetree)&=&
d_\calf(\td31 \shpr (\onetree \sqcup \onetree))
\notag\\
&=& (\onetree\sqcup \onetree)\shpr (\onetree\sqcup\onetree) + \td31 \shpr \onetree + \lambda (\onetree\sqcup \onetree)\shpr \onetree
\mlabel{eq:treeex2}\\
&=& \onetree\sqcup\onetree\sqcup\onetree
+ \td31 + \lambda (\onetree\sqcup \onetree).
\notag\end{aligned}$$ As another example, from the $\shpr$-standard decomposition $$\td31\sqcup \tb2=
\td31 \shpr (\onetree\sqcup\onetree) \shpr \tb2,$$ by Eq. (), Eq. () and Eq. () we have $$\begin{aligned}
d_\calf(\td31\sqcup \tb2)&=&
d_\calf(\td31)\shpr \big((\onetree\sqcup\onetree) \shpr \tb2\big)
+ \td31 \shpr d_\calf\big((\onetree\sqcup\onetree) \shpr \tb2\big)
+ \lambda d_\calf(\td31) \shpr d_\calf\big((\onetree\sqcup\onetree) \shpr \tb2\big)\\
&=& (\onetree\sqcup\onetree)\shpr \big((\onetree\sqcup\onetree) \shpr \tb2\big)
+ \td31 \shpr \big(\tb2 + \onetree\sqcup \onetree + \lambda\, \onetree\big)
+ \lambda (\onetree\sqcup \onetree) \shpr (\tb2 + \onetree\sqcup \onetree + \lambda\, \onetree)\\
&=&
\onetree\sqcup\onetree\sqcup \onetree \sqcup \tb2 + \td31\shpr \tb2 +\td31\sqcup \onetree + \lambda \td31+\lambda \onetree\sqcup \tb2 +\lambda \onetree\sqcup\onetree\sqcup\onetree +\lambda^2 \onetree\sqcup\onetree\\
&=& \tg42 +\thj44+2\lambda \td31 +\td31\sqcup \onetree
+\onetree\sqcup\onetree\sqcup\onetree\sqcup\tb2 +\lambda \onetree\sqcup\tb2
+\lambda \onetree\sqcup\onetree\sqcup\onetree
+\lambda^2 \onetree\sqcup\onetree.\end{aligned}$$
The triple $(\bfk \calf, d_\calf, \lc\ \rc)$ is a differential Rota-Baxter algebra of weight $\lambda$.
By the third case of Eq. (), $d_\calf \circ \lc\ \rc=\id$. So we only need to show that $d_\calf$ is a differential operator of weight $\lambda$, that is, $d_\calf$ satisfies the $\lambda$-Leibniz rule in Eq. (): $$d_\calf(F\shpr F')=d_\calf(F)\shpr F' + F\shpr d_\calf(F') + \lambda d_\calf(F) \shpr d_\calf(F').
\mlabel{eq:diff2}$$ This is not immediate since the $\shpr$-standard decomposition of $F\shpr F'$ is not the product of the $\shpr$-standard decomposition of $F$ and $F'$.
First let $F$ and $F'$ be trees. Then $F$ is either $\onetree$ or $\lc \oF\rc$ for a forest $\oF$. Similarly for $F'$. Since $\onetree$ is the unit, Eq. () trivially holds if $F=\onetree$ or $F'=\onetree$. If $F=\lc \oF\rc$ and $F'=\lc \oF' \rc$. Then by the Rota-Baxter equation () and Eq. (), we have $$d_\calf(F\shpr F')= \oF \shpr F' + F\shpr \oF' +\lambda \oF \shpr \oF'.
\mlabel{eq:diffprod0}$$ This is Eq. ().
In general, let $F$ and $F'$ be forests and let $$F=V_1\shpr \cdots \shpr V_{2b-1},
\qquad F'=V'_1\shpr \cdots \shpr V'_{2b'-1}$$ be their $\shpr$-standard decompositions from Eq. (). Then $$F\shpr F'= V_1\shpr \cdots \shpr V_{2b-2} \shpr (V_{2b-1} \shpr V'_1) \shpr V'_2\shpr \cdots \shpr V'_{2b'-1}$$ is the $\shpr$-standard decomposition of $F\shpr F'$. Here $V_{2b-1}\shpr V'_1=\sum_k Z\,''_k$ is a tree or a linear combination of trees $Z\,''_k$ given in Eq. (). As in Eq. (), we rewrite it as $$F\shpr F'= W_1\shpr \cdots \shpr W_{2(b+b'-1)-1}.$$ In particular, $ W_{2b-1}=V_{2b-1}\shpr V'_1=\sum_k Z\,''_k$. Then by definition, $$d_\calf(F\shpr F') = \sum_{\emptyset \neq J\subseteq [2(b+b'-1)-1]} \lambda^{|J|-1} W_{J,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr W_{J,2(b+b'-1)-1}
\mlabel{eq:diffprod1}$$ with $W_{J,j}$ defined in the same way as $T_{I,i}$ in Eq. () and $d_\calf(W_{2b-1})=\sum_k d_\calf(Z\,''_k).$ Depending on whether or not $2b-1\in J$, we can rewrite Eq. () as [$$\begin{aligned}
d_\calf(F\shpr F') &=&
\sum_{2b-1\in J\subseteq [2(b+b'-1)-1]}
\lambda^{|J|-1} W_{J,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr W_{J,2b-2}\shpr d_\calf(W_{2b-1}) \shpr \cdots \shpr W_{J,2(b+b'-1)-1} \notag\\
&& + \sum_{2b-1\not\in J\subseteq [2(b+b'-1)-1]}
\lambda^{|J|-1} W_{J,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr W_{J,2b-2}\shpr W_{J,2b-1} \shpr \cdots \shpr W_{J,2(b+b'-1)-1} \notag \\
&=& \Big(\sum_{\check{I}\subseteq [2b-2]}
\lambda^{|\check{I}|}(V_{\check{I},1} \shpr \cdots \shpr V_{\check{I},2b-2}\Big) \shpr d_\calf(V_{2b-1}\shpr V'_1) \mlabel{eq:leib1} \\
&& \qquad \shpr \Big(\sum_{\check{I}'\subseteq \{2,\cdots,2b'-1\}} \lambda^{|\check{I}'|} V'_{\check{I}',2} \shpr \cdots
\shpr V'_{\check{I}',2b'-1} \Big) \notag\\
&&+ \hspace{-1cm}
\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l}
\check{I}\subseteq \{1,\cdots,2b-2\}\\
\check{I}'\subseteq \{2,\cdots,2b'-1\}\\
\check{I}\neq \emptyset {\rm\ or\ } \check{I}'\neq\emptyset\end{array} }}
\hspace{-1cm}
\lambda^{|\check{I}|+|\check{I}'|-1} (V_{\check{I},1} \shpr \cdots \shpr V_{\check{I},{2b-2}})
\shpr (V_{2b-1}\shpr V'_1) \shpr (V'_{\check{I}',2} \shpr \cdots
\shpr V'_{\check{I}',2b'-1} ) \notag\end{aligned}$$ ]{} By Eq. (), $$d_{\calf} (V_{2b-1}\shpr V'_1)=d_\calf (V_{2b-1})\shpr V'_1 +V_{2b-1}\shpr d_\calf(V'_1)+\lambda d_\calf (V_{2b-1})\shpr d_\calf (V'_1).$$ Denote $I\subseteq [2b-1]$ and $I'\subseteq [2b'-1]$. We can write the first sum in Eq. () as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Big(\hspace{-.3cm} \sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} 2b-1\in I\\
1\not\in I'\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} + \sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} 2b-1\not\in I\\
1\in I'\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} +\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} 2b-1\in I\\
1\in I'\end{array}}}\hspace{-.3cm} \Big)
\lambda^{|I|+|I'|-1} V_{I,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr (V_{I,2b-1}\shpr V'_{I',1})\shpr \cdots \shpr V'_{I',2b'-1}
\notag \\
&&
= \Big(\hspace{-.3cm} \sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l}
2b-1\in I\\
I'= \emptyset\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} +
\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l}
2b-1\in I\\
1\not\in I'\neq \emptyset \end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} +
\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} I= \emptyset \\
1\in I'\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} + \sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} 2b-1\not\in I\neq \emptyset\\
1\in I'\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} +\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} 2b-1\in I\\
1\in I'\end{array}}}\hspace{-.3cm} \Big) \mlabel{eq:leib2} \\
&& \qquad \qquad \lambda^{|I|+|I'|-1} V_{I,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr (V_{I,2b-1}\shpr V'_{I',1})\shpr \cdots \shpr V'_{I',2b'-1}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$
For the second sum in Eq. (), we have $$\Big(\hspace{-.3cm} \sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} 2b-1\not\in I\neq \emptyset\\ I'=\emptyset\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} +\hspace{-.3cm} \sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} I= \emptyset\\ 1\not\in I'\neq \emptyset\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} +\hspace{-.3cm}
\sum_{\scriptsize{\begin{array}{l} 2b-1\not\in I\neq \emptyset\\ 1\not\in I'\neq \emptyset\end{array}}}
\hspace{-.3cm} \Big)
\lambda^{|I|+|I'|-1} V_{I,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr (V_{I,2b-1}\shpr V'_{{I'},1})\shpr \cdots \shpr V'_{{I'},2b'-1}.
\mlabel{eq:leib3}$$ The first sum on the right hand side of Eq. () adding to the first sum in Eq. () gives $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{I\neq \emptyset, I'=\emptyset}
\lambda^{|I|+|I'|-1} V_{I,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr (V_{I,2b-1}\shpr V'_1)\shpr \cdots \shpr V'_{2b'-1}\\
&=& \sum_{I\neq \emptyset} \lambda^{|I|-1}
V_{I,1}\shpr \cdots \shpr (V_{I,2b-1}\shpr V'_1)\shpr \cdots \shpr V'_{2b'-1}\\
&=& d_\calf(F)\shpr F'.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the third sum on the right hand side of Eq. () adding to the second term in Eq. () gives $F \shpr d_\calf(F')$. The remaining terms on the right hand side of Eq. () and Eq. () add to $\lambda d_\calf(F)\shpr d_\calf(F')$. This proves the $\lambda$-Leibniz rule ().
[abcdsfgh]{}
M. Aguiar, [On the associative analog of Lie bialgebras]{}, [*J. Alg.*]{} [**[244]{}**]{} (2001), 492-532.
M. Aguiar and W. Moreira, [Combinatorics of the free Baxter algebra,]{} [*Electron. J. Combin.*]{} 13(1), 2006, R17, arXiv:math.CO/0510169
G. Baxter, [An analytic problem whose solution follows from a simple algebraic identity,]{} [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} [**10**]{} (1960), 731-742.
P. Cartier, [On the structure of free Baxter algebras,]{} [*Adv. in Math.*]{} [**9**]{}, 253-265.
P. Cassidy, L. Guo, W. Keigher, W. Sit (ed.), “Differential Algebra and Related Topics", Proceedings for the international workshop in Newark, NJ, 2000, World Sci. Publishing 2002.
P. M. Cohn, [ “Universal Algebra,”]{} Harper and Row, New York, 1965.
R.M. Cohn, “Difference Algebra", Interscience Publishers, 1965.
A. Connes and D. Kreimer, [ Renormalization in quantum field theory and the Riemann-Hilbert problem. I. The Hopf algebra structure of graphs and the main theorem.]{}, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**210**]{} (2000), no. 1, 249-273.
A. Connes and M. Marcolli, From Physics to Number Theory via Noncommutative Geometry, Part II: Renormalization, the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence, and motivic Galois theory, In: “Frontiers in Number Theory, Physics, and Geometry", Springer-Verlag (2006), 617 - 713, [[[[arXiv:hep-th/0411114]{}]{}]{}]{}.
R. Diestel, “Graph Theory”, Third edition, Springer-Verlag, 2005. Available on-line: http://www.math.uni-hamburg.de/home/diestel/books/graph.theory/download.html
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo, [ Quasi-shuffles, mixable shuffles and Hopf algebras]{}, [*J. Algebraic Combinatorics,*]{} [**24**]{}, (2006), 83-101, arXiv:math.RA/0506418.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo, [Rota–Baxter algebras and dendriform algebras]{}, arXiv: math.RA/0503647.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo, [Free Rota-Baxter algebras and rooted trees,]{} arXiv: math.RA/0510266
K. Ebrahimi-Fard and L. Guo, Rota-Baxter algebras in renormalization of perturbative quantum field theory, In: Proceedings of the workshop on renormalization and universality in mathematical physics, Fields Institute, October 18 – 22, 2005, arXiv:hep-th/0604116.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard, L. Guo and D. Kreimer, [ Spitzer’s Identity and the Algebraic Birkhoff Decomposition in pQFT]{}, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{}, [**37**]{} (2004), 11037-11052.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard L. Guo and D. Manchon, Birkhoff type decompositions and the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff recursion, Comm. Math. Physics, [**267**]{} (2006), 821-845, arXiv:math-ph/0602004
R. L. Grossman and R. G. Larson, Differential algebra structures on families of trees, [*Adv. in Applied Math.,*]{} [**35**]{} (2005), 97-119.
L. Guo and W. Keigher, Baxter algebras and shuffle products, [*Adv. in Math.*]{} [**150**]{} (2000), 117-149.
L. Guo and W. Keigher, On free Baxter algebras: completions and the internal construction, [*Adv. in Math.,*]{} [**151**]{} (2000), 101-127.
L. Guo and B. Zhang, Renormalization of multiple zeta values, arXiv:math.NT/0606076.
M. Hoffman, [Quasi-shuffle products]{}, [*J. Algebraic Combin.*]{}, [**11**]{} (2000), 49-68.
W. Keigher, [ On the ring of Hurwitz series,]{} [*Comm. Algebra,*]{} [**25**]{} (1997), 1845-1859.
E. Kolchin, [“Differential Algebra and Algebraic Groups.”]{} Academic Press, New York, 1973.
S. MacLane, [ “Categories for the Working Mathematician,”]{} Springer-Verlag, New York, 1971.
G. Rota, [ Baxter algebras and combinatorial identities I,]{} [*Bull. AMS,*]{} [**5**]{} (1969), 325-329.
G. Rota, [ Baxter operators, an introduction,]{} In: “Gian-Carlo Rota on Combinatorics, Introductory papers and commentaries", Joseph P.S. Kung, Editor, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1995.
G. Rota and D. A. Smith, [Fluctuation theory and Baxter algebras,]{} Istituto Nazionale di Alta Mathematica, Symposia Mathematica, Vol IX (1972), 179-201.
M. Singer and M. van der Put, “Galois Theory of Difference Equations", Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1666, Springer, 1997.
M. Singer and M. van der Put, “Galois Theory of Linear Differential Equations", Springer, 2003.
E. W. Weisstein. “Tree.” From MathWorld – A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tree.html
[^1]: \#1
[^2]: Older version: \#1
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Worpitzky’s identity [@worpitzky:identity] expresses $n^p$ in terms of the Eulerian numbers and binomial coefficients: $$n^p = \sum_{i=0}^{p-1}{\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{i}}\binom{n+i}{p}.$$ Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps] recently defined numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ implicitly to satisfy a generalized Worpitzky identity $$\binom{an+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+rp-i}{rp},$$ and asked whether there is a combinatorial interpretation of the numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$.
We provide such a combinatorial interpretation by defining a notion of descents in colored multipermutations, and then proving that $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ is equal to the number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ weak descents. We use this to give combinatorial proofs of several identities involving $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$, including the aforementioned generalized Worpitzky identity.
author:
- 'John Engbers[^1]'
- 'Jay Pantone[^2]'
- 'Christopher Stocker[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: ' Colored Multipermutations and a Combinatorial Generalization of Worpitzky’s Identity '
---
Generalized Eulerian Numbers
============================
The famous *Eulerian numbers* ${\displaystyle}{\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{i}}$ appear first in Euler’s 1755 manuscript *Institutiones calculi differentialis* [@euler:foundations] and are now known to count a variety of combinatorial objects. The Eulerian numbers can be defined by the recurrence $${\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{i}} = (p-i){\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p-1}{i-1}} + (i+1){\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p-1}{i}}$$ for $1 \leq i \leq p-1$, with ${\displaystyle}{\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{0}} = {\displaystyle}{\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{p-1}} = 1$ for $p \geq 1$.
Among the many identities involving the Eulerian numbers is Worpitzky’s identity [@worpitzky:identity], $$n^p = \sum_{i=0}^{p-1} {\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{i}}\binom{n+i}{p},$$ which demonstrates that the Eulerian numbers are the necessary coefficients to write the powers $n^p$ using a basis of binomial coefficients. Moreover, an explicit formula is known: $$\label{eq-Eul}
{\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{i}} = \sum_{j=0}^{i+1} (-1)^j \binom{p+1}{j} (i-j+1)^p.$$ We refer interested readers to Petersen’s excellent book *Eulerian Numbers* [@petersen:eulerian-numbers].
In a recent pair of papers, Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps] defines a family of generalized Eulerian numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ and proves an incredible number of identities, explicit formulas, and recurrences. While there are many different generalizations of the Eulerian numbers (see [@rzadkowski:generalization-euler] and the references therein), it is notable for the purposes of this paper that Pita-Ruiz’s definition is not combinatorially-based, but rather an implicit definition to satisfy a generalization of Worpitzky’s identity: $$\label{equation:def-of-A}
\binom{an+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+rp-i}{rp}.$$ Note that when $a=1$ and $b=0$, the left side involves powers of binomials ${\displaystyle}\binom{n}{r}$, and analytical proofs of equations involving summations of these powers, and some generalizations, were given by Alzer and Prodinger [@alzer:combinatorial-identities] with corresponding combinatorial proofs given by Engbers and Stocker [@engbers:two-comb-proofs; @engbers:comb-proofs-Alzer-Prodinger].
Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps] derives a summation formula $$A_{a,b,r}(p,i) = \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p$$ that bears some resemblance to the summation formula for the ordinary Eulerian numbers in , and asks whether there is a combinatorial interpretation of these numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$.
One of the many interpretations of the ordinary Eulerian numbers is that ${\displaystyle}{\genfrac<>{0pt}{}{p}{i}}$ is equal to the number of permutations of $\{1, \ldots, p\}$ with $i$ descents[^4]. In the following sections, we provide a combinatorial interpretation of $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$. In particular, we define a type of colored multipermutation with a generalized notion of a descent such that:
*$A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ is the number of colored multipermutations on $p$ symbols with multiplicity $r$, with $a$ colors, and with $i$ weak descents.*
We remark that $b$ is a parameter that varies the definition of a weak descent.
In Section \[sec:coloredmulti\], we describe the colored multipermutations that we use in our combinatorial interpretation, and then utilize these in Section \[sec:b=0\] to provide the interpretation when $b=0$. The extension to the case $0<b<a$, followed by remarks about $b \geq a$, appears in Section \[sec:b>0\]. Finally, in Section \[sec:Worpitzky\] we use the combinatorial interpretation to provide a combinatorial proof of the generalized Worpitzky identity given in Equation .
Colored Multipermutations {#sec:coloredmulti}
=========================
For positive integers $p$ and $r$, let $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ denote the multiset that contains $r$ copies of each element of $\{1, 2, \ldots, p\}$. A linear ordering of the elements of $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ is called a *multipermutation*; for example, $311232$ is a multipermutation of $\{1^2, 2^2, 3^2\}$.
A *colored multipermutation with $a$ colors* is a multipermutation in which entry has been assigned one of $a$ colors. There are no restrictions to how these colors may be assigned. We represent the colors $c_1, \ldots, c_a$ as superscripts, e.g., $${{3}^{c_{1}}}{{1}^{c_{5}}}{{1}^{c_{2}}}{{2}^{c_{7}}}{{3}^{c_{2}}}{{2}^{c_{2}}}$$ can be considered a colored multipermutation of $\{1^2, 2^2,3^2\}$ with $9$ colors, even though we have only used four of the available colors. From these definitions, it can be readily seen that the number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, 2^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors is $$a^{rp} \frac{(rp)!}{(r!)^p}.$$
In order to define the notion of a descent in a colored multipermutation, we define a natural ordering on the set of colored entries, which is the lexicographic order first on color, then on value: $${{1}^{c_{1}}} < {{2}^{c_{1}}} < \cdots < {{p}^{c_{1}}} < {{1}^{c_{2}}} < {{2}^{c_{2}}} < \cdots < {{p}^{c_{2}}} < \quad\cdots\quad < {{1}^{c_{a}}} < {{2}^{c_{a}}} < \cdots < {{p}^{c_{a}}}.$$ A *non-terminal descent* in a colored multipermutation is a pair of adjacent entries ${{i_1}^{c_{j_1}}}{{i_2}^{c_{j_2}}}$ such that ${{i_1}^{c_{j_1}}} > {{i_2}^{c_{j_2}}}$ according to the order defined above. Further, a *non-terminal weak descent* (which could alternatively be called a *non-terminal non-ascent*) is a pair of adjacent entries ${{i_1}^{c_{j_1}}}{{i_2}^{c_{j_2}}}$ such that ${{i_1}^{c_{j_1}}} \geq {{i_2}^{c_{j_2}}}$.
We now introduce one final parameter $b$ that determines whether or not there is a *terminal descent* after the final entry of a colored multipermutation. Let $0 \leq b < a$ be an integer. The final entry ${{i}^{c_{j}}}$ is considered to be itself a terminal descent if its color has value greater than $b$, i.e., $j > b$. When $b=0$, for example, the final entry is always a terminal descent, while when $b = a-1$, the final entry is a terminal descent only if its color is $c_a$. The set of *weak descents* consists of the set of non-terminal weak descents, together with the terminal descent if there is one. We call a colored multipermutation of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors “$(p,r,a,b)$-type” when its descents should be counted with respect to the parameter $b$.
The ideas of adding colors or multiplicity to permutations are not new—they have been studied in myriad combinations, including with regard to their descents (which have also been defined in many ways); see, e.g., [@park:r-multipermutations; @moynihan:colored-eulerian-descent-algebra; @chen:labeled-partitions-colored-perms; @bagno:counting-descent-pairs].
In the following sections, we prove that the family of numbers $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ defined implicitly by Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps] to satisfy Equation (\[equation:def-of-A\]) has in fact a very nice combinatorial interpretation: [*$A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ is the number of $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations with $i$ weak descents*]{}. This interpretation allows us to easily provide combinatorial proofs for several identities of Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps] involving $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$.
The $b=0$ Case {#sec:b=0}
==============
We start with a thorough explanation of the case when $b=0$, from which the $0 < b < a$ case follows with only minor adaptations. When $b=0$, the last entry is always considered to be a weak descent. Recall that we call this the terminal weak descent and call all other weak descents non-terminal. The following theorem provides a formula for the number of colored multipermutations with a fixed number of non-terminal weak descents, and the simple corollary following it recovers combinatorially the formula of Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps].
\[theorem:main-b-equals-0-case\] The number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ non-terminal weak descents is $$\sum_{j=0}^{i+1 } (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j+1)}{r}^p.$$
Fix positive integers $r$, $p$, $a$, and $i$. We first define a *segmented colored multipermutation* (SCM) with $i$ segments to be a colored multipermutation split into $i$ contiguous parts by $i-1$ dividing lines with the property that each segment contains no non-terminal weak descents. We call the dividing lines *walls*. It is permissible for some segments to be empty, so that two or more walls are adjacent. For example, $${{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}{{1}^{c_{3}}}{{3}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{1}^{c_{1}}}{{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{2}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,\,\Bigg|\,
{{1}^{c_{1}}}{{5}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{2}}}{{3}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{3}^{c_{3}}}$$ is an SCM with six segments (and thus five walls). Note that the underlying colored multipermutation contains only three non-terminal weak descents, found between the pairs of entries on either side of the first, third, and fifth walls.
We call a wall in an SCM *extraneous* if either of two conditions hold:
(a) the segments to the left and right are nonempty, and the deletion of the wall creates a larger segment with no non-terminal weak descents, or
(b) the segment to the left is empty.
The first wall in the example SCM given above is not extraneous because its removal creates the segment $${{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}{{1}^{c_{3}}}{{3}^{c_{3}}}
{{1}^{c_{1}}}{{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}$$ which contains the weak descent ${{3}^{c_{3}}}{{1}^{c_{1}}}$. On the other hand, the second wall is extraneous because its removal creates the segment $${{1}^{c_{1}}}{{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}
{{2}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{3}}}$$ which contains no weak descents. The fourth wall is extraneous because the segment to its left is empty, and the third and fifth walls are not extraneous.
There is an obvious bijection between the set of $(p,r,a,0)$-type colored multipermutations with $i$ non-terminal weak descents and the set of SCMs with $i+1$ segments (thus $i$ walls) and no extraneous walls and whose underlying colored multipermutation has type $(p,r,a,0)$. This bijection is easily described as inserting or removing walls between all non-terminal weak descents. As a consequence, we focus now on the enumeration of SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls. With the aim of eventually applying the inclusion-exclusion principle, we start by calculating the enumeration of SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no restriction on the number of extraneous walls.
An SCM with $i+1$ segments whose underlying colored multipermutation has type $(p,r,a,0)$ can be constructed bijectively with the following procedure. Imagine that there are $i+1$ columns, each with $a$ bins, arranged from left-to-right as in Figure \[figure:bins-1\].
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); at (0.5, 1.85) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,2.25) rectangle (1,2.75);
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); at (0.5, 1.85) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,2.25) rectangle (1,2.75);
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); at (0.5, 1.85) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,2.25) rectangle (1,2.75);
at (3.5, 0.2) [$\cdots$]{}; at (3.5, 0.95) [$\cdots$]{}; at (3.5, 2.45) [$\cdots$]{};
at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 1`]{}; at (2, -0.25) [`column 2`]{}; at (5, -0.25) [`column i+1`]{};
at (-0.6, 0.25) [`color 1`]{}; at (-0.6, 1) [`color 2`]{}; at (-0.6, 2.5) [`color a`]{};
(1.25, -0.25) – (1.25, 2.9); (2.75, -0.25) – (2.75, 2.9); (4.25, -0.25) – (4.25, 2.9);
Then, distribute $r$ copies of each of the symbols $1, 2, \ldots, p$ into these $a(i+1)$ bins such that each bin contains at most one copy of each symbol (but different symbols are allowed in the same bin). This can be done in $\binom{a(i+1)}{r}^p$ ways. An SCM is then formed from this choice by arranging the entries in each column in the unique manner with no non-terminal weak descents and concatenating the resulting words from left-to-right while placing a wall between the entries from each column. Figure \[figure:bins-assignment\] shows the assignment of entries to bins for $r = 3$ and $p = 5$ that results in the SCM used as an example above: $${{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}{{1}^{c_{3}}}{{3}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{1}^{c_{1}}}{{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{2}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,\,\Bigg|\,
{{1}^{c_{1}}}{{5}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{2}}}{{3}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{3}^{c_{3}}}.$$ This shows that the number of SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no constraints on the number of extraneous walls is $\binom{a(i+1)}{r}^p$.
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 1`]{}; (1.25, -0.25) – (1.25, 2.15); at (0.5, 0.25) ; at (0.5, 1) ; at (0.5, 1.75) ;
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 2`]{}; (1.25, -0.25) – (1.25, 2.15); at (0.5, 0.25) ;
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 3`]{}; (1.25, -0.25) – (1.25, 2.15); at (0.5, 1) ; at (0.5, 1.75) ;
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 4`]{}; (1.25, -0.25) – (1.25, 2.15);
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 5`]{}; (1.25, -0.25) – (1.25, 2.15); at (0.5, 0.25) ; at (0.5, 1) ; at (0.5, 1.75) ;
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); (0,0.75) rectangle (1,1.25); (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 6`]{}; at (0.5, 1.75) ;
at (-0.6, 0.25) [`color 1`]{}; at (-0.6, 1) [`color 2`]{}; at (-0.6, 1.75) [`color 3`]{};
Define the *position* of a wall in an SCM to be the number of entries to its left. For example, in an SCM whose underlying colored multipermutation has $rp$ entries, a wall to the left of all entries is in position $0$ and a wall to the right of all entries is in position $rp$. Two walls can be in the same position if the segment between them is empty.
For any set $S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}$ let $A_S$ denote the set of SCMs of $(p, r, a, 0)$ type with $i+1$ segments such that there is at least one extraneous wall in each position in $S$. There are permitted to be extraneous walls in other positions as well. The set $A_{\emptyset}$ consists of all SCMs of $(p, r, a, 0)$ type with $i+1$ segments. Now set $$\begin{aligned}
Q &= A_{\emptyset} \smallsetminus \bigcup_{\substack{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}\\S \neq \emptyset}} A_S\\
&= \bigcap_{\substack{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}\\S \neq \emptyset}} \overline{A_S}.
\end{aligned}$$ The set $Q$ consists of the SCMs of $(p, r, a, 0)$ type with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls. We observed earlier that $Q$ is in bijection with the set of objects we wish to count, the colored multipermutations with exactly $i$ non-terminal weak descents. By the inclusion-exclusion principle, the size of $Q$ can be calculated by $$|Q| = \sum_{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots rp\}} (-1)^{|S|}|A_S|,$$ and so it remains only to determine $|A_S|$. For this we define one final bijection, inspired by the proof of Theorem 1.11 in Bóna’s *Combinatorics of Permutations* [@bona:combinatorics-of-permutations].
For any set $S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots, rp\}$, define a function $g_S$ whose domain is $A_S$ and whose codomain is the set of $(p, r, a, 0)$-type SCMs with $i+1-|S|$ segments as follows. For $\alpha$ in the domain of $g_S$, form $\beta$ by deleting one wall in each of the positions in $S$. Since $\alpha$ must have at least one extraneous wall in each of the positions in $S$ (by the definition of $A_S$), the result $\beta$ is a valid SCM with $i-|S|$ walls and thus $i+1-|S|$ segments. The inverse map takes as input an SCM $\beta$ with $i-|S|$ walls and adds one wall in each position of $S$ (if a wall is already present, the added wall is placed on the right of the existing wall). Each added wall is then guaranteed to be extraneous, and the resulting SCM has $i+1$ segments.
We have already calculated earlier in this proof that the number of SCMs with $\ell$ segments is $\binom{a\ell}{r}^p$, and thus the bijection above demonstrates that $$|A_S| = {\displaystyle}\binom{a(i+1-|S|)}{r}^p.$$
Plugging this into the result of the inclusion-exclusion above yields $$\begin{aligned}
|Q| &= \sum_{S \subseteq \{0, 1, \ldots rp\}} (-1)^{|S|}|A_S|\\
&= \sum_{j=0}^{i+1} (-1)^j\binom{rp+1}{j}\binom{a(i-j+1)}{r}^p,
\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
The number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ weak descents is $$\sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)}{r}^p,$$ and this quantity is equal to $A_{a,0,r}(p,i)$ as defined by Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps].
The statement of the corollary differs from the statement of Theorem \[theorem:main-b-equals-0-case\] in three ways: “$i$ non-terminal weak descents” has been replaced by “$i$ weak descents”, the upper bound of summation has changed from $i+1$ to $i$, and the upper term in the second binomial coefficients has changed from $a(i-j+1)$ to $a(i-j)$.
The quantity given in Theorem \[theorem:main-b-equals-0-case\] counts the number of $(p, r, a, 0)$ colored multipermutations with $i$ non-terminal weak descents, and since the final entry of such a colored multipermutation is always a descent, this can be accounted for by shifting the $i$-index by one, giving $$\sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)}{r}^p = A_{a,0,r}(p,i)$$ as claimed.
The $0 < b < a$ Case {#sec:b>0}
====================
We now adapt the proof from the previous section to allow for the case where $b$ is constrained by $0 < b < a$.
\[theorem:main-b-neq-0\] Suppose $0 < b < a$. The number of colored multipermutations of $\{1^r, \ldots, p^r\}$ with $a$ colors and $i$ weak descents, with the consideration that the final position is considered a weak descent if and only if the color of the last entry has value strictly greater than $b$, is $$\sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p,$$ and this quantity is equal to $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ as defined by Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps].
As in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main-b-equals-0-case\], we start by defining an auxiliary object. A $b$-segmented colored multipermutation ($b$-SCM) with $i$ segments is as before, a colored multipermutation split into $i$ contiguous parts by $i-1$ dividing lines with the property that each segment contains no weak descents, together with the additional constraint that the color of all entries in the final segment must have color value at most $b$. The example $${{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}{{1}^{c_{3}}}{{3}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{1}^{c_{1}}}{{2}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{1}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{2}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{2}}}{{5}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,\,\Bigg|\,
{{1}^{c_{1}}}{{5}^{c_{1}}}{{4}^{c_{2}}}{{3}^{c_{3}}}
\,\Bigg|\,
{{3}^{c_{3}}}$$ used previously, for which the color of the final entry has value $3$, is a $3$-SCM, but is neither a $1$-SCM nor a $2$-SCM. A wall is called *extraneous* if one of three conditions hold (the first two being identical to those in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main-b-equals-0-case\]):
(a) the segments to the left and right are nonempty, and the deletion of the wall creates a larger segment with no weak descents,
(b) the segment to the left is empty, or
(c) the wall is the final wall, the segment to its right is empty, and the segment to its left contains only entries whose color value is at most $b$.
If the example above contained a wall in the final position, that wall would be extraneous when $b \geq 3$ (because in this case there is *not* a descent in the final position) and non-extraneous when $b=1,2$ (because in this case there is).
We claim at this point that the set of $(p,r,a,b)$-colored multipermutations with $i$ weak descents is equinumerous to the set of $b$-SCMs with $i+1$ segments, no extraneous walls, and whose underlying colored multipermutation has $(p,r,a,b)$ type. The bijection mimics that from the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main-b-equals-0-case\]—a colored multipermutation is mapped to a $b$-SCMs by adding walls between each weak descent and adding a wall after the last entry if it has color value strictly greater than $b$; a $b$-SCM with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls is mapped to a colored multipermutation by simply removing the walls.
To complete the proof, we must enumerate the set $Q$ of $b$-SCMs with $i+1$ segments and no extraneous walls. Turning again to the inclusion-exclusion principle, for any set $S \subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,rp\}$ define $A_S$ to be the set of $b$-SCMs of $(p,r,a,b)$ type with $i+1$ segments such that there is at least one extraneous wall in each position in $S$. Then, $$|Q| = \sum_{S \subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,rp\}} (-1)^{|S|} |A_S|.$$ We can determine $|A_S|$ as before by observing that $A_S$ is in bijection with the set of $b$-SCMs of $(p,r,a,b)$ type with $i+1-|S|$ segments, the bijection again involving just adding/removing the extraneous walls.
To construct a $b$-SCM of $(p,r,a,b)$ type with $i+1-|S|$ segments, start by considering $i+1-|S|$ columns of bins, the first $i-|S|$ each containing $a$ bins and the final containing only $b$ bins, as shown in Figure \[figure:bins-assignment-b-neq-0\]. Out of the $a(i-|S|)+b$ bins, we must choose $r$ in which to place $1$, $r$ in which to place $2$, etc., yielding a total of $$\binom{a(i-|S|)+b}{r}^p$$ placements. Each placement corresponds uniquely to a $b$-SCM with $i+1-|S|$ segments by assigning colors to each entry according to which bin they are in, ordering the entries in each column in the unique way with no weak descents, and lining them up from left to right with a wall between each grouping.
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); at (0.5, 1.15) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, 2.6) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,3) rectangle (1,3.5);
at (2.0, 0.2) [$\cdots$]{}; at (2.0, 1.85) [$\cdots$]{}; at (2.0, 3.15) [$\cdots$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); at (0.5, 1.15) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2); at (0.5, 2.6) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,3) rectangle (1,3.5);
(0,0) rectangle (1,0.5); at (0.5, 1.15) [$\vdots$]{}; (0,1.5) rectangle (1,2);
at (0.5, -0.25) [`column 1`]{}; at (3.5, -0.25) [`column`]{}; at (3.5, -0.5) [`i-|S|`]{}; at (5, -0.25) [`column`]{}; at (5, -0.5) [`i-|S|+1`]{};
at (-0.6, 0.25) [`color 1`]{}; at (-0.6, 1.75) [`color b`]{}; at (-0.6, 3.25) [`color a`]{};
(1.25, -0.25) – (1.25, 3.65); (2.75, -0.25) – (2.75, 3.65); (4.25, -0.25) – (4.25, 3.65);
As each set $|A_S|$ is in bijection with the set of $b$-SCMs with $i+1-|S|$ segments, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
|Q| &= \sum_{S \subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,rp\}} (-1)^{|S|}\binom{a(i-|S|)+b}{r}^p\\
&= \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j\binom{rp+1}{j}\binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p
\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Since the total number of $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations is independently known, Theorem \[theorem:main-b-neq-0\] admits as a corollary a nice binomial identity, which is analytically proved in [@pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps].
Suppose $0 \leq b < a$. Then $$\sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} \sum_{j=0}^{i} (-1)^j \binom{rp+1}{j} \binom{a(i-j)+b}{r}^p = a^{rp} \frac{(rp)!}{(r!)^p}.$$
The definition of $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ given by Pita-Ruiz [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @pita-ruiz:generalized-eulerian-and-apps] does not constrain $b$ to be less than $a$, as we have here. We believe that a combinatorial interpretation of the case $b \geq a$ ($b \in \mathbb{Z}$) similar to the ones we have given here could be found, although the modifications to the definition of descents — beyond terminal and non-terminal — seem less straight-forward. Furthermore, as Pita-Ruiz shows in [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian], the numbers $A_{1,4,3}(p,i)$ include negative entries, which obviously complicates any combinatorial explanation. In this present work, we simply note that the simplification $$\binom{an + b}{r}^p = \binom{a\left(n + \lfloor b/a \rfloor\right) + \left(b - a\lfloor b/a \rfloor\right)}{r}^p$$ reduces the general case to the cases we have discussed here; when $b \geq a$, the bins interpretation of Figure \[figure:bins-assignment-b-neq-0\] would necessitate a final column that is taller than the others. The algebraic manipulation above reflects the fact that, if the notion of “weak descent” is suitably redefined, the bins in the final column can be split into some positive number of full columns with $a$ bins each, and a final column with fewer than $a$ bins.
A Combinatorial Proof of the Generalized Worpitzky Identity {#sec:Worpitzky}
===========================================================
The ideas of the previous sections allow us to give a combinatorial derivation of the generalized Worpitzky identity in Equation as well as for a summed version. (See [@engbers:two-comb-proofs] for the case $a=1$ and $b=0$.)
\[theorem:sum\] Suppose $n \geq 0$, $a \geq 1$, $p \geq 1$, $r \geq 1$, and $0 \leq b < a$. Then $$\sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{ak+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+1+rp-i}{rp+1}.$$
Consider an arrangement of bins with $n+1$ columns and $a$ bins per column, as in Figure \[figure:bins-1\].
An *admissible* bin placement is one formed in the following way:
(a) designate one column, say column $k+1$;
(b) amongst the $ak+b$ bins comprising the leftmost $k$ columns and the bottommost $b$ bins of column $k+1$, place $r$ copies of $1$, $r$ copies of $2$, etc.; and
(c) place one extra $1$ in bin $b+1$ of column $k+1$.
We remark that each admissible bin placement corresponds to an *augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation*, which takes a $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation and appends $1^{c_{b+1}}$ to the end. We now count admissible bin placements in two ways.
The first way is quite simple. Fixing the designated column $k+1$, there are $\binom{ak+b}{r}^p$ ways to distribute $r$ copies of each of the $p$ symbols into the $ak+b$ permitted bins. Summing over all possible designated columns gives the left side of the identity.
Alternately, we may count admissible bin placements by partitioning the set of all bin placements in the following way. We group together those bin placements whose augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations have exactly $i+1$ weak descents. Note that there is always a terminal weak descent after the final entry $1^{c_{b+1}}$ in an augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation, as the color has value larger than $b$. Further, the augmented element $1^{c_{b+1}}$ assures that the final position of the (non-augmented) $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation is a weak descent if and only if the color of the last entry has value strictly greater than $b$, and so by Theorem \[theorem:main-b-neq-0\] there are $A_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ such augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutations with $i+1$ weak descents.
Given a fixed augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation with exactly $i+1$ weak descents, we must enumerate the number of ways of assigning columns to the entries to recover the bin placements. Therefore, we must assign columns to each of the $rp+1$ entries of the augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation under the restriction that the columns not decrease when read from left-to-right. Once the columns are chosen for each element, the bin is determined by the color.
We now calculate the number of ways that columns can be assigned to the elements of an augmented $(p,r,a,b)$-type colored multipermutation. Each non-terminal weak descent $i_1^{c_{j_1}} i_2^{c_{j_2}}$ requires $i_1$ and $i_2$ to lie in distinct columns, while for each ascent $i_3^{c_{j_3}} i_4^{c_{j_4}}$ the symbols $i_3$ and $i_4$ may either occur within a single column or span multiple columns. Suppose that exactly $\ell$ columns out of the total of $n+1$ contain at least one symbol. This can only be done if $\ell \geq i+1$ as each non-terminal weak descent forces a transition from one column to the next, and this further implies that exactly $\ell-(i+1)$ of the $rp+1-(i+1)=rp-i$ ascents span multiple columns. Therefore, the number of such column assignments is $$\sum_{\ell=i+1}^{n+1} \binom{n+1}{\ell}\binom{rp-i}{\ell-i-1} = \sum_{\ell=i}^{n+1} \binom{n+1}{\ell}\binom{rp-i}{rp-\ell+1} = \binom{n+1+rp-i}{rp+1}.$$ Each choice of columns corresponds to a unique admissible bin placement, and each admissible bin placement is represented by such a choice of columns. This gives the right side of the identity.
A combinatorial proof of the generalization of Worpitzky’s identity from follows quickly from the ideas contained in the proof of Theorem \[theorem:sum\].
Suppose $n \geq 0$, $a \geq 1$, $p \geq 1$, $r \geq 1$, and $0 \leq b < a$. Then $$\binom{an+b}{r}^{p} = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+rp-i}{rp}.$$
Consider only the admissible bin placements from the proof of Theorem \[theorem:sum\] in which the designated column is $n+1$. The number of ways to assign $r$ copies of each of the $p$ symbols into the $an+b$ total boxes is $\binom{an+b}{r}^p$, the left side of the identity.
As before, we find the right side of the identity by counting the number of ways that columns can be assigned to each of the entries. Here we must add the condition that the final column must be one of those that is selected. Thus, in this case, the number of such column assignments is $$\sum_{\ell=i+1}^n \binom{n}{\ell-1}\binom{rp-i}{\ell-i-1} = \sum_{\ell=i+1}^n \binom{n}{\ell-1}\binom{rp-i}{rp-\ell+1} = \binom{n + rp - i}{rp}.$$ The remaining details are identical to the proof of Theorem \[theorem:sum\].
At this point, it is worth mentioning that the form of the generalization of Worpitzky’s identity in Equation is motivated by $f$-Eulerian numbers [@pita-ruiz:generalization-eulerian; @stanleyec1]. An alternate way to generalize Worpitzky’s identity, fitting work from [@engbers:two-comb-proofs], would be to define numbers $A'_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ by $$\binom{an+b}{r}^p = \sum_{i=0}^{rp} A'_{a,b,r}(p,i) \binom{n+i}{rp}.$$ The translation here is $A'_{a,b,r}(p,i) = A_{a,b,r}(p,rp-i)$, and so this would lead to an interpretation of $A'_{a,b,r}(p,i)$ involving “ascents” instead of “weak descents.” We leave the details to the interested reader.
[^1]: [email protected]; Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201. Research supported by the Simons Foundation grant 524418.
[^2]: [email protected]; Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201.
[^3]: [email protected]; Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201.
[^4]: A descent in a permutation $\pi = \pi(1)\cdots\pi(p)$ is a pair of consecutive entries $\pi(i)\pi(i+1)$ with $\pi(i) > \pi(i+1)$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Redshift space distortions privilege the location of the observer in cosmological redshift surveys, breaking the translational symmetry of the underlying theory. This violation of statistical homogeneity has consequences for the modeling of clustering observables, leading to what are frequently called ‘wide angle effects’. We study these effects analytically, computing their signature in the clustering of the multipoles in configuration and Fourier space. We take into account both physical wide angle contributions as well as the terms generated by the galaxy selection function. Similar considerations also affect the way power spectrum estimators are constructed. We quantify in an analytical way the biases which enter and clarify the relation between what we measure and the underlying theoretical modeling. The presence of an angular window function is also discussed. Motivated by this analysis we present new estimators for the three dimensional Cartesian power spectrum and bispectrum multipoles written in terms of spherical Fourier-Bessel coefficients. We show how the latter have several interesting properties, allowing in particular a clear separation between angular and radial modes.'
author:
- |
Emanuele Castorina$^{1,2}$[^1], Martin White$^{1,2}$[^2]\
\
$^1$Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA\
$^2$Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 93720, USA\
title: 'Beyond the plane-parallel approximation for redshift surveys'
---
cosmology: theory, large-scale structure of Universe, cosmological parameters – methods: analytical, observational
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The interpretation of clustering measurements in spectroscopic surveys is complicated by the fact we do not observe the true distance to any object, as its measured redshift receives a contribution from the line-of-sight (LOS) component of its peculiar velocity [@Kai87; @H92; @H98; @Pea99]. This effect, known as redshift space distortions (RSD), breaks the statistical isotropy of our theories and makes cosmological analyses more complex. At the same time, the signal embedded in RSD offers new ways of extracting information from a dataset, enabling us for instance to measure the rate of growth of large-scale structure and to better probe neutrino masses and theories of modified gravity [@Lesgourgues; @Wei13]. The study of RSD remains a major area of theoretical research in cosmology.
The study of RSD within cosmological perturbation theory was pioneered by @Kai87, who showed that at linear order peculiar velocities introduce a distinct signature in the clustering of galaxies, squashing the two-point correlation function perpendicularly to the LOS. Defining ${\mathbf{r}}$ to be the true coordinate of a galaxy, the observed redshift space coordinate is $${\mathbf{s}} \equiv {\mathbf{r}} +f \hat{r}\, {\mathbf{u}}\cdot\hat{r}$$ where $f$ is the linear growth factor and ${\mathbf{u}}$ is related to the the peculiar velocity ${\mathbf{v}}$ and the Hubble parameter $H$, ${\mathbf{v}} = aH f {\mathbf{u}}$. In linear theory we can write the following relation between real space and the redshift space field [@Kai87; @H92; @H98]. $$\label{eq:RSD}
\delta_s({\mathbf{r}}) = \left[1+ f\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2}+\frac{\alpha({\mathbf{r}})\partial}{r \partial r}\right)\nabla^{-2} \right]\delta({\mathbf{r}})\equiv \mathcal{O}_s\delta({\mathbf{r}})\;,$$ where $\alpha({\mathbf{r}})$ is the logarithmic derivative of the galaxy selection function $$\alpha({\mathbf{r}}) \equiv \frac{{\ensuremath{{\rm d}}}\ln r^2 \bar{n}({\mathbf{r}})}{{\ensuremath{{\rm d}}}\ln r}$$ which we will assume varies slowly with $r$. Being the product of two operators in configuration space, the redshift space density in Fourier space will be a convolution [@ZH96] $$\delta_s({\mathbf{k}}) = \int \dk \mathcal{O}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k}}') \delta({\mathbf{k}}')
\quad ,$$ and in fact $\mathcal{O}({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k}}')$ has a strong $k$-dependence. It is clear by looking at the operators defined above that, as a result of having chosen a preferential observer, RSD partially break statistical homogeneity and isotropy of $n$-point functions. The only symmetry one is left with is rotational symmetry around the observer and azimuthal symmetry about the line of sight. Loss of translation invariance means the power spectrum is not diagonal $$\label{eq:RSDk}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\delta_s({\mathbf{k}}_1)\delta({\mathbf{k}}_2)\, \right\rangle}}=P_{s}({\mathbf{k}}_1,{\mathbf{k}}_2)$$ and the configuration space the 2-point correlation function will no longer only depend on the relative separation between two galaxies but on the triangle formed by the observer and the two galaxies[^3]. Fig. \[fig:triangle\] shows the geometry of the problem. Parameterizing this triangle by the pair separation, $s\equiv|s_1-s_2|$, the distance to the pair, $d$, and the cosine $\mu\equiv \hat{s}\cdot \hat{d}$: $${\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\delta_s({\mathbf{s}}_1)\delta({\mathbf{s}}_2)\, \right\rangle}}=\xi_{s}({\mathbf{s}}_1,{\mathbf{s}}_2) = \xi_{s}(s,d,\mu)$$ The familiar expression in [@Kai87] be recovered in the plane parallel approximation, all LOS’s are parallel, for instance along the $z$-direction: $\hat{s}_1\simeq\hat{s}_2\simeq\hat{d}\simeq\hat{z}$. This is equivalent to assume the sky is flat. In this case, defining $s\equiv|s_1-s_2|$ and $\mu \equiv \hat{s}\cdot \hat{z}$, one has $${\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\delta_s({\mathbf{s}}_1)\delta({\mathbf{s}}_2)\, \right\rangle}}\simeq \xi_{s}^{pp}(s,\mu)$$ where the superscript $pp$ indicates the assumption of the plane-parallel approximation. It is conventional to expand the $\mu$ dependence in Legendre polynomials, $\mathcal{L}_\ell$, via $$\label{eq:Kaiserx}
\xi_{s}^{pp}(s,\mu) = \sum_\ell \xi_\ell^{pp}(s)\mathcal{L}_\ell(\mu)$$ Similarly for the power spectrum in the plane parallel limit $${\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\delta_s({\mathbf{k}}_1)\delta({\mathbf{k}}_2)\, \right\rangle}} \simeq
(2\pi)^3 \delta_D^{(3)}({\mathbf{k}}_1+{\mathbf{k}}_2) P_{s}^{pp}(k,\mu_k)
\label{eqn:plane_parallel_P}$$ and we can expand $$\label{eq:Kaiserk}
P_{s}^{pp}(k,\mu_k) = \sum_\ell P_\ell^{pp}(k)\mathcal{L}_\ell(\mu_k)$$ where $\mu_k \equiv \hat{k}\cdot \hat{z}$ and in linear theory $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PkK}
P_{0}^{pp}(k) &= P(k) \left(1+\frac{2}{3}f + \frac{1}{5}f^2 \right)\notag \\
P_{2}^{pp}(k) &= P(k)\left(\frac{4}{3}f + \frac{4}{7}f^2\right) \notag \\
P_{4}^{pp}(k) &= P(k)\left(\frac{8}{35}f^2 \right) \quad .\end{aligned}$$
In configuration space, the same limit in [Eq. (\[eq:Kaiserx\])]{} can be obtained from the general case assuming the galaxy separations one is interested in are much smaller than the distance between the observer and the galaxies, i.e. $s/d\to 0$ [@Kai87; @H92; @HC96]. However, as shown for the first time by @ZH96, there is no well defined approximation in Fourier space that would lead to [Eq. (\[eq:Kaiserk\])]{} from [Eq. (\[eq:RSDk\])]{}. This is mostly a consequence of the fact that scalar products between vectors in configuration space and Fourier space we used to define $\mu_k$ are ill-defined in Fourier space.
This result poses important questions for the interpretation of Fourier space analysis of galaxy surveys, which are now observing large fractions of the sky and are no longer in the small angle/plane parallel limit. This affects both the estimators of the power spectrum multipoles and the analytical predictions, as we want to use a model that is a close as possible to what we actually measure. In particular, most if not all perturbation theory models for the power spectrum beyond linear theory have been written down in the plane parallel-approximation, as it vastly simplifies the calculations [e.g. @TNS10; @ReiWhi11; @CLPT; @Oku15; @Whi15; @VCW16; @Perko16 for recent examples].
The scope of this paper is to present a self-contained analytical calculation of wide angle affects in galaxy surveys. We are certainly not the first to try to address this issue. From the early work of @H92 [@HC96; @H98; @ZH96; @Sza98], to more recent works by @Sza04 [@Dat07; @PapSza08; @ShaLew08; @Bonvin; @Raccanelli; @YS15; @Slepian15; @Rei16] there is a large literature on this topic, and our analysis relies heavily on it. However what is still missing is a analytical model able to capture all the RSD terms entering the expression for the multipoles, at least in linear theory, and their relation to the estimators currently used in the analysis of galaxy surveys.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:linear\_theory\] we set up some more notation and discuss the plane parallel limit. We compute leading order correction to the plane-parallel formulae in both configuration space and Fourier space. Then in Section \[sec:fourier\_estimators\] we study commonly used estimators of the power spectrum multipoles and their relation to analytical models. We quantify the error that the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) estimators presented in @Bia15 [@Sco15; @Han17; @Wil17] make compared to the true underlying power spectrum as a result of a small angle approximation. In Section \[sec:sFB\] we describe an alternative basis which respects the symmetries of the problem: the spherical Fourier-Bessel (sFB) basis. We present new estimators of the power spectrum based on sFB coefficients that we believe are well suited for analysis of data on the curved sky. We also make connection to other 2-point statistics and the plane-parallel limit. Finite volume and masking effects are also discussed. We then draw our conclusions and discuss future directions in Section \[sec:conclusions\]. We defer some technical details to a series of Appendices, which discuss aspects of geometry, useful mathematical identities, a recap of the main linear theory results, seperable power spectrum estimators to $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2)$ and an estimator for the bispectrum in the Fourier-Bessel basis.
(250,250) (125.0,0.0)(125.0,112.5)(125.0,218.8) (125.0,0.0)(156.2,125.0)(187.5,250.0) (125.0,0.0)(93.8,93.8)(62.5,187.5) (62.5,187.5)(125.0,218.8)(187.5,250.0) (125,219)(0,6)[5]{}[(0,1)[3]{}]{} (110,60)[$\displaystyle{\frac{\theta}{2}}$]{} (128,60)[$\displaystyle{\frac{\theta}{2}}$]{} ( 70,120)[$\vec{s}_1$]{} (160,120)[$\vec{s}_2$]{} (130,180)[$\vec{d}$]{} ( 70,182) (160,227) (115,205)[$\phi$]{} (160,250)[(-2,-1)[75]{}]{} (110,230)[$\vec{s}$]{}
\[fig:triangle\]
Wide angle corrections in linear theory {#sec:linear_theory}
=======================================
Configuration space
-------------------
The prototypical redshift space configuration is depicted in [Figure \[fig:triangle\]]{}. An observer $O$ is looking at two galaxies at ${\mathbf{s}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{s}}_2$. The pair separation is ${\mathbf{s}} = {\mathbf{s}}_1 - {\mathbf{s}}_2$ and the LOS ${\mathbf{d}}$ is defined as the bisector of the angle $\theta$ between ${\mathbf{s}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{s}}_2$. (Another possible definition of the bisector is the midpoint of ${\mathbf{s}}$, which corresponds to the angle bisector for isosceles triangles but is otherwise different. For our purposes the former proved to be the most convenient. Appendix \[app:geometry\] provides the mapping between the two possible choice of LOS.) The angle between the LOS and the separation vector is $\phi$, and $\cos(\phi)\equiv \mu$. The parameter $t\in [0,1]$ describes how the LOS intercepts $s$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bis}
{\mathbf{s}}_1 &= {\mathbf{d}} + (1-t)\, {\mathbf{s}} \notag \\
{\mathbf{s}}_2 &= {\mathbf{d}} - t \,{\mathbf{s}} \end{aligned}$$ Any triangle is specified by three numbers, either two lengths and one angle or two angles and one length. If we choose the latter and if the LOS is defined by the bisector, the correlation function can be decomposed as a double Legendre series, $$\label{eq:xiLL}
\xi_s(s,\mu,\theta) = \sum_{\ell_1 \ell_2} C_{\ell_1 \ell_2}(s) \mathcal{L}_{\ell_1}\left(\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \mathcal{L}_{\ell_2}(\mu)$$ with the coefficients $C_{\ell_1 \ell_2}(s)$ predicted by perturbation theory (e.g. @Sza98 [@Sza04]; Appendix \[app:derivation\_sketch\]). From the properties of $\mathcal{L}_\ell$ it is clear that as $\theta\rightarrow0$ [Eq. (\[eq:xiLL\])]{} reduces to [Eq. (\[eq:Kaiserx\])]{}, and @Sza98 [@Sza04] show that the linear theory results reduce to those derived in [@Kai87; @H92]. Whereas the first term in parenthesis in [Eq. (\[eq:RSD\])]{} always contributes only a finite number of coefficients, the selection function term generates an infinite number of them.
We are interested in the leading order corrections to [Eq. (\[eq:Kaiserx\])]{}. As a small parameter we use $x\equiv s/d$, rather than $\theta$, as this will prove more convenient later and will allow more efficient computation of the power spectrum multipoles [see also @Rei16]. We leave the details of the calculation to Appendix A and present here the main results. Writing [Eq. (\[eq:xiLL\])]{} as a Taylor series in $x$ boils down to expanding $\mathcal{L}_\ell(\cos\theta/2)$ in powers of $x$, $$\mathcal{L}_\ell\left(\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \simeq
1 - x^2\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{16}\left[1-\mu^2\right] + \cdots$$ which shows the first important result that wide angle corrections start at $\mathcal{O}(x^2)$. For a pair of galaxies separated by the BAO scale at redshift $z=1$ we find $x\simeq 0.045$. We want to recast the expression for the correlation function into the following form[^4] $$\label{eq:xiell}
\xi_s(s,d,\mu) = \sum_{\ell} \xi_\ell(s,d) \mathcal{L}_{\ell}(\mu)$$ where the $\xi_\ell(s,d)$’s are series expansions in the wide angle parameter $x$, $$\label{eq:xiO}
\xi_\ell(s,d) =a_\ell^{(0)}(s)\, x^0+ a_\ell^{(2)}(s) \,x^2+...$$ The $a_\ell^{(0)}$’s are nothing else than the plane parallel terms given in [Eq. (\[eq:Kaiserx\])]{}. In linear theory these terms are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:xiK}
\xi_{0}^{pp}(s) &= \xi_0^{(0)}(s) \left(1+\frac{2}{3}f + \frac{1}{5}f^2 \right)\notag \\
\xi_{2}^{pp}(s) &= \xi_2^{(0)}(s)\left(-\frac{4}{3}f - \frac{4}{7}f^2\right) \notag \\
\xi_{4}^{pp}(s) &= \xi_4^{(0)}(s)\left(\frac{8}{35}f^2 \right)\end{aligned}$$ where[^5] $$\xi_\ell^{(n)}(s,d) = \int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}
\ (kd)^{-n} P(k)j_\ell(ks) \quad .
\label{eqn:xi_ell_n}$$ Note that for power-law $P(k)$, $\xi_\ell^{(n)}\sim x^n\xi_\ell^{(0)}$ and we shall use this scaling below.
The double-derivative piece in [Eq. (\[eq:RSD\])]{} generates the following wide-angle contributions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:xiWA}
\xi_0(s,d) &\ni -\frac{4f^2}{45}x^2\ \xi_0^{(0)}(s) - \frac{f(9+f)}{45}x^2\ \xi_2^{(0)}(s) \notag \\
\xi_2(s,d) &\ni \frac{4f^2}{45}x^2\ \xi_0^{(0)}(s) + \frac{f(189+53f)}{441}x^2\ \xi_2^{(0)}(s)
\notag \\
& -\frac{4f^2}{245}x^2\ \xi_4^{(0)}(s) \notag \\
\xi_4(s,d) &\ni -\frac{8f(7+3f)}{245}x^2\ \xi_2^{(0)}(s) + \frac{4f^2}{245}x^2\ \xi_4^{(0)}(s)\end{aligned}$$
To estimate the correction due to the selection function we have to make a choice for $\bar{n}({\mathbf{s}})$. In the case of a uniform sample $\alpha(s) = 2$ and we obtain the following new terms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:xialpha}
\xi_0(s,d) &\ni \frac{4f^2}{3}\ \xi_0^{(2)}
+ \frac{2}{3}f(1-f)x\ \xi_1^{(1)} \notag \\
\xi_2(s,d) &\ni -\frac{8}{3}f^2\ \xi_2^{(2)}
-\frac{8}{15}f(5+f)x\ \xi_1^{(1)} +\frac{4}{5}f^2x\ \xi_2^{(1)}\end{aligned}$$ and no contribution to the hexadecapole.
[Figure \[fig:xiL\]]{} shows the ratio of the wide angle terms to the plane-parallel multipoles for an observation at $z=0.3$ (left panel), with $d(z=0.3) = 1546 \Mpc$, and $z=1$ (right panel), with $d(z=1) = 2367 \Mpc$. The first thing worth noticing is that for uniform samples, the physical term and the geometric term have opposite sign and partially cancel each other. We stress that this is an accidental cancellation, and it will be different for more generic and realistic selection functions. As expected, going to higher redshift makes wide angle corrections in the selection function less and less important, with the highest multipole presenting the largest difference. Our analysis indicates that in the modeling of the full shape of the correlation wide angle terms terms can be safely neglected if the required accuracy is 1%.
Next we investigate the effect of wide angles on BAO scales. The way BAO information is usually extracted from data requires a template and a marginalization over the broadband shape of the power spectrum/correlation function, see for instance the most recent results of the BOSS survey [@Beu17; @Ross17]. This means broadband components tend not to cause shifts in the inferred distances. On the other hand terms beyond the PP approximation mix different $\xi_\ell^{(n)}$, see for instance [Eqs. (\[eq:xiWA\],\[eq:xialpha\])]{}, which are out of phase from each other and this could potentially move the position of the BAO peak in the full correlation function.
To isolate this effect, [Figure \[fig:BAO\]]{} shows, as a function of redshift, the contribution to each multipole $\ell$ at the BAO scale of wide angle terms with $\ell'\ne\ell$. At low enough redshift, we find contributions at the percent level or even larger. This difference doesn’t automatically translate into a bias in the distance estimates, but it suggests that some care is warranted. Luckily the effect is isolated to large scales where linear theory is adequate, and thus the impact of wide-angle effects can be included in the template fitting, which would ameliorate any potential for biases to enter. We shall return to this idea later.
Fourier space {#sec:fourier_space}
-------------
As emphasized by @ZH96, upon dropping the plane-parallel approximation, we must be careful in defining the power spectrum (and its multipoles). A convenient form for our purposes is the “local”, or LOS-dependent, power spectrum, which is defined in a mixed space [@Sco15; @Rei16]. Specifically $$P({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{d}}) \equiv \int \mathrm{d}^3 s
\, \xi({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}})e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}}$$ which, being a scalar, we can expand as $$\begin{aligned}
P({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{d}}) &= \sum_{\ell} P_\ell(k,d)
\mathcal{L}_\ell \left(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{d}\right)\end{aligned}$$ This makes sense as, intuitively, modes comparable to the inverse distance to the galaxies correspond to widely separated pairs. In terms of the $\xi_\ell(s,d)$ defined in [Eq. (\[eq:xiell\])]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pkell}
P_\ell(k,d) &= 4\pi(-i)^\ell\int\,s^2\,\mathrm{d}s
\ j_\ell(ks)\,\xi_\ell(s,d) \end{aligned}$$ and since the $\xi_\ell(s,d)$ have a well defined *pp* limit (as we have derived in the previous section) so do the multipoles of the local power spectrum. As in the previous section we can work out the leading order wide angle correction to $P_\ell(k,d)$, plugging [Eqs. (\[eq:xiWA\],\[eq:xialpha\])]{} into the above expression. As expected, new contributions starts at order $(kd)^{-2}$ and a numerical comparison with the PP multipoles is presented in [Figure \[fig:PkL\]]{}. At very large scales wide angle corrections become significant compared to the plane-parallel terms, and neglecting them could result in a non-trivial error in the modeling of power spectrum multipoles. However by $k\simeq 0.1\,h\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$ the corrections are small for $\ell\le 4$. As for the correlation function, in the case of uniform samples, there is a large cancellation between the physical and the geometrical factors for $\ell=0$, $2$ that would go away with more realistic galaxy distributions. In Fourier space all new terms will be out of phase with the Kaiser multipoles, as one can see from [Eq. (\[eq:Pkell\])]{}, but our calculations suggest their effect on the BAO would be small. For a similar calculation in the context of general relativistic effects see the recent work of [@Tansella2017].
Fourier space estimators {#sec:fourier_estimators}
========================
In the above we have shown that wide angle effects are generally quite small for existing and near future experiments, though they can become a reasonable fraction of the statistical error in some cases, primordial non gaussianities [@Dalal08; @Slosar08]. However, in these investigations we have not considered the manner in which the 2-point function is estimated. For the configuration-space quantities, direct pair counts naturally provide the angle bisector and there is no difficulty. For the power spectrum we must consider further how the multipoles are defined and calculated.
Approximations in the Yamamoto estimator
----------------------------------------
It has become standard to define the $L^{\rm th}$ multipoles of the power spectrum by integrating over pairs of points with the line of sight to each pair defined as the angle bisector or midpoint. This leads to the Yamamoto estimator [@Yam06]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PkY}
\hat{P}_L^Y(k) \equiv & (2L+1)\int \frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_{\mathbf{k}}}{4\pi} \notag \\
& \times \int \mathrm{d}^3 s_1 \mathrm{d}^3 s_2\ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot {\mathbf{s}}} \mathcal{L}_L\left(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{d}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Taking the expectation value of this estimator yields an integral over the redshift space power spectrum $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}^Y_L(k)\, \right\rangle}} = & (2 L+1)\int\mathrm{d}^3d\,\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 q}{(2\pi)^3} e^{i{\mathbf{q}}\cdot{\mathbf{d}}} \notag \\
&\times\int \frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_{{\mathbf{k}}}}{4\pi} P({\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}/2,-{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{q}}/2)\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{k}\cdot \hat{d})\end{aligned}$$ which can be easily derived by working in the center-of-mass and relative separation frame [@Sco15] but holds true for our preferred bisector definition as well. From the expression above it is far from clear what the relation between the Yamamoto estimator and the analytical model described in the previous section is, or in general to any theory of galaxy clustering written in the flat-sky approximation, especially in light of the difficult interpretation of the parallel limit of $P({\mathbf{k}}_1,{\mathbf{k}}_2)$, see the discussion at the end of Sec. \[sec:intro\]. If we integrate over the direction of the line-of-sight and the polar angle around $\hat{d}$ we can change variables from ${\mathbf{s}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{s}}_2$ to $s$, $\mu$ and $d$ with $$\int d^3s_1\,d^3s_2 \to 4\pi\int d^2\,\mathrm{d}d
\ 2\pi\int s^2\,\mathrm{d}s\,d\mu$$ yielding a more familiar expression[^6], $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}_L^Y(k)\, \right\rangle}}
&=(2L+1) \int \frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_{\mathbf{k}}}{4\pi}\, \mathrm{d}^3 d \, P({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{d}}) \mathcal{L}_L(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{d}) \\
&= \int \mathrm{d}^3 d \,P_L(k,d)
\label{eqn:PY_Pkd}\end{aligned}$$ The Yamamoto estimator is therefore the average over all possible LOS’s of the local estimate of the power spectrum, and contains wide angle corrections to $P_L(k,d)$ to all orders. Although we did not write it down, the above expression is intended to be normalized by the integral over the volume of the survey $\int \mathrm{d}^3 d$. In the case of simple spherical geometries the wide angle corrections will therefore controlled by $k R$ where $R$ is the size (depth) of the survey.
The estimator of @Yam06 can be computationally expensive to evaluate, and for this reason an approximation is often used instead, even in the original @Yam06 paper. One replaces the line-of-sight direction, $\hat{d}$, with the direction of one member of the pair (e.g. $\hat{s}_1$) which allows factorization of the integrals. This is the most common assumption in the Fourier space analysis of galaxy clustering data [e.g. @Beu14; @Beu17; @Ata17]. @Bia15 [@Sco15; @Han17] then showed that with this approximation the estimator could be efficiently evaluated using FFTs.
Trading $\hat{d}$ with $\hat{s}_1$ could look similar to taking the plane-parallel limit of the estimator, and therefore one would expect to make an error of the same order of the one we discussed above in Section \[sec:fourier\_space\]. However, as we will show, the bias introduced by the FFT estimator is larger that the one shown in [Figure \[fig:PkL\]]{}. We start from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FFT}
P_L^{FFT}(k) &= (2L+1) \int \frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k}}{4\pi}\, \mathrm{d}^3 d \, P(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{s}) \mathcal{L}_L(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{s_1}) \\
&=(2L+1) \int\frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k}}{4\pi}\, \mathrm{d}^3 d \,\mathrm{d}^3 s\, \xi(s,d,\mu)\, e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{s}} \mathcal{L}_L(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{s_1}) \notag \\
&=(2L+1) \int\frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k}}{4\pi}\, \mathrm{d}^3 d \,\mathrm{d}^3 s \,e^{-i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{s}}\notag \\
& \times\sum_{\ell} \xi_\ell(s,d)\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d})\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{s}_1) \\
&=(2L+1) (4\pi)(-i)^L\int\mathrm{d}^3 d \,\mathrm{d}^3s
\ j_L(ks) \notag \\
& \times\sum_{\ell} \xi_\ell(s,d)\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d})\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{s}_1)\end{aligned}$$ Using $\hat{s}\cdot\hat{s}_1=\mu+(1/2)(1-\mu^2)x+\cdots$ to expand $\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{s}_1)$ in $x$ and $\mu$, similarly to what we did in Section \[sec:linear\_theory\], we find, at leading order, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PkFFT}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}_L^{FFT}(k)\, \right\rangle}}= \int \mathrm{d}^3 d\, \left[ P_L^{(2)}(k,d) + \left(\frac{1}{kd}\right)^2\sum_i b_{iL}\mathcal{P}^{L}_i(k) \right]\end{aligned}$$ with $P_L^{(2)}(k,d)$ the power spectrum multipoles computed up to $\mathcal{O}[(kd)^{-2}]$, as for instance in the previous section within linear theory, the $b_{iL}$ are constant coefficients defined in [Eq. (\[eq:bij\])]{} and $$\mathcal{P}^{L}_i(k) \equiv 4 \pi(-i)^L \int \mathrm{d}s\,s^2\,(k s)^2 j_L(ks)\xi_i(s,x=0)$$ where by $\xi_k(s,x=0)$ we mean the configuration space multipoles in the plane parallel limit. In linear theory they would correspond to [Eq. (\[eq:xiK\])]{}, but the above result is valid at any order in perturbation theory of the density field.
To the best of our knowledge this is the first time corrections to the FFT estimator have been computed analytically in the most general case. Previous work in [@Samushia15] discussed the limits of the FFT estimator, but in a simplified set up. What we find is that the assumption $\hat{s}\simeq\hat{s}_1$ mixes Hankel transforms on different multipoles in a very non-trivial way. For $L=0$ there are no extra corrections, recovering the well known result that for the monopole the Yamamoto estimator is identical the one in @FKP. For $L\ne0$ the remaining coefficients are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bij}
b_{02} &= \frac{3}{4}\;,\;b_{22} = -\frac{9}{28}\;,\;b_{24} = \frac{2}{21} \notag \\
b_{04} &= 0\;,\;b_{42} = \frac{15}{14}\;,\;b_{44} = -\frac{185}{154}\end{aligned}$$ If correlation function multipoles with $\ell>4$ are present, for instance because of nonlinearities, they will also generate new terms in [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{}. The same is true for odd $\ell$, relativistic dipoles. For simplicity we will assume only $\ell=0,2,4$ are different from zero. [Figure \[fig:FFT\]]{} shows the ratio between the new terms introduced by the FFT estimator and the PP multipoles. Our example describes a full sky survey with volume $V =10 \Gpc$ with mean redshift $z=1$. The vertical line in the figure represents the fundamental mode of the survey. The bias introduced by the FFT estimator is comparable to, or larger than, the one induced by physical wide angle terms and it results only from an incorrect choice of the line of sight. It is also strongly dependent on $\ell$, with the error on the hexadecapole much bigger than the one on the quadrupole.
Finally let us comment on the error budget of a measurement of the power spectrum. In data, large scales are the ones mostly affected by cosmic variance and therefore have the largest error bars. For redshift space multipoles one has, under the Gaussian approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_{P_\ell} = \frac{2}{N_k}\frac{(2\ell+1)^2}{2}\int \mathrm{d}\mu_k \,\mathcal{L}_\ell(\mu_k)^2 P(k,\mu_k)^2\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed shot noise is negligible, the number of modes is defined as $$N_k \equiv \frac{4 \pi k^2 \Delta k}{(2\pi)^3} V$$ and the $k$-binning is assumed to be constant. We will take $\Delta k= 5 \times 10^{-3} \kMpc$ as in @Beu14. In this simplified case it is easy to see that the error on the multipoles scales as $$\sigma_{P_\ell} \propto \frac{1}{[k(\Delta k R^3)^{1/2}]}\,P(k)
\qquad ,$$ which means the ratio between the wide angle terms in [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{} and cosmic variance scales as $(k^2/\Delta k \times R)^{-1/2}$. This means wide angle corrections will always be smaller than the cosmic variance, although at the largest scales, when $kR\simeq 1$, the two become comparable. In [Figure \[fig:CV\]]{} we show the ratio between the sum of all wide angle corrections and cosmic variance. We plot two different configurations, a $V= 1 \Gpc^3$ survey at $z=0.3$ with dashed lines and a $V = 10 \Gpc^3$ one at $z=1$ with continuous lines. These numbers are similar to what a typical redshift bin of a BCG sample and ELG sample in DESI could look like [@DESI]. For the quadrupole the error is always negligible compared to cosmic variance, but for the hecadecapole can contribute up to 20-30% on the largest scales. If one is able to (partially) cancel sample variance, using for instance cross-correlations [@Seljak09; @MdDonaldSeljak09], then wide angle effects may become the main source of theoretical systematics.
The formalism developed above suggests one strategy for efficiently dealing with these effects. The errors introduced are only significant at relatively large scales, where linear theory is a good approximation. Within linear theory calculating the corrections to the theoretical predictions is straightforward for any of the statistics. Thus forward modeling the correction terms along with the theoretical prediction should be an easy and efficient strategy.
Wedges
------
While the multipole expansion is the most common choice of statistic, some authors instead use “wedges” (i.e. bins) in $\mu_k$ [@Grieb17; @Sanchez17]. One advantage of wedges over multipoles is that systematics may be localized in a particular $\mu_k$ wedge, and in such situations one can just throw that bin away without affecting the rest of the data. Examples of systematic effects with such an angular structure are foreground contamination [@Colavincenzo] and fiber assignment in spectroscopic surveys [@Hahn17; @Burden17; @Pinol17], which both live at $\mu_k\simeq 0$. For instance, @Han17 show how non-uniform wedges can mitigate the effect of fiber assignment for the DESI experiment.
In the flat sky limit estimating $P(k,\mu_k)$, and hence the wedges, is straightforward. But in the more general case there is no unambiguous way to define the parallel, $k_{\parallel}$, and perpendicular, $k_\perp$, components of the 3D vector ${\mathbf{k}}$ for the entire survey. One solution is to estimate several $P_L(k)$ and use the fact that Legendre polynomials form a complete basis in \[-1,1\] $$P(k,\mu_k) = \sum_{L=0}^{L_{\rm max}} P_L(k) \mathcal{L}_L(\mu_k)$$ In linear theory $L_{\rm max} = 4$, however non linearities and systematic effects can contribute to higher multipoles. The disadvantage is that constructing narrow bins in $\mu_k$ requires a very large value of $L_{\rm max}$. @Han17 advocate $L_{\rm max}=16$ for example. As estimating many multipoles can require a lot of time and memory the use of FFT estimators, like the one in [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{}, is crucial. Our analysis suggests that such FFT estimators will become more and more biased with respect to the full Yamamoto case (Eq. \[eq:PkY\]) as $L$ increases. Although the effect will depend on the structure of the particular systematic effect one is interested in, we caution against the use of the estimator in [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{} without a careful comparison with the correct answer in [Eq. (\[eq:PkY\])]{}. Our formulae provide the analytic framework to study these effects, and we plan to return to some specific examples in future work.
In Section \[sec:sFB\] we will discuss new estimators that naturally isolate low-$k$ modes without the penalty of measuring high-$L$ multipoles.
The effect of masks {#sec:Pkmask}
-------------------
We now consider the impact of the survey geometry on our estimates of $P(k)$. In the standard approach the survey mask acts multiplicatively on the density field in configuration space, and thus the measured Fourier modes are convolutions of the density and window Fourier transforms. For diagonal power spectra (Eq. \[eqn:plane\_parallel\_P\]) one obtains the standard result that $$P({\mathbf{k}}) = \int \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi)^3}
\ P({\mathbf{q}})\left| W({\mathbf{k}}-{\mathbf{q}}) \right|^2
\quad .
\label{eqn:standard_window}$$ The impact on the multipoles is then found by expanding the window functions in multipole moments. However in deriving Eq. (\[eqn:standard\_window\]) we have made assumptions which are violated in the case of wide angles where we have lost the translational invariance, which is key to the above. This equation is indeed valid only if a global line of sight can be defined for each pair of galaxies, $\hat{d}\rightarrow \hat{z}$, and we know this is a bad approximation for surveys covering a large fraction of the sky. In fact the situation is more similar to the impact of masks on pseudo-$C_\ell$ estimators of angular power spectra, used frequently in CMB research [e.g. @Hiv02; @P13_XV; @Els17]. In this section we therefore derive the effect of the mask on the Yamamoto estimator. Let’s start with $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}_L(k)\, \right\rangle}} = &(2L+1)\int \frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_{\mathbf{k}}}{4\pi} \int \mathrm{d}^3 s_1 \mathrm{d}^3 s_2 \notag \\
\times & W({\mathbf{s}}_1)W({\mathbf{s}}_2)\,\xi({\mathbf{s}}_1,{\mathbf{s}}_2) e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot {\mathbf{s}}} \mathcal{L}_L\left(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{d}\right) \notag \\
= & (2L+1)\int \frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_{\mathbf{k}}}{4\pi} \int \mathrm{d}^3 s \,\mathrm{d}^3d\ e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot {\mathbf{s}}} \notag \\
\times & W^+({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}})W^-({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}}) \xi({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}}) \mathcal{L}_L\left(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{d}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
W^{+}({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}})\equiv W[{\mathbf{s}}_1({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}})]\;,\; W^{-}({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}})\equiv W[{\mathbf{s}}_2({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}})] \end{aligned}$$ Next we Fourier transform the window functions with respect to ${\mathbf{s}}$ and perform the angular integral, $d\Omega_k$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}_L(k)\, \right\rangle}} =& (2L+1) \int \mathrm{d}^3 s \,\mathrm{d}^3d \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 k_1}{(2 \pi)^3} \,\frac{\mathrm{d}^3 k_2}{(2 \pi)^3} \,e^{i{\mathbf{k}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{s}}} e^{i{\mathbf{k}}_2\cdot {\mathbf{s}}}\notag \\
& (-i)^L \sum_\ell \xi_\ell(s,x)\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d})\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d}) \,j_L(ks) \notag \\
& W^{+}({\mathbf{k}}_1,{\mathbf{d}}) W^{-}({\mathbf{k}}_2,{\mathbf{d}})
\label{eq:simpler_window_expression}\end{aligned}$$ which we rewrite as $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}_L(k)\, \right\rangle}} = & (2L+1)\sum_{\ell}
\sum_{\substack{L_1,L_2,L_3\\M_1,M_2,M_3}}
\int s^2\mathrm{d} s\,\mathrm{d}^3d\ Y^\star_{L_1,M_1}(\hat{d}) \notag \\
& \times (4\pi)^3{ \begin{pmatrix}
l & L & L_1 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2 \mathcal{G}^{M_1,M_2,M_2}_{L_1,L_2,L_3} \,\xi_\ell(s,x) j_L(ks)\notag \\
& \times \int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 k_1}{(2 \pi)^3} \,\frac{\mathrm{d}^3 k_2}{(2 \pi)^3} W^{+}({\mathbf{k}}_1,{\mathbf{d}}) W^{-}({\mathbf{k}}_2,{\mathbf{d}}) i^{L_2+L_3-L}
\notag \\& \times j_{L_2}(k_1 s) j_{L_3}(k_2 s)Y^\star_{L_2,M_2}(\hat{k}_1)Y^\star_{L_3,M_3}(\hat{k}_2)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}^{M_1,M_2,M_2}_{L_1,L_2,L_3} &=
\sqrt{\frac{(2L_1+1)(2L_2+1)(2L_3+1)}{4\pi}} \notag \\
& { \begin{pmatrix}
L_1 & L_2 & L_3 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}{ \begin{pmatrix}
L_1 & L_2 & L_3 \\
M_1 & M_2 & M_3
\end{pmatrix}}\end{aligned}$$ is the Gaunt integral. We notice that the last two lines in the equation are simply the Fourier-Bessel transforms of the window function, $$\begin{aligned}
\int\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3} Y_{\ell m}^\star(\hat{k}) j_\ell(ks)\,W({\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{d}}) &=
\frac{(-i)^\ell}{4\pi}\int \mathrm{d}\Omega_{s} Y_{\ell m}^\star(\hat{s})W({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}}) \notag \\
&= \frac{(-i)^\ell}{4\pi}\ W_{\ell m}(s,{\mathbf{d}})\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}_L(k)\, \right\rangle}} = & (2L+1)\sum_{\ell} \sum_{\substack{L_1,L_2,L_3\\M_1,M_2,M_3}} \int s^2\mathrm{d} s\,\mathrm{d}^3d\ Y^\star_{L_1,M_1}(\hat{d}) \notag \\
& \times{ \begin{pmatrix}
l & L & L_1 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2 \mathcal{G}^{M_1,M_2,M_2}_{L_1,L_2,L_3} \,\xi_\ell(s,x) j_L(ks)\notag \\&
\times (4\pi)(-i)^L W^+_{L_2,M_2}(s,{\mathbf{d}})W^-_{L_2,M_2}(s,{\mathbf{d}})\end{aligned}$$ As expected, since the correlation function does not depend on the orientation of the galaxy pairs, the final results depend only on the length of the separation vectors, $s$, and we can sum over the $M$’s. This expression, as anticipated, looks fairly similar to the pseudo-$C_\ell$ analysis of CMB data. In a more compact form we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PkW}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\hat{P}_L(k)\, \right\rangle}} =& 4\pi (-i)^L (2L+1) \sum_{\ell}\int d^2\mathrm{d}d\,s^2\mathrm{d}s \notag \\
& \ \xi_\ell(s,x) j_L(ks)\widetilde{W}_\ell^L(s,d)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{W}_\ell^L(s,d)\equiv & \sum_{\substack{L_1,L_2,L_3\\M_1,M_2,M_3}} \int \mathrm{d}\Omega_{{\mathbf{d}}}\ Y^\star_{L_1,M_1}(\hat{d}) { \begin{pmatrix}
l & L & L_1 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2 \notag \\ & \times \mathcal{G}^{M_1,M_2,M_2}_{L_1,L_2,L_3} W^+_{L_2,M_2}(s,{\mathbf{d}})W^-_{L_2,M_2}(s,{\mathbf{d}})\end{aligned}$$ Note for a full-sky survey the integral over $\Omega_d$ sets all of the $L_i=M_i=0$ and thus the window is non-zero only when $\ell=L$ (where it equals unity and we regain the expressions of §\[sec:fourier\_estimators\]). However in general the mask will mix different Hankel transforms of the correlation function multipoles, in contrast with the standard assumption of [Eq. (\[eqn:standard\_window\])]{}, which yields an expression with $\ell=L$ [@Beu14; @Han17]. The importance of the new terms in [Eq. (\[eq:PkW\])]{} will strongly depend on the detailed shape of the window function of the specific galaxy survey, and so we defer such an analysis to future work.
We note that at the practical level it is slightly easier to define $\widetilde{W}_\ell^L$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:WlL}
\widetilde{W}_\ell^L(s,d) = & \frac{1}{4\pi}\int d\Omega_d\, d\Omega_s \ \mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d})\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d}) \notag \\
& W^{+}({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}}) W^{-}({\mathbf{s}},{\mathbf{d}})\end{aligned}$$ which follows from [Eq. (\[eq:simpler\_window\_expression\])]{} upon undoing the Fourier transforms and comparing to [Eq. (\[eq:PkW\])]{}. The window function so-defined can be constructed by taking a random catalog and, for each pair of randoms, constructing the angle bisector and separation vector. Summing over pairs and binning the integrand in $s$ and $d$ gives a Monte-Carlo evaluation of the angle integrals defining $\widetilde{W}_\ell^L(s,d)$. [Eq. (\[eq:PkW\])]{} may then be put in a more familiar form by writing $\xi_\ell(s,x)$ as the Hankel transform of $P_\ell(k,d)$ and grouping the remaining terms into a window function depending on $L$, $\ell$, $k$ and $k'$. The results presented in this Section concern the full Yamamoto estimator in [Eq. (\[eq:PkY\])]{}, for which the calculation of the masked power spectrum is actually easier than for the FFT estimator in [Eq. (\[eq:FFT\])]{}. The main reason is that the Legendre polynomials in [Eq. (\[eq:WlL\])]{} have the same argument only in the Yamamoto estimator, whereas in the FFT case, the one most used in data analysis, one would have to deal with extra terms in $\mu$ and $x$. From a comparison of [Eq. (\[eq:FFT\])]{} and [Eq. (\[eq:simpler\_window\_expression\])]{} we believe it should be clear how to proceed in the latter case. A similar computation of the effect of the mask on 3D multipoles of the power spectrum appeared in Appendix A of [@Beu17]. There are two main differences between the latter and this work. First of all we compute the effect of the mask for the exact Yamamoto estimator, as the difference with respect to the FFT one will just introduce new multipole moments of the correlation function, see [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{}. Secondly and most importantly we compute the convolution of the theoretical models with window functions including leading order wide angle corrections, which are important roughly at the same scale the mask is and therefore cannot be neglected. We also note that [Eqs. (\[eq:PkW\],\[eq:WlL\])]{} are the correct expressions to use if the redshift evolution of the clustering signal has to be taken into account, if the power spectrum is measured in wide redshift bins.
Spherical Fourier Bessel Analysis {#sec:sFB}
=================================
Many of the issues encountered above arise because the symmetries of the Fourier transform are not well matched to the symmetries of the survey. It is thus natural to use a different transformation, one which naturally respects the split into radial and angular modes. Such a transformation is the well known spherical Fourier-Bessel (sFB) expansion. Since the original paper of [@HT95] several authors have studied galaxy clustering in spherical coordinates, see for instance [@YD2013; @Pratten13; @Nic14; @Liu16; @Pas17] and references therein. These analyses retain a clear separation between angular and radial coordinates, redshifts. The methods have been successfully applied to data in @Fisher94 [@Tadros99; @Tay01; @Pad01; @Percival04; @Pad07]. For a bipolar harmonic analysis see also the recent work by [@Shiraishi17].
Formalism
---------
If we define the Fourier transform of a density field in configuration space, $\delta({\mathbf{r}})$, as $$\delta({\mathbf{k}}) = \int \mathrm{d}^3s\, \delta({\mathbf{s}}) e^{-i {\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}}$$ then we can define the forward and backward sFB transforms as $$\label{eq:sFB}
\delta_{\ell m}(k) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\int \mathrm{d}^3s \ Y_{\ell m}^\star(\hat{s}) j_\ell(ks) \,\delta({\mathbf{s}})$$ $$\delta({\mathbf{s}}) = \sum_{\ell m} \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\int k^2\mathrm{d}k\ Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}) j_\ell(ks) \,\delta_{\ell m}(k)$$ where $Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s})$ are spherical harmonics and $j_\ell(ks)$ spherical Bessel functions. It is important to notice that a-priori there is no reason for the wave vector in [Eq. (\[eq:sFB\])]{} to have the same magnitude of the 3D vector ${\mathbf{k}}$ associated with the Fourier transform of the density field. While the former is associated with radial modes, the latter lives in Cartesian coordinates. A convenient intermediate step is to define angular coefficients similar to the CMB case $$\label{eq:alm}
\delta({\mathbf{s}}) = \sum_{\ell m} a_{\ell m}(s) Y^{\star}_{\ell m}(\hat{s})$$ and then Hankel-transform the $a_{\ell m}$’s with respect to $s$. The two point function of the density field is simply related to that of the configuration space multipoles $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^s({\mathbf{s}}_1 , {\mathbf{s}}_2) &= \sum_{\ell m} {\ensuremath{\left\langle \,a_{\ell m}(s_1)a^\star_{\ell m}(s_2)\, \right\rangle}} Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_1)Y^\star_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_2)\notag \\
&\equiv \sum_{\ell m} C_\ell(s_1, s_2) Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_1)Y^\star_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_2) \notag \\
&=\sum_\ell\frac{2\ell+1}{4\pi}C_\ell(s_1,s_2)\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{s}_1\cdot\hat{s}_2)
\label{eq:xi_from_Cl}\end{aligned}$$ A straightforward calculation shows that in linear theory $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Csell}
C_\ell(s_1, s_2) =& \frac{2}{\pi} \int \mathrm{d}\,k\,k^2 P(k) \notag \\
&[j_\ell(ks_1)-f(z)j_\ell''(ks_1)][j_\ell(ks_2)-f(z)j_\ell''(ks_2)]\end{aligned}$$ where $j''(x)$ is the second derivative of the $j$’s with respect to its argument. We can relate the $C_\ell(s_1,s_2)$ to the 3D multipoles $\xi_L(s,x)$, from now on indicated with a capital letter $L$, with the help of [Eq. (\[eq:xiell\])]{}. In the small angle limit, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_L(s,x) \simeq \sum_\ell \int \mathrm{d} \mu\,& \frac{2\ell+1}{2 \pi(2L+1)} C_\ell(s_1,s_2) \notag \\
&\times \mathcal{L}_\ell\left(1-\frac{[1-\mu^2] x^2}{4}\right) \mathcal{L}_L(\mu)\end{aligned}$$ and a similar inverse relation exists[^7]. Note that since $\ell$ can be arbitrarily large we are not allowed to expand the Legendre polynomial in $\ell$, as we did before, since $\ell x$ can easily be $\mathcal{O}(1)$. However we can use $\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{s}_1\cdot\hat{s}_2)\simeq J_0(\ell\,x\sqrt{1-\mu^2})$ (see Appendix \[app:identities\]). Under this approximation we recognize the sum over $\ell$ as the Fourier transform for an azimuthally symmetric function in angular coordinates, and the argument of $J_0$ as $k_\perp s_\perp$ with $\ell=k_\perp d$. If we were to further Fourier transform on $s_\parallel$ we would obtain the standard expression for $\xi({\mathbf{s}})$ as the Fourier transform of $P(k_\parallel,k_\perp)$. Note that the $C_\ell(s_1,s_2)$ are simply related to the “MAPS” of @Dat07, as there exists a one-to-one mapping between frequencies of an emitted signal and redshift/distances.
Let’s now move to the Fourier analysis. In real space we know the density field is statistically homogeneous and isotropic, which means the power spectrum of sFB coefficients does not depend on $\ell$ nor on $m$ but just on the magnitude of the wave-vector $k$ $$\label{eq:sFBr}
{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\delta_{\ell_1m_1}(k_1) \delta^\star_{\ell_2m_2}(k_2)\, \right\rangle}} = P(k)
\frac{\delta_D(k_1-k_2)}{k^2}\delta^K_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \delta^K_{m_1 m_2}$$ where $\delta^K_{i,j}$ is a Kroenecker delta. As a result of the symmetry of the problem, the 1D $k$ of the sFB transform coincides with the 3D one in $P(k)$. On the other hand in redshift space we broke translational and partially rotational invariance, so we expect the sFB power spectrum to be independent only of $m$, the eigenvalue associated with the remaining azimuthal symmetry, $$\label{eq:sFBRSD}
\langle \delta_{\ell_1 m_1}(k_1) \delta^\star_{\ell_2 m_2}(k_2) \rangle = C_\ell(k_1,k_2) \delta^K_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \delta^K_{m_1 m_2}$$ In this case there is no simple relation between the 3D modes and the radial modes on the RHS of the above equation. By Hankel-transforming [Eq. (\[eq:Csell\])]{} twice it is easy to see that in linear theory the redshift space angular multipoles are $$\begin{aligned}
C_\ell(k_1,k_2) = & \int \mathrm{d} k \,k^2 P(k) \int \mathrm{d}s_1\,s_1^2\,\int \mathrm{d}s_2\,s_2^2
\,j_{\ell}(k_1 s_1)j_{\ell}(k_2 s_2) \notag \\
& [j_{\ell}(ks_1)-f j_{\ell}''(ks_1)]
[j_{\ell}(ks_2)-f j_{\ell}''(ks_2)]\end{aligned}$$ We simplify this expression in Appendix \[app:lin\_expression\].
Beyond the linear regime, most, if not all, analytic models of structure formation are built within the flat sky approximation, as in this case there is a well defined angle between the Fourier mode and the LOS. On the other hand, as we have seen, estimating power spectrum multipoles forces the inherently non-flat geometry of the curved sky to become a 3D Cartesian system. This brings in a few shortcomings, depending on how many approximations one is willing to take, as we have discussed in Sec. \[sec:fourier\_estimators\]. The ideal basis to estimate redshift space clustering would therefore be a spherical one, of sFB coefficients, which does not require defining a 3D wave vector ${\mathbf{k}}$.
However, the major obstacle to the use of sFB power spectra is its relation to theoretical models. As we have seen in [Eq. (\[eq:sFBRSD\])]{} there is no straightforward way of relating the angular multipole $\ell$ to $\mu_k$, and the loss of translational invariance implies the $C_\ell(k_1,k_2)$ depends on both radial wavevectors. This tremendously complicates perturbation theory approaches beyond the linear regime and estimating the covariance matrix becomes incredibly more difficult. The bottom line therefore seems to be that the basis in which theory is more well understood, Cartesian 3D coordinates, and the one more suited for the measurement, sFB’s, are not the same.
The degree to which this is a practical problem remains to be seen. In general non-linear corrections are important only on small scales, where wide-angle effects are typically small. One could imagine a hybrid strategy in which linear theory is used to compute $C_\ell(k_1,k_2)$ for small $k_i$ with a smooth switch to non-linear models in which the flat-sky limit has been assumed to translate from $P(k_\perp,k_\parallel)$. However this will work only at the level of the theoretical modeling and not for the estimator, which is the first place in a data analysis where we want to have good control of wide angle effects. In the next Section we will show how to solve this problem using sFB coefficients.
FFT estimator in spherical coordinates {#sec:PksFB}
--------------------------------------
The discussion above motivates the study of estimators for the 3D power spectrum written in terms of sFB coefficients. As we have seen in §\[sec:fourier\_estimators\], if one restricts the analysis to low multipoles (up to the hexadecapole) the error introduced by the FFT estimator in the comparison with a PP theory is small. However observational systematics sometimes require the computation of the multipoles to a much higher order to be properly removed, or a well motivated template to be marginalized over [@Hahn17]. As we will show in the next few lines sFB coefficients have the very appealing property of naturally accounting for systematics at $\mu=0$ even starting from the FFT estimator in [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{}. We first rewrite the FFT estimator, [Eq. (\[eq:PkY\])]{}, as $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{P}_L^{FFT}(k) = (4\pi)^3\sum_{\substack{\ell_1m_1\\ \ell_2 m_2}}\sum_M i^{\ell_1-\ell_2}\int \frac{\mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k}}{4\pi} Y_{LM}(\hat{k}) \times
\notag \\ &
\int \mathrm{d}^3 s_1 \mathrm{d}^3 s_2 \ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2)j_{\ell_1}(k s_1)j_{\ell_2}(k s_2) \times \notag \\& Y_{\ell_1m_1}(\hat{k})Y^\star_{\ell_1m_1}(\hat{s_1})Y^\star_{LM}(\hat{s_1}) Y_{\ell_2m_2}(\hat{k})Y^\star_{\ell_2m_2}(\hat{s_2}) \end{aligned}$$ and then integrate over $d\Omega_k$ to arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{P}_L^{FFT}(k) =(4 \pi)^3 \sum_{\ell m} \sum_{\ell_1m_1}\sum_{\ell_2m_2}\sum_M i^{\ell_1-\ell_2} \mathcal{G}_{\ell_1 \ell_2 L}^{m_1m_2M} \mathcal{G}_{\ell_1 \ell L}^{m_1m M} \notag \\
&\times \int \mathrm{d}^3 s_1 \mathrm{d}^3 s_2 \ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s_1}) Y^\star_{\ell_2m_2}(\hat{s_2}) j_{\ell_1}(k s_1)j_{\ell_2}(k s_2)\end{aligned}$$ where we used the definition of the Gaunt integral twice. With the help of [Eq. (\[eq:threejI\])]{} we can simplify the above expression significantly to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{P}_L^{FFT}(k) = (4 \pi)(2L+1) \notag \\
&\sum_{\ell m} \sum_{\ell_1<|\ell-L|}^{\ell+L} i^{\ell_1-\ell} (2\ell _1+1) { \begin{pmatrix}
\ell & \ell_1 & L \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2 \times\notag \\
&\int \mathrm{d}^3s_1\, \mathrm{d}^3 s_2\, \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_1) Y^\star_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_2) j_{\ell_1}(k s_1) j_{\ell}(k s_2) \notag \\
=& (4 \pi)(2L+1)\sum_{\ell m} \sum_{\ell_1<|\ell-L|}^{\ell+L} i^{\ell_1-\ell} (2\ell_1+1) { \begin{pmatrix}
\ell & \ell_1 & L \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2 \times \notag \\
&\int \mathrm{d}s_1\,s_1^2\, \mathrm{d}s_2\,s_2^2\,a_{\ell m}(s_1) a_{\ell m}^\star(s_2) j_{\ell_1}(k s_1) j_{\ell}(k s_2)\end{aligned}$$ We recognize in the above expression the spherical harmonic expansion of the density field, but they are coupled to spherical Bessel function of a different order. We therefore define the generalized sFB coefficients $$\delta_{\ell m}^L(k) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\int \mathrm{d}^3s\, \delta(\mathbf{s})\,Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}) j_{L}(k s)$$ which form an overcomplete basis. The final expression for the FFT estimator is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{P}_L^{FFT}(k) =& (2 \pi^2)(2L+1)\sum_{\ell m} \sum_{\ell_1<|\ell-L|}^{\ell+L}i^{\ell_1-\ell} \notag \\
& (2\ell_1+1) { \begin{pmatrix}
\ell & \ell_1 & L \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2 \delta_{\ell m}^{\ell_1}(k)\delta_{\ell m}^\star(k)
\label{eq:PY_sFB}\end{aligned}$$ Since $L$ is even, $\ell+\ell_1$ is also even, and the power spectrum is therefore positive. On the other hand the above equation also provides a clear way to estimate imaginary parts like dipoles, [@Gaztanaga17]. The important feature of the above estimator, similar to [Eq. (\[eq:sFBr\])]{}, is that the length of the 3D vector ${\mathbf{k}}$ on the right hand side and the 1D radial wavenumber appearing as the argument in the sFB coefficients are the same. This means that if one wants to discard the low $k_\parallel$ modes because of contamination by systematics, it is enough to omit the first few sFB coefficients. This will automatically remove them from the 3D multipoles, $P_L(k)$. In contrast to the method in @Han17, our approach works at the level of the field and it does not rely on the detailed structure of the systematic at hand. A similar expression for the bispectrum is presented in the Appendix. For higher point functions the technique in [@Han17] does not apply anymore, whereas [Eq. (\[eq:PY\_sFB\])]{} can still be used to remove systematics in the plane of the sky. In terms of computational cost it should be kept in mind that spherical transforms are more expensive than FFTs, scaling as $N^{3/2}$ for the angular part, where $N$ is the number of pixels in the map, and as $l_{\rm max} \times N_k \log N_k$ in the radial direction. However one could imagine using the symmetry of the problem, $m$-independence, to speed up the evaluation of sFB coefficients.
The mask in spherical estimators
--------------------------------
In Section \[sec:Pkmask\] we noticed that, contrary to what is usually assumed, the estimators for the multipoles of the power spectrum cannot be written as a simple convolution in the presence of a mask. To correctly account for incomplete sky coverage we had to define two different masks, now functions of the separation between each pair of galaxies. This is not a problem per se, but it certainly requires additional computational resources. In a spherical analysis there is no need to define multiple window functions. In the presence of an angular mask, $W(\hat{s})$, and a radial selection function, $\phi(s)$, we define the generalized sFB coefficients as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\delta}_{\ell m}^L(k) \equiv &\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \int \mathrm{d}^3s\, [\phi(s)W(\hat{s})] \delta(\mathbf{s})\,Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}) j_{L}(k s) \notag \\
=&\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sum_{\ell_1 m_1}\sum_{\ell_2 m_2} \mathcal{G}_{\ell \ell_1 \ell_2}^{m m_1 m_2} W_{l_2m_2} \notag \\
&\left[\int \mathrm{d}s\,s^2\,a_{\ell_1 m_1}(s)j_{L}(k s) \phi(s)\right] \notag \\
\equiv & \sum_{\ell_1 m_1}\sum_{\ell_1 m_2}\mathcal{G}_{\ell \ell_1 \ell_2}^{m m_1 m_2} W_{l_2m_2} \Delta_{\ell_1m_1}^L(k)\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{\ell m}$’s are the harmonic coefficients of the angular mask, and $\Delta_{\ell_1m_1}^L$ is the Hankel transform of $a_{\ell_1m_1}(s)\phi(s)$. At the power spectrum level we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_m{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\tilde{\delta}_{\ell m}^L(k) \tilde{\delta}_{\ell m}^\star(k)\, \right\rangle}} &= \sum_m\sum_{\ell_1 m_1}\sum_{\ell_2 m_2}\sum_{\ell_3 m_3}\sum_{\ell_3 m_4} W_{\ell_2m_2}W_{\ell_4m_4} \notag \\
&\times \mathcal{G}_{\ell \ell_1 \ell_2}^{m m_1 m_2} \mathcal{G}_{\ell \ell_3 \ell_4}^{m m_3 m_4} \notag \\ & \times {\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\Delta^L_{\ell_1m_1}(k)\Delta_{\ell_3m_3}^*(k)\, \right\rangle}}\end{aligned}$$ The window function therefore couples different multipoles [@Hiv02; @HT95; @Pratten13; @Els17] and different wavenumber [@Liu16]. Further simplifications are possible, $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_m{\ensuremath{\left\langle \,\tilde{\delta}_{\ell m}^L(k)\delta_{\ell m}^L(k)\, \right\rangle}}
= \sum_{\ell_1 \ell_2} \frac{(2\ell+1)(2\ell_1+1)}{4\pi} { \begin{pmatrix}
\ell & \ell_1 & \ell_2 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2\notag \\
&C^W_{\ell_2}\frac{2}{\pi}\int \mathrm{d}s_1\,s_1^2\,\mathrm{d}s_2\,s_2^2\,C_{\ell_1}(s_1,s_2)j_{L}(k s_1)j_{\ell_1}(k s_2) \phi(s_1)\phi(s_2)\end{aligned}$$ where $ C^W_{\ell_2} = \sum_{m_2} |W_{\ell_2,m_2}|^2$ is the power spectrum of the angular mask.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Since the observed redshifts of cosmological objects contain a component of their line-of-sight velocity, due to the Doppler effect, their clustering selects a preferred origin. This breaks the assumption of statistical homogeneity which is frequently invoked in analyses of redshift survey data. In the limit that all of the objects are close together on the sky translational symmetry is restored, so the violations are often referred to as “wide angle effects”. In this paper we have studied the impact of such effects on the estimation of the correlation function and power spectrum, including approximations which are often made in the analysis of redshift surveys.
For the 2-point functions in configuration and Fourier space we have presented new expressions for the impact of wide angle effects through to order $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2)$, which is also quadratic order in the ratio of the pair separation to the distance from the observer or the product of the wavenumber and the observer distance. The often neglected wide angle contribution from the galaxy selection function are also discussed. We find that for a homogeneous galaxy sample the physical wide angle effects are partially canceled by the ones introduced by the selection function. For more general cases however this is unlikely to happen. We found that for the low multipole moments which dominate the signal, wide angle effects are generally small. Even so, they can be accounted for in the modeling in a simple manner as long as the perturbations are linear at large scales.
Some of the new terms, although small, are out of phase with the standard multipoles in the plane-parallel limit. We quantify this difference and find 1% to 0.1% effects at the BAO scale, with lower redshift being more problematic. This feature of the wide angle terms does not automatically translate into a bias in distance estimate of the BAO, but it should be kept in mind in the quest for sub percent BAO measurements.
We find that the loss of translational invariance changes the way angular and radial masks affect the measurements in Fourier space. This problem cannot be written anymore as a simple convolution, as often assumed in data analysis, and it is actually much more similar to the CMB case, where different multipoles of the underlying power spectrum and the windows are coupled.
The third kind of wide angle effects we studied are the ones introduced by an approximate LOS choice in power spectrum estimators. Our results show these biases are much bigger than the physical wide angle corrections, although still smaller than the cosmic variance error for a typical survey observing a large fraction of the sky.
We would like to stress again that the importance of having an analytical understanding of these three wide angle effects is that we can now forward model them into the analysis for the cases where they could lead to potential systematic biases. Since they manifest on very large scales, our linear theory calculation is fairly accurate.
In the second part of this work we focused on the (spherical) Fourier-Bessel expansion of cosmological fields, which naturally respects the radial symmetry of the problem and isolates the redshift and ‘sky’ directions. We compare this formalism to the more standard Fourier analysis, and comment on the wide-angle effects and the impact of survey geometry. We presented new estimators, for both the power spectrum and the bispectrum, constructed with sFB coefficients, that are nicely related to the analytical models of galaxy clustering, in this way solving one of the major issues of spherical analysis.
Finally we pointed out how systematics in the purely angular domain can be much more robustly isolated in a spherical analysis, as the separation of scales is done at the level of the fields and not of the estimated correlation function. Our formalism is general in the sense it does not depend on the particular effect one wants to remove, and it applies as well to any higher order statistics of the galaxy field and its cross correlations with other probes.
We would like to thank Nikhil Padmanabhan for useful discussions and initial collaboration during the early stage of this work. EC would like to thank Uros Seljak, Yin Li and Zack Slepian for useful discussion on power spectrum estimators. M.W. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and by NSF grant number 1713791. This work made extensive use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System and of the [astro-ph]{} preprint archive at [arXiv.org]{}.
Geometry {#app:geometry}
========
In this appendix we give some useful results for the triangle shown in Fig. \[fig:triangle\]. Given $\vec{s}_1$ and $\vec{s}_2$ with $\vec{s}\equiv\vec{s}_1-\vec{s}_2$ we have defined the line of sight parallel to the angle bisector $$\vec{d} = \frac{s_1s_2}{s_1+s_2}\left(\hat{s}_1+\hat{s}_2\right)$$ with (squared) length $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lengths}
d^2 &= s_1s_2\left[1-\frac{({\mathbf{s}}_1-{\mathbf{s}}_2)^2}{(s_1+s_2)^2}\right] \\
&= \frac{4s_1^2s_2^2}{(s_1+s_2)^2}\cos^2\frac{\theta}{2}
\quad .\end{aligned}$$ By considering $s_1^2=|(1-t)\vec{s}+\vec{d}|^2$ and $s_2^2=|\vec{s}t-\vec{d}|^2$ and eliminating the $\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d}$ terms we have Stewart’s theorem in the form: $$s_1^2 s t + s_2^2 s (1-t)
= s \left[d^2+s^2 t(1-t)\right]$$ In combination with $t s_1=(1-t)s_2$ this gives $$d^2 + s^2 t(1-t) = s_1s_2 = s_1^2\frac{t}{1-t}$$ which can be solved to yield $$1-t = \frac{-1+\mu x+\sqrt{1+\mu^2 x^2}}{2\mu x}
\simeq \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\mu x}{4} - \frac{\mu^3 x^3}{16} + \cdots$$ for $x\equiv s/d$ and $\mu=\cos\phi$. It is helpful to expand $$\begin{aligned}
s_1 &\simeq& d\left[1+\frac{\mu x}{2}+\frac{(1+\mu^2)x^2}{8} + \cdots\right]\\
s_2 &\simeq& d\left[1-\frac{\mu x}{2}+\frac{(1+\mu^2)x^2}{8} + \cdots\right]\end{aligned}$$ for small $x$. Starting from $\hat{d}\cdot\hat{s}_1$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\cos\frac{\theta}{2}
&=& \frac{1+x\mu(1-t)}{\sqrt{1+2x(1-t)\mu+x^2(1-t)^2}} \\
&\simeq& 1 - \frac{(1-\mu^2)x^2}{8} + \cdots \\
\sin\frac{\theta}{2}
&\simeq& \frac{x}{2}\sqrt{1-\mu^2} + \cdots\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\mathcal{L}_\ell\left(\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\right) \simeq
1 + x^2\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{16}\left[\mu^2-1\right] + \cdots$$ as stated in the main text. It is also useful to consider $\mathcal{L}_\ell(\cos\theta)$ in the limit of small $\theta$ but possibly large $\ell$. This can be rewritten as $$\mathcal{L}_\ell(\cos\theta)\simeq J_0(\ell\tilde{\omega})
\simeq J_0(\ell\,x\sqrt{1-\mu^2})$$ with $\tilde{\omega}\equiv 2\sin(\theta/2)\ll 1$ and $J_0$ the cylindrical Bessel function of order $0$.
The other common choice for the line of sight is the mid-point $$\vec{d}_{m} \equiv \frac{1}{2}\left(\vec{s}_1+\vec{s}_2\right)
= \vec{d} + \left(\frac{1}{2}-t\right)\vec{s}
\quad .$$ This is equal to the $\vec{d}$ above in the limit $x\to 0$, but there are differences outside of this limit. For small $x$ the length $$d_{m} = d\left[ 1+\frac{\mu^2 x^2}{4}+\cdots\right]$$ while the angle to the line of sight becomes $$\mu_{m} = \hat{s}\cdot\hat{d}_{m}
= \mu\left[ 1 + \frac{x^2}{4}(1-\mu^2)+\cdots\right]$$ These relations, and their obvious inverses, can be used to express $\xi(s,d_{m},\mu_{m})$ in terms of $\xi(s,d,\mu)$ for small $x$.
Finally we can define the triangle in terms of $\vec{s}_1$ and $\vec{s}$, with $\mu_1=\hat{s}\cdot\hat{s}_1$ and expansion parameter $x_1=s/s_1\ll 1$. The relation to the expansion in the text is then $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{s}_1\cdot\hat{s}_2 &\simeq 1 - \frac{x_1^2}{2}(1-\mu_1^2) + \cdots \\
\mu &\simeq \mu_1 - \frac{x_1}{2}(1-\mu_1^2) + \cdots \\
x &\simeq x_1\left(1 + \frac{\mu_1x_1}{2}\right) + \cdots\end{aligned}$$
Useful identities {#app:identities}
=================
In this appendix we collect some identities which are useful in deriving the formulae in the main text. The conversion from Fourier transforms to multipoles is accomplished using the Rayleigh expansion of a plane wave: $$e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{r}} = \sum_\ell i^\ell(2\ell+1)j_\ell(kr)
\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{r})$$ The (spherical) Bessel functions satisfy a completeness relation $$\int s^2\,ds\ j_\ell(ks)j_\ell(k's) = \frac{\pi}{2kk'}
\delta^{(D)}(k-k')$$ The spherical harmonics obey the addition theorem $$\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{r}_1\cdot\hat{r}_2) = \frac{4\pi}{2\ell+1}
\sum_m Y_{\ell m}(\hat{r}_1)Y_{\ell m}^\star(\hat{r}_2)$$ while the solid harmonics $$R_\ell^m(\mathbf{r}) \equiv \sqrt{\frac{4\pi}{2\ell+1}}
\ r^\ell\ Y_\ell^m(\hat{r})$$ obey an analogous addition theorem $$R_\ell^m\left(\mathbf{x}+\mathbf{y}\right) = \sum_{\lambda=0}^\ell
\sum_{\mu=-\lambda}^\lambda
R_\lambda^\mu(\mathbf{x}) R_{\ell-\lambda}^{m-\mu}(\mathbf{y})
\binom{\ell+m}{\lambda+\mu}^{1/2}
\binom{\ell-m}{\lambda-\mu}^{1/2}$$ The spherical harmonic addition theorem, and the orthogonality of the $Y_{\ell m}$, can be used to prove $$\int d\hat{x}\ \mathcal{L}_L(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{x})
\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{x}) =
\frac{4\pi}{2L+1}\delta_{L\ell}\mathcal{L}_{L}(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{s})$$ In combination with the Rayleigh expansion this implies $$\int\frac{d\Omega_k}{4\pi} e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{s}}
\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{d}) = i^L j_L(ks)
\mathcal{L}_L(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{d})$$ Finally, we note that the $3j$ symbols obey $$\label{eq:threejI}
\sum_{M,m_1} { \begin{pmatrix}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & L \\
m_1 & m_2 & M
\end{pmatrix}}
{ \begin{pmatrix}
\ell_1 & \ell & L \\
m_1 & m & M
\end{pmatrix}}
= \frac{1}{2\ell+1} \delta_{\ell\ell_2}\delta_{mm_2}$$
Derivation of linear theory result {#app:derivation_sketch}
==================================
We take the expressions for the linear theory correlation function from @Sza98, who give the expression for an arbitrary triangle configuration. It is useful to briefly recap how that derivation proceeds, so we give an outline of some of the steps below for completeness. To keep the derivation as short as possible we only show some terms and in particular we omit the $\alpha$ terms. The other terms follow a similar pattern and can be found in @Sza98 if desired.
Recall the redshift-space density in linear theory is [@Kai87] $$\delta^{(s)}({\mathbf{s}}) = \int\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
e^{i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}}
\left(1+\beta[\hat{k}\cdot\hat{s}]^2\right)\delta^{(r)}({\mathbf{k}})$$ If we define $$\delta_\ell \equiv \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\mathcal{L}_\ell(\hat{k}\cdot\hat{s}) e^{i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}}\delta({\mathbf{k}})$$ then using $\mu^2=(2/3)\mathcal{L}_2(\mu)+(1/3)\mathcal{L}_0(\mu)$ we have $$\delta^{(s)}({\mathbf{s}}) = \left(1+\frac{\beta}{3}\right)\delta_0 +
\frac{2\beta}{3}\delta_2$$ The correlation function is thus $$\begin{aligned}
\xi({\mathbf{s}}_1,{\mathbf{s}}_2) &= \left(1+\frac{\beta}{3}\right)^2
\left\langle\delta_0\delta_0\right\rangle +
\frac{4}{9}\beta^2\left\langle\delta_2\delta_2\right\rangle
\notag \\
&+ \frac{2\beta}{3}\left(1+\frac{\beta}{3}\right)
\left\langle\delta_0\delta_2+\delta_2\delta_0\right\rangle\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate the expectation values we expand $\mathcal{L}$ and $\exp[i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}]$ in spherical harmonics and integrate over $d\Omega_k$. For example $$\left\langle \delta_0^2\right\rangle = \int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)j_0(ks)$$ as expected while $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle\delta_0\delta_2+\delta_2\delta_0\right\rangle =& -\left[\mathcal{L}_2(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{s}_1)+\mathcal{L}_2(\hat{s}\cdot\hat{s}_2)\right] \notag \\
& \int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)j_2(ks) \\
=& -\left[2\mathcal{L}_2(\mu)\cos\theta+\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\cos\theta\right)\right] \notag \\
& \int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)j_2(ks)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta_2^2\right\rangle &= \int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)\sum_{L} i^Lj_L(ks)\ \left(\frac{4\pi}{5}\right)^2 \notag \\
&\times \sum_{M,m_1,m_2}
\mathcal{G}_{L22}^{Mm_1m_2}Y_{LM}^\star(\hat{s})
Y_{2m_1}^\star(\hat{s}_1)Y_{2m_2}^\star(\hat{s}_2)\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate the last line, set $\hat{d}$ to be the $\hat{z}$-axis and orient the triangle (Fig. \[fig:triangle\]) to lie in the $x-z$ plane (so all of the polar angles are zero or $\pi$). Note that $\hat{s}_1$ and $\hat{s}_2$ are both at angle $\theta/2$ to $\hat{d}$ while $\hat{s}$ is at angle $\pi-\phi$. Only $0\le L\le 4$ are non-zero and using the explicit forms of the $Y_{\ell m}$ then gives $$\left\langle \delta_2^2\right\rangle \ni \frac{\mathcal{L}_2(\cos\theta)}{5}\int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)j_0(ks)$$ for the $L=0$ contribution $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta_2^2\right\rangle & \ni \frac{1}{28}\left[1-3\cos(2\theta)
\right. \notag \\
& \left. -3\cos(2\phi-\theta)-3\cos(2\phi+\theta)\right] \notag \\
& \times\int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)j_2(ks)\end{aligned}$$ for the $L=2$ contribution and $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \delta_2^2\right\rangle & \ni \frac{9}{1120}\left[6+35\cos(4\phi)+3\cos(2\theta)+
\right. \notag \\
& \left. 10\cos(2\phi-\theta)+10\cos(2\phi+\theta)\right] \notag \\
& \times\int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)j_4(ks)
\label{eq:L4contribution}\end{aligned}$$ for $L=4$. Note that in the limit $\theta\to 0$ $$\left(1+\frac{\beta}{3}\right)^2 + \frac{4\beta^2}{45}\mathcal{L}_2(\cos\theta) \to
1 + \frac{2}{3}\beta + \frac{1}{5}\beta^2$$ and the $L=4$ part of $$\frac{4\beta^2}{9}\left\langle \delta_2^2\right\rangle
\to \frac{8\beta^2}{35}\mathcal{L}_4(\mu)
\int\frac{k^2\,dk}{2\pi^2}P(k)j_4(ks)$$ as desired. The other terms follow a similar pattern, and the results[^8] can be found in [@Sza98 beware that their $\theta$ is half ours]. It is easy to show that the corrections to the plane-parallel limit start at $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2)$.
Linear theory redshift-space angular multipoles {#app:lin_expression}
===============================================
In the main text we showed that the redshift-space angular multipoles in linear theory could be written $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Clk}
C_\ell(k_1,k_2) = & \int \mathrm{d} k \,k^2 P(k) \int \mathrm{d}s_1\,s_1^2\,\int \mathrm{d}s_2\,s_2^2
\,j_{\ell}(k_1 s_1)j_{\ell}(k_2 s_2) \notag \\
& [j_{\ell}(ks_1)-f j_{\ell}''(ks_1)]
[j_{\ell}(ks_2)-f j_{\ell}''(ks_2)]\end{aligned}$$ This expression is different than the one originally appearing in [@HT95; @Fisher94], but it rather follows from Hankel-transforming the MAPS of [@Dat07].[Eq. (\[eq:Clk\])]{} contains two kind of integrals over the product of spherical Bessel function. The first one is the orthogonality relation $$\label{eq:jd}
\int \mathrm{d}s\,s^2 j_\ell (k s) j_\ell( k_1 s) = \frac{\pi}{2}\frac{\delta^{(D)}(k-k_1)}{k^2}$$ The second one involves the second derivative of the Bessel function $$\int \mathrm{d}s\,s^2 j_\ell (k s) j_\ell''( k_1 s)$$ and can be analytically computed using Eq. (1) and Eq. (8) on page 405 of [@Watson] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:jj}
&\int \mathrm{d}s\,s^2 j_\ell (k s) j_\ell''( k_1 s)= \notag \\
&\frac{\pi}{2}\left[\theta(k_1-k)\frac{(\ell+1)(\ell+2)}{2 \ell+1}\frac{k^{\ell+1/2}}{k_1^{\ell+5/2}}+\theta(k-k_1)\frac{\ell(\ell-1)}{2\ell+1}\frac{k_1^{\ell-3/2}}{k^{\ell+1/2}}\right]\end{aligned}$$ [Eqs. (\[eq:jd\],\[eq:jj\])]{} can then be plugged into [Eq. (\[eq:Clk\])]{} to perform the remaining integral in $k$.
Estimators at $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2)$
=====================================
By definition there is no way to make the Yamamoto estimator fully separable. However it is possible, order by order in the small angle between the pair of objects, to construct a separable estimator. In configuration space an estimator accurate to $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2)$ has been presented in [@Slepian15]. We can simplify the expression for $P_L(k)$ by using the addition theorem for solid harmonics (see Appendix \[app:identities\]) $$\begin{aligned}
P_L^Y(k) &=
\int \mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k}
\,\mathrm{d}^3s_1\,\mathrm{d}^3s_2
\ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot {\mathbf{s}}}
\notag \\ & \sum_M Y_{LM}^\star(\hat{k})Y_{LM}(\hat{d}) \\
&= \int \mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k}
\,\mathrm{d}^3s_1\,\mathrm{d}^3s_2
\ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot {\mathbf{s}}} \notag \\
& \left(\frac{2L+1}{4\pi}\right)^{1/2} \sum_M Y_{LM}^\star(\hat{k})
R_{L}^M({\mathbf{d}})d^{-L} \\
& = \sum_{\ell m M} \int \mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k} Y_{LM}^\star(\hat{k})
\,\mathrm{d}^3s_1\,\mathrm{d}^3s_2
\ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}} \notag \\
& \left(\frac{2L+1}{4\pi}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{4\pi}{2\ell+1}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{4\pi}{2(L-\ell)+1}\right)^{1/2} \notag \\
& \binom{L+M}{\ell+m}^{1/2}
\binom{L-M}{\ell-m}^{1/2}\left(\frac{ts_1}{d}\right)^L \notag \\
& Y_{L-\ell,M-m}(\hat{s}_1)Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_2)\end{aligned}$$ where we have used ${\mathbf{d}}=t{\mathbf{s}}_1+(1-t){\mathbf{s}}_2$ and $ts_1=(1-t)s_2=s_1s_2/(s_1+s_2)$ in the last line. The spherical harmonics in $\hat{s}_1$ and $\hat{s}_2$ are now separated, but $t$ and $d$ are still functions of the angle between the direction of the two galaxies. With the help of [Eq. (\[eq:lengths\])]{} we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{ts_1}{d}\right)^L = \left[2\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\right]^{-L} &= 2^{-L/2}(1+\cos \theta)^{-L/2}\notag\\ &\simeq 2^{-L}\left[\left(1+\frac{L}{4}\right)-\frac{L}{4}\cos \theta\right]\end{aligned}$$ therefore obtaining a power spectrum estimator as the sum of a $\mathcal{O}(\theta^0)$ and a $\mathcal{O}(\theta^2)$ term $$\begin{aligned}
P_L^Y(k) &\simeq \sum_{\ell m M} \int \mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k} Y_{LM}^\star(\hat{k})
\,\mathrm{d}^3s_1\,\mathrm{d}^3s_2
\ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}} \notag \\
& \left(\frac{2L+1}{4\pi}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{4\pi}{2\ell+1}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{4\pi}{2(L-\ell)+1}\right)^{1/2} \notag \\
& \binom{L+M}{\ell+m}^{1/2}
\binom{L-M}{\ell-m}^{1/2} Y_{L-\ell,M-m}(\hat{s}_1)Y_{\ell m}(\hat{s}_2) \notag \\
& 2^{-L}\left[\left(1+\frac{L}{4}\right)-\frac{L}{4}\cos \theta\right] \notag \\
& \equiv P_L^{Y,(0)}(k) + P_L^{Y,(2)}(k)
\label{eq:Pktheta}\end{aligned}$$ The zero-th order piece is trivially separable as sum of FFT/sFB transforms, and similarly for $P_L^{Y,(2)}(k)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_L^{Y,(2)}(k) &= -\frac{4 \pi/3 L}{2^{L+2}}\sum_{M_1}\sum_{\ell m M} \sum_{\ell_1 m_1}\sum_{\ell_2 m_2} \mathcal{G}_{1, L-\ell, \ell_1}^{M_1, M-m, m_1}\mathcal{G}_{1, \ell, \ell_2}^{M_1, m ,m_2}\notag\\
& \int \mathrm{d}\Omega_\mathbf{k} Y_{LM}^\star(\hat{k})
\,\mathrm{d}^3s_1\,\mathrm{d}^3s_2
\ \delta({\mathbf{s}}_1) \delta({\mathbf{s}}_2) e^{-i{\mathbf{k}}\cdot{\mathbf{s}}} \notag \\
& \left(\frac{2L+1}{4\pi}\right)^{1/2} \left(\frac{4\pi}{2\ell+1}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{4\pi}{2(L-\ell)+1}\right)^{1/2} \notag \\
& \binom{L+M}{\ell+m}^{1/2}
\binom{L-M}{\ell-m}^{1/2} Y_{\ell_1m_1}(\hat{s}_1)Y^\star_{\ell_2 m_2}(\hat{s}_2)\end{aligned}$$ which contains only a finite number of terms. Notice that $P_L^{Y,(0)}$ does not reduce to the standard FFT estimator in [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{}, showing once again how the assumption $\hat{d}\simeq\hat{s}_1\simeq\hat{s}_2$ in [Eq. (\[eq:PkFFT\])]{} is not the result of a well defined series expansion but rather of an approximation. In [Eq. (\[eq:Pktheta\])]{} we have split the estimator in two terms to highlight the different contribution in $\theta$, but for practical reasons, numerical convergence of the integrals, it is highly recommended to sum the two in the integrand prior performing the FFT/sFB transform. The estimator we just described could be useful to compare theoretical models with measurements on the largest scales, as the only wide angle contributions at this order will be the physical ones we described in Section \[sec:linear\_theory\].
The Bispectrum estimator {#sec:Bisp}
========================
@Sco15 demonstrated how to construct FFT estimators for the multipoles of the galaxy bispectrum with respect to the largest size of the triangle formed by the three wavenumbers. Not all of the bispectrum information is contained in these multipoles, but a Fisher analysis in @Gagrani showed that they provide most of the constraining power. The definition in @Sco15 is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}_L (k_1,k_2,k_3) =& \frac{2L+1}{N}\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 q_1}{(2\pi)^3}\,\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 q_2}{(2\pi)^3}\,\int \frac{\mathrm{d}^3 q_3}{(2\pi)^3} \notag \\&(2\pi)^3\delta_D^{(3)}(\mathbf{q}_1+\mathbf{q}_2+\mathbf{q}_3)\times \notag \\
& \int \mathrm{d}^3 s_1\,\mathrm{d}^3 s_2\,\mathrm{d}^3 s_3 \,\delta(\mathbf{s_1})\delta(\mathbf{s_2})\delta(\mathbf{s_3}) \notag \\ &\times \mathcal{L}_L(\hat{q}_1\cdot\hat{s}_1)e^{-i \mathbf{q}_1\cdot\mathbf{s}_1-i \mathbf{q}_2\cdot \mathbf{s}_2-i\mathbf{q}_3\cdot\mathbf{s}_3}\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is a normalization factor that depends on the particular configuration, and the integrals over the $q_i$ are evaluated around a thin shell $q_i = k_i +\delta k_i$.
It turns out that this can be computed relatively simply within the Fourier-Bessel formalism. To make connection with the sFB expansion, let us rewrite the $\delta_D^{(3)}$ as $$(2\pi)^3\delta_D^{(3)}(\mathbf{q}_1+\mathbf{q}_2+\mathbf{q}_3) = \int \mathrm{d}^3 s \ e^{i(\mathbf{q}_1+\mathbf{q}_2+\mathbf{q}_3)\cdot {\mathbf{s}}}$$ and then perform all the angular integrals over the wavenumbers and use the $3j$ identity [Eq. (\[eq:threejI\])]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Bisp}
\hat{B}_L(k_1,k_2,k_3) \propto &\sum_{\substack{\ell_1,\ell_2,\ell_3\\m_1,m_2,m_3}} \sum_{\ell<|\ell_1-L|}^{\ell_1+L} i^{\ell_1-\ell}\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^{3/2} \notag \\
&(2L+1)(2l+1) \mathcal{G}_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3}^{m_1m_2m_3}
{ \begin{pmatrix}
\ell & \ell_1 & L \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^2 \notag \\ &
\int \mathrm{d}s\,s^2\,j_{\ell_1}(k_1 s)j_{\ell_2}(k_2 s)j_{\ell_3}(k_3 s)\notag\\
&\delta_{\ell_1m_1}^{\ell}(k_1)\delta_{\ell_2m_2}(k_2)\delta_{\ell_3m_3}(k_3)\end{aligned}$$ The integral over three spherical Bessel functions can be computed analytically, following @Mehrem+91, as $$\begin{aligned}
&{ \begin{pmatrix}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}} \int \mathrm{d}s\,s^2\,j_{\ell_1}(k_1 s)j_{\ell_2}(k_2 s)j_{\ell_3}(k_3 s) =\notag \\
&\frac{\pi}{4k_1k_2k_3}i^{\ell_1+\ell_2-\ell_3}(2\ell_3+1)^{1/2}\left(\frac{k_1}{k_3}\right)^{\ell_3} \notag \\ & \sum_{\ell_4=0}^{l_3}\binom{2 \ell_3}{2\ell_4}^{1/2} \left(\frac{k_2}{k_1}\right)^{\ell_4}
\sum_{\ell_5} (2\ell_5+1) { \begin{pmatrix}
\ell_1 & \ell_3-\ell_4 & \ell_5 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}\notag \\ & { \begin{pmatrix}
\ell_2 & \ell_4 & \ell_5 \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}} { \begin{Bmatrix}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\
\ell_4 & \ell_3-\ell_4 & \ell_5
\end{Bmatrix}}\mathcal{L}_{\ell_5}(\hat{k}_1\cdot\hat{k}_2)\end{aligned}$$ and it is different from zero only if the three wavenumbers live in a triangular configuration. This expression for the bispectrum may look cumbersome, but after the sFB coefficients have been computed, for the power spectrum, estimating the bispectrum reduces to simple sums and multiplications. Our expression automatically accounts for the fact the three modes live in a triangle, which in a Cartesian analysis usually requires additional FFTs. As already discussed in Sec\[sec:PksFB\], low $k_{||}$ modes can be discarded at the level of the field, therefore removing systematics in the plane of the sky does not present any extra work for the bispectrum.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Another way to think of the mode coupling is that it arises from aliasing due to the projection of the spherically symmetric configuration selected by the physics onto the planar (triangle) configuration of the observation. See @Sza98.
[^4]: Note that we will use $\xi_\ell$ without a superscript and with two arguments to refer to this wide-angle quantity, while $\xi_\ell^{(n)}$ with the superscript – defined in Eq. (\[eqn:xi\_ell\_n\]) – is an integral of the linear theory power spectrum.
[^5]: Beware: one often finds similar definitions with an additional $i^\ell$. We do not include this factor.
[^6]: This is true for both midpoint and angle bisector definition of the LOS.
[^7]: To obtain the inverse relation, integrate [Eq. (\[eq:xi\_from\_Cl\])]{} over $d(\cos\theta)$ times a Legendre polynomial in $\cos\theta$ and express $\xi^{s}({\mathbf{s}}_1,{\mathbf{s}}_2)$ in terms of $x$, $d$ and $\mu$.
[^8]: Note that Eq. (15) of @Sza98 contains a typographical error. The $4/15$ should be $8/15$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Epitaxially grown quantum dots (QDs) are promising sources of non-classical states of light such as single photons and entangled photons. However, in order for them to be used as a resource for long-distance quantum communication, distributed quantum computation, or linear optics quantum computing, these photons must be coupled efficiently to long-lived quantum memories as part of a quantum repeater network. Here, we theoretically examine the prospects for efficient storage and retrieval of a QD-generated single photon with a 1 ns lifetime in a multi-level atomic system. We calculate using an experimentally demonstrated optical depth of 150 that the storage (total) efficiency can exceed 46$\%$ (28$\%$) in a dense, ultracold ensemble of $^{87}$Rb atoms. Furthermore, we find that the optimal control pulse required for storage and retrieval can be obtained using a diode laser and an electro-optic modulator rather than a mode-locked, pulsed laser source. Increasing the optical depth, for example by using Bose-condensed ensembles or an optical cavity, can increase the efficiencies to near unity. Aside from enabling a high-speed quantum network based on QDs, such an efficient optical interface between an atomic ensemble and a QD can also lead to entanglement between collective spin-wave excitations of atoms and the spin of an electron or hole confined in the QD.'
author:
- 'Matthew T. Rakher'
- 'Richard J. Warburton'
- Philipp Treutlein
title: 'Prospects for Storage and Retrieval of a Quantum Dot Single Photon in an Ultracold $^{87}$Rb Ensemble'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Quantum communication and computation offer technological advances by performing information processing with quantum mechanics [@ref:NielsenChuang; @ref:Ladd_Nat10]. In order to perform these tasks over large distances, photons are the obvious choice to carry quantum information. However, transmission over large distances is dramatically hampered by attenuation in optical fibers. Unlike classical fiber optic communication, amplifiers placed periodically along the transmission channel cannot be used to overcome this loss owing to the “no-cloning" theorem [@ref:Wootters_Nat_82]. Fortunately, quantum repeaters have been proposed to resolve this issue by using entanglement shared between adjacent nodes and joint measurements to create entanglement between the start node and the terminal node [@ref:Briegel_PRL_98; @ref:Kimble_Nat08; @ref:Sangouard_RMP_2011]. A crucial element in this scheme is the ability to efficiently store and retrieve single photons using a quantum memory [@ref:Duan_Lukin_Cirac_Zoller; @ref:Lvovsky_Nphot_2009]. To date, the essential ingredients of a photonic quantum memory have been demonstrated using ensembles of ultracold alkali atoms [@ref:Chaneliere_Kuzmich; @ref:Choi_Nat_2008; @ref:ZhaoPan_NPhys_08; @ref:ZhaoKuz_NPhys_09], ensembles of ultracold atoms in cavities [@ref:Simon_PRL_07], warm vapors of alkali atoms [@ref:Eisaman_Lukin; @ref:Sherson_Nat_06; @ref:Reim_NatPhot10], ultracold single atoms in cavities [@ref:Specht_Nat_11], and solid-state systems composed of rare-earth dopants in crystals [@ref:Clausen_Nat11; @ref:Saglamyurek_Nat11]. Specifically, retrieval efficiencies as high as 73$\%$ and storage times as long as 3.2 ms have been simultaneously demonstrated using ultracold atoms [@ref:Bao_Nphys_2012]. The combination of large optical depths and long ground state hyperfine coherence make ultracold atomic ensembles an attractive platform for optical quantum memories.
While there are quantum memory schemes which use probabilistically-generated spin waves from spontaneous Raman scattering in atomic ensembles, it has been shown that schemes based on fast (rates approaching the GHz scale) single photon or entangled photon sources can provide better performance [@ref:Sangouard_PRA_2007; @ref:Sangouard_RMP_2011]. Thus, one would ideally like a source of quantum light states that is on-demand and bright, meaning it can produce these photons on fast timescales (broadband) in a triggered fashion. In addition, these broadband photons should be indistinguishable so they bunch perfectly on a beamsplitter [@ref:Knill_Nat_01]. A promising source of such on-demand, non-classical light states are epitaxially grown, GaAs-based semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) [@ref:Shields_NPhot]. The short spontaneous emission lifetime of a QD, more than an order of magnitude shorter than that of an alkali atom, and the fact that it is embedded in a robust optoelectronic material make it an attractive candidate as a quantum light source. As an individual two-level system, the QD naturally emits one photon when it is excited and collection of this photon can be very efficient by proper design of the surrounding dielectric [@ref:Strauf_NPhot; @ref:Claudon; @ref:Davanco_APL_11]. Single photon count rates can in principle approach 1 GHz, with higher rates possible by taking advantage of a Purcell enhancement. In addition, QDs have been shown to emit polarization entangled photons by means of a cascaded decay [@ref:Stevenson_Nat_06; @ref:Muller_PRL_09]. Finally, QD-generated photons can have a high degree of indistinguishability [@ref:Ates_PRL09; @ref:He_Nnano_2013]. Aside from these optical properties, the internal spin states of charged quantum dots have received considerable attention for quantum information processing [@ref:Atature_Sci_06; @ref:Gerardot_Nat; @ref:deGreve_NPhys_11]. Spin coherence times as along as 1 $\mu$s have been measured [@ref:Brunner_Sci_09] and because the spin state can be entangled with the polarization of an emitted photon [@ref:Simon_PRB_07; @ref:DeGreve_Nat_12; @ref:Gao_Nat_12], charged quantum dots are a natural candidate for a solid-state qubit that interacts strongly with light.
While QDs are promising sources of single or entangled photons, they must be coupled to a high quality quantum memory in order to be a viable source for long distance quantum information processing. Here, we investigate the storage and retrieval of a broadband, QD-generated single photon with a 1 ns lifetime in an ultracold, dense ensemble of $^{87}$Rb atoms. Taking previously measured experimental parameters, we find that the total efficiency ($\eta_{tot} = \eta_{s} \times \eta_{r}$, where $\eta_s$ and $\eta_r$ are the storage and retrieval efficiencies) can exceed 28$\%$ for storage and backwards retrieval of a photon with a 1 ns lifetime in a $^{87}$Rb ensemble with an on-resonance optical depth of 150. Because the bandwidth of the QD photon can approach the excited-state hyperfine splitting in $^{87}$Rb, this result was obtained by extending the $\Lambda$-system theory of Gorshkov *et al* [@ref:Gorshkov_PRL07; @ref:Gorshkov_PRA2] to a four-level system. Using the gradient ascent approach outlined in Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA4], we determine the maximum efficiency as well as the optimal control pulse for photon storage. We find that the control pulse can be easily generated using a 12 mW laser diode in contrast to the broadband, Raman-based scheme in Ref. [@ref:Reim_NatPhot10] where a mode-locked laser is required. Finally, we consider the effects of excess dephasing and spectral wandering of the QD optical transition and show that the memory efficiency remains fairly robust. These results show that with existing technology, QD-generated photons can be reliably interfaced with ultracold atomic ensembles, paving the way for their future use in quantum information as well as opening interesting avenues in the study of hybrid quantum systems.
This paper is arranged as follows: In Sec. \[sec:3L\], we briefly review the physics of photon storage and retrieval in a $\Lambda$-system following the treatment of Gorshkov *et al* [@ref:Gorshkov_PRL07; @ref:Gorshkov_PRA2]. In Sec. \[sec:4L\], we extend this treatment to a four-level atom, which is relevant for broadband photon storage in atomic systems with non-negligible hyperfine structure in the excited state. Section \[sec:QD\] implements the model to study storage and retrieval of a broadband single photon emitted by a quantum dot using a $^{87}$Rb ensemble. In Sec. \[sec:dephase\], deleterious effects resulting from imperfect indistinguishability of the quantum dot photon are discussed. In sec. \[sec:highOD\] we investigate how the efficiencies increase for very high optical depth. The work is concluded and summarized in Sec. \[sec:conc\] and details of the calculations and numerical implementation are discussed in the Appendices A and B. Appendix C discusses the role of four-wave mixing (FWM) in the storage process.
Review of Photon Storage in a $\Lambda$-system {#sec:3L}
==============================================
Photon storage in a three level, $\Lambda$-type system has been the subject of many articles and reviews [@ref:Sangouard_RMP_2011]. Here, we briefly touch on the main points and restrict the discussion to those schemes described by the theory of Gorshkov *et al*, namely those based on Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT), off-resonant Raman, or photon echo interactions [@ref:Gorshkov_PRL07; @ref:Gorshkov_PRA2]. In that work, these three schemes were shown to yield similar storage efficiencies for the same optical depth of the $\Lambda$ medium and are in this sense equivalent. However, there are tradeoffs in the actual physical implementation for these schemes which will be discussed later.
The basic picture of photon storage in such a system is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. Each atom in the ensemble is composed of two ground states ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ that can be optically coupled to the excited state ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$. These two transitions can be individually addressed using a sufficient ground state splitting or by selection rules so as to avoid cross-coupling. The storage procedure starts with all of the atoms initialized into ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$. Then a quantum field $\mathcal{E}(\tau)$ which is to be stored, addresses the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition while a classical control field $\Omega(\tau)$ addresses the ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\](a)). The control pulse facilitates the transfer of the quantum field to a spatially-dependent coherence of the two ground states (often called a “spin wave") $S(\tilde{z},\tau)$ as depicted in Fig. \[fig:fig1\](b). The exact physical mechanism that accomplishes this task depends on the scheme. In EIT storage, the control pulse dynamically creates a transparency window in the absorption profile of the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition while adiabatically reducing the group velocity of the quantum field to 0 [@ref:Lukin_RMP_03]. In Raman storage, the control pulse enables the quantum field to be absorbed into ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ by a two-photon Raman transition [@ref:Nunn_PRA_07]. For photon echo storage, the quantum field promotes an atom to the excited state ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and the control pulse transfers the excitation to ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ by performing a fast $\pi$ pulse. In all cases, the quantum field transfers one atom from ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$, however there is no knowledge of which atom. Thus the excitation is coherently distributed over the entire ensemble and it is this collective behavior that makes the process efficient.
The quantum field is now stored in this collective ground state coherence and is therefore sensitive to decoherence processes. These processes, which can include magnetic field fluctuations or atomic motion, set the limit for the spin wave coherence time, and hence, the duration the photon can be stored. Notably, the spin wave is more robust against decoherence than many other multi-particle entangled states [@ref:Lukin_RMP_03]. The spin wave can be re-converted into a photon by using another control pulse (see Fig. \[fig:fig1\](c)-(d)). Gorshkov *et al* showed that the optimal retrieval is simply the time-reverse of storage; so-called “backwards retrieval" [@ref:Gorshkov_PRL07]. This process creates a photon propagating in the opposite direction to its initial propagation. Forwards retrieval is also possible, but will not be treated here.
For all of these storage schemes, the dynamics of the interaction between the two optical fields and the atoms is described by treating the signal field on the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition quantum mechanically while treating the ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ control field semiclassically. The atomic level structure with relevant energy scales for photon storage in a three-level $\Lambda$ system is shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. The ensemble of $\Lambda$ systems is composed of $N$ atoms distributed over a volume of length $L$ and cross-sectional area $A$ with linear density $n(z)$. In this analysis, we ignore the motion of the atoms and thereby restrict the discussion to ultracold ensembles. As was shown in Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2], the important parameter governing the efficiency of the storage process is the optical depth, defined as $$d = \frac{g^2 N L}{\gamma c},$$ where $g$ is the single-photon coupling constant for the transition and $\gamma$ is the decay of the coherence of the excited state (for a purely radiative decay with no additional dephasing $2\gamma=\Gamma$, the spontaneous emission rate). Note that the $d$ used here and in Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2] is equal to half of the optical depth as usually defined ($2d = d_{std} = \sigma \rho L$ where $\sigma$ is the resonant absorption cross-section of a single atom and $\rho$ is the number density). The classical control field is described by a Rabi frequency envelope $\Omega(z,t)=\Omega(z-t/c)$ centered at frequency $\nu_{es} = \omega_{es}+\delta_s$. As also noted in App. A, this Rabi frequency is defined to be 1/2 of the usually defined Rabi frequency. The quantum field is described by a slowly varying envelope operator $\mathcal{\hat{E}}(z,t)$ centered at frequency $\nu_{eg} = \omega_{eg}+\delta_g$. In addition to $\mathcal{\hat{E}}(z,t)$, there are two other operators required to describe the dynamics: the polarization operator $\hat{P}_1(z,t) = \sqrt{N}\hat{\sigma}_{g1}(z,t)$ and the spin-wave operator $\hat{S}(z,t) = \sqrt{N}\hat{\sigma}_{gs}(z,t)$ where $\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}(z,t)$ are slowly-varying collective atomic operators defined in App. A. It was shown in Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA1] that in order to determine normally-ordered quantities such as efficiencies, one can neglect quantum noise operators and treat all dynamical variables as complex numbers.
The equations of motion governing $\mathcal{E}$, $P_1$, and $S$ are derived by calculating the Heisenberg equation of motion for all dynamical variables using the dipole and rotating wave approximations. Then, two further approximations are made related to the fact that the quantum field is weak. First, it is assumed that almost all of the atoms remain in the ground state ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ during the whole process. Second, only terms to linear order in $\mathcal{E}$ are retained. Under these approximations (see Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2] and App. A for details), the following equations of motion are obtained:
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \mathcal{E} &= i \tilde{\mu}_{1g}\sqrt{d \gamma}P_1 \label{eqn:3LEoME}\\
\partial_{\tau}P_1 &= \left(i \delta_g-\gamma \right) P_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega(\tau) S +i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \label{eqn:3LEoMP1}\\
\partial_{\tau}S &= i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s \right) S + i \tilde{\mu}_{1s}\Omega^*(\tau)P_1. \label{eqn:3LEoMS}\end{aligned}$$
These equations of motion use a coordinate system $(\tilde{z},\tau)$, where $\tilde{z} = (1/N) \int_0^z dz'\, n(z')$ is a dimensionless length parameter ($\tilde{z} \in [0,1] $) and $\tau=t-z/c$ is the time in a co-moving reference frame. Compared to the results of Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2], Eqs. \[eqn:3LEoME\]-\[eqn:3LEoMS\] also include relative dipole moments $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$. These are defined as dipole moments relative to that of the two-level, cycling transition $\mu_{cyc}$ where a measurement of the optical depth would take place. This sets the natural scale of the atom’s dipole strength and allows for easy comparison between different physical implementations of levels ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$, and ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ (see App. A for details).
For storage, we would like to take a quantum field with initial envelope $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau)$ (non-zero on the interval $\tau \in [0,T]$) and map it into a spin wave $S(\tilde{z},T)$ using a classical pulse $\Omega(\tau)$. The boundary conditions for the dynamical variables are $\mathcal{E}(0,\tau)=\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau)$ and $S(\tilde{z},0)=P_1(\tilde{z},0)=0$. We then want to compute the efficiency of this mapping once $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}} = 0$ at $\tau = T$. If the envelope of the initial quantum field is normalized ($\int_0^T d\tau \left|\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau) \right|^2=1$), the storage efficiency $\eta_s$ is given by [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2] $$\eta_s = \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\left|S(\tilde{z},T)\right|^2 \label{eqn:etastor}.$$
For a given input field and optical depth of the medium, one would like to determine the optimal classical pulse shape so as to maximize the storage efficiency. In Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2] it was shown that in the adiabatic limit, $Td\gamma \gg 1$, an analytic solution for $\Omega(\tau)$ could be found and that the efficiency scaled as $\eta_s \propto d/(1+d)$. For broadband photon storage, the adiabatic limit is not necessarily met and the optimal $\Omega(\tau)$ must be found numerically. Gorshkov *et al.* used a gradient ascent algorithm in Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA4] to numerically optimize $\eta_s$ and found that the results matched the analytical solution in the adiabatic limit. In addition, it was shown that photons beyond the adiabatic regime ($1/T \approx d \gamma$) could also be stored efficiently by using this optimization technique. This is the approach we will use in the following analysis and now briefly review. Because we take a numerical approach, we now restrict the discussion to near-resonant storage schemes and exclude off-resonant Raman based storage which would require a much larger computational domain so as to capture the rapidly varying detuning ($\delta_g,\delta_s \gg \sqrt{d \gamma/T_1}$). Gorshkov *et al* mentioned in Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA4] how one can obtain the optimal control pulse for Raman-based storage from the optimal control pulse found for resonant storage, but we do not pursue this here. We do, however, note that the control pulse required for Raman storage can be several orders of magnitude more intense than that required for resonant schemes [@ref:Reim_NatPhot10] for the same optical depth $d$ and hence the same efficiency.
A gradient ascent algorithm simply starts with a trial solution and proceeds to the optimal solution by moving along the gradient of the quantity to be maximized. At each step in the algorithm, the gradient is determined and the control pulse is updated. Mathematically, this replacement rule is $$\Omega(\tau) \rightarrow \Omega(\tau)+\lambda \frac{\delta J}{\delta \Omega(\tau)},$$ where $\lambda$ is the step size parameter and $J$ is the quantity to be maximized. In the case of photon storage, we want to maximize the storage efficiency subject to the constraint that all of the dynamical variables fulfill the equations of motion (Eq. \[eqn:3LEoME\]-\[eqn:3LEoMS\]). Thus, $J$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
J &=\int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\,S(\tilde{z},T)S^*(\tilde{z},T) \nonumber \\
&+\int_0^T d\tau \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\,\left\{ \bar{\mathcal{E}}^* \left[ -\partial_{\tilde{z}} \mathcal{E} + i \tilde{\mu}_{1g}\sqrt{d \gamma}P_1 \right] +c.c.\right\} \nonumber \\
&+\int_0^T d\tau \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\, \Big\{ \bar{P}_1^*\Big[ \left(-\partial_{\tau}+i \delta_g-\gamma \right) P_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega(\tau) S \nonumber \\
&+ i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \Big] +c.c. \Big\} \nonumber \\
&+\int_0^T d\tau \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\,\Big\{ \bar{S}^*\Big[-\partial_{\tau}S+ i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s \right) S \nonumber \\
&+ i \tilde{\mu}_{1s}\Omega^*(\tau)P_1 \Big] +c.c. \Big\}, \label{eqn:3LJ}\end{aligned}$$ where the first term is $\eta_s$ and Lagrange multipliers $\bar{\mathcal{E}}$, $\bar{P}_1$, and $\bar{S}$ have been introduced to include the equations of motion. The maximum storage efficiency is found when $J$ is stationary with respect to variations in all dynamical variables and $\Omega(\tau)$. Requiring stationarity with respect to variations in $\mathcal{E}$, $P_1$, and $S$ results in equations of motion and boundary conditions for the Lagrange multipliers $\bar{\mathcal{E}}$, $\bar{P}_1$, and $\bar{S}$. The equations of motion are $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \bar{\mathcal{E}} &= i \tilde{\mu}_{1g}\sqrt{d \gamma}\bar{P}_1 \label{eqn:3LEoMbE}\\
\partial_{\tau}\bar{P}_1 &= \left(i \delta_g+\gamma \right) \bar{P}_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega(\tau) \bar{S} +i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \bar{\mathcal{E}} \label{eqn:3LEoMbP1}\\
\partial_{\tau}\bar{S} &= i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s \right) \bar{S} + i \tilde{\mu}_{1s}\Omega^*(\tau)\bar{P}_1 \label{eqn:3LEoMbS}\end{aligned}$$ with boundary conditions $\bar{S}(\tilde{z},T) = S(\tilde{z},T)$ and $\bar{\mathcal{E}}(1,\tau)=\bar{P}_1(\tilde{z},T)=0$. As pointed out in Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA4], these are exactly the equations of motion and boundary conditions for backwards retrieval. Thus, solving these equations will yield the retrieval efficiency, $\eta_r$, and the total efficiency $\eta_{tot} = \eta_s \eta_r$ for storage followed by backwards retrieval. Explicitly, these quantities can be determined using $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{r} &= \frac{\int_0^T d\tau \, |\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{out}}(\tau)|^2}{\int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\left|S(\tilde{z},T)\right|^2} \\
\eta_{tot} &= \int_0^T d\tau \, |\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{out}}(\tau)|^2\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{out}}(\tau) = \bar{\mathcal{E}}(0,\tau)$ is the output quantum field.
The variation of $J$ with respect to variations in $\Omega(\tau)$ (the gradient) can be identified from Eq. \[eqn:3LJ\] as $$\frac{\delta J}{\delta \Omega(\tau)} = -2 \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\, \mathrm{Im}{\left[\bar{S}^*P_1-\bar{P}_1 S^* \right]}. \label{eqn:3Lgrad}$$ Thus, the prescription for obtaining the maximum storage efficiency and optimal control pulse for a given input quantum field and optical depth is as follows. First, take a trial control pulse and solve the equations of motion Eq. \[eqn:3LEoME\]-\[eqn:3LEoMS\] with the storage boundary conditions to obtain $P_1(\tilde{z},\tau)$ and $S(\tilde{z},\tau)$. Then, solve Eq. \[eqn:3LEoMbE\]-\[eqn:3LEoMbS\] using the boundary conditions for backwards retrieval (note that these equations run backwards in time and space) to obtain $\bar{P}_1(\tilde{z},\tau)$ and $\bar{S}(\tilde{z},\tau)$. Now the gradient can be determined from Eq. \[eqn:3Lgrad\] and the control pulse can be updated using the replacement rule. This process is then repeated until the desired tolerance of the storage (or total) efficiency is obtained.
![(Color online) Results of the numerical calculation using gradient ascent for storage and retrieval of a quantum dot photon in an idealized Rb gas. The storage (total) efficiency is plotted as a function of the optical depth $d$ in blue (red). Solid curves are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:fig3"}](fig_3.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
As an example we consider the case of an idealized Rb gas ($\tilde{\mu}_{1g} = \tilde{\mu}_{1s}=1$, $\gamma = 2\pi\times3.035$ MHz) storing a quantum-dot photon with $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau)\exp(-\tau/2 T_1)/\sqrt{T_1}$ where $\Theta(\tau)$ is the Heaviside step function and $T_1$ is the spontaneous emission lifetime (taken to be 1 ns). We take both fields to be exactly on resonance $\delta_g=\delta_s=0$. As a function of $d$, the storage and total efficiencies are determined by performing gradient ascent for each value of $d$. Details and limitations of the numerical implementation can be found in Appendix \[app:Num\]. The results of the numerical calculation are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\] where the storage (blue) and total (red) efficiencies are plotted as a function of $d$. Both curves reach an asymptotic value of $\approx$96.0$\%$ for $d\approx10^3$ limited by the finite computational domain and the instantaneous rise of the quantum field, which is non-physical but chosen for calculational simplicity (see App. \[app:Num\]).
![(Color online) Optimal control pulses for quantum dot photon storage with $d=\{10.0,26.4,78.0,230,678\}$ determined using gradient ascent. The Rabi frequencies are scaled by $\gamma = 2\pi\times3.035$ MHz.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fig_4.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
In addition to determining the efficiencies, it is instructive to see how the optimal control pulse $\Omega(\tau)$ changes as a function of $d$. Figure \[fig:fig4\] shows the optimal control pulse for a few selected values of $d$ and it can be seen that the required peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_m$ increases with $d$. For these parameters, we find that $\Omega_m \propto d^{0.67}$. Furthermore, $\Omega(\tau)$ starts to become much more heavily weighted at the start of the pulse. Both of these observations can be understood as the optimal storage scheme slowly changes from a photon echo type storage towards an EIT-based storage as the adiabatic limit is approached. Lastly, the widths of these control pulses are not ultrafast, i.e. they do not require a mode-locked laser but rather are achievable with more flexible techniques such as direct intensity modulation. The combination of relatively high total efficiencies and realistic control pulses make it seem that storage of a quantum dot photon in an atomic gas like Rb is certainly feasible with current technology.
Importantly, the peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_m$ of the control pulse surpasses 50$\gamma$ even for relatively low $d$. For such large values of $\Omega_m$, the more complicated level structure of the storage medium will begin to play a significant role in the dynamics. For instance, the excited-state splittings of the commonly-used $D_2$ transitions of $^{87}$Rb are around 100 MHz ($\approx 30\gamma$). As a result, the three-level $\Lambda$ treatment is insufficient to describe broadband, on-resonance storage and more levels must be taken into account.
Photon Storage in a Four-level System {#sec:4L}
=====================================
We now extend the treatment of Sec. \[sec:3L\] to include another excited state that can couple to both the control field and the input quantum field as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig5\]. Because the maximum Rabi frequency of the control pulse can exceed the excited state level splitting $\Delta_e$, an atom can go from ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ via ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ or ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$. Depending on the dipole matrix elements $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$, these paths can interfere constructively or destructively.
Following the same procedure as in Sec. \[sec:3L\] and adding another polarization $\hat{P}_2(z,t) = \sqrt{N}\hat{\sigma}_{g2}(z,t)$ results in the following equations of motion (see App. A for details):
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \mathcal{E} &= i\sqrt{d \gamma}\left[\tilde{\mu}_{1g} P_1 + \tilde{\mu}_{2g} P_2\right] \label{eqn:4LEoME}\\
\partial_{\tau}P_1 &= \left(i \delta_g-\gamma \right) P_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega(\tau) S +i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \label{eqn:4LEoMP1}\\
\partial_{\tau}P_2 &= \left(i\delta_g -i\Delta_e-\gamma\right) P_2 + i \tilde{\mu}_{2s} \Omega(\tau) S \nonumber \\
&+ i \tilde{\mu}_{2g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \label{eqn:4LEoMP2}\\
\partial_{\tau}S &= i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s \right) S + i\Omega^*(\tau)\left[ \tilde{\mu}_{1s}P_1 + \tilde{\mu}_{2s}P_2 \right] \label{eqn:4LEoMS}\end{aligned}$$
where new relative dipole moments $\tilde{\mu}_{2g}$ and $\tilde{\mu}_{2s}$ have been introduced to represent the couplings to the additional excited state. As the spin wave $S(\tilde{z},\tau)$ and the field $\mathcal{E}(\tilde{z},\tau)$ are unchanged, the definitions of the storage, retrieval, and total efficiencies remain the same. Furthermore, the boundary conditions for storage are the same as before except $P_2(\tilde{z},0)=0$ is added.
We can also find the four-level version of $J$ $$\begin{aligned}
J &=\int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\,S(\tilde{z},T)S^*(\tilde{z},T)+\int_0^T d\tau \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\,\Big\{ \bar{\mathcal{E}}^* \Big[ -\partial_{\tilde{z}} \mathcal{E} \nonumber\\
&+ i \sqrt{d \gamma}\left(\tilde{\mu}_{1g} P_1 +\tilde{\mu}_{2g} P_2\right)\Big] +c.c.\Big\} \nonumber \\
&+\int_0^T d\tau \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\, \Big\{ \bar{P}_1^*\Big[(-\partial_{\tau}+i \delta_g-\gamma) P_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega(\tau) S \nonumber \\
&+ i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \Big] +c.c. \Big\} \nonumber \\
&+\int_0^T d\tau \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\, \Big\{ \bar{P}_2^*\Big[ \left(-\partial_{\tau}+i\delta_g-i\Delta_e-\gamma \right) P_2 \nonumber \\
&+i \tilde{\mu}_{2s} \Omega(\tau) S+ i \tilde{\mu}_{2g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \Big] +c.c. \Big\} \nonumber \\
&+\int_0^T d\tau \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\,\Big\{ \bar{S}^*\Big[-\partial_{\tau}S+ i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s \right) S \nonumber \\
&+ i\Omega^*(\tau)\left( \tilde{\mu}_{1s}P_1+\tilde{\mu}_{2s}P_2 \right) \Big] +c.c. \Big\}, \label{eqn:4LJ}\end{aligned}$$ in order to obtain the optimal control and efficiencies. By requiring that $J$ is stationary with respect to variations in $\mathcal{E}$, $P_1$, $P_2$, and $S$, we find the equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \bar{\mathcal{E}} &= i\sqrt{d \gamma}\left( \tilde{\mu}_{1g}\bar{P}_1+\tilde{\mu}_{2g}\bar{P}_2 \right)\label{eqn:4LEoMbE}\\
\partial_{\tau}\bar{P}_1 &= \left(i \delta_g+\gamma \right) \bar{P}_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega(\tau) \bar{S} +i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \bar{\mathcal{E}} \label{eqn:4LEoMbP1}\\
\partial_{\tau}\bar{P}_2 &= \left(i \delta_g-i\Delta_e+\gamma \right) \bar{P}_2+i \tilde{\mu}_{2s} \Omega(\tau) \bar{S} +i \tilde{\mu}_{2g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \bar{\mathcal{E}} \label{eqn:4LEoMbP2}\\
\partial_{\tau}\bar{S} &= i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s \right) \bar{S} + i\Omega^*(\tau)\left( \tilde{\mu}_{1s}\bar{P}_1+\tilde{\mu}_{2s}\bar{P}_2 \right)\label{eqn:4LEoMbS}\end{aligned}$$ for the Lagrange multipliers and their boundary conditions ($\bar{S}(\tilde{z},T) = S(\tilde{z},T)$ and $\bar{\mathcal{E}}(1,\tau)=\bar{P}_1(\tilde{z},T)=\bar{P}_2(\tilde{z},T)=0$). The gradient along $\Omega(\tau)$ is now modified to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta J}{\delta \Omega(\tau)} &= -2 \int_0^1 d\tilde{z}\, \mathrm{Im}\Big[\bar{S}^*\left(\tilde{\mu}_{1s} P_1+\tilde{\mu}_{2s} P_2 \right) \nonumber \\ &-\left(\tilde{\mu}_{1s}\bar{P}_1+\tilde{\mu}_{2s}\bar{P}_2 \right) S^* \Big]. \label{eqn:4Lgrad}\end{aligned}$$
It is clear that if $\tilde{\mu}_{2g}=\tilde{\mu}_{2s}=0$, all of the expressions from Sec. \[sec:3L\] are recovered. In the limit where $\Delta_e \gg \Omega_m,\sqrt{d \gamma/T_1}$, then $P_2$ can be adiabatically eliminated and the results of Sec. \[sec:3L\] are again recovered. Thus, the extension to a four level system reproduces the results of the three level case in the appropriate limits.
![(Color online) Optimal control pulses for quantum dot photon storage in a three level system (short-dotted green), the 4L+ four level scenario (solid blue), and the 4L- four level scenario (long-dotted, red).[]{data-label="fig:fig6"}](fig_6.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
To gain some insight into the ramifications of including a fourth level in an intermediate regime of $\Delta_e$, we directly compare the results of the gradient ascent algorithm applied to the three level case to that for two scenarios of the four level case. For all calculations, we again store a resonant quantum dot photon with $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau)\exp(-\tau/2 T_1)/\sqrt{T_1}$ using a resonant control pulse ($\delta_g=\delta_s=0$). For the parameters of the storage medium we take $\gamma = 2\pi\times3.035$ MHz, $d=75$, and $\tilde{\mu}_{1g}=\tilde{\mu}_{1s}=1$. The first four level scenario (4L+) we consider is $\Delta_e=2\pi\times100$ MHz and $\tilde{\mu}_{2g}=\tilde{\mu}_{2s}=1$ while the second scenario (4L-) has the same excited state energy splitting but $\tilde{\mu}_{2g}=-\tilde{\mu}_{2s}=1$. The optimal control pulses resulting from the gradient ascent optimization are plotted in Fig. \[fig:fig6\] for each scenario. Not only does the inclusion of a fourth level dramatically change the optimal control pulse, but the sign of the relative dipole moment also has a large effect. More importantly, the computed storage (total) efficiencies are 73.6$\%$, 77.6$\%$, and 43.5$\%$ (63.4$\%$, 65.7$\%$, and 26.3$\%$) for the 3L, 4L+, and 4L- scenarios respectively. If one naively uses the optimal control for 3L in the 4L+ case, the storage (total) efficiency is only 56.5$\%$ (48.4$\%$), while for the 4L- case 20.8$\%$ (4.8 $\%$) is obtained. From this analysis it is clear that additional excited states must be taken into account and a careful choosing of those levels is required for any implementation of broadband photon storage where the peak Rabi frequency of the control pulse is comparable to the excited state splitting.
![(Color online) The storage efficiency after gradient ascent optimization as a function of detuning $\delta=\delta_g=\delta_s$. The slight asymmetry about $\delta/\Delta_e=0.5$ is due to the finite accuracy of the numerics (see Appendix \[app:Num\]).[]{data-label="fig:fig7"}](fig_7.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Another question one could ask is if there is an optimal choice of the optical detuning $\delta=\delta_g=\delta_s$ in the four level system. To address this, we again apply the gradient ascent optimization to the 4L+ configuration described above, but we vary the detuning $\delta$ from $-2\Delta_e$ to $3\Delta_e$ in steps of $\Delta_e/20$. The storage efficiency is plotted in Fig. \[fig:fig7\] as a function of $\delta$. Surprisingly, the efficiencies are smallest near the mid-point between ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ at $\delta = \Delta_e/2$, while the maxima occur near $-\Delta_e$ and $2\Delta_e$. Nonetheless, the change in storage efficiency over the entire range is within $\approx5\%$, and there is not much to be gained or lost by changing the detuning at least for this set of $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$. We have also verified that varying the detuning has a small effect ($\lesssim 5\%$ variation) when using the dipole moments for the relevant $^{87}$Rb transitions. With these mathematical and numerical tools in hand, we can address storage of a quantum dot photon using the actual atomic levels of $^{87}$Rb.
Storage of a QD-generated Photon in $^{87}$R {#sec:QD}
============================================
Because of the long hyperfine ground-state coherence time and the ability to create cold, dense gases, $^{87}$Rb has proven to be a natural choice for implementation of quantum memory schemes. Indeed, both the 5$^2$P$_{1/2}$ and 5$^2$P$_{3/2}$ excited state manifolds corresponding to the $D_1$ and $D_2$ optical transitions have been used for quantum memory applications. Before assigning $^{87}$Rb hyperfine states ${\ensuremath{|F,m_F\rangle}}$ to the various states of the four level model, the problem of frequency matching of a QD transition to the $D_2$/$D_1$ transitions at 780/795 nm must be addressed. The most commonly studied self-assembled QDs are composed of In$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As islands embedded in a GaAs matrix, which are made to emit light in the 900-1000 nm band. In such QDs, the so-called “wetting layer" (a thin quantum well) defines a barrier near 850 nm, below which no confined states exist in the dot. Therefore, the photons produced by these QDs cannot be stored in $^{87}$Rb, but Cs transitions (852/895 nm) are close to within reach and $^{171}$Yb$^+$ (935 nm) has a transition compatible with QDs [@ref:Waks_PRA09]. Nonetheless, efficient quantum frequency conversion techniques have been demonstrated using QDs [@ref:Rakher_NPhot_2010; @ref:Rakher_PRL_11; @ref:Ates_PRL12] such that the single photon produced by a QD could be frequency translated to another wavelength without destroying its quantum characteristics. Such techniques could bridge the frequency gap between In$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As QD transitions and those of $^{87}$Rb. In addition, there are QDs composed of GaAs embedded in AlGaAs and InGaAs QDs embedded in AlGaAs which have been shown to emit in the 780 nm - 795 nm region [@ref:Finley_PRB02; @ref:Heyn_APL09; @ref:Akopian_APL_2010]. The optical properties of these QDs are much less well-known compared to standard InGaAs/GaAs QDs and detailed investigations are ongoing. Thus, either use of quantum frequency conversion techniques or proper material choices permit the study of broadband QD photon storage and retrieval in $^{87}$Rb. Notably, photons from a QD have been made to interact with $^{87}$Rb atoms in a recent experiment [@ref:Akopian_NPhot2011]. In this case the atoms acted as a passive medium whose dispersion near the $D_2$ transition was used to reduce the group velocity of the QD photons. In this present work, we are interested in actively manipulating the atoms to controllably store and retrieve the QD photon.
We proceed by determining which hyperfine states to assign to the four levels of the model. There are two hyperfine ground-state manifolds in $^{87}$Rb with total angular momentum $F=1$ and $F=2$ separated by 6.835 GHz. The choice of which ground-states within these manifolds to use is determined by several factors. Firstly, cross-coupling of the control field and the quantum field can lead to unwanted processes such as four-wave mixing (FWM), which is described in detail in App. \[app:FWM\]. In order to mitigate cross-coupling, it is advantageous to use ground-states that are widely separated in energy and couple to the excited state through perpendicular polarizations. This becomes especially important at high optical depth and large control fields [@ref:Phillips_PRA11]. One can choose ground states from the same $F$ manifold, but then the energy splitting is limited to what can be obtained by Zeeman shifting the levels. For the purposes of QD photon storage, we choose one ground state in $F=1$ and one in $F=2$. Furthermore, since both states must be coupled to a common excited state, the difference between the $m_F$ values must be between -2 and 2. This sets the first condition for choosing the ground states.
As discussed in Sec. \[sec:intro\], the long coherence between the hyperfine ground states of $^{87}$Rb make it very attractive as a quantum memory. This long coherence is usually limited experimentally by magnetic field fluctuations that cause small Zeeman shifts of the $m_F$ levels. Therefore, choosing $m_F$ levels that are common mode to magnetic field fluctuations for the ground states ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ is crucial to achieving long storage times. Notably, it is not possible to find two states in the same $F$ manifold that are common mode to magnetic field fluctuations. However, there are two non-degenerate choices for the ground states from different $F$ manifolds that are common mode to magnetic field fluctuations (to first order) and can be coupled to the same excited state. These levels are the clock states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and the states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ is a degenerate choice, but is not magnetically-trappable). For each pair of ground states, there are two optical transitions that are of interest; the $D_2$ transition to the $5^2$P$_{3/2}$ states near 780 nm and the $D_1$ transition to the $5^2$P$_{1/2}$ states near 795 nm. We will investigate these transitions separately in the following sections.
Storage on the $D_2$ Transition
-------------------------------
The excited states of the $D_2$ transition of $^{87}$Rb are composed of four hyperfine manifolds $F'=$ 0, 1, 2, and 3. Because the two ground states must share a common excited state, only states in $F'=1$ and $F'=2$ are eligible. For the pair of ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$, there are then two possible excited states; ${\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=0\rangle}}$ as shown in blue in Fig. \[fig:fig8\].
![Optical transitions of $^{87}$Rb that are eligible for implementation of a quantum memory.[]{data-label="fig:fig8"}](fig_8.eps){width="0.65\columnwidth"}
In the following, we always work on resonance with one of the excited states ($\delta_g=\delta_s = 0$) and let the value of $\Delta_e$ change signs. That is to say, ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ couple resonantly to ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and are detuned to ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$. Two choices to assign ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and two choices for ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ result in four unique configurations for each set of four levels. To determine which configuration will yield the highest storage efficiency, it is instructive to consider the results of Sec. \[sec:3L\]. Because the storage efficiency depends critically on the optical depth $d$, and the effective optical depth on the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition is $\tilde{\mu}_{1g}^2 d$, it would seem optimal to choose the configuration where this relative dipole moment is the largest. A secondary concern is that $\tilde{\mu}_{1s}$ should be large to avoid extremely intense control pulses. The four relative dipole moments are listed in Table \[tab:D2\_1\_mu\] (see App. A for details), where it can be seen that the largest moment is for the ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=0\rangle}}$ transition.
${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
${\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=0\rangle}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{5}{12}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{20}}$
${\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=0\rangle}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}}$
: Relative dipole moments $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ for $^{87}$Rb $D_2$ transitions with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$ [@ref:Steck_Rbdata].
\[tab:D2\_1\_mu\]
Taking ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}={\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=0\rangle}}$, and ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=0\rangle}}$, we can perform gradient ascent to find the efficiencies and control pulse for this configuration when storing a QD single photon with $T_1=1$ ns. In addition, we have $\Delta_e=2\pi\times156.95$ MHz [@ref:Steck_Rbdata] for the excited state hyperfine splitting and as mentioned previously take both fields to be resonant $\delta_g=\delta_s=0$. For the sake of comparison, an optical depth $d=75$ is chosen as this has been demonstrated experimentally in ultracold ensembles [@ref:Dudin_PRL_10]. Note that this corresponds to a standardly-defined optical depth of 150 measured on the cycling transition ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=\pm2\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|F'=3,m_F'=\pm3\rangle}}$. The results of the optimization yield a storage (total) efficiency of 33.6$\%$ (17.3$\%$). The same calculation was performed for all four configurations of these states (remembering to change the sign of $\Delta_e$ when necessary) and the results for the efficiencies are summarized in Table \[tab:D2\_1\_eff\] along with the peak Rabi frequency of the control pulse $\Omega_m$.
config ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ $\eta_s$ ($\%$) $\eta_{tot}$ ($\%$) $\Omega_m$ $(\gamma)$
-------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --
1 ${\ensuremath{|1,-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ 33.6 17.3 130.4
2 ${\ensuremath{|1,-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ 30.1 12.5 58.5
3 ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ 16.6 5.4 18.0
4 ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ 30.1 17.4 130.0
: Results of gradient ascent optimization for different configurations of states for $D_2$ using the ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$. The labels ${\ensuremath{|i,j\rangle}}$ for states ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$) refer to ${\ensuremath{|F=i,m_F=j\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|F'=i,m_F'=j\rangle}}$).
\[tab:D2\_1\_eff\]
In addition, the optimized control pulses are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig9\]. These results closely align with what is expected; the configurations with the largest relative dipole moments for the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition have the largest efficiencies. Nonetheless, these efficiencies are less than what was found in Sec. \[sec:3L\] for $d=75$ due to a reduction in the effective optical depth ($\tilde{\mu}_{1g} < 1$) as well as negative effects of the additional excited state ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$. In fact, the relative dipole moments in Table \[tab:D2\_1\_mu\] are such that $\textrm{sgn}(\tilde{\mu}_{1g}\tilde{\mu}_{1s})=-\textrm{sgn}(\tilde{\mu}_{2g}\tilde{\mu}_{2s})$ for all configurations; the same asymmetry that caused a reduction of efficiency in the 4L- scenario studied in Sec. \[sec:4L\] due to destructive interference of two-photon pathways. In order to achieve higher efficiency, such asymmetric configurations should be avoided.
![(Color online) Optimized control pulses for the configurations detailed in Table \[tab:D2\_1\_eff\].[]{data-label="fig:fig9"}](fig_9.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The other choice for the ground states are the clock states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$. As shown in red in Fig. \[fig:fig8\], there are two possible shared excited states; ${\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=1\rangle}}$ (the pair ${\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=-1\rangle}}$ differ only by the photon polarization) again resulting in four unique combinations of relative dipole moments. The relative dipole moments of these transitions are listed in Table \[tab:D2\_2\_mu\].
${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
${\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=1\rangle}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{5}{12}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{60}}$
${\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=1\rangle}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}}$
: Relative dipole moments $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ for $^{87}$Rb $D_2$ transitions with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ [@ref:Steck_Rbdata].
\[tab:D2\_2\_mu\]
In contrast to the other set of ground states, these relative dipole moments are symmetric with $\textrm{sgn}(\tilde{\mu}_{1g}\tilde{\mu}_{1s})=\textrm{sgn}(\tilde{\mu}_{2g}\tilde{\mu}_{2s})$ indicating a constructive contribution of the second excited state. However, because both ground states have $m_F=0$ and couple to the excited states with the same optical polarization, these configurations are sensitive to the effects of four-wave mixing (FWM). FWM is discussed in detail in App. \[app:FWM\] and is shown to be negligible for the parameter regime discussed here.
We now perform gradient ascent for each possible configuration using the same set of parameters as before ($d=75$, $\delta_g=\delta_s=0$, and $T_1=1$ ns) and the results are detailed in Table \[tab:D2\_2\_eff\]. These efficiencies more closely match those found in Sec. \[sec:3L\] if the reduction in the optical depth is taken into account. In fact, the best efficiency for storage on the $D_2$ transition is found using configuration 4 where ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}={\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}={\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}={\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=1\rangle}}$, and ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}={\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=1\rangle}}$. Storage and retrieval with this configuration yields a storage (total) efficiency of 43.4$\%$ (26.4$\%$).
config ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ $\eta_s$ ($\%$) $\eta_{tot}$ ($\%$) $\Omega_m$ $(\gamma)$
-------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --
1 ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ 39.6 25.4 170.9
2 ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,1\rangle}}$ 40.8 25.6 32.1
3 ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ 15.6 6.1 66.8
4 ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,1\rangle}}$ 43.4 26.4 43.1
: Results of gradient ascent optimization for different configurations of states for $D_2$ using the ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$. The labels ${\ensuremath{|i,j\rangle}}$ for states ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$) correspond to ${\ensuremath{|F=i,m_F=j\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|F'=i,m_F'=j\rangle}}$).
\[tab:D2\_2\_eff\]
The optimized control pulses for each of these configurations are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig10\]. The control pulse for configuration 4 reaches a maximum value of $\Omega_m=43.12\gamma$, which corresponds to a peak power of 12 mW (40 pJ pulse energy) for a Gaussian beam with a 350 $\mu$m waist. This is roughly three orders of magnitude lower pulse energy than that required to store a photon of similar bandwidth using an off-resonant Raman-based storage scheme [@ref:Reim_NatPhot10] and is achievable using a tunable diode laser and an electro-optic modulator instead of a mode-locked, ultrafast laser. Thus, reasonable storage and retrieval efficiencies of a quantum dot generated, broadband photon are possible with demonstrated experimental parameters of an ultracold gas of $^{87}$Rb atoms using the appropriate combination of $D_2$ states.
![(Color online) Optimized control pulses for the configurations detailed in Table \[tab:D2\_2\_eff\].[]{data-label="fig:fig10"}](fig_10.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Storage on the $D_1$ Transition
-------------------------------
We now turn our attention to storage and retrieval on the $D_1$ transition of $^{87}$Rb. Unlike the $D_2$ transition, the excited state is composed of only two manifolds, $F'=1$ and $F'=2$. In addition, the excited state splitting is quite large $\Delta_e = 2\pi \times 814.5$ MHz so one would anticipate that the state ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ would only play a minor role in the dynamics. The possibilities for the excited states have the same $F'$ and $m_F'$ values as for the $D_2$ transition, so the level diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:fig8\] is also valid. We proceed to analyze the feasibility of these states by performing gradient ascent for each combination just as was done for $D_2$, taking care to use $\gamma=\pi\times5.75$ MHz and to reference the $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ correctly [@ref:Steck_Rbdata]. First, we analyze the possible configurations for the ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$. The relative dipole moments are detailed in Table \[tab:D1\_1\_mu\].
${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
${\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=0\rangle}}$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}}$
${\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=0\rangle}}$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}}$
: Relative dipole moments $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ for $^{87}$Rb $D_1$ transitions with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$ [@ref:Steck_Rbdata].
\[tab:D1\_1\_mu\]
Notably, each of the $D_1$ relative dipole moments includes a factor of $1/\sqrt{2}$ so they can be directly compared to those for $D_2$ (see Appendix \[app:EoM\] for details). Because of the simplicity of the $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ in Table \[tab:D1\_1\_mu\], it is clear that one should obtain the same efficiencies and control pulses if the excited states are interchanged; leaving only two unique configurations. Gradient ascent optimization is performed for each configuration using the same optical depth and detunings as for $D_2$. The results are noted in Table \[tab:D1\_1\_eff\].
config ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ $\eta_s$ ($\%$) $\eta_{tot}$ ($\%$) $\Omega_m$ $(\gamma)$
-------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --
1 ${\ensuremath{|1,-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ 23.2 9.5 27.2
2 ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,-1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ 44.8 28.6 77.4
: Results of gradient ascent optimization for different configurations of states for $D_1$ using the ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$. The labels ${\ensuremath{|i,j\rangle}}$ for states ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$) correspond to ${\ensuremath{|F=i,m_F=j\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|F'=i,m_F'=j\rangle}}$).
\[tab:D1\_1\_eff\]
It appears that while the efficiencies for configuration 2 are comparable to those found for the best $D_2$ configuration, the smaller $\tilde{\mu}_{1s}$ for the control transition requires an increase in the peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_m$. Because the peak intensity (and power) of the control pulse scales as the square of $\Omega_m$, it is experimentally disadvantageous to use this $D_1$ configuration. In addition, it seems that the sign asymmetry of the $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ did not play a significant role in reducing the efficiencies, a clear indication that the larger excited state splitting dramatically reduced the effect of an additional excited state.
With that in mind, we now consider the other pair of ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$. As stated before, the possible excited states have the same $F'$ and $m_F'$ as for $D_2$ and the relative dipole moments are listed in Table \[tab:D1\_2\_mu\]. Again, FWM is possible in these configurations but is shown in App. \[app:FWM\] to be negligible in the parameter regime considered here.
${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$
-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
${\ensuremath{|F'=1,m_F'=1\rangle}}$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{12}}$
${\ensuremath{|F'=2,m_F'=1\rangle}}$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}}$ $\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}}$
: Relative dipole moments $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ for $^{87}$Rb $D_1$ transitions with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ [@ref:Steck_Rbdata].
\[tab:D1\_2\_mu\]
These $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ are symmetric under interchange of the ground state, again leaving only two unique configurations. We perform gradient ascent optimization for each configuration and the results are displayed as configuration 1 and 2 in Table \[tab:D1\_2\_eff\].
config ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ $\eta_s$ ($\%$) $\eta_{tot}$ ($\%$) $\Omega_m$ $(\gamma)$
-------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --
1 ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ 18.5 9.0 231.8
2 ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,1\rangle}}$ 46.0 28.9 47.4
3 ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ 45.7 28.5 45.0
4 ${\ensuremath{|1,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,0\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|2,1\rangle}}$ ${\ensuremath{|1,1\rangle}}$ 45.7 28.4 45.0
: Results of gradient ascent optimization for different configurations of states for $D_1$ using the ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$. The labels ${\ensuremath{|i,j\rangle}}$ for states ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$) correspond to ${\ensuremath{|F=i,m_F=j\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|F'=i,m_F'=j\rangle}}$).
\[tab:D1\_2\_eff\]
![(Color online) Optimized control pulses for configurations 2 and 3 detailed in Table \[tab:D1\_2\_eff\].[]{data-label="fig:fig11"}](fig_11.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Configuration 2 yields comparable efficiencies to the best configuration for $D_2$, with only a minor increase. If we perform gradient ascent for this configuration but neglect the additional excited state (configuration 3), we obtain almost identical efficiencies. Comparison of the two optimal control pulses (Fig. \[fig:fig11\]) shows that they are almost exactly the same, except the four level control has a small modulation at the frequency of the excited state splitting. If we use the three level control on the four level system (configuration 4), we obtain almost exactly the same efficiencies although the control pulse is much simpler to generate. This analysis simply implies that the large excited state splitting almost completely nullifies the effects of the additional excited state, as anticipated in Sec. \[sec:4L\]. Consequently, the efficiencies we find in this case match well with those predicted by Fig. \[fig:fig3\] if $d \tilde{\mu}_{1g}^2 = 18.75$ is used as the effective optical depth of the storage transition.
Imperfect QD Photon Sources {#sec:dephase}
===========================
Up to this point, our analysis has assumed that the photons emitted by a QD are completely indistinguishable, which is an important property in photon-based quantum information processing [@ref:Knill_Nat_01]. However, due to their dynamic solid-state environment the photons produced by excitons in quantum dots may not have Fourier transform-limited spectra [@ref:Santori2]. This leads to an imperfect photon indistinguishability between subsequently emitted photons. Up to now, the highest measured two photon visibility is $\approx0.97$ [@ref:He_Nnano_2013], corresponding to a linewidth that is $\approx 1.03$ times larger than the transform-limited linewidth $\Delta\omega_{FT} = 1/T_1$. While it is possible to approach $\Delta\omega_{FT}$ by careful sample selection and resonant excitation, in this section the effect of excess linewidth broadening on the storage efficiency is calculated.
The excess linewidth of quantum dot generated photons can be caused by two distinct physical processes. The first, sometimes referred to as spectral wandering, is a slow process that causes changes in the carrier frequency of the photons from shot to shot. This simply means that subsequent photons have slightly different carrier frequencies due to changes in the QD environment on timescales longer than the spontaneous emission lifetime $T_1$. The second, referred to as pure dephasing, is a perturbation of the QD’s energy levels on timescales shorter than $T_1$. This leads to a time-dependent phase within each shot. In a time-averaged spectral measurement, these effects can both produce a Lorentzian lineshape with a linewidth greater than the Fourier limit. Here, we treat these cases separately but show that they cause exactly the same effect on storage and retrieval efficiencies in a quantum memory for a given amount of added linewidth $\Delta\omega_{add}$.
In the case of spectral wandering, the waveform of each photon remains $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau)\exp(-\tau/2 T_1)/\sqrt{T_1}$ but the carrier frequency $\nu_{eg}$ is drawn from a probability distribution $P(\nu_{eg})$. The time-averaged spectrum of these photons is then an integral over all realizations of $\nu_{eg}$ $$\langle S(\omega) \rangle = \int d\nu_{eg} P(\nu_{eg}) S_{FT}(\omega;\nu_{eg}),$$ where $S_{FT}(\omega;\nu_{eg})$ is the transform limited spectrum centered about $\nu_{eg}$. If $P(\nu_{eg})$ is a Lorentzian distribution with linewidth $\Delta\omega_{add}$, the time-average spectrum is a Lorentzian with linewidth $\Delta\omega_{tot} =\Delta\omega_{FT}+\Delta\omega_{add}$. The average storage and total memory efficiencies can be calculated similarly by determining how the efficiencies depend on $\delta_g = \nu_{eg}-\omega_{eg}$ and then integrating over all realizations. We numerically calculate the storage and total efficiencies as a function of $\delta_g$ using the optimal control pulse found for configuration 4 of $D_2$ storage with ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}={\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$. All other parameters are kept fixed ($\delta_s=0$, $d=75$, $T_1=1$ ns) and the results are plotted in Fig. \[fig:fig12\].
![(Color online) Storage and total efficiencies for configuration 4 of $D_2$ storage with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ as a function of $\delta_g$. All other parameters are kept fixed.[]{data-label="fig:fig12"}](fig_12.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Using $\eta_s(\delta_g)$ and $\eta_{tot}(\delta_g)$, the efficiencies as a function of $\Delta\omega_{add}$ can be obtained by $$\eta(\Delta\omega_{add}) = \int d\delta_g \, \eta(\delta_g) P(\delta_g),$$ where $P(\delta_g)$ is taken to be a normalized Lorentzian distribution of width $\Delta\omega_{add}$ centered at $\delta_g=0$. Performing this integration results in the plot shown in Fig. \[fig:fig13\].
![(Color online) Storage and total efficiencies for configuration 4 of $D_2$ storage with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ as a function of $\Delta\omega_{add}$ resulting from spectral wandering.[]{data-label="fig:fig13"}](fig_13.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Notably, spectral wandering causing a factor of 2 increase in the total linewidth ($\Delta\omega_{add} =\Delta\omega_{FT} $) roughly leads to a factor of 2 reduction in the storage and total efficiencies. While the initial drop is steep, the total efficiency remains above 5$\%$ even if the total linewidth is more than 7 times the transform limit, showing that the storage process is relatively robust to the effects of spectral wandering.
The effects of fast, pure dephasing can also be calculated numerically. In this case, the waveform remains at the carrier frequency $\nu_{eg}$ but the slowly varying amplitude is modified to $$\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{T_1}}\Theta(\tau)e^{-\tau/2 T_1}e^{-i\phi(\tau)},$$ which includes a time-dependent phase $\phi(\tau)$. In the simplest model of pure dephasing, $\phi(\tau)$ is driven by a Markovian Langevin force $f_{\phi}(\tau)$ characterized by $\langle f_{\phi}(\tau) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle f_{\phi}(\tau) f_{\phi}(\tau') \rangle = D_{\phi} \delta(\tau-\tau')$ with diffusion constant $D_{\phi}$. This force will cause phase diffusion, resulting in a Lorentzian time-averaged spectrum with total linewidth $\Delta\omega_{tot} = \Delta\omega_{FT} + D_{\phi}$. The effect on the storage and total efficiency can be determined by calculating the efficiencies for several trajectories of $\phi(\tau)$ and averaging.
![(Color online) Average storage (a) and total (b) efficiencies for configuration 4 of $D_2$ storage with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ as a function of $D_{\phi}=\Delta\omega_{add}$ resulting from pure dephasing (red, open circles). Uncertainties in $\eta$ are given by the standard deviation of the ensemble. For comparison, results from spectral wandering (Fig. \[fig:fig13\]) are shown as blue lines. []{data-label="fig:fig14"}](fig_14.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Using the same configuration as for the spectral wandering investigation, we performed storage and retrieval calculations for 100 phase trajectories for several values of $D_{\phi} = \Delta\omega_{add}$. The average storage and total efficiencies are plotted as red circles in Fig. \[fig:fig14\], with the uncertainties given by the standard deviation. For comparison, results from spectral wandering (Fig. \[fig:fig13\]) are shown as blue lines. Evidently, both spectral wandering and pure dephasing lead to the same reduction in efficiency for the same amount of $\Delta\omega_{add}$, indicating that the efficiencies depend only on the time-averaged spectrum and not on the physical mechanism causing an excess linewidth.
Ultrahigh Optical Depth {#sec:highOD}
=======================
A recent experiment by Sparkes *et al.* has demonstrated an optical depth of 1000 in an ultracold $^{87}$Rb gas [@ref:Sparkes_Arxiv_12] using spatial and temporal dark spots. We therefore investigate how the efficiencies increase for such high optical depth. If the optical depth is increased to $d$=500 in the optimization using the clock ground states (${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$) and configuration 4 of $D_2$ storage, the storage (total) efficiency is increased to 51 $\%$ (34 $\%$). If instead configuration 2 of $D_1$ storage with clock ground states is used, the optimization yields a storage (total) efficiency of 82 $\%$ (76 $\%$). Notably, the efficiencies are not dramatically increased for $D_2$ storage while $D_1$ storage is much more promising. There are two factors that contribute to the worse performance of $D_2$; the small excited-state splitting and the large relative dipole element between the storage state ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}$ and the unwanted excited state ${\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$. Naively, one would expect an increase in efficiency according to Fig. \[fig:fig3\], but that is only true if the additional excited state doesn’t play a large role in the storage process. However, as the optical depth increases so does the required control pulse amplitude and therefore the coupling to unwanted excited states. For the case of $D_2$ storage, the extra excited state cannot be neglected and limits the achievable efficiencies even for large optical depth. On the other hand, for $D_1$ storage of a 1 ns photon at $d=500$ we find very high efficiencies, comparable to the efficiency of 80 $\%$ reported in Ref. [@ref:Sparkes_Arxiv_12] for much lower bandwidth photons.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
In conclusion, we have calculated the efficiency with which a quantum dot generated single photon can be stored and retrieved from an optically-thick $^{87}$Rb ensemble. Our calculations take into account the multi-level structure of $^{87}$Rb by extending the standard three-level model of an atomic ensemble quantum memory. Using an optical depth of 150, the storage (total) efficiency can reach 46$\%$ (28$\%$) for a photon resulting from the 1 ns spontaneous excitonic decay in a quantum dot. Importantly, this storage can be performed using control pulses obtained from a diode laser rather than requiring pulse energies only achievable with ultrafast, mode-locked laser sources. Increasing the optical depth, for example by using Bose-condensed ensembles, an optical cavity, or advanced trapping techniques can increase the efficiencies to near unity for storage on the $D_1$ transition. In addition, we have studied the effects of spectral diffusion and pure dephasing of the quantum dot generated photons on the storage efficiency and shown that a factor of 2 increase in the time-averaged photon linewidth roughly leads to a factor of 2 reduction in the efficiency. Thus, storage and retrieval of single photons from a quantum dot in an $^{87}$Rb ensemble is feasible with demonstrated experimental parameters even in the presence of non-ideal properties of the quantum dot. Integration of quantum dot sources with atomic ensemble quantum memories may lead to high-speed quantum networks for communication or distributed computation as well as entanglement between collective atomic degrees of freedom and the spin of an electron or hole confined in the quantum dot.
We thank A. V. Gorshkov, M. Fleischhauer, and K. Srinivasan for helpful discussions. M. T. R. acknowledges support from a Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship. This work was also supported by the NCCR Quantum Science and Technology.
Derivation of the Equations of Motion {#app:EoM}
=====================================
The equations of motion Eq. \[eqn:4LEoME\]-\[eqn:4LEoMS\] (and by extension Eq. \[eqn:3LEoME\]-\[eqn:3LEoMS\]) are derived by considering an ensemble of $N$ motionless, four-level atoms interacting with a quantum field and a classical field closely following the treatment of Ref. [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2], whose notation we also adopt for the most part. The Hamiltonian of this system can be expressed as $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_{o}+\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{int}} $ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{o} &= \sum_i^N \left( E_g \hat{\sigma}_{gg}^i+ E_s \hat{\sigma}_{ss}^i+E_1 \hat{\sigma}_{11}^i+E_2 \hat{\sigma}_{22}^i \right) \nonumber \\
&+\int d\omega\, \hbar \omega \hat{a}^{\dag}_{\omega} \hat{a}_{\omega}\end{aligned}$$ and the interaction between the light fields and the atoms in the dipole approximation is $$\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{int}} = -\sum_i^N \sum_{\alpha \beta} {\hat{\sigma}}_{\alpha \beta}^i \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha \beta} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{E}}_{\textrm{tot}}(z_i,t).
\label{eq:AppA_Hint}$$ Here, the operators $\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}^i= |\alpha \rangle \langle \beta |$ change the internal state of the $i$th atom from ${\ensuremath{|\beta\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{|\alpha\rangle}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ is the dipole moment of an atom for the ${\ensuremath{|\beta\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|\alpha\rangle}}$ transition. The total electric field $\mathbf{\hat{E}}_{\textrm{tot}}$ is composed of a classical field $\mathbf{E}_{es}$ and a quantum field $\mathbf{\hat{E}}_{eg}$. The $+z$-propagating classical field with polarization orientation $\boldsymbol\epsilon_{es}$ can be written as $$\mathbf{E}_{es}(z,t) = \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{es} \mathcal{E}_{es}(t-z/c) \cos{\left[ \nu_{es}(t-z/c) \right]},$$ where $\mathcal{E}_{es}(t-z/c)$ is the envelope function and $\nu_{es}=\omega_{es}+\delta_s$ is the carrier frequency. We have assumed that the classical pulse propagates with a group velocity of $c$, which is valid if almost all of the atomic population remains in state ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$. The quantum field is taken to be a sum of modes $\hat{a}_{\omega}$ centered about frequency $\nu_{eg}=\omega_{eg}+\delta_g$ with polarization $\boldsymbol\epsilon_{eg}$ and cross-sectional area $A$ $$\mathbf{\hat{E}}_{eg}(z) = \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{eg} \sqrt{\frac{\hbar \nu_{eg}}{4\pi c \epsilon_o A}} \int d\omega \hat{a}_{\omega} e^{i \omega z/c}+\textrm{H.c.}$$ where H.c. denotes the Hermitian conjugate. In this treatment, the quantum field only drives the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ transitions while the classical control field drives the ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|2\rangle}}$ transitions. As shown in App. \[app:FWM\], cross-coupling of the control field leads to a four-wave mixing process which can reduce the storage efficiency, but it is safe to neglect for the parameter regime considered here. Applying this assumption and making the rotating wave approximation allows Eq. \[eq:AppA\_Hint\] to be written as the sum of the interaction with the classical field $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{int,c}} &= -\hbar \sum_i^N \Big\{ \Omega_{1s}(t-z_i/c) \hat{\sigma}_{1s}^i e^{-i\nu_{es}(t-z_i/c)} \nonumber \\
& + \Omega_{2s}(t-z_i/c) \hat{\sigma}_{2s}^i e^{-i\nu_{es}(t-z_i/c)}+\textrm{H.c.} \Big\}\end{aligned}$$ and the quantum field $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{int,q}} &= -\hbar \sqrt{\frac{L}{2\pi c}} \sum_i^N \int d\omega \Big\{ g_{1g}\hat{a}_{\omega} \hat{\sigma}_{1g}^i e^{i \omega z_i/c} \nonumber \\
&+g_{2g}\hat{a}_{\omega} \hat{\sigma}_{2g}^i e^{i \omega z_i/c} + \textrm{H.c.} \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(t-z_i/c) = \boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{es} \mathcal{E}_{es}(t-z_i/c)/(2 \hbar)$ are the Rabi frequencies associated with the classical field and $g_{\alpha \beta} =\boldsymbol{\mu}_{\alpha\beta}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_{eg} \sqrt{\frac{\nu_{eg}}{2 \hbar \epsilon_o A L}} $ are the couplings to the quantum field. Note that the Rabi frequencies $\Omega$ are defined differently compared to the standard definition such that $\Omega = \Omega_{std}/2$.
In order to treat the ensemble as a continuous density distribution, we divide the ensemble into thin slices of thickness $L_z$ such that the quantum field can be taken to be constant over this range while also ensuring that the number of atoms in a slice $N_z\gg$1. Then, we define slowly varying operators $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \alpha}(z,t) &= \frac{1}{N_z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_z} \hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \alpha}^i(t), \\
\hat{\sigma}_{12}(z,t) &= \frac{1}{N_z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_z} \hat{\sigma}_{12}^i(t), \\
\hat{\sigma}_{1s}(z,t) &= \frac{1}{N_z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_z} \hat{\sigma}_{1s}^i(t) e^{-i \nu_{es} (t-z_i/c)}, \\
\hat{\sigma}_{2s}(z,t) &= \frac{1}{N_z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_z} \hat{\sigma}_{2s}^i(t) e^{-i \nu_{es} (t-z_i/c)}, \\
\hat{\sigma}_{1g}(z,t) &= \frac{1}{N_z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_z} \hat{\sigma}_{1g}^i(t) e^{-i \nu_{eg} (t-z_i/c)}, \\
\hat{\sigma}_{2g}(z,t) &= \frac{1}{N_z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_z} \hat{\sigma}_{2g}^i(t) e^{-i \nu_{eg} (t-z_i/c)}, \\
\hat{\sigma}_{sg}(z,t) &= \frac{1}{N_z}\sum_{i=1}^{N_z} \hat{\sigma}_{sg}^i(t) e^{-i (\nu_{eg}-\nu_{es}) (t-z_i/c)}, \\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}(z,t) &= \sqrt{\frac{L}{2\pi c}} e^{i \nu_{eg} (t-z/c)} \int d\omega \, \hat{a}_{\omega}(t) e^{i \omega z/c}.\end{aligned}$$ Using these operators, we can rewrite $\mathcal{H}_o$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_o &= \int_0^L dz \, n(z) \Big[ E_g \hat{\sigma}_{gg}(z,t)+E_s \hat{\sigma}_{ss}(z,t) \nonumber \\
&+E_1 \hat{\sigma}_{11}(z,t)+E_2 \hat{\sigma}_{22}(z,t) \Big] + \int d\omega\, \hbar \omega \hat{a}^{\dag}_{\omega} \hat{a}_{\omega}\end{aligned}$$ and the two parts of the interaction as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{int,c}} &= -\hbar \int_0^L dz \, n(z) \Big[\Omega_{1s}(t-z/c)\hat{\sigma}_{1s}(z,t) \nonumber \\
& +\Omega_{2s}(t-z/c)\hat{\sigma}_{2s}(z,t)+\textrm{H.c.} \Big] \\
\mathcal{H}_{\textrm{int,q}} &= -\hbar \int_0^L dz \, n(z) \Big\{g_{1g} \hat{\mathcal{E}}(z,t) \hat{\sigma}_{1g}(z,t) \nonumber \\
&+ g_{2g} \hat{\mathcal{E}}(z,t) \hat{\sigma}_{2g}(z,t)+ \textrm{H.c.} \Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $n(z)$ is the linear number density of atoms along the length of the ensemble and we have assumed the cross-sectional area of the field $A$ matches that of the atomic cloud.
The dynamics are determined by finding the Heisenberg equations of motion for the operators. Using the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \hat{a}_{\omega}, \hat{a}^{\dag}_{\omega'} \right] &= \delta(\omega-\omega') \\
\left[ \hat{\sigma}_{\alpha \beta}(z,t),\hat{\sigma}_{\lambda \rho}(z',t) \right]&= \frac{\delta(z-z')}{n(z)} \Big\{\delta_{\beta \lambda}\hat{\sigma}_{\alpha\rho}-\delta_{\alpha \rho}\hat{\sigma}_{\lambda\beta} \Big\}\end{aligned}$$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t+c\partial_z ) \hat{\mathcal{E}} &= i n L [ g_{g1} \hat{\sigma}_{g1} +g_{g2} \hat{\sigma}_{g2} ] \\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{g1} &= i \delta_g \hat{\sigma}_{g1}+i \Omega_{1s} \hat{\sigma}_{gs} \nonumber \\
&+i \hat{\mathcal{E}} \big[ g_{1g}(\hat{\sigma}_{gg}-\hat{\sigma}_{11})-g_{2g} \hat{\sigma}_{21} \big]\\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{g2} &= i (\delta_g-\Delta_e) \hat{\sigma}_{g2}+i \Omega_{2s} \hat{\sigma}_{gs} \nonumber \\
&+i \hat{\mathcal{E}} \left[g_{2g}(\hat{\sigma}_{gg}-\hat{\sigma}_{22})-g_{1g} \hat{\sigma}_{12} \right]\\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{s1} &= i \delta_s \hat{\sigma}_{s1}+i\Omega_{1s}( \hat{\sigma}_{ss}-\hat{\sigma}_{11}) \nonumber \\
&- i\Omega_{2s}\hat{\sigma}_{21}+i g_{1g} \hat{\mathcal{E}} \hat{\sigma}_{sg}\\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{s2} &= i( \delta_s-\Delta_e) \hat{\sigma}_{s2}+i\Omega_{2s}( \hat{\sigma}_{ss}-\hat{\sigma}_{22}) \nonumber \\
&- i\Omega_{1s}\hat{\sigma}_{12}+i g_{2g} \hat{\mathcal{E}} \hat{\sigma}_{sg}\\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{12} &= -i \Delta_e \hat{\sigma}_{12}+i(\Omega_{2s}\hat{\sigma}_{1s}-\Omega_{s1}\hat{\sigma}_{s2}) \nonumber\\
&+ i(g_{2g} \hat{\mathcal{E}}\hat{\sigma}_{1g}-g_{g1}\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\dag}\hat{\sigma}_{g2})\\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{gs} &= i(\delta_g-\delta_s)\hat{\sigma}_{gs}+i(\Omega_{s1}\hat{\sigma}_{g1}+\Omega_{s2}\hat{\sigma}_{g2}) \nonumber\\
&- i\hat{\mathcal{E}}(g_{1g}\hat{\sigma}_{1s}+g_{2g}\hat{\sigma}_{2s})\\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{gg} &= i (g_{g1}\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\dag}\hat{\sigma}_{g1}-g_{1g}\hat{\mathcal{E}}\hat{\sigma}_{1g} \nonumber \\
&+ g_{g2}\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\dag}\hat{\sigma}_{g2}-g_{2g}\hat{\mathcal{E}}\hat{\sigma}_{2g}) \\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{ss} &= i (\Omega_{s1} \hat{\sigma}_{s1}-\Omega_{1s} \hat{\sigma}_{1s} \nonumber \\
&+\Omega_{s2} \hat{\sigma}_{s2}-\Omega_{2s} \hat{\sigma}_{2s} ) \\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{11} &= i (\Omega_{1s}\hat{\sigma}_{1s}-\Omega_{s1}\hat{\sigma}_{s1}) \nonumber \\
&+ i(g_{1g}\hat{\mathcal{E}}\hat{\sigma}_{1g}-g_{g1}\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\dag}\hat{\sigma}_{g1}) \\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{22} &= i (\Omega_{2s}\hat{\sigma}_{2s}-\Omega_{s2}\hat{\sigma}_{s2}) \nonumber \\
&+ i(g_{2g}\hat{\mathcal{E}}\hat{\sigma}_{2g}-g_{g2}\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\dag}\hat{\sigma}_{g2})\end{aligned}$$ where the time and spatial dependencies have been neglected for brevity.
These equations can be reduced considerably by making one simplifying assumption; the quantum field is weak. The first consequence of this assumption is that almost all atoms remain in ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ for the duration of the dynamics. Secondly, we keep only terms that are linear in $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ [@ref:Gorshkov_PRA2]. Under these assumptions, the equations of motion are reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
(\partial_t+c\partial_z ) \hat{\mathcal{E}} &= i n L [ g_{g1} \hat{\sigma}_{g1} +g_{g2} \hat{\sigma}_{g2} ] \\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{g1} &= i \delta_g \hat{\sigma}_{g1}+i\Omega_{1s} \hat{\sigma}_{gs}+i g_{1g} \hat{\mathcal{E}} \\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{g2} &= i (\delta_g-\Delta_e) \hat{\sigma}_{g2}+i\Omega_{2s} \hat{\sigma}_{gs}+i g_{2g} \hat{\mathcal{E}} \\
\partial_t \hat{\sigma}_{gs} &= i (\delta_g-\delta_s)\hat{\sigma}_{gs}+i(\Omega_{s1} \hat{\sigma}_{g1}+\Omega_{s2} \hat{\sigma}_{g2}).\end{aligned}$$ We now introduce the polarization operators $\hat{P}_1(z,t) = \sqrt{N}\hat{\sigma}_{g1}(z,t)$ and $\hat{P}_2(z,t) = \sqrt{N}\hat{\sigma}_{g2}(z,t)$ as well as the spin wave operator $\hat{S}(z,t) = \sqrt{N}\hat{\sigma}_{gs}(z,t)$. In addition, we move to a new coordinate system $(\tilde{z},\tau)$ where $\tau=t-z/c$ is the time in a co-moving reference frame and $\tilde{z} = (1/N) \int_0^z dz'\, n(z')$ is a dimensionless length. Inserting these definitions into the equations of motion yields $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \hat{\mathcal{E}} &= i \sqrt{d_{g1} \gamma} \hat{P}_1 +i \sqrt{d_{g2} \gamma} \hat{P}_2\\
\partial_{\tau}\hat{P}_1 &= (i \delta_g-\gamma) \hat{P}_1 +i\Omega_{1s}\hat{S}+i \sqrt{d_{g1} \gamma} \hat{\mathcal{E}} \\
\partial_{\tau}\hat{P}_2 &= (i\delta_g-i\Delta_e-\gamma) \hat{P}_2 +i\Omega_{2s}\hat{S}+i \sqrt{d_{g2} \gamma} \hat{\mathcal{E}} \\
\partial_{\tau}\hat{S} &= i (\delta_g-\delta_s)\hat{S} +i\Omega_{1s}^*\hat{P}_1+ +i\Omega_{2s}^*\hat{P}_2,\end{aligned}$$ where a factor of $\sqrt{c/L}$ has been absorbed into $\hat{\mathcal{E}}$ and we introduced the optical depths $d_{\alpha \beta} = g_{\alpha \beta}^2 N L/(\gamma c)$. We have also assumed that both polarizations decay at the same rate $\gamma$ and that $g_{\alpha \beta}$ is real.
Finally, for notational convenience we compare all transition dipole moments $\mu_{\alpha \beta}$ to that of the two-level cycling transition ($\mu_{\alpha \beta} = \tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}\, \mu_{cyc}$). In this way, we make the substitutions $\Omega_{\alpha \beta} \rightarrow \tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta} \Omega$ and $\sqrt{d_{\alpha \beta}} \rightarrow \tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta} \sqrt{d}$ in the equations of motion. This enables easy comparison between different state configurations and also sets $d = g_{cyc}^2 N L/(\gamma c)$ to where it will be measured experimentally. It also enables $\Omega$ to be connected to a light intensity through the two-level relation $I/I_s = 2 (\Omega/\gamma)^2$, where $I_s$ is the saturation intensity. Using the value of $I_s$ for the cycling transition [@ref:Steck_Rbdata], the peak power can be related to the peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_m$ by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{m} &= \frac{4 \pi^3 \hbar c \gamma}{3 \lambda^3} w_o^2 \left( \frac{\Omega_m}{\gamma} \right)^2 \\
&= [52.47~\textrm{Wm}^{-2}]w_o^2 (\Omega_m/\gamma)^2 \label{eq:PowerRabi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the transition and $w_o$ is the $1/e^2$ waist of a Gaussian beam. The relevant values for the $^{87}$Rb cycling transition ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=\pm2\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|F'=3,m_F'=\pm3\rangle}}$ of the $D_2$ line have been inserted to obtain Eq. \[eq:PowerRabi\]. Similarly, the pulse energy can be determined by $U = [52.47$ Wm$^{-2}]w_o^2 \int_0^T d\tau |\Omega(\tau)/\gamma|^2$. From Ref. [@ref:Steck_Rbdata], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{cyc} &= \sqrt{1/2} \langle J=1/2 || e r || J'=3/2 \rangle \\
&= 2.989~e a_o,\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle J=1/2 || e r || J'=3/2 \rangle$ is the reduced dipole moment for the $D_2$ transition. To put the $D_1$ relative dipole moments $\tilde{\mu}_{\alpha \beta}$ in units of $\mu_{cyc}$, the values in Tables \[tab:D1\_1\_mu\] and \[tab:D1\_2\_mu\] have been multiplied by the factor [@ref:Steck_Rbdata] $$\begin{aligned}
r &= \frac{\langle J=1/2 || e r || J'=1/2 \rangle}{\langle J=1/2 || e r || J'=3/2 \rangle} \\
&= 1/\sqrt{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Further, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:3L\] of the main text, the operators can be treated as complex numbers and their associated quantum noise can be neglected because we are interested in computing the expectation values of normally-ordered operators. Making the substitutions and dropping the operator notation yields the equations of motion as found in Sec. \[sec:3L\]-\[sec:4L\], $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \mathcal{E} &= i\sqrt{d \gamma}\left[\tilde{\mu}_{1g} P_1 + \tilde{\mu}_{2g} P_2\right] \\
\partial_{\tau}P_1 &= \left(i\delta_g-\gamma \right) P_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega(\tau) S +i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E}\\
\partial_{\tau}P_2 &= \left(i\delta_g -i\Delta_e-\gamma\right) P_2 + i \tilde{\mu}_{2s} \Omega(\tau) S \nonumber \\
&+ i \tilde{\mu}_{2g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \\
\partial_{\tau}S &= i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s \right) S + i\Omega^*(\tau)\left[ \tilde{\mu}_{1s}P_1 + \tilde{\mu}_{2s}P_2 \right].\end{aligned}$$
Numerical Implementation {#app:Num}
========================
Numerical solutions of the equations of motion are obtained using the method of finite differences. The time-space grid is composed of 9$\times10^6$ (3000 by 3000) points and the domain of $\tau$ is chosen such that the optimized control pulses tend toward 0 at $T$. This ensures that the drop to $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}=0$ outside of the domain is smooth. The gradient ascent algorithm is implemented using a dynamic step size $\lambda$ to guarantee quick convergence. The step size is determined using an inexact line search such that $\lambda$ is initialized to a large value (1000$\gamma$) at each step of the ascent and the increase of $\eta_{tot}$ and its gradient are calculated at the next step. If this step does not meet the Wolfe conditions [@ref:Nocedal_numerics], the step size is reduced geometrically until they are satisfied. The optimization proceeds until $\eta_{tot}$ has not been increased by more than 0.001$\eta_{tot}$ compared to the average of the three previous values. This tolerance was estimated by considering the errors resulting from the numerical integration. Errors in the reported efficiencies are $\approx \pm$1 $\%$ which was determined by examining the variation in efficiencies for perturbations of the time-space grid. For the parameter set $\delta_g=\delta_s=0$, $d=75$, $\Delta_e = 2\pi\times156.95$ MHz, the gradient ascent optimization took approximately 20 minutes on a standard computer.
The pure dephasing process was simulated by first obtaining $f_{\phi}(\tau)$ on a finite grid using (pseudo-)random numbers drawn from a normal distribution. Then, $\phi(\tau)$ was calculated using $\phi(\tau_{i+1}) = \phi(\tau_i)+f_{\phi}(\tau_i)$. Averaging over many trajectories yielded the correct diffusion behavior $\langle[\phi(\tau)-\phi(0)]^2 \rangle = D_{\phi} \tau$. The extracted $\eta_s$ and $\eta_{tot}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:fig14\] were obtained by averaging the results of 100 different phase trajectories for each value of $D_{\phi}$.
![(Color online) Optimized control pulses and $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}$ for the Heaviside model and for the three-level (3L) model ($T_L = 10$ ps) of the QD photon.[]{data-label="fig:figB_1"}](fig_B.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The slowly varying photon waveform $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau)\exp(-\tau/2 T_1)/\sqrt{T_1}$ is not physical due to the infinitely sharp rise of $\Theta(\tau)$. A more realistic model might include the non-zero temporal width of the excitation pulse or fast loading of the QD from another excited state. For the latter, $$\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau)\sqrt{\frac{e^{-\tau/T_1}-e^{-\tau/T_L} }{T_1- T_L}},$$ for a three-level model with instantaneous excitation of an ancillary excited state that loads the QD with rate $1/T_L$. For comparison, we have implemented this form of $\mathcal{E}_{\textrm{in}}$ with $T_L=10$ ps [@ref:Narvaez_PRB_2006] using configuration 4 of $D_2$ storage with ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$. We obtain roughly the same efficiencies ($\eta_s=43.6\%$, $\eta_{tot}=26.5\%$) and peak control Rabi frequency ($\Omega_m = 43.2\gamma$) as found in Table \[tab:D2\_2\_eff\]. Both input photons and control pulses are plotted in Fig. \[fig:figB\_1\]. Because the curves and efficiencies are extremely similar, we conclude that the infinitely sharp rise of $\Theta(\tau)$ in the simple photon waveform does not dramatically influence the results and is therefore a sufficiently representative choice.
Four-Wave Mixing {#app:FWM}
================
In the preceding analysis, cross-coupling of the control field $\Omega(\tau)$ to the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition was neglected due to the large ground-state hyperfine splitting of $\Delta_{HF} = 2\pi\times$6.835 GHz. Because the control field can be quite strong and the optical depth quite large, this cross-coupling can lead to detrimental effects that reduce the storage and retrieval efficiencies in practice [@ref:Hong_PRA09; @ref:Phillips_JMO09]. Of course, a proper choice of ground states and optical polarizations can eliminate cross-coupling completely. For example, choosing ground states whose $m_F$ values differ like ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=-1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=1\rangle}}$ and using circularly-polarized light allows cross-coupling to be neglected. On the other hand, configurations such as ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|s\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ are coupled to the excited state by light of the same polarization. In this case, the control beam can off-resonantly drive the ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}-{\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ transition as shown in Fig. \[fig:figC\_1\] and coherently generate a Stokes field $\mathcal{E'}$ in a four-wave mixing (FWM) type of process [@ref:Phillips_PRA11] . The Stokes field can interfere with the spin-wave created from storage of the quantum field $\mathcal{E}$ and lead to reduced storage and retrieval efficiencies.
In Ref. [@ref:Phillips_PRA11], the Stokes field was taken into account theoretically and was shown to match experimental results quite well. Following the same approach here, we obtain the Stokes-modified equations of motion for a three-level system $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \mathcal{E} &= i \tilde{\mu}_{1g}\sqrt{d \gamma}P_1 \label{eqn:3LFWME1}\\
\partial_{\tilde{z}} \mathcal{E'} &= -i \tilde{\mu}_{1g}\tilde{\mu}_{1s}\sqrt{d \gamma} \frac{\Omega}{\Delta_{HF}}S \label{eqn:3LFWME1}\\
\partial_{\tau}P_1 &= \left(i \delta_g-\gamma -2i\delta_{ls} \right) P_1+i \tilde{\mu}_{1s} \Omega S +i \tilde{\mu}_{1g} \sqrt{d \gamma} \mathcal{E} \label{eqn:3LFWMP}\\
\partial_{\tau}S &= i \left(\delta_g - \delta_s-\delta_{ls} \right) S + i \tilde{\mu}_{1s}\Omega^*P_1 \nonumber \\
&+ i \tilde{\mu}_{1g}\tilde{\mu}_{1s}\sqrt{d \gamma} \frac{\Omega}{\Delta_{HF}} \mathcal{E'^{*}}, \label{eqn:3LFWMS}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{E'}$ is the Stokes field and the off-resonant interaction $\Omega'(\tau)$ has been adiabatically eliminated, leaving an effective coupling between $\mathcal{E'}$ and $S$. In addition, this interaction induces time-dependent light shifts of +$\delta_{ls} = \tilde{\mu}_{1g}^2 |\Omega|^2/\Delta_{HF} $ and -$\delta_{ls}$ for states ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ respectively. Using these equations of motion with the optimized control field for on-resonance storage of a QD-generated photon with configuration 3 of $D_1$ storage with ground states ${\ensuremath{|F=1,m_F=0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|F=2,m_F=0\rangle}}$ (Fig. \[fig:fig11\]), one obtains the same storage and total efficiencies as in Table \[tab:D1\_2\_eff\]. This result indicates that the effect of FWM in this storage scheme is negligible.
Another way to determine the relative effect of FWM is to consider the ratio of the last two terms in Eq. \[eqn:3LFWMS\]. The ratio of the FWM term to the normal $\Omega^* P_1$ term should roughly scale as $d \gamma^2/\Delta_{HF}^2$, which is approximately 2$\times10^{-5}$ for typical parameters considered here. Compared to typical parameters found in Ref. [@ref:Phillips_PRA11] where the onset of FWM effects was measured, this ratio is about three orders of magnitude smaller so FWM can be safely neglected.
[60]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature08812) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5932) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature07127) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.33) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/35106500) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphoton.2009.231) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature04315) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature06670) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys1153) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys1152) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.183601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature04327) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature05136) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphoton.2010.30) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature09997) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature09662) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature09719) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys2324) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.050301) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphoton.2007.46) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphoton.2007.227) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphoton.2009.287) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3615051) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature04446) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.217402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.167402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nnano.2012.262) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1126074) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature06472) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys2078) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1173684) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.75.081302) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature11577) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature11573) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.033805) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.043806) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.457) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.75.011401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.033804) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.062330) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphoton.2010.221) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.083602) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.147405) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.153316) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3478232) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphoton.2011.16) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.83.063823) @noop [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.260502) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ()]{}, @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.79.013806) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/09500340903159511)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Over the last decade there has been mounting evidence that the strength of the Sun’s polar magnetic fields during a solar cycle minimum is the best predictor of the amplitude of the next solar cycle. Surface flux transport models can be used to extend these predictions by evolving the Sun’s surface magnetic field to obtain an earlier prediction for the strength of the polar fields, and thus the amplitude of the next cycle. In 2016, our Advective Flux Transport (AFT) model was used to do this, producing an early prediction for Solar Cycle 25. At that time, AFT predicted that Cycle 25 will be similar in strength to the Cycle 24, with an uncertainty of about 15% . AFT also predicted that the polar fields in the southern hemisphere would weaken in late 2016 and into 2017 before recovering. That AFT prediction was based on the magnetic field configuration at the end of January 2016. We now have 2 more years of observations. We examine the accuracy of the 2016 AFT prediction and find that the new observations track well with AFT’s predictions for the last two years. We show that the southern relapse did in fact occur, though the timing was off by several months. We propose a possible cause for the southern relapse and discuss the reason for the offset in timing. Finally, we provide an updated AFT prediction for Solar Cycle 25 which includes solar observations through January of 2018.'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'An Updated Solar Cycle 25 Prediction with AFT: The Modern Minimum'
---
Cycle 25 will be slightly weaker than Cycle 24, making it the weakest cycle on record in the last hundred years.
Weak cycles are preceded by long extended minima – we may not reach the Cycle 24/25 minimum until 2021.
We are currently (beginning with Cycle 24) in the midst of the modern Gleissberg cycle minimum.
It is too early to determine if this will remain a short Gleissberg minimum (like the Dalton) or if the Sun will produce a longer grand minimum (like the Maunder).
Introduction
============
The appearance of solar activity (sunspots, flares, coronal mass ejections, etc) is cyclic with an average period of about 11 years. Large solar storms, which also vary with the solar activity cycle, produce space weather events that can have devastating impacts on our assets in space, as well as here on Earth (e.g., communications and power grids). Accurate solar cycle predictions are essential for planning of future and current space missions and for minimizing disruptions to the nation’s infrastructure.
While there are still several different solar cycle prediction techniques [@2008Pesnell; @2015Hathaway], one method is emerging as a definitive leader in the field: the amplitude of the Sun’s polar magnetic fields at solar cycle minimum [e.g., @2005Svalgaard_etal; @2013MunozJaramillo_etal]. Surface Flux Transport (SFT) models [@2005Sheeley; @2014Jiang_etalB], which simulate the evolution of the Sun’s magnetic field, provide a way of estimating the amplitude of the polar fields several year prior to solar minimum, thereby extending the range of solar cycle predictions.
The Advective Flux Transport (AFT) model is one such SFT model, designed specifically with the intent of being as realistic as possible without the use of free parameters [@2014UptonHathawayA; @2014UptonHathawayB; @2015UgarteUrra_etal]. The AFT model was recently used to make an ensemble of 32 predictions for the amplitude of Solar Cycle 25 [@2016HathawayUpton] (hereafter referred to as HU16). In this study, 3 model parameters - the convective motion details, active region tilt, and meridional flow profile - were varied in order to also determine the relative uncertainty produced. HU16 found that the polar fields near the end of Cycle 24 would be similar to or slightly smaller than the polar fields near the end of Cycle 23, suggesting Cycle 25 would be similar or somewhat weaker than Cycle 24. After four years of simulation, the variability across the ensemble produced an accumulated uncertainty of about 15 %. Additionally, all realizations in the HU16 ensemble predicted a relapse in the southern polar field in late 2016 and into 2017.
One of the biggest sources of uncertainty in making solar cycle predictions comes from the large scatter inherent in the systematic (Joy’s Law) tilt of Active Regions (ARs)[@2014Jiang_etalA]. This tilt angle produces an axial dipole moment in newly emerged ARs, which continues to evolve during the lifetime of the AR. Over the course of the solar cycle, the axial dipole moments of the residual ARs are transported to higher latitudes, where they accumulate, causing the reversal and build up of the polar fields. The net global axial dipole at the end of the cycle (i.e., solar cycle minimum), forms the seed that determines the amplitude of the next cycle.
@2014Cameron_etal [@2017Nagy_etal] showed that large, highly tilted ’rogue’ active regions can have a huge impact on the Sun’s axial dipole moment, particularly if they emerge close to the equator. We are now two years closer to solar minimum since our last prediction. At this late stage of the solar cycle, fewer ARs emerge, reducing the likelihood that a ’rogue’ active region will emerge. Those that do emerge typically have much weaker flux [@2015MunozJaramillo], emerge closer to the equator (Spörer’s Law), and have smaller tilt angles (Joy’s Law). The net effect of all of these factors, barring the emergence of a large ’rogue’ active region, means that the few ARs that are left to emerge will have very small axial dipole moments and little impact on the polar field strengths. Another effect is that the uncertainly caused by the variability in the tilt is significantly reduced. With the solar cycle minimum only 2-3 years away, this is an optimal time for an updated prediction.
In this paper we begin by revisiting the previous Solar Cycle 25 prediction made with the AFT model. We discuss the accuracy of those predictions as compared to the observations that have since occurred. We then provide an updated prediction for Solar Cycle 25.
Previous Prediction Fidelity
============================
![Validating the AFT 2016 Predictions. This figure shows the polar field predictions that were made in [@2016HathawayUpton] (in blue) along with the polar field observations (WSO in black and AFT Baseline in red) that have occurred since the prediction was made. The average polar fields poleward of 55are shown on the left. The polar field strength as measured from the axial dipole moment is shown on the right.[]{data-label="fig:Jan2016"}](Jan2016Predictions_new.png){width="30pc"}
The prediction of HU16 was initiated in January 2016. We now have 2 years of observations of the Sun’s polar fields to compare with and investigate the accuracy of those simulations. We begin with the predicted and observed axial dipole moment (Figure \[fig:Jan2016\], right panel) and find that the observations track right in the middle of the ensemble of predictions. Next, we compare the polar fields as measured above 55(Figure \[fig:Jan2016\], left panel). In the northern hemisphere, the observations track the predictions fairly well. There is a strong agreement for the first year, but the predictions are slightly weaker in the second year. However, when we compare the polar fields in the southern hemisphere, we find that the agreement is not as good. While the southern hemisphere relapse that was predicted in HU2016 did in fact occur, it appears to happen about nine months later than the prediction. **Why did the southern relapse occur later in the observations than in AFT predictions?** Before we can answer this question, we must first look at the reason that the southern relapse occurred in the first place.
![Sequence of AFT magnetic Maps. This sequence of AFT maps has been supersaturated to enhance the appearance of the weak magnetic field at the poles. The 55latitude lines have been marked with thin black lines. AR 12192 has been circled in red on the top left panel. The subsequent evolution of AR 12192 can been seen in the first two rows. The red circled regions in the bottom panels show the formation of a positive polarity region right at the55latitude. Two additional active regions, 12415 (top right panel) and 12422 (middle right panel), occurred later and also contributed to the formation of the positive polarity region at the 55latitude line. []{data-label="fig:AFTmaps"}](SouthernRelapseSmall.png){width="33pc"}
The updated observations show that the southern polar field started off progressing normally, with the negative polarity growing. But then, in October of 2014, a new extraordinary Active Region emerged, AR 12192, which created a very large positive polarity stream which was transported to the South, as shown in Figure \[fig:AFTmaps\]. AR 12192 had Hale’s polarity and a small tilt angle, consistent with Joy’s Law. It was the Largest Active Region in the last 24 years and it ranked 33rd largest of 32,908 active regions since 1874 [@2015Sun_etal]. From the sequence of maps in Figure \[fig:AFTmaps\], we see that both the leading and following polarities are sheared out by the differential rotation. Both polarities are transported to high latitudes, but this shearing effect pushed the leading positive polarity flux to higher latitudes than the negative following polarity. The polar-effectiveness (e.g, the amount of flux transported to the poles) of the leading polarity may have been enhanced because is was surrounded by a weak negative flux region. This minimized cancellation at the ’Bow’-side of the AR, while the following polarity flux was squeezed and canceled by the positive polarity flux that surrounded it. This culminated in a weak band of positive polarity flux just above the 55line in the South, as seen in the bottom middle panel of Figure \[fig:AFTmaps\]. But AR 12192 only laid the foundation for the relapse. The positive band it created was aided by subsequent Active Regions (most notably NOAA 12415 and NOAA 12422), which helped to enhance the positive polarity band that formed in the South. As this positive polarity band progressed poleward, it degraded the negative southern pole, causing the subsequent relapse.
Strong shear in the differential rotation at mid latitudes stretches the magnetic flux in the East-West direction. When both polarities are transported to high latitudes, this tends to produce alternating bands of flux which form long polarity inversion lines stretching East-West. Throughout 2016, the neutral line for the positive band was right at 55latitude. This latitude, coincidently, was the cutoff used to measure the hemispheric polar fields (Figure \[fig:Jan2016\], left panel). Small differences in the SFT processes (e.g., meridional flow and convection pattern) can shift significant amounts of flux above or below this arbitrary line. This can cause differences in the polar field measurements above that latitude. This difference in the timing of the flux crossing 55translates into a difference in the timing of the relapse. The HU2016 simulations had slightly more of the positive flux cross the 55line, causing the relapse to occur sooner in those simulations. This serves as a reminder that while polar field measurements above a given latitude are useful for identifying hemispheric asymmetries, they can be somewhat subjective and lead to offsets in prediction timing [@2014UptonHathawayA]. Despite this offset in the timing, we are reassured by the fact that the axial dipole predictions (Figure \[fig:Jan2016\], right panel) are remarkably well matched - falling within the middle of the prediction ensemble. This provides confidence in the ability of AFT to accurately predict the evolution of the polar fields at least two years in advance during the early part of the declining phase of the solar cycle.
Updated Cycle 25 Prediction
===========================
![AFT 2018 Predictions. This figure shows the polar field observations (red) along with the AFT predictions (2016 in the lighter blue and 2018 in the darker blue). The polar fields strengths as measured from 55and above are shown on the left. The polar field strength as measured from the axial dipole moment is shown on the right.[]{data-label="fig:AFT2018"}](Jan2018Predictions_new.png){width="30pc"}
We now have two additional years of observations, since the predictions of HU2016. Here, instead of a start date Jan 2016, we’ll start the new prediction at Jan 2018. At this time, the northern polar is stronger, and the southern polar field is weaker than they were in Jan of 2016. As it is later in the cycle, we expect fewer active regions to emerge. The active regions that do emerge will be smaller, will be at lower latitudes and will tend to have a small tilt angle. All of these characteristics work together to reduce the axial dipole moment of each active region, thereby reducing its polar effectiveness. At this late stage of the cycle, the active regions that will emerge will have little to no effect on the polar fields that will ultimately produce Solar Cycle 25, significantly minimizing the uncertainty in our prediction for the next cycle.
Here we ran 10 simulations using the active regions from solar cycle 14, varying both Joy’s tilt and the convective pattern (see HU2016 for the details). The results of all of these simulations are shown in Figure \[fig:AFT2018\]. The average of all 10 realizations gives an axial dipole strength at the start of 2020 of +1.56 $\pm 0.05$ G. WSO gave an axial dipole strength of -1.61 G at the start of Cycle 24, +3.21 G at the start of Cycle 23, and -4.40 G at the start of Cycle 22. **This suggests that Cycle 25 will be a another small cycle, with an amplitude slightly smaller than ($\sim$ 95-97%) the size of Cycle 24. This would make Solar Cycle 25 the smallest cycle in the last 100 years.** This indicates that the weak cycle 24 is not an isolated weak cycle, but rather the onset of the modern Gleissburg minimum [@1939Gleissberg], which will include Cycle 25 at present this is akin to the last Gleissburg minimum (SC12, SC13, & SC14) which occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Unfortunately, we will need to wait another 10-15 years before we will know if the Sun will go into a deeper minimum state (e.g. the Dalton or Maunder minima, or somewhere in between) or if it will recover as it did following the last Gleissberg minimum.
Weak cycles are preceded by long extended minima [@2015Hathaway] and we expect a similar deep, extended minimum for the Cycle 24/25 minimum in 2020. Based, on the latest prediction, **we expect that minimum will be closer to the end of 2020 or beginning of 2021.** Long extended minima such as this are punctuated by a large number of spotless days (e.g., SC12-SC15 and SC24). Similarly, **we expect that the Cycle 24/25 minimum will include extended periods of spotless days throughout 2020 and into 2021.** Fortunately, the strength of the axial dipole doesn’t change much during 2020: +1.56 $\pm 0.05$ G for the start of 2020 and +1.54 $\pm 0.04$ G for start of 2021. Therefore, this extended minimum should have little impact on the prediction for Cycle 25.
Conclusions
===========
We have investigated the accuracy of the predictions made by AFT in 2016 (HU2016). We found that those predictions are largely in line with the observations that have occurred since that prediction was made.The biggest discrepancy was found to be the timing of a relapse in the strength of the southern polar field - while the amplitude was correct, the relapse actually occurred about 9 months later. We identified a few active regions that produced leading polarity streams that caused this relapse, with the most significant of these ARs, being NOAA 12192. We found that the offset in the timing of the relapse was due primarily to formation of the polarity inversion line right at the 55latitude cutoff. Slight differences in the surface flux transport can significantly change the amount of flux above or below this line, resulting in offsets in the timing of the evolution of the hemispheric polar fields. Despite this offset, the evolution of the axial dipole for the last 2 years was accurately predicted in HU2016.
We provided an updated prediction for solar Cycle 25, which incorporated the observations up to Jan 2018. The new prediction gave an axial dipole of +1.56 $\pm 0.05$ G for the start of 2020 and +1.54 $\pm 0.04$ G for start of 2021. This indicated that Cycle 25 will be on the order of 95% of Cycle 24. Of the predictions that are using the axial dipole as a predictor, AFT is on the lower end of the spectrum. [@2017Jiang_Cao] expects the axial dipole at 2020 to be 1.76 $\pm$ 0.68 G, or comparable to Cycle 24. [@2017Wang] also expects Cycle 25 to be comparable to Cycle 24. [@2016Cameron_etal] predicts that Cycle 25 will be slightly higher than Cycle 24, but acknowledges that the reliability of this prediction is limited by the intrinsic uncertainty. Given the consensus of these predictions with our own results, we are confident that Cycle 25 will indeed be another weak cycle.
We note that our new prediction ( +1.56 $\pm 0.05$ G) falls within the uncertainty given in our HU2016 prediction (+1.36 $\pm 0.20$ G). While this demonstrates that AFT can accurately predict the evolution of the axial dipole, within the uncertainty, 4 years in advance of the minimum, the addition of two more years of observations significantly adds to the precision of the AFT solar cycle predictions. At this late stage of the cycle, the uncertainty in AFT’s ability to predict the polar fields is very small. We acknowledge that there is additional uncertainty associated with using the axial dipole as a predictor of the amplitude of the next cycle. Compounding this is the fact that, while this trend appears to be linear for cycles stronger than Cycle 24, we do not yet have data to show that this relationship holds for cycles that are weaker than Cycle 24 (see Figure 1 HU2016, which shows Cycle 24 is the smallest cycle used to determine this relationship). Though we do make this assumption in our prediction for the strength of Cycle 25, Cycle 25 will be a test of this assumption. As the saying goes, *only time will tell*, but we await it with open arms.
The data presented in this article are freely and publicly available at the following web address: <http://solarcyclescience.com/Predictions/2018GRLData.zip>.
L.A.U. was supported by the National Science Foundation Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program (Award Number:1624438) and is hosted by the High Altitude Observatory at National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) . NCAR is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. We would like to thank Robert Cameron for insightful discussions about the Southern Relapse. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous referees for their careful reading of our manuscript and their valuable comments and suggestions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A new two-dimensional material, the C$_2$N holey 2D (C$_2$N-$h$2D) crystal, has recently been synthesized. Here we investigate the strain effects on the properties of this new material by first-principles calculations. We show that the material is quite soft with a small stiffness constant and can sustain large strains $\geq 12\%$. It remains a direct gap semiconductor under strain and the bandgap size can be tuned in a wide range as large as 1 eV. Interestingly, for biaxial strain, a band crossing effect occurs at the valence band maximum close to a 8% strain, leading to a dramatic increase of the hole effective mass. Strong optical absorption can be achieved by strain tuning with absorption coefficient $\sim10^6$ cm$^{-1}$ covering a wide spectrum. Our findings suggest the great potential of strain-engineered C$_2$N-$h$2D in electronic and optoelectronic device applications.'
author:
- Shan Guan
- Yingchun Cheng
- Chang Liu
- Junfeng Han
- Yunhao Lu
- 'Shengyuan A. Yang'
- Yugui Yao
title: 'Strain effects on electronic and optic properties of monolayer C$_2$N holey two-dimensional crystals'
---
Since the discovery of graphene, two-dimensional (2D) materials have attracted tremendous interest due to their many fascinating properties.[@novo2004; @geim2007; @xu2013; @butl2013] One current focus is to explore new 2D materials with suitable semiconducting bandgaps for device applications. Recently, such a new 2D crystal, C$_2$N holey 2D (C$_2$N-$h$2D) crystal, has been successfully synthesized.[@mahm2015] The material has a direct bandgap (with reported optical gap size around $2$ eV), and a field-effect-transistor fabricated based on it shows a high on/off ratio of $10^7$, suggesting its great potential for applications in electronics and optoelectronics.[@mahm2015; @zhang2015; @zhang2015b; @xu2015]
For application purposes, it is crucial to have the ability to tailor electronic properties of the material. Strain has long been known as an effective mechanism for tuning properties of semiconductors. It is especially useful for low-dimensional systems since they can usually sustain much larger strains than their bulk crystals. In particular, it has been shown that 2D materials, such as graphene, MoS$_2$, and phosphorene, have excellent mechanical flexibility (with critical strains $\geq 25\%$),[@kim2009; @lee2008; @cast2012; @bert2011; @peng2014] which makes strain an extremely powerful approach for engineering the properties of 2D materials.[@levy2010; @guin2010; @feng2012; @zhang2013a; @rodi2014; @fei2014]
Motivated by the urgent need in understanding the physical properties of the newly discovered C$_2$N-$h$2D material and by the great interest in engineering it for applications, in this work, we investigate the effects of biaxial and uniaxial strains on the electronic and optic properties of monolayer C$_2$N-$h$2D crystals using first-principles calculations. We find that the material is quite flexible with a small stiffness constant and can withstand strains $\geq 12\%$. Under different types of strain, while still maintaining a direct bandgap, the gap size can be tuned in a wide range as large as 1 eV. More interestingly, for biaxial strain, due to different bonding characters of the bands, there is a switch of band ordering near the valence band maximum (VBM) at a critical strain $<8\%$, leading to a strain-induced dramatic increase of the hole effective mass. Despite its atomic thickness, this material shows fairly large optical absorption over most visible light spectrum, and the absorption profile as well as the peak positions can be effectively tuned by strain.
![(a) Unit cell of monolayer C$_2$N-$h$2D crystal structure. (b) Illustration of armchair and zigzag directions. (c-e) schematically show the unit cells (in blue), the Brillouin zones (in red), and the irreducible Brillouin zones (filled with green color) corresponding to (c) biaxial strain, and uniaxial tensile strain along (d) armchair or (e) zigzag direction. High symmetry points are labeled.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figure1.pdf){width="9cm"}
The first-principles calculations were performed based on the density functional theory (DFT) as implemented in the Vienna *ab-initio* simulation package.[@vasp1; @vasp2] The projector augmented wave (PAW) potentials were used to treat the core electrons.[@paw1; @paw2] The crystal lattice geometry was optimized using the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional.[@pbe] For semiconductors, in order to obtain a more accurate description of the electronic states, the band structures were calculated using the hybrid functional (HSE06).[@hse1; @hse2] The plane-wave energy cutoff was set to be 520 eV, and $\Gamma$-centered $k$-point meshes of sizes $9\times 9\times 1$ and $11\times 11\times 1$ were used for the geometry optimization and static electronic structure calculations, respectively. The thickness of the vacuum region was taken to be at least 16 [Å]{} to avoid artificial interactions between the layer and its periodic images, and the results for stress and dielectric functions are suitably renormalized to exclude the vacuum region by using the experimental interlayer distance of 3.28 Å as the effective thickness.[@mahm2015] The convergence criteria for energy and force were set to be $10^{-6}$ eV and 0.005 eV/[Å]{}, respectively.
As shown in Figs. \[fig1\](a) and \[fig1\](b), the monolayer C$_2$N-$h$2D crystal is a single 2D sheet of atoms with uniform periodic holes in a fused aromatic network structure. It can be viewed as a 2D honeycomb lattice of benzene rings connected through nitrogen atoms. From geometry optimization, we find that the lattice constant is $8.330$ Å, and the bond lengths are 1.337 Å, 1.429 Å, and 1.470 Å for the C-N bond, the C-C(1) bond, and the C-C(2) bond, respectively (see Fig. \[fig1\](a)). The C-C(2) bonds, which face the holes, are about 3% longer than the C-C(1) bonds. Hence each benzene ring is slightly distorted due to the surrounding N atoms. Our results agree well with the experimental values with a lattice constant $\simeq8.30$ Å.[@mahm2015] Starting from the fully relaxed structure, we consider in this work three types of strain, namely, the biaxial strain and two uniaxial strains along the zigzag and armchair directions, as indicated in Fig. \[fig1\](b). Since 2D materials are prone to wrinkle under lateral compression, we will focus on tensile strains here, which are defined as $\varepsilon=(\ell-\ell_0)/\ell_0\times100\%$ where $\ell$ and $\ell_0$ are the lengths of the cell (along the strain direction) of the strained and original structures, respectively.
![(a) Strain-stress relations for monolayer C$_2$N-$h$2D with different types of strain. The vertical dashed lines indicate the critical tensile strains (up to 12%, 13%, and 17% for biaxial strain and uniaxial strain in the armchair and zigzag directions, respectively). (b) Strain energy $E_S$ as a function of strain (for the three types of strain). (c) Poisson ratio $\nu$ as a function of uniaxial strain in the zigzag and armchair directions, respectively. (d) The variation of the three bond-lengths versus applied biaxial strain.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Figure2.pdf){width="8.6cm"}
First, to estimate the elastic limit of C$_2$N-$h$2D, we calculate the strain-stress relations.[@roun2001; @luo2002] The results are presented in Fig. \[fig2\](a). One observes that C$_2$N-$h$2D exhibits linear elastic response until a strain of about 8%. While the material can sustain a biaxial strain up to 12%, the uniaxial tensile strain limits are 13% and 17% along the armchair and zigzag directions, respectively. These values are smaller than those for graphene and hexagonal boron nitride due to the presence of holes and relatively weaker C-N bonds,[@kim2009; @lee2008; @wu2013] nevertheless, they are still quite large compared with conventional 3D materials. One also notices that strain is more easily applied along the armchair direction than the zigzag direction. For small deformations, the elastic properties of 2D materials can be characterized by the in-plane stiffness constant, defined as $C= (1/S_0)(\partial^2 E_S/\partial \varepsilon^2)$,[@wang2014] where $S_0$ is the equilibrium area and the strain energy $E_S$ is given by the energy difference between the strained and unstrained systems. We plot the strain energy as a function of strain strength in Fig. \[fig2\](b), from which the typical quadratic dependence can be observed at small deformations. The calculated stiffness constants along armchair and zigzag directions have similar values about $71$ N/m. Such values are significantly smaller than that of graphene ($\sim 340\pm 40$ N/m),[@lee2008] MoS$_2$ (140 N/m),[@Peng2013] and BN (267 N/m),[@topsakal2010] showing that C$_2$N-$h$2D is much softer, which would facilitate the strain engineering of its properties.
For uniaxial strains, a tensile strain applied in an axial direction generally results in a compression in the transverse direction. This behavior is reflected by the Poisson ratio, here defined as $\nu=-\varepsilon_\text{transverse}/\varepsilon_\text{axial}$. Fig. \[fig2\](c) shows the results of Poisson ratios for the two types of uniaxial strain. One finds that in the small strain limit ($\varepsilon_\text{axial}\rightarrow 0$), the Poisson ratios for the two directions converge to the same value $\approx0.28$, showing the response is isotropic at small strains. However, for larger strains, their values decrease monotonically at different speeds with the applied strain, manifesting the anisotropy in the crystal structure. Compared with graphene ($\nu\sim0.16$ under small strains[@gui2008; @cheng2011]), the Poisson ratios of C$_2$N-$h$2D are much larger, which can be expected due to its holey structure. In addition, we note that at large strains $\nu_{a}>\nu_{z}$ (here and hereafter, subscripts $a$ and $z$ stand for armchair and zigzag directions, respectively) for monolayer C$_2$N-$h$2D.
![Band structures of C$_2$N-$h$2D with biaxial strains (a) $\varepsilon=0\%$, (b) $\varepsilon=4\%$, (c) $\varepsilon=8\%$, and (d) $\varepsilon=12\%$. Besides the change in bandgap size, the band ordering around VBM is switched for $\varepsilon\lesssim 8\%$. The dashed lines are guide for eye for the energy shifts of states A and B. The energy is referenced to the vacuum level.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Figure3.pdf){width="9cm"}
Then we analyze the strain effects on the electronic band structures C$_2$N-$h$2D. The calculated band structure in the absence of strain is shown in Fig. \[fig3\](a). It shows a semiconductor with a direct bandgap at $\Gamma$ point about 2.46 eV, which compares well with the reported optical bandgap and agrees with other theoretical studies.[@mahm2015; @zhang2015b] Around the conduction band minimum (CBM), there are three bands almost degenerate at $\Gamma$ point. The lowest conduction band is quite flat along $\Gamma$-$M$. Around VBM, there are two bands with different dispersions (heavy-hole and light-hole) but degenerate at $\Gamma$ point.
The band structures of C$_2$N-$h$2D under biaxial strains $\varepsilon=4\%$, $8\%$, and $12\%$ are shown in Fig. \[fig3\](b)-(d). One observes that while the system remains a direct-gap semiconductor in the considered range, the bandgap size is modified by strain. As shown in Fig. \[fig4\](a), the bandgap increases from 2.46 eV to about 2.89 eV around a strain of 8%. Interestingly, above 8% strain, the gap size starts to decrease (with a value $\sim2.81$ eV at $\varepsilon=12\%$). This non-monotonic dependence can be understood by a closer look at Fig. \[fig3\]. The CBM energy has little change with strain. In contrast, the bands around VBM are strongly affected by strain: the heavy hole and light hole bands at the original VBM (marked by point A) are shifted down in energy leading to an increase of bandgap; meanwhile, another valence band initially below the VBM by about 1 eV (marked by point B) is moved up with increasing strain. Close to $\varepsilon=8\%$, A and B cross each other and the band ordering is reversed. After this transition, B becomes the new VBM and keeps moving up in energy, thereby turning the trend of bandgap change from increasing to decreasing.
![(a) Bandgap of monolayer C$_2$N-$h$2D as a function of the three types of strain. (b) Effective mass (plotted with $1/m^*$) of hole carriers versus biaxial strain. For $\varepsilon< 8\%$, there are two types of holes: heavy hole and light hole. Drastic change occurs around $8\%$ strain where band crossing occurs. And for $\varepsilon\geq 8\%$, there is only one type of hole with a large effective mass. The colors red and blue correspond to zigzag and armchair directions, respectively. (c, d) are the charge density contour plots for (c) A and (d) B states at $\Gamma$ point, as indicated in Fig. \[fig3\].[]{data-label="fig4"}](Figure4.pdf){width="8.8cm"}
To better understand this interesting strain-induced band crossing, we analyze the character of the relevant electronic states. In Fig. \[fig4\](c)-(d), we plot the charge density distributions corresponding to A and B, respectively. One can observe that the states at A mainly consist of $p_z$-orbitals of C and N atoms, while B is mainly composed of $p_x$ and $p_y$-orbitals. More importantly, A shows anti-bonding character along the C-C(2) bonds, over which B instead shows the bonding character. In Fig. \[fig2\](d), we plot the variation of the three bond-lengths versus the biaxial strain. It clearly shows that the C-C(2) bonds are most sensitive to strain. The lattice expansion can be mostly attributed to the stretching of C-C(2) bonds. Therefore, due to the different bonding characters along C-C(2), A and B respond differently to strain: A is pulled down while B is pushed up.
![ Band structures of C$_2$N-$h$2D under uniaxial strians: (a) no strain, (b) $\varepsilon_a=4\%$, (c) $\varepsilon_a=8\%$, (d) $\varepsilon_a=12\%$, (e) $\varepsilon_z=4\%$, (f) $\varepsilon_z=8\%$, (g) $\varepsilon_z=12\%$, and (h) $\varepsilon_z=16\%$. Here $a$ and $z$ label the armchair and zigzag directions, respectively. []{data-label="fig5"}](Figure5.pdf){width="9cm"}
The switch of band ordering changes the character of VBM, which is expected to have strong effects on the system properties. In particular, we note that the band with B is quite flat. Hence upon the band crossing, there will be a dramatic increase in the hole effective mass. In Fig. \[fig4\](b), we plot the inverse of hole effective mass $1/m^*_i=(1/\hbar^2)|\partial^2 E/\partial k^2_i|$ ($i=a,z$ labels the armchair and zigzag directions) as a function of strain. Before band crossing ($\varepsilon<8\%$), there are two types of hole carriers, heavy hole (hh) and light hole (lh), with different effective masses $m^{hh}_i$ and $m^{lh}_i$. One observes that for both hole bands, $m_a$ is about half of $m_z$, and they increase slightly with strain. Indeed, close to 8% strain, there is a dramatic increase in the effective mass due to the band crossing. The inverse of effective masse is close to zero for $\varepsilon\approx8\%$ along both directions. This jump in effective mass could potentially quench the hole transport. It hence suggests the possibility to control the hole transport using strain.
![(a) The real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function for unstrained monolayer C$_2$N-$h$2D. (b) and (c) show the strain effects on the optical absorption coefficient for (b) biaxial strain and (c) uniaxial strain.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Figure6.pdf){width="8.6cm"}
Next, we consider the effects of uniaxial strain. The resulting band structures for a few representative strains are shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. The system remains a semiconductor with direct bandgap at $\Gamma$ point. However, different from the case of biaxial strain, the gap monotonically decreases for both $\varepsilon_a$ and $\varepsilon_z$ . This bandgap variation is illustrated in Fig. \[fig4\](a). The decrease of gap size can be up to 0.6 eV at $\varepsilon_a=12\%$. The average effective masses for both electrons and holes are decreased by strain. In addition, from the band structures in Fig. \[fig5\], we notice that due to the breaking of $C_3$ symmetry by strain, the originally degenerated states at both CBM and VBM are split up in energy.
The discussions above demonstrate that strain is an effective approach for tuning the band structures of C$_2$N-$h$2D monolayers. With different strains, the gap can be tuned in a wide range from about 1.8 eV to 2.9 eV. Since the material maintains a direct bandgap in the visible light spectrum under stain, it is naturally expected to have promising applications for optoelectronic devices. In Fig. \[fig6\](a), we plot the real ($\epsilon_1$) and imaginary ($\epsilon_2$) parts of the dielectric function $\epsilon(\omega)$ for the unstrained system. The curves show typical features of dielectric functions for insulators. The first peak of $\epsilon_2(\omega)$ is around 3 eV, where the real part changes sign. From the dielectric function, we can obtain the optical absorption coefficient $\alpha(\omega)=\omega \epsilon_2/(cn)$, where $c$ is the speed of light, and $n=(\sqrt{\epsilon_1^2+\epsilon_2^2}+\epsilon_1)^{1/2}/\sqrt{2}$ is the index of refraction. In Fig. \[fig6\](b) and \[fig6\](c), we plot the absorption coefficient for biaxial and uniaxial strains, respectively. One observes that the absorption for unstrained case has a broad peak around 3 eV with a maximum value as large as $10^6$ cm$^{-1}$. The absorption profile including the peak position can be effectively tuned by strain, resulting in a large absorption in a wide range from 2.5 eV to 5 eV. The value of $\alpha$ is comparable to that of graphene, MoS$_2$ or phosphorene ($\lesssim 10^6$ cm$^{-1}$ in the corresponding range).[@nair2008; @mak2010; @wang2012; @qiao2014] Since C$_2$N-$h$2D is of only one atom thickness, thinner than MoS$_2$ and phosphorene, it will have great potential for compact and flexible optoelectronic devices.
In summary, based on first-principles calculations, we demonstrate that strain can effectively tune the electronic and optic properties of the newly discovered C$_2$N-$h$2D material. The material can sustain a large strain $\geq 12\%$ and has a small stiffness constant. The bandgap remains direct under strain and can be tuned in a wide range from 1.8 eV to 2.9 eV. For biaxial strain, an interesting band crossing effect occurs for VBM at $\varepsilon\lesssim 8\%$. This changes the character of hole carriers and especially leads to a dramatic increase of the hole effective mass. With strain, large optical absorption can be achieved in a wide range from 2.5 eV to 5 eV. Our results suggest effective methods to engineer the C$_2$N-$h$2D material for future electronic and optoelectronic device applications.
The authors thank Jin Li and D. L. Deng for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the MOST Project of China (Grants No.2014CB920903), SUTD-SRG-EPD2013062, and the NSFC (Grants No.11225418 and No.11574029). We acknowledge computational support from the National Supercomputer Center in Tianjin and Texas Advanced Computing Center.
[100]{}
K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, A. A. Firsov, Science [**306**]{}, 666 (2004). A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater. [**6**]{}, 183 (2007). M. Xu, T. Liang, M. Shi and H. Chen, Chem. Rev. [**113**]{}, 3766 (2013). S. Z. Butler, S. M. Hollen, L. Cao, Y. Cui, J. A. Gupta, H. R. Gutiérrez, T. F. Heinz, S. S. Hong, J. Huang, A. F. Ismach, E. Johnston-Halperin, M. Kuno, V. V. Plashnitsa , R. D. Robinson, R. S. Ruoff, S. Salahuddin, J. Shan, L. Shi, M. G. Spencer, M. Terrones, W. Windl and J. E. Goldberger, ACS Nano [**7**]{}, 2898 (2013).
J. Mahmood, E. K. Lee, M. Jung, D. Shin, I.-Y. Jeon, S.-M. Jung, H.-J. Choi, J.-M. Seo, S.-Y. Bae, S.-D. Sohn, N. Park, J. H. Oh, H.-J. Shin and J.-B. Baek, Nat. Commun. [**6**]{}, 6486 (2015). R. Zhang, B. Li, and J. Yang, Nanoscale [**7**]{}, 14062 (2015). R. Zhang and J. Yang, arXiv:1505.02768. B. Xu, H. Xiang, Q. Wei, J. Q. Liu, Y. D. Xia, J. Yin and Z. G. Liu, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**17**]{}, 15115 (2015).
K. S. Kim, Y. Zhao, H. Jang, S. Y. Lee, J. M. Kim, K. S. Kim, J.-H. Ahn, P. Kim, J.-Y. Choi and B. H. Hong, Nature [**457**]{}, 706 (2009). C. Lee, X. Wei, J. W. Kysar, J. Hone, Science [**321**]{}, 385 (2008).
A. Castellanos-Gomez, M. Poot, G. A. Steele, H. S. van der Zant, N. Agrait, and G. Rubio-Bollinger, Nano. Res. Lett. [**7**]{}, 233 (2012). S. Bertolazzi, J. Brivio, and A. Kis, ACS Nano [**5**]{}, 9703 (2011). X. Peng, Q. Wei, and A. Copple, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 085402 (2014).
N. Levy, S. A. Burke, K. L. Meaker, M. Panlasigui, A. Zettl, F. Guinea, A. H. Castro Neto, and M. F. Crommie, Science [**329**]{}, 5991 (2010). F. Guinea, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. K. Geim, Nat. Phys. [**6**]{}, 30 (2010). J. Feng, X. Qian, C.-W. Huang, and J. Li, Nat. Photon. [**6**]{}, 866 (2012). Q. Y. Zhang, Y. C. Cheng, L. Y. Gan, and U. Schwingenschlögl, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 245447 (2013). A. S. Rodin, A. Carvalho, and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 176801 (2014). R. Fei and L. Yang, Nano Lett. [**14**]{}, 2884 (2014).
G. Kresse and J. Furthmuller, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 11169 (1996). G. Kresse and J. Furthmuller, Comput. Mater. Sci. [**6**]{}, 15 (1996). P. E. Blochl, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 17953 (1994). G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 1758 (1999). J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3865 (1996). J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, J. Chem. Phys. [**118**]{}, 8207 (2003). J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, J. Chem. Phys. [**124**]{}, 219906 (2006).
D. Roundy and M. L. Cohen, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 212103 (2001). W. Luo, D. Roundy, M. L. Cohen, and J. W. Morris Jr., Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 094110 (2002). J. Wu, B. Wang, Y. Wei, R. Yang and M. Dresselhaus, Mater. Res. Lett. [**1**]{}, 200 (2013).
G. Wang, M. Si, A. Kumar and R. Pandey, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**104**]{}, 213107 (2014). Q. Peng and S. De, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. [**15**]{}, 19427 (2013). M. Topsakal, S. Cahangirov, and S. Ciraci, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**96**]{}, 091912 (2010).
G. Gui, J. Li, and J. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 075435 (2008). Y. C. Cheng, Z. Y. Zhu, G. S. Huang, and U. Schwingenschlögl, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 115449 (2011).
R. R. Nair, P. Blake, A. N. Grigorenko, K. S. Novoselov, T. J. Booth, T. Stauber, N. M. R. Peres, and A. K. Geim, Science [**320**]{}, 1308 (2008). K. F. Mak, C. Lee, J. Hone, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 136805 (2010). Q. H. Wang, K. Kalantar-Zadeh, A. Kis, J. N. Coleman and M. S. Strano, Nat. Nanotech. [**7**]{}, 699 (2012). J. Qiao, X. Kong, Z.-X. Hu, F. Yang and W. Ji, Nat. Commun. [**5**]{}, 4475 (2014).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this work we present a theoretical study on the propagation of light in heterogeneous systems with fluctuating optical properties. To understand the consequences of the fluctuations we perform numerical calculations with uniform and non uniforms systems using Monte Carlo simulations. We consider two distributions to represent a non-uniform medium: delta function and an exponential negative distributions.The results show that even with finite moments distributions, may require a large number of interactions for a convergence towards Gaussian statistics. This can be important when estimating the optical properties of thin films.
*\
OCIS codes:* 290.0290, 030.6600
author:
- 'Emiliano Terán-Bobadilla'
- Eugenio Rafael Méndez Méndez
title: A study of the fluctuations of the optical properties of a turbid media through Monte Carlo method
---
Introduction\[sec:intro\]
=========================
Inhomogeneous medium is characterized by having variations in refractive index or have inclusions of particles with another index. Normally, it is assumed that the media has properties which do not vary with average position. However, many of these systems, for example, composed of a suspension of particles, tend to form lumps or regions where the particle density is higher (by sedimentation, for example). This breaks down with the assumption of uniformity of the system (see Figure 1) and involves certain difficulties to study. A major consequence is that, depending on the type of fluctuation, random process may not be stationary and hence not ergodic. This means that sample averages aren’t equivalent to ensemble averages (ensemble). This class of disordered systems are known as superdifusive media [@3; @6] and have raised recent interest in different areas of science, in particular in optics [@4].
![Schematic view of a non homogeneous media with a uniform (a) and non-uniform particle distribution. \[fig:no\_uni\] ](no_uni2)
Figure \[fig:fli\] illustrates the type of paths we can expect in a medium with particles of many sizes. We see that, in regions with small particles, the light follows a zigzag path with step short while to encounter a big particles, abruptaly, the paths are so long. This means that in the media there is a non-negligible probability that the light suddenly run, a much longer than the other.
The paper is organized in the following way. In the first section we describe in broad terms the problem we will address. Section II discusses the stochastic properties of a medium where the statistics are Gaussian and non-Gaussian. Section III presents a study of the resultant of flight on uniform and disordered media. Finally, the section provides a summary and conclusions of this work.
![Illustration of possible optical paths in a non-homogeneous media with fractal characteristics due to the dispersity in the particle sizes [@4]. \[fig:fli\] ](FLIGHTS)
Statistical fluctuations of the optical properties
==================================================
In simplest theories, which are approximations to the radiative transport equation, inhomogeneous medium can be characterized by their interaction coefficients $\mu_a$ and $\mu_s$, and also by the anisotropy parameter $g$. These coefficients represent, respectively, the scattering probability per unit length ($\mu_s$), the probability of absorption per unit length ($\mu_a$) and average scattering angle after an interaction ($g = <\cos \theta_s>$). The total interaction coefficient $\mu_t = \mu_s + \mu_a$ and the mean free path is $l = 1/\mu_s$.
In these simple theories it’s has, moreover, that $\mu_s$ and $g$ always appear as $\mu_s' = \mu_s (1 - g)$, which is known as the reduced scattering coefficient. Henceforth, we assume that the medium is not absorbing, so that we can $\mu_a = 0$ and $\mu_t = \mu_s$ and also it’s assume that $g = 0$ (isotropic scattering).
Generally it’s assumed that the parameter $\mu_s$ is constant. However, this is not always true in experimental systems. Under the assumption of independent scattering of the particles, the interaction coefficient can be written as $$\label{eq:mut}
\mu_t=\rho C_t,\mbox{ }[\rm{cm}^{-1}]$$ where $C_s$ denotes the scattering cross section of particles and $\rho$ indicates the bulk density, *i.e.*, the number of particles per unit volume. We can see that if there are changes in the density, or if the particles have different properties, $\mu_s$ could be a function of position.
We can see from equation (\[eq:mut\]) that $\mu_t$ depends on the optical size of the particles $C_t$ and of the density $\rho$. We start the study considering fluctuations with respect of one the parameter these parameters. Then we will consider the effect of the fluctuations of both of them in the total interaction coefficient.
Uniform systems
---------------
We consider first the case of a non-homogeneous system on a microscopic level but that, beyond a certain level, not changed in their optical properties. We model the media using identical particles with a uniform particle density. The probability of interaction per unit length along a line is then constant.
Let $\mu_s$ the probability of interaction per unit length of a photon in the media. This probability can be written as the sum of the probabilities of scattering and absorption: $\mu_t = \mu_s + \mu_a$. For simplicity, we consider that there is no absorption in the media so that $\mu_t = \mu_s$. We also define the mean free path between interactions as $l = (\mu_s)^{-1}$.
Let $F(s)$ the probability that a photon, which begins at $s = 0$, does not scattered on the length $s$. The probability of scattering in a differential length $ds$ is $\mu_s ds$, so that the probability of no scattering at $ds$ is $(1 - \mu_sds)$. We then have $$F(s+ds)=F(s)(1 - \mu_sds),$$ so we can write the differential equation $$dF(s)=-F(s)\mu_sds.$$ The solution, gives the probability that a photon is not scattered in the length $s$, $$F(s)=\exp(-\mu_ss),$$ so that the probability of scattering at this length is given by $$P(s)=1-\exp(-\mu_ss),$$ The probability density function (PDF), $p_s (s) = dP (s) / ds$, which governs the interaction of photons with the media may then be written in the form $$\label{eq_6}
p_s(s)=\mu_s\exp(-\mu_ss)=\dfrac{1}{l}\exp(-s/l),$$ The moments of the distribution are given by \[7\] $$\label{eq_7}
\langle s^n\rangle=\int s^np(s)ds=n!l^n,$$ so that $$\label{eq_8}
\langle s\rangle=l, \mbox{ \hspace{1cm} }<s^2>=2l^2,\mbox{ }\dots,$$ and standard deviation $$\label{eq_9}
\sigma_s=\sqrt{\langle s^2\rangle-\langle s\rangle^2}=l.$$
Systems with two types of particles
-----------------------------------
In a non-uniform system it’s present variations of the interaction parameter. We call this parameter fluctuating $\nu$, which its average is $\mu_s$.
The probability density function of displacement in a given region will depend on the specific value of the random variable $\nu$ takes. From the equation (\[eq\_6\]), then the conditional PDF can be writen as $$\label{eq_11}
p_s(s | \nu) =\nu \exp(-\nu s).$$ Denoting by $p_{\nu} (\nu)$ the PDF to scattering coefficients, we can write an expression for the new PDF to displacements, $$\label{eq_12}
p_s(s) =\int p_s(s | \nu)p_{\nu}(\nu)d\nu.$$ In the case where the scattering coefficient, $\nu$, take just two random values, we can write the PDF as, $$\label{eq_13}
p_{\nu} (\nu) = a \delta(\nu-\mu_1) + b \delta(\nu- \mu_2),$$ where $a$ is the probability of the coefficient $\mu_1$ and $b$ represents the probability of occurring $\mu_2$. It’s necessaryy that $a + b = 1$ and $\mu_s=a\mu_1 + b\mu_2$.
At this point, it is necessary to mention that the modeled system is not a homogeneous mixing of two components (in which case, $\mu_s$ would be equal to the sum $\mu_1 + \mu_2$), but a system with regions with properties $\mu_1$ and other with properties $\mu_2$.
It’s convenient to define also a parameter $\alpha$, by the relationship $$\label{eq_14}
\mu_1 = \dfrac{\alpha}{a}\mu_s,$$ implies that, $$\label{eq_15}
\mu_2 = \dfrac{1-\alpha}{1-a}\mu_s.$$ This means that the PDF (\[eq\_13\]) can be specified by the parameters $a$, $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ or, alternatively, by $\mu_s$, $a$ and $\alpha$.
The PDF for the displacements, or flights, can be determined by equations (\[eq\_11\]), (\[eq\_12\]) and (\[eq\_13\]), and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_16}
p_s(s)&=&\int \nu e^{-\nu s}\left[a\delta (\nu-\mu_1)+b\delta (\nu-\mu_2)\right]d\nu,\nonumber\\
&=&a\mu_1 e^{-\mu_1 s}+b\mu_2 e^{-\mu_2 s}\end{aligned}$$
We can verify that this FDP is normalized properly and that the first moments are $$\label{eq_17}
\langle s\rangle = \dfrac{a}{\mu_1}+\dfrac{b}{\mu_2},\mbox{\hspace{2cm}}
\langle s^2\rangle = \dfrac{2a}{\mu^2_1}+\dfrac{2b}{\mu^2_2}$$
Systems with negative exponential fluctuations
----------------------------------------------
For a medium with a distribution of scattering coefficients negative exponential type, we have that the PDF for $\nu$ can be written as, $$\label{eq_18}
p_{\nu}(\nu)=\beta\exp(-\beta\nu),$$ where $\beta = 1/\mu_s$ and $\mu_s$ is the average scattering coefficient of the system.
As in the previous case, the equations (\[eq\_11\]), (\[eq\_12\]) and (\[eq\_18\]) we have that the PDF for flight is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_19}
p_s(s)&=&\int_0^{\infty}\left[ \nu \exp(-\nu s)\right]\left[ \beta \exp(-\beta\nu)\right]d\nu,\nonumber\\
&=&\beta\int_0^{\infty}\nu\exp\left[-(s+\beta)\nu\right]d\nu.\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating the integral, we have $$\label{eq_20}
p_{s}(s)=\dfrac{\beta}{(s+\beta)^2}=\dfrac{\mu_s}{(1+\mu_ss)^2}.$$
![Comparing the probability density function defined by equations (\[eq\_16\]) and (\[eq\_20\]). The solid blue curve represents the distribution for flights governed by a variation in $\nu$ double-delta type. The dotted red curve for the negative exponential distribution. \[fig\_4\] ](PP)
We see that for large s arguments, the probability density behaves as a Lorentzian Lévy flight \[equation (\[eq\_10\])\]. It is worth mentioning that the PDF defined by equation (\[eq\_20\]) has no definite time, which is characteristic of Lévy flights.
Figure \[fig\_4\] shows the behavior of the density (\[eq\_16\]) and (\[eq\_20\]). The curves were scaled independently to illustrate the differences. We can see that, although the curves appear similar, they have important differences. In particular, it should be noted that the decay of the curve corresponding to negative exponential fluctuations is very slow.
To better understand the consequences of adopting these PDF, in the next section we present calculations of random walks using Monte Carlo simulations.
Fluctuations in density and optical size
----------------------------------------
A realistic system must consider fluctuations in the optical size $C_x$ and density $\rho$.
Random walks\[sec:medio\]
=========================
![Random walk trajectories. (a) Random walk in a uniform media. (b) Lévy random walk. \[fig\_5\] ](VV)
In the context of this study, it is interesting to see the result of random walks with different probability density laws described in the previous section, focusing on situations in which the number of interactions is large. The types of situations that may occur in a case with uniform distribution and one in which they occur Lévy flight is illustrated in Figure 5.
We consider the distance after N number of displacements. For simplicity, we illustrate the method by considering a two-dimensional space and we’ll write the total displacement in polar coordinates $(a, \theta)$ (see Figure \[fig\_5\]): Evaluating the integral, we have $$\label{eq_21}
\mathbf a=ae^{i\theta}=\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=1}^Ns_ke^{\phi_k}.$$ We assume that:
1. Amplitudes $s_k / \sqrt{N}$ and phases $\phi_k$ are statistically independent.
2. The variables $s_k$ follow the distribution (\[eq\_6\]) with moments given by equation (\[eq\_7\]).
3. The phases $\phi_k$ are uniformly distributed in the interval $(-\pi, \pi)$. This means that the scattering of the particles is isotropic.
We then have that the $x$ and $y$ components are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
a_x=&a\cos{\theta}=\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=1}^Ns_k\cos({\phi_k}),\\
a_y=&a\sin{\theta}=\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{k=1}^Ns_k\sin({\phi_k}),\end{aligned}$$
and, with our assumptions, we find that
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle a_x\rangle=0,& \mbox{\hspace{2cm}}\langle a_x^2\rangle=\dfrac{l}{2},\\
\langle a_y\rangle=0&\hspace{2cm} \langle a_y^2\rangle=\dfrac{l}{2}.\end{aligned}$$
![Random walk. \[fig\_5\] ](RR)
When the number of steps, $N$, is very large, the displacement of the photon statistics are Gaussian. That is, both $a_x$ and $a_y$ follow as Gaussian distributions.In this case, the variables have zero mean, second moment $l / 2$ and they are not correlated. It is then circulated Gaussian aletorio process \[7\]. The joint probability density is then, Evaluating the integral, we have $$\label{eq_24}
p_{x,y}(a_x,a_y)=\dfrac{1}{\pi l}\exp\left \{-\dfrac{a_x^2-a_y^2}{l}\right\}.$$
layer $n$ \[-\] $\mu_a$ \[cm$^{-1}$\] $\mu_s$ \[cm$^{-1}$\] $g$ \[-\] $d$ \[cm\]
---------------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------- ------------
sup. 1.4
optical system 1.4 0.003 1867 0.4 10
inf. 1.4
: The system parameters which were performed the Monte Carlo calculations. \[tab:aa\]
\[default\]
The length statistics are founded with a probability transformation to express (\[eq\_24\]) in terms of $(a, \theta)$, and integrating over phase \[7\], It is found that $$\label{eq_25 }
p_{a}(a)=\dfrac{a}{2 l}\exp\left \{-\dfrac{a^2}{l}\right\},$$ for $a> 0$. Then the steps follow a a Rayleigh distribution.
We note, however, that our assumptions are valid, moments of the distribution that governs the movement must be finite.
In the next section, we will use Monte Carlo simulations to study three cases, corresponding to the displacement PDF given by equations (\[eq\_6\]), (\[eq\_16\]) and (\[eq\_20\]), starting with the case of the uniform system.
Flights
---------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------
$\rho$ \[cm$^{-3}$\] $C_t$ \[cm$^2$\] $p_S(s)$
cte. cte. $\langle\mu_t \rangle\exp\big[-\langle\mu_t \rangle s\big]$
cte. deltas $a\mu_1 e^{-\mu_1 s}+b\mu_2 e^{-\mu_2 s}$
cte. exp. neg. $\dfrac{\mu_s}{(1+\mu_ss)^2}$
delta cte. $\langle\mu_t \rangle\exp(-\langle\mu_t \rangle s)$
delta deltas $a\mu_1 e^{-\mu_1 s}+b\mu_2 e^{-\mu_2 s}$
delta exp. neg. $\dfrac{\mu_s}{(1+\mu_ss)^2}$
exp. neg. cte. $\langle\mu_t \rangle\exp(-\langle\mu_t \rangle s)$
exp. neg. deltas $a\mu_1 e^{-\mu_1 s}+b\mu_2 e^{-\mu_2 s}$
exp. neg. exp. neg. $\dfrac{\mu_s}{(1+\mu_ss)^2}$
: The system parameters which were performed the Monte Carlo calculations. \[tab:aa\]
\[default\]
MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONs\[sec:medio\]
====================================
To explore the convergence to Gaussian statistics for the three PDF considered, we present calculations based on the MCML (Monte Carlo Multi Layered) simulation \[9\] using the values for the average properties of the medium shown in Table I. Table defines the parameters of the hypothetical medium that we study. Assume that the medium is highly scatterer ($\mu_s$ = 1867 cm$^{-1}$) and with low absorption ($\mu_a = 0.003$ cm$^{-1}$) and optically thick $(\mu_sd \gg 1)$, so that a great number interactions occur before the photon is lost. To simplify the system, we assumed that the refractive index does not change, we can visualize as if we were immersed in the environment.
To encourage the development of flight we move the point of initial interaction “photons” to the center of the sample and we count $N$ interactions from the origin to obtain the components $a_x$, $a_y$ and $a_z$ of the resultant $\mathbf a$ (see Fig. 6). As discussed earlier, for a large number of interactions, applying the central limit theorem, these components must follow Gaussian statistics.
Uniform System
--------------
We study first the uniform system. In this case, the PDF for movement is given by equation (6). Figure \[fig\_6\] shows histograms of the components resulting in, after 10 interactions. The vertical bars represent the histograms of displacement, and red curves, Gaussian functions that adjust data. We can see that although there are slight changes in the heights of the curves all have the same width $\omega_o = 22.5\ $ m. Clearly the components of the displacements resulting in good agreement with the expected Gaussian distribution, which is consistent with the central limit theorem. This, despite the fact that we considered only 10 interactions.
Figure \[fig\_7\] shows the histogram of the magnitude, $ a$, of the resultant. As expected, the result fits very well to a Rayleigh PDF.
System with two types of particles
----------------------------------
![Histogram of the components $a_x$, $a_y$, and $a_z$ of the resultant of the random walks for a uniform system. \[fig\_6\] ](axayaz.png)
![ Histogram of the magnitude of the resultant $a$ of the random walk. \[fig\_7\] ](aa.png)
Consider now the case of the medium with two types of particles. FDP for displacement is given by equation (16). Figure \[fig\_6\] shows histograms of the resultant components after 10 interactions. As in previous cases, vertical bars represent histograms and red curves Gaussian functions adjusted in height. This figure was generated by taking $a = 0.1$ and $\alpha = 0.01$, so that $\mu_1 = 0.1\mu_s$ (long steps with a low probability) and $\mu_2 = 1.1\mu_s$ (short step with high probability). As the difference between the values of the coefficients of scattering is great, it has the possibility of abrupt fluctuations.
Unlike the previous case, Figure \[fig\_8\] shows that it does not have a good fit to Gaussian curves. This means that after 10 steps, the statistics do not converge to such statistics. Should be noted that, if we increase the number of interactions or flights eventually expected convergence is obtained based on the central limit theorem. On the other hand, keeping the number of flights 10, but considering larger values of $\alpha$ (which implies that the two deltas distribution of the scattering coefficients are closer) is also obtained convergence Gaussian statistics.
![ Histogram of the components $a_x$, $a_y$, and $a_z$ of the resultant of the random walk, considering the PDF given by equation (\[eq\_16\]) with $a = 0.1$ and $\alpha = 0.01$. \[fig\_8\] ](G_2p.png)
System with a negative exponential distribution of particles
------------------------------------------------------------
![ Histogram of the components $a_x$, $a_y$, and $a_z$ of the resultant of the random walk, considering the PDF given by equation (\[eq\_20\]). \[fig\_9\] ](Levy2.png)
Now we assume that PDF governing displacement is given by equation (\[eq\_20\]). Figure 10 shows the histogram of the components of the resultant, $\mathbf a$, after 10 flights. As in previous figures, vertical bars represent histograms and red curves Gaussian functions adjusted in height .We see that the histograms of the components do not fit Gaussian curves.We can also see that the range of values ??taken by these components is much broader than in the previous cases, indicating that the fluctuations are much larger in flight, and can be up to an order of magnitude larger.
This is not surprising, then flight statistics given by equation (\[eq\_20\]) represent a statistical approach to type Lévy, and Lévy type processes are caracterizazdos by violent fluctuations that make the resulting not converge to Gaussian statistics.
We studied, however, the possibility of convergence after a very large number of interactions. Figure \[fig\_10\] shows the histogram of the resultant components after $1,000$ flights. We see that, after such a large number of flights, the statistics converge if Gaussian statistics appear, although we should mention that this does not necessarily mean that the central limit theorem is valid in this type of situation. The statistics themselves seem to converge to Gaussian statistics, although we should mention that this does not necessarily mean that the central limit theorem is valid in this type of situation.
The above results show that for this medium, if they occur a sufficiently large number of interactions, it will appear to be Gaussian statistics. However, such large fluctuations have important implications finite system, as in films, in which the number of interactions is limited by the film thickness.
![Histogram of the components $a_x$, $a_y$, and $a_z$ the resultant of random walks for $1,000$ flights. \[fig\_10\] ](G_exn_1k.png)
COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS
========================
We have seen that the FDP adopted for the flights can determine the convergence or lack of it to Gaussian statistics.
The fact of having non-Gaussian statistics and the ability to take big steps involve major changes in the properties of a film of this type of media. In these superdifusivos media, for example, the opacity of a film can be lowered considerably.
The results show that in uniform media, after 10 steps, has a good convergence to Gaussian statistics. In the other two types of media considered more interactions are required to have these statistics. In particular, for the medium with negative exponential fluctuations are required in the order of 1,000 interactions to approach these statistics.
Acknowledgements
================
E. T. is grateful to the authorities of the UAS and CICESE for their support to perform this study. This work has been supported by PROMEP under grant 2012.
[xx]{}
Lévy, P. Théorie de lÕAddition des Variables Aléatoires (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1954).
S. Chandrasekhar, “Stochastic Problems in Physics and Astronomy”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 15, 1Ð89 (1943)
A. B. Davis, A. Marshak, K. P. Pfeilsticker “Anomalous Lévy Photon Diffusion Theory: Toward a New Parameterization of Shortwave Transport in Cloudy Columns”, Nineth ARM Science Team Meeting Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, March 22-26, 1999.
P. Barthelemy, J. Bertolotti and D. S. Wiersma, ÓA Levy flight for lightÓ, Nature 453, 495-498 (2008).
N. Mercadier, W. Guerin, M. Chevrollier, and R. Kaiser, ÒLévy flights of photons in hot atomic vapours,Ó Nature Physics 5, 602 - 605 (2009).
D. Wiersma, P. Barthelemy y J. Bertolotti, “Optical Lévy flights and super diffusion of light,” in Quantum Sensing and Nanophotonic Devices VI, edited by Manijeh Razeghi, Rengarajan Sudharsanan and Gail J. Brown. Proc. of SPIE 7222, 72221A (2009).
J. W. Goodman, Statistical Optics, John Wiley & Sons (New York, 1985).
E. Pereira, J. M. G. Martinho, and M. N. Berberan-Santos, ÓPhoton trajectories in incoher- ent atomic radiation trapping as Lévy flights,Ó Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 120201 (2004).
L-H. Wang, S.L. Jacques y L-Q Zheng ÒMCML - Monte Carlo modeling of photon transport in multi-layered tissues,Ó Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 47, 131-146, (1995).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We review a minimum set of notions from our previous paper on structural properties of $SAT$ [@dizenzoarxiv] that will allow us to define and discuss the “complete internal independence" of a decision problem. This property is strictly stronger than the independence property that was called “strong internal independence" in [@dizenzoarxiv].
Next, we show that $SAT$ exhibits this property. We argue that this form of independence of a decision problem is the strongest possible for a problem.
By relying upon this maximally strong form of internal independence, we reformulate in more strict terms the informal remarks on the exponentiality of $SAT$ that concluded our previous paper [@dizenzoarxiv]. The net result of that reformulation is a hint for a proof for $SAT$ being exponential. We conjecture that a full fledged proof of that proposition can be obtained by strictly following the line of that hint of proof.
author:
- |
Silvano Di Zenzo\
Department of Computer Science, University of Rome
date: '[email protected]'
title: A New Structural Property of SAT
---
Introduction
============
In a previous paper [@dizenzoarxiv] we used strings (borrowed from Computability [@odifreddi]) in order to formulate various notions of internal independence of a decision problem. We proved that $SAT$ exhibits a structural property that we called “strong internal independence." We could then prove various results on $SAT$ using that property.
In this paper we prove that SAT exhibits a strictly stronger form of structural independence, that we call “complete internal independence." We argue that this form of independence of a decision problem is the strongest possible for a problem. Using this stronger property, we will be able to give more explicit form to the informal remarks on the time complexity of $SAT$ that concluded our previous paper. As was the case for that paper, these remarks are only intended to suggest that there is relation between the structure of the kernel of a decision program $P$ (as defined in cited paper) and the time complexity of $P$.
To prove this stronger property of $SAT$ we do not need the full machinery of concepts and techniques that were developed in [@dizenzoarxiv] (these were used to prove that $SAT$ has no wizards, and that all programs that solve SAT have same kernel). So, we shall take advantage of our present simplified context, and will offer a development of the most elementary aspects of the theory at an introductory level. We shall also take occasion to put in due evidence the roots of the theory: We take ideas from previous work of Scott [@scott], and Larsen and Winskel [@larsen], and use results of Di Zenzo, Bottoni, Mussio [@dizenzo].
Introductory Remarks on Strings
===============================
We define a string to be a partial function $f : N \rightarrow \Sigma$ having finite domain. $N$ is the set of the positive integers and $\Sigma$ is an alphabet which includes $0$ and $1$. In simple words, a string $g$ being included (or subsumed) in a word $x$ is that which remains of that word if we cancel out zero or more letters, while leaving blanks in places of letters. We define $\Sigma_\infty$ to be the set of all strings over $\Sigma$.
We regard a $g \in \Sigma_{\infty}$ as a prescription that a word $x$ over $\Sigma$ may or may not satisfy. If word $x$ includes string $g$, we think that $x$ satisfies prescription $g$. Two strings are $compatible$ if they prescribe same values to arguments in the intersection of their domains. Otherwise they are $incompatible$.
If $Dom(f )$ is an initial segment of $N$, $Dom(f )=\{1,.., n\}$ for some positive integer $n$, then we say that $f$ is a full string or word of length $n$ over $\Sigma$. Thus, words are certain special strings. It is desirable to have a reserved name for describing the new mathematical objects, and we consider that “string" is the appropriate one: It is required that one remembers that “string" and “word" have different meanings.
The new objects, the strings, can be viewed as generalized words which can undergo splittings and rejoinings according with more flexible schemes as compared with words. The strings actually occur as generalized words: They represent fragments of words, and we think of them as partial words.
There is a duality between strings and words, and one of the challenges of this theory is to formalize this duality in a useful manner. This is the purpose of the Galois connection in [@dizenzoarxiv]. In this paper we do not need the full machinery of that connection, and we will just use some of the results. The important result is that whenever we have a set $A$ of words, we can set up a second set $Log(A)$ (or $Log_E(A)$ in a relativized theory) that one may wish to regard as $jinnee$ or $genie$ of given set $A$. The new set, the $logogram$ of $A$, is a set of strings: the $genes$ (so to speak) of the words in $A$.
When we deal with strings we think of a game in which one reconstructs words from strings. Equivalently, the game is to classify a word by matching it with strings taken from some vaste repository of strings. There are various basic operations that we can perform on strings. These include (i) to join strings to form new strings and (ii) to extend a string to form a word. These seem to be the very basic operations on strings.
If we join two incompatible strings we just get the void set $\emptyset$, which is to say that output vanishes. If we join two compatible strings we obtain a new string which encapsulates each of the given strings.
The join of two compatible strings $f, g$ is a new string that we denote $f+g$. In order that the operation of join may be applicable to any pair of strings, we shall also define the join of $g$ and $g$. This we take to be $g$ itself. Thus join is idempotent.
Further, in order to be able to iterate the operation of join we must define joins of sets of strings. This is an important step in our theory, and yields surprisingly reach algebraic structures. We define the join of two nonempty sets of strings $H, K$ to be the set of all strings formed by joining one string from $H$ with one string from $K$ and aggregating all the joins formed in this way in a new set of strings $H+K$. The move of focus from join of single strings to that of whole sets of strings opens wide horizons.
Introductory Remarks on Independence
====================================
In this paper we make extensive use of the strings and of their associated sets, the cylinder sets. As usual in various fields of application, it can be convenient for us to speak of special classes of sets (the cylinder sets, in this case) as being events: This will also make the recourse to arguments using notions of dependence/independence as natural as possible. In a sense, it suggests these arguments.
To every event $A$ there corresponds a contrary event “not $A$," to be denoted $A^c$. Event $A^c$ occurs if and only if $A$ does not occur. Always remember that we are considering words and sets of words, and the whole set is $\Sigma^*$. An event may imply another event: $A$ implies $B$ if, when $A$ occurs, then $B$ necessarily occurs. If $A$ implies $B$ and also $B$ implies $A$, then we conclude that $A$ and $B$ are one and the same event. Events are combined into new events by means of operations expressed by $and$, $or$ and $not$. The event “$A$ and $B$" is denoted $A \cap B$, or simply $AB$. It occurs if and only if both the event $A$ and the event $B$ occur. $AB$ cannot occur if $AB = \emptyset$. This is the case when, if $A$ occurs then $B$ does not occur, and if $B$ occurs then $A$ does not occur. When $AB = \emptyset$ we say that $A$ and $B$ are $incompatible$. Event “$A$ or $B$" is denoted $A \cup B$.
Let us have a more detailed look at incompatibility between events. Assume that both $A$ and $B$ are nonempty and incompatible. Then $AB = \emptyset$. Then we can rely upon the following three circumstances (i) That there is a word $x$ which is in $A$ but not in $B$, (ii) That there is a word $y$ which is in $B$ but not in $A$, (iii) That there are no words $z$ being both in $A$ and in $B$. It is not guaranteed that there exists a word $w$ which is neither in $A$ nor in $B$. For this fourth circumstance to hold the additional requirement that $A \cup B$ shall not be coincident with the totality of all words $\Sigma^*$ should be satisfied.
Introductory remarks on NP relations
====================================
The applications that we have on agenda deal with certain structural properties that a decision problem can exhibit. When present, these properties express internal independence of the problem. To correctly formulate these properties, we need to refer to a decision problem as a pair $(E, F)$ of sets, the second included in the first. Indeed, the properties that we establish are about $E, F$, and how $F$ is embedded in $E$.
Our main objective consists of the decision applications, in particular the application to $SAT$. In this paper (as in companion paper [@dizenzoarxiv]) we set forth new techniques to attack the decision problems. We consider a generic decision problem $\Pi$ and assume that the instances of $\Pi$ are encoded as words over some fixed problem alphabet $\Sigma$. We call $E$ the set of those words that encode instances of $\Pi$. Obviously, $E$ is a recursive set, and we assume it is infinite. In any decision problem $\Pi$ there is a second recursive set $F$ being a proper subset of $E$. The words in $F$ encode those instances of $\Pi$ that we intend to recognize from all of the remaining instances. We refer to this encoded decision problem as problem $(E, F)$.
Thus, we define an (encoded) decision problem to be a pair $(E, F)$ of recursive sets of words over an alphabet $\Sigma$ where $F$, the target set of the decision, is a subset of the reference set $E$. For example, in the problem of deciding satisfiability of boolean formulas, $E=CNF$ is the set of the strings that encode formulas in conjunctive normal form, and $F=SAT$ is the subset of the satisfiable formulas.
#### Relations over an alphabet
Let $G$ be a subset of the Cartesian product $\Sigma^*\times\Sigma^*$ so that $G$ is a relation on words over $\Sigma$. There exist exactly one set $A$ and exactly one set $B$ with the properties (i) $x \in A$ is equivalent to relation $\exists y G(x, y)$, (ii) $y \in B$ is equivalent to relation $\exists x G(x, y)$. These sets are first and second projection of relation $G$. The first projection will be denoted $Dom(G)$, the second is $Cod(G)$.
#### NP relations
We say $G$ is decidable in polynomial time if there exists a deterministic algorithm which decides membership in $G$ of any pair $(x, y)$ in time polynomial in the length $|x|$ of the input instance $x$. We say that $G$ is polynomially balanced or else polynomially bounded if there exists a polynomial $p$ such that $(x, y)$ in $G$ implies $|y| \le p(|x|)$.
A relation $G$ which is both polynomial-time decidable and polynomially balanced is an NP relation [@papa]. A language $L$ is in NP iff there exists an NP relation $G$ such that $L=Dom(G)$. In short, $L$ is in NP iff $L$ is the first projection of some NP relation. When this happens, we say $G$ is a defining relation for $L$. Note that a language $L$ being in NP may have more than one defining relations, which is to say $L$ can be first projection of more than one NP relations.
With each NP relation $G \subseteq \Sigma^*\times\Sigma^*$ we associate the following search problem: Given $x$ find $y$ such that $G(x, y)$ or state that no such $y$ exists.
#### P relations
Let $G$ be an NP relation. Thus $G$ is polynomially bounded, and there is a search problem associated with $G$. We say that $G$ is a P relation iff there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that given $x$ finds $y$ such that $G(x, y)$ or states that no such $y$ exists. Equivalently, we say that $G$ is a P relation if $G$ is an NP relation and, besides, the search problem associated with $G$ is solvable in polynomial time. Let $L$ be a language in NP. Then there exists at least one NP relation $G$ which defines $L$. Language $L$ is in P if and only if at least one of the NP relations whose first projection is $L$ is actually a P relation.
#### Standard characterization of NP
Let $\Pi$ be a problem in NP, encoded as a pair $(E, F)$ over some problem alphabet $\Sigma$. In the standard characterization of class NP, there exists a sequence $y_1, y_2,..$ of specials words that are called the solutions of problem $(E, F)$. In general, given any generic problem instance $x$ in $E$, we have that $x$ is “satisfied" by certain solutions. There are also instances $x$ which fail to be satisfied by any solutions, and we call them unsatisfiable. What “satisfaction" means operationally is proper of the problem $(E, F)$ under study.
With any particular NP problem $(E, F)$ one associates a recursive function $\alpha(n)$ such that the solutions that can possibly satisfy an instance $x$ such that $|x|=n$ are all comprised between $y_1$ and $y_{\alpha(n)}$.
Associated with solutions $y_1$, $y_2$,.. there is a decomposition of target set $F$ into subsets $F_i$ called $solution$ $regions$, where $F_i$ is the set of those $x's$ that are satisfied by $y_i$. The obvious relation $F=\bigcup_i F_i$ holds.
Alphabets, strings, and words
=============================
By an alphabet $\Sigma$ we mean a finite set of elements called symbols. Any finite sequence of symbols from $\Sigma$ is called a word over $\Sigma$. The size (or length) of a word $w$, noted $|w|$, is the number of symbols composing the word. The size of a string equals the maximum number in its domain (strings are partial functions, hence every string has a domain). For strings that are words the two numbers coincide.
In this paper “string" and “word" are not synonimous. We borrowed strings from Computability, where a string over $\Sigma$ is a partial function $g : N \rightarrow \{0, 1\}$ with finite domain. If the domain of string $g$ is an initial segment of $N$ then $g$ is a word.
We write $\Sigma^n$ for the set of all words of length exactly $n$ over $\Sigma$ while $\Sigma^*$ is the set of all words over $\Sigma$ as usual, thus $\Sigma^*$ = $\bigcup_n\Sigma^n$.
#### Echelons of strings
We define $\Sigma_n$ to be the set of all strings of size at most $n$ over the alphabet $\Sigma$. We say that $\Sigma_n$ is an echelon of strings over $\Sigma$.
The empty string $\bot$ is a member of the set $\Sigma_\infty$ of all strings over $\Sigma$. Its length is 0. The empty string $\bot$ belongs to all echelons of strings. The meet of any two strings in $\Sigma_n$ is a string in $\Sigma_n$. The join of any two compatible strings in $\Sigma_n$ is a string in $\Sigma_n$.
#### Finite character of languages
Let $S$ be any set and $\mathcal E$ any class of subsets of $S$. We say that $\mathcal E$ (as well as its members) are of finite character if there exists a class $\mathcal F$ of finite subsets of $S$ such that any $A \in \mathcal E$ is univocally determined from its intersections $T \cap A$ with the elements $T$ of class $\mathcal F$.
We take the class $\mathcal L = \mathcal L(\Sigma)$ of all languages over $\Sigma$ as class $\mathcal E$ and set $\mathcal F=\{\Sigma^n : n \in N\}$. We then have that any language $L\in \mathcal L$ is univocally determined by its intersections $\Sigma^n \cap L$ with the members of class $\mathcal F$ (it is also interesting to note that these intersections are disjoint taken two by two). By way of consequence, $L$ is of finite character.
Note that the union and the intersection of two languages reduces to the union and the intersection of their respective echelons. More specifically, if $A$ and $B$ are sets of words over some alphabet $\Sigma$, then we may well form the union $A \cup B$. However this is actually done echelon by echelon, namely $A\cup B= \bigcup_n (A \cup B)^n= \bigcup_n (A^n \cup B^n)$. Analogously for the intersection $A\cap B= \bigcup_n (A \cap B)^n= \bigcup_n (A^n \cap B^n)$.
It will scarcely be the case that we consider sets encompassing some of the echelons of a language $L$. In our arguments, either all of the echelons are considered simultaneously (when we are reasoning at large, that is in terms of infinite sets) or else only one of the echelons is under focus (when we reason echelon by echelon). We may well put under focus the union of all the echelons, which is the whole of set $L$ (when we go at large) or else we may take one echelon at a time. In many cases going echelon by echelon is convenient, e.g. when we deal with nonuniform circuit classes. In our previous paper [@dizenzoarxiv] we considered single echelons in order to derive our results about SAT.
The finitary character of languages will be of help in our study. It will make it possible to break various infinitary statements down to finitary ones. Besides, it will make it possible for us to regard an infinite set of words as the disjoint union of its echelons (which are finite sets). Note that the finite character of languages manifests itself as algebraicity of the closure operators associated with the Galois connection in [@dizenzoarxiv].
#### Basic properties of strings
In this paragraph we establish various technical concepts regarding the objects in $\Sigma_\infty$ namely the strings over $\Sigma$.
Set $\Sigma_\infty$ is partially ordered in a straightforward way. Given any pair of strings $f, g \in \Sigma_\infty$, we say $g$ is an extension of $f$ (written $f \le g$ or $g \ge f$) as soon as $Dom( f ) \subseteq Dom(g)$ and $g$ takes exactly the same values as $f$ in $Dom(f)$. If $f \le g$ and $g \le f$ then $f = g$. When $f \le g$ but not $f \ge g$, we write $f < g$ and say that $g$ is a proper extension of $f$, or, equivalently, $f$ is a proper substring of $g$.
We define $\bot$ to be the null partial function $N \rightarrow \Sigma$. Considered as a prescription, $\bot$ is satisfied by all words $x \in \Sigma^*$. Note that $Dom(\bot)= \emptyset$. We say $\bot$ is the void (or null) element of set $\Sigma_\infty$. Any element in $\Sigma_\infty$ is an extension of the bottom element $\bot$. Thus, the ordered structure $(\Sigma_\infty , \le)$ has a least element $\bot$.
In addition to order, $\Sigma_\infty$ is equipped with a relation of compatibility (or consistency). Two elements $f$ and $g$ of $\Sigma_\infty$ are $compatible$ as soon as $f(x)=g(x)$ for $x$ in $Dom(f) \cap Dom(g)$. If we regard $f$ and $g$ as prescriptions, we say that they are compatible as soon as it is not the case that they assign different values to one and the same entry of a word. If $f, g$ are disjoint, which is to say $Dom( f ) \cap Dom(g)=\emptyset$, then $f$ and $g$ are certainly compatible.We call $f, g$ $incompatible$ as soon as they fail to be compatible.
Given any pair of compatible strings $f, g$, we define their join $f+g$ to be the least string which is an extension of both $f$ and $g$. Thus $f, g \le f+g$ and $Dom(f+g)$ is exactly $Dom(f) \cup Dom(g)$. Join is the most peculiar operation that we can perform with two strings as operands. The join of two compatible strings $a, b$ is a new string which subsumes both $a$ and $b$. The join of two incompatible strings is the void set of strings.
To be able to iterate the operation of join we define the join of two sets of strings. Thus we define the join of the nonempty sets of strings $H, K$ to be the set of strings formed by joining each string of $H$ with each string of $K$ and aggregating all the joins formed in this way in one set. Thus, the join of $H$ and $K$ is the set of strings $H+K=\{a+b : a\in H, b \in K\}$.
For any arbitrary subset $H$ of $\Sigma_\infty$ we define $H+ \emptyset = \emptyset +H = \emptyset$.
The meet $f \wedge g$ of any two strings is the restriction of $f$ (or $g$) to that portion of the intersection $Dom(f) \cap Dom(g)$ where $f$ and $g$ agree. Thus $f, g \ge f \wedge g$ and $Dom(f \wedge g)$ is included in $Dom(f) \cap Dom(g)$.
#### Consistent Sets of Strings
Let $H$ be any subset of the space $\Sigma_\infty$. We say that $H$ is reduced as soon as no string $g \in H$ is properly included in another string $f \in H$. Given any set of strings $H$, we denote by notation $|H|$ the set of all those strings in $H$ that do not properly include other strings in $H$. It is immediately verified that $H$ and $|H|$ are isoexpansive.
A set of strings $H$ is $consistent$ as soon as there exists a word $x$ which includes every string in $H$. Since any word $x$ includes a finite number of distinct strings, all the consistent sets of strings are finite. If word $x$ includes all of the strings in $H$ then we say that $H$ is consistent by virtue of word $x$.
It can be shown that a finite set of strings $H$ is consistent as soon as the strings in it are compatible taken two by two. Note that there exist infinite sets of strings whose strings are compatible taken two by two. However these sets of strings are not consistent even though the strings in it are compatible taken two by two. A set of strings is consistent if and only if there exists a word which includes all of the strings in the set.
Generalized Certificates
========================
In companion paper [@dizenzoarxiv] we generalized the notion of certificate of membership of standard theory of NP relations. Our generalization consists in identifying strings as the appropriate mathematical entities suited for representing the certificates of membership. The idea is as follows: An input word $x$, whose membership in the reference set $E$ has already been ascertained, actually belongs in the target set $F$ as soon as it includes certain special strings that are characteristic of those words of set $E$ that happen to be satisfiable. So to speak, we assume that satisfiability is accompanied by signs: The observable signs of satisfiability. We assume that the signs are interspersed within the object.
(As the Irish passerby is manifestly the bearer of signs of Irishmanship - otherwise I would’t be able to recognize him as an Irishman among hundreds of Englishmen alongstreet in London - so shall the satisfiable formulas carry the signs of satisfiabilty.)
We assume that, for individuals that are words over an alphabet, the signs can only consist of included strings. Our main object in present research effort is to construct the theory that will provide us with the set of the strings that characterize the satisfiable instances of an NP problem. What we need is the set of the signs. We will call it the $logogram$ of the target set $F$ relative to the base $E$ as it comes up as a collection of logos. This exercise is the mathematical core of companion paper [@dizenzoarxiv].
Connection between Strings and Words
====================================
In this section we offer an overview of the mathematics through which we attempted the construction of the “set of the signs" in [@dizenzoarxiv].
To every recursive set $E$ over alphabet $\Sigma$ we associate the set $\Sigma_\infty (E)$, which is that subset of $\Sigma_\infty$ which contains all strings that occur in words of the reference set $E$. Thus, we define $$\Sigma_\infty (E) = \{g \in \Sigma_{\infty} : (\exists x \in E) g \le x \}.$$ This is the set of all those strings $g$ in $\Sigma_\infty$ whose associated cylinder $Exp(g)$ intersects $E$: $$\Sigma_\infty (E) = \{g \in \Sigma_{\infty} : Exp(g) \cap E \not= \emptyset\}.$$ Thus, $\Sigma_\infty (E)$ is the set of those strings in $\Sigma_\infty$ whose associated cylinder contains elements of set $E$. It is understood that $E$ is the set of words over $\Sigma$ that encode instances of some fixed reference computational problem $\Pi$. (Whenever we talk of a reference set $E$ there is an implicit reference to some fixed computational problem $\Pi$ as well as to a program $P$ solving $\Pi$.)
In [@dizenzoarxiv] we have shown that there is a Galois connection (in the original sense given in [@birkhoff]) between the subsets of $\Sigma_\infty (E)$ and the subsets of $E$. The connection induces two closure systems: On $\Sigma_\infty (E)$ on one side (conventionally the left) and on $E$ on the other (the right).
The (involutory) isomorphism associated with the connection is a one-one onto correspondence between closed subsets $F \subseteq E$ on one side and closed subsets $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$ on the other. A convenient notation for the image of set $F \subseteq E$ under this isomorphism is $Log_E (F)$, and this suggests notation $E^H$ for the image of $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$ through the inverse isomorphism. From the general theory of the Galois connection, $E^H$ is then the set of those $x$ in $E$ which include strings from $H$. We then have $$E^{Log_E F} = F, Log_E (E^H) = H$$ holding for closed sets $F \subseteq E$ and $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$.
On the right side of the connection, the subsets $F$ of $E$ which happen to be closed are those that are relative cylinders in $E$. We understand that a subset $F$ of $E$ is a relative cylinder in $E$ as soon as there exists $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$ such that $F=E^H=Exp_E (H)$.
It is immediately seen that our notion of a cylinder set is an extension of the ordinary notion of a cylinder set as defined e.g. in [@odifreddi]. Our notion of a cylinder reduces to the ordinary notion as soon as we confine to strings that are words. Besides, those subsets $F$ of the reference set $E$ which are cylinders in the ordinary sense can easily be shown also to be relative cylinders with respect to $E$.
In present paper we will exhibit an appropriate encoding for SAT in which the reference set $E$ is prefix-free. Everything becomes easier under this encoding: All subsets of $E$ happen to be closed in $E$, and our theory becomes self-contained (there is no longer need to invoke cylindricity of SAT as proved e.g. in [@balcazar]).
#### Absolute cylinders
Given $g \in \Sigma_\infty$, we define the (absolute) cylinder associated with $g$ to be the set $$Exp(g) = (\Sigma^*)^g = \{s \in \Sigma^* : s \ge g\}$$ Thus, $Exp(g)$ is the set of those words over $\Sigma$ which include $g$. $Exp(g)$ is the $absolute$ $expansion$ of string $g$. The two notations $Exp(g)$ and $(\Sigma^*)^g$ are interchangeable (we find it convenient to keep both). We also say that $Exp(g)$ is $elementary$ to mark difference with the nonelementary cylinders to be introduced below. We call $g$ the $signature$ of set $A=Exp(g)$.
Now assume that, as special case, $x$ is a word over $\Sigma$. Then $Exp(x)$ is the set of all words over $\Sigma$ which exhibit prefix $x$. For $x =\bot$ we have $Exp(\bot)=(\Sigma^*)^\bot=\Sigma^*$. Thus, $\Sigma^*$ is itself an elementary cylinder set: Its signature is $\bot$.
As next step, we define the general cylinder sets (just cylinders, not necessarily elementary). First, we define the $expansion$ of a set of strings: Let $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty$ be any set of strings over $\Sigma$. We define $Exp(H)$ to be the set $$Exp(H)=(\Sigma^*)^H=\{x \in \Sigma^* : (\exists g \in H) x \ge g \}.$$ Thus $Exp(H)$ is defined to be the set of all words in $\Sigma^*$ which subsume strings from $H$. That given, a set $A \subseteq \Sigma^*$ is defined to be a $cylinder$ as soon as there is $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty$ such that $A=Exp(H)$.
Note that the empty set of words is a cylinder since $(\Sigma^*)^{\emptyset} = \emptyset$ and $\emptyset$ is a subset of $\Sigma_\infty$. However, $\emptyset$ is not an elementary cylinder.
The last notion that we give in this list of notions is $cylindrification$. By this, we understand expansion restricted to sets of words: Given $A \subseteq \Sigma^*$, the cylindrification of $A$ is $Exp(A) = (\Sigma^*)^A$. By definition, this is the set of all words in $\Sigma^*$ which include words from $A$. Now a word is a string whose domain consists in an initial segment of $N$. Thus, a word $y$ subsumes another word $x$ if and only if $x$ is a prefix of $y$. Thus, $Exp(A)$ = words in $\Sigma^*$ which exhibit a word from $A$ as prefix.
$Exp$ is a closure operation in $\Sigma^*$. By the way, a topological one.
\(I) Every word in $\Sigma^*$ is a prefix of itself, hence every word in $A$ has a word from $A$ as prefix. Thus, $A \subseteq Exp(A)$.
\(II) $Exp(Exp(A))=Exp(A)$. Indeed, if a word $z$ belongs to first member, then $z$ has a prefix $y \in Exp(A)$. Then $y$ has a prefix $x \in A$. We conclude that $x$ is a prefix of $z$, hence $z$ belongs in the second member. Equality of the two members follows from $Exp(A) \subseteq Exp(Exp(A))$ by (I).
\(III) Let $A \subseteq B \subseteq \Sigma^*$. If any word $x$ has a word from $A$ as prefix then $x$ has a prefix from set $B$ also.
This yields $Exp(A) \subseteq Exp(B)$.
This completes the proof that $Exp$ is a closure operation in $\Sigma^*$.
\(IV) Let $A, B$ be any pair of sets of words in $\Sigma^*$. Then $Exp(A\cup B)=$ words over $\Sigma$ that either have a prefix from $A$ or from $B$.
Clearly $Exp(A\cup B) = Exp(A) \cup Exp(B)$. Thus, $Exp$ is topological.
$A \subseteq \Sigma^*$ is a cylinder set iff $Exp(A)=A$.
\(I) Let $A$ be a cylinder set. Then there is $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty$ such that $A=Exp(H)$. By taking the expansion of both sides we get $Exp(A)=Exp(Exp(H))$.
We show that $Exp(Exp(H))=Exp(H)$.
Indeed, let $z$ be a word belonging to first member. Then $z$ includes a word $y \in Exp(H)$. Being a member of $Exp(H)$, $y$ includes a string $g$ from $H$. Then $z$ includes $g$. Since $z$ includes a string from $H$, it belongs to $Exp(H)$.
Thus, $Exp(Exp(H)) \subseteq Exp(H)$.
By Theorem 1, $Exp$ restricted to $\Sigma^*$ is a closure operator. Hence $Exp(H) \subseteq Exp(Exp(H))$.
By way of consequence, $Exp(Exp(H))=Exp(H)$.
Since $A=Exp(H)$, we conclude that $Exp(A)=A$.
\(II) Let $Exp(A)=A$.
Words are certain special strings. Thus, we may well affirm that there is a set of strings $A$ such that $A=Exp(A)$. Then $A$ is an absolute cylinder.
\(I) The intersection of two cylinder sets is a cylinder set, (II) The union of two cylinder sets is a cylinder set.
\(I) Let $A, B$ be cylinder sets. Since $A$ is a cylinder, there exists $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty$ such that $A=Exp(H)= (\Sigma^*)^H$. Analogously, there exist $K \subseteq \Sigma_\infty$ such that $B=Exp(K)=(\Sigma^*)^K$.
It follows that $A \cap B=(\Sigma^*)^H \cap (\Sigma^*)^K$.
The latter is the set of all words over alphabet $\Sigma$ each of which includes at least one string from $H$ and at least one from $K$.
Let $x$ be any word over alphabet $\Sigma$. It is easily seen that $x$ includes a string from $H$ and one from $K$ if and only if $x$ includes their join, thus $(\Sigma^*)^H \cap (\Sigma^*)^K=(\Sigma^*)^{H+K}$. Since $(\Sigma^*)^{H+K}$ is a cylinder, we conclude that the intersection of two cylinder sets is a cylinder set.
\(II) Let $A=Exp(H)$ and $B=Exp(K)$ be cylinder sets.
Here $H, K \subseteq \Sigma_\infty$.
Then $A \cup B = (\Sigma^*)^H \cup (\Sigma^*)^K$ is the set of all words over $\Sigma$ each of which includes a string from $H \cup K$.
Thus, $A \cup B = (\Sigma^*)^H \cup (\Sigma^*)^K = (\Sigma^*)^{H \cup K}$.
Since $(\Sigma^*)^{H \cup K}$ is a cylinder, we conclude that the union of two cylinder set is a cylinder.
We conclude this subsection with one further remark on the structure of the absolute cylinders. Let $A$ be an absolute cylinder. From Theorem 2, we have that $A$ happens to be the same set as its own cylindrification. This is to say that $A$ contains, together with any of its words $x$, all of the words that exhibit prefix $x$.
#### Relative cylinders
Given $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$, we define $$Exp_E (H) = E^H = \{x \in E : (\exists a \in H) x \ge a \} = E \cap Exp(H).$$ Thus, $E^H$ is the set of those words in $E$ which contain strings from $H$. We call $E^H$ the expansion of $H$ relative to base $E$. For $E= \Sigma^*$ we regain the absolute expansion of $H$.
Given any set $A \subseteq E$, we define $A$ to be a $cylinder$ $in$ $E$ as soon as there is $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$ such that $A=E^H$.
Explicitly note that $E^H$ is the intersection between an absolute cylinder $Exp(H)$ and the reference set $E$. We actually regard $E^H$ as being a relativized cylinder, i.e., a cylinder relative to an underlying set $E$.
We saw that cylindrification is a closure operation in $\Sigma^*$. Besides, we proved that $A \subseteq \Sigma^*$ is a cylinder set as soon as $Exp(A)=A$. We derived these results in the absolute case. How do these results reformulate when we replace $\Sigma^*$ with an infinite recursive set of words $E$?
Cylindrification $Exp_E$ relative to a reference set $E$ is a closure operation in $E$. By the way, a topological closure.
\(I) Every word in any set of words $E$ is a prefix of itself, hence every word in $A \subseteq E$ is a word of set $E$ having a word from $A$ as prefix. Thus, it belongs to $Exp_E (A)$. Thus, $A \subseteq Exp_E (A)$.
\(II) $Exp_E (Exp_E (A))=Exp_E (A)$. Indeed, if word $z$ belongs to first member, then $z$ is a word from $E$ having a prefix $y \in Exp_E (A)$. But then $y$ has a prefix $x \in A$. Then $x$ is a prefix of $z$, hence $z$ belongs in the second member. Equality of the two members follows from $Exp_E (A) \subseteq Exp_E (Exp_E(A))$ by (I).
\(III) Let $A \subseteq B \subseteq E$. If any word $x \in E$ has a word from $A$ as prefix then $x$ has a prefix from set $B$. This yields $Exp_E (A) \subseteq Exp_E (B)$.
This completes the proof that $Exp_E$ is a closure operation in $E$.
\(IV) Let $A, B$ be any pair of sets of words in $E$. Then $Exp_E (A \cup B)$ = words in $E$ that either have a prefix from $A$ or from $B$. Clearly $Exp_E (A \cup B) = Exp_E (A) \cup Exp_E (B)$. Thus, $Exp_E$ is topological.
$A \subseteq E$ is a cylinder in $E$ iff $Exp_E (A)=A$.
Similar to that of Theorem 2.
Thus, Theorems 1 and 2 do hold also in the relative case. By way of consequence, given $A \subseteq E$, we have that $A$ is a cylinder in $E$ if and only if $Exp_E (A) = A$. Thus, $A$ is a cylinder in $E$ if and only if $A$ is closed under cylindrification relative to $E$.
We conclude this subsection with a few remarks on compatibility and relative compatibility of strings. Let $f, g$ be strings in $\Sigma_\infty (E)$. Then there exist in $E$ words which include $f$ as well as words which include $g$. If $f$ and $g$ are incompatible, then $E$ certainly does not have words including both $f$ and $g$. However, even if $f$ and $g$ are compatible, it is not necessarily the case that $E$ shall have to contain words which simultaneously include both $f$ and $g$. The whole question can well be reformulated as follows. Let us assume $f$ and $g$ compatible. Then $f+g$ exists, but it is not mandatory that it belongs to $\Sigma_\infty (E)$. If $E$ fails to contain a word including both $f$ and $g$, then $f$ and $g$ are compatible and nevertheless they are inconsistent relative to reference set $E$. When that is the case, the join $f+g$ fails to belong in $\Sigma_\infty (E)$. $f$ and $g$ compatible is necessary for $f+g$ to exist in $\Sigma_\infty (E)$, but the same condition is by no means sufficient to conclude $f+g \in \Sigma_\infty (E)$.
#### Absolute and relative logograms
In this section we first introduce the logogram of a set of words relative to a reference set $E$. Next, we regain the absolute logogram for $E=\Sigma^*$. For any $F \subseteq E$, we define $$Log_E (F)=\{g \in \Sigma_\infty (E) : (\forall s \in E) s\ge g \Rightarrow s \in E^F \}$$ to be the logogram of set $F$ to base $E$. Note that, since words are strings, $E^F$ is defined. $E^F$ is the relative cylindrification of $F$ in $E$, and this in turn (since $F$ is a set of words) is the set of all words in $E$ that are prefixed by words in $F$. Observe that, if $F$ is a cylinder in $E$, which is to say if $F=E^H$ for some $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$, then $E^F=F$ by Theorem 5.
Besides, $Log_E (F)$ is the set of those strings $g$ whose associated cylinder $Exp(g)$ cuts out of $E$ an intersection set $Exp(g) \cap E$ which is (i) nonvoid, (ii) fully contained in the cylindrification $E^F$ of $F$ relative to $E$. For $E=\Sigma^*$, the above defining equation for the logogram is rewritten $$Log (F)=\{g \in \Sigma_\infty : (\forall s \in \Sigma^*) s\ge g \Rightarrow s \in Exp(F) \}$$ This is what we call the absolute logogram of language $F$. Thus, $Log(F)$ is the set of the strings $g$ whose associated absolute cylinder $Exp(g)$ is fully contained in $Exp(F)$.
We conclude this section listing two properties of mapping $Log_E$ that are used in the sequel. First, given $A, B \subseteq E$, one has: $$A \subseteq B \Rightarrow Log_E (A) \subseteq Log_E (B).$$ This is monotonicity of the logogram. The second property is: $$\label{mauri8}
Log_E (A \cup B) \supseteq Log_E(A) \cup Log_E(B).$$ Let us understand this inclusion. $Log_E (A \cup B)$ is the set of all strings that, for $x$ in $E$, are able to trigger event $x\in E^{A \cup B}=E^A \cup E^B$. A string that triggers $x\in E^A$ certainly belongs to $Log_E (A \cup B)$. Analogously, a string that triggers $x\in E^B$ certainly belongs to $Log_E (A \cup B)$. Thus, $Log_E(A) \cup Log_E(B)$ certainly is a subset of $Log_E (A \cup B)$. However, there can be strings $f$ whose inclusion in a word $x \in E$ is a sufficient condition for event $x\in E^A \cup E^B$ but not for $x\in E^A$ or $x\in E^B$. Thus, in the general case $Log_E (A \cup B)$ is not the same set as $Log_E(A) \cup Log_E(B)$.
Theorem Let $H \subseteq \Sigma_\infty (E)$. The mapping which carries $H$ onto $Log(Exp(H))$ is a closure operator.
Proof. $Exp(H)$ is the set of all words in $\Sigma^*$ which include strings in $H$. Given any set of words $A \subseteq \Sigma^*$ we have that $Log(A)$ is the set of all strings in $\Sigma_\infty$ such that inclusion in any word in $\Sigma^*$ of a string from $Log(A)$ is sufficient to ensure that that word belongs to cylindrification of A.
Then $Log(Exp(H))$ is the set of all strings in $\Sigma_\infty$ whose presence in a word from $\Sigma^*$ would be a guarantee for that word to belong in the cylindrification of $Exp(H)$. However, the cylindrification of $Exp(H)$, noted $Exp(Exp(H))$, reduces to just $Exp(H)$. Then, $Log(Exp(H))$ is the set of all strings in $\Sigma_\infty$ whose presence in a word from $\Sigma^*$ would be a guarantee for that word to belong in $Exp(H)$.
But then $Log(Exp(H))$ is the set of all strings in $\Sigma_\infty$ whose presence in a word $x \in \Sigma^*$ serve as symptom that word $x$ also includes a string in $H$.
\(I) $H \subseteq Log(Exp(H))$. Indeed, if $x$ includes a string from $H$, this is the most clear symptom that $x$ includes strings from $H$.
\(II) Let $H \subseteq K$. Let $g$ belong in $Log(Exp(H))$. Let $x$ include $g$, then it also includes a string $f$ from $H$. But $f \in K$, then $g$ is also a symptom for presence in $x$ of a string from $K$. Hence $g \in Log(Exp(H))$.
\(III) $LogExp(H)=LogExp(LogExp(H))$. This is actually obvious.
We may call just $LogExp$ the mapping $\Sigma_\infty \rightarrow \Sigma_\infty$ which carries $H$ onto $Log(Exp(H))$. Thus, $LogExp$ is a closure operator. This closure is not topological. Indeed, it is not always the case that $LogExp(H \cup K)=LogExp(H) \cup LogExp(K)$. There are cases where $LogExp(H \cup K)$ contains certain special kinds of a string $g$ whose presence in a word behaves as a spy for the presence in that word of a string which in some cases is from $H$ and in others is from $K$. Clearly, such a string $g$ couldn’t be a member of either $LogExp(H)$ or $LogExp(K)$. String $g$ would serve as a collective sympton for both strings from $H$ and from $K$. This is a key point in this research.
Given $A \subseteq E$, $Exp_E (Log_E (A))=E^A$.
\(I) Let $x \in Exp_E (Log_E (A))$. Then $x$ is a word in $E$ that includes at least a string $g \in Log_E (A)$. By definition of logogram, $x$ is in $E^A$.
\(II) Let $x \in E^A$. Thus, $x$ is a word in $E$ which includes a string from $A$. Since $A \subseteq Log_E (A)$, we also have that $x$ is a word in $E$ which includes a string from $Log_E (A)$. The set of all words in $E$ which include strings from $Log_E (A)$ is $Exp_E (Log_E (A))$. Hence $x \in Exp_E (Log_E (A))$.
Note that, since $Log_E (A)$ and $|Log_E (A)|$ are isoexpansive, we also have $Exp_E|Log_E (A)|=E^A$.
Kernel of a Decision Program
============================
With any NP problem $(E, F)$ we associate a set of strings $|Log_E(F)|$ called the reduced logogram of $F$ relative to $E$, which conveys structural information on $E$, $F$, and how $F$ is embedded in $E$. We assume $F$ to be a relative cylinder in $E$ (the rationale for this assumption will be given in Section 12).
The strings in $|Log_E (F)|$ serve as certificates of membership for $F$ relative to $E$. This means that, limited to words in $E$, to include one or more strings from $|Log_E (F)|$ is necessary and sufficient for membership of a word in $F$.
In principle, we cannot exclude that $|Log_E (F)|$ may contain strings that behave as collective witnesses, also called wizards. There exist problems, e.g. $PRIMES$, where $|Log_E (F)|$ has wizards. (Note, incidentally, that $PRIMES$ is in P [@agrawal].) Should that be the case, a program $P$ solving $(E, F)$ might do calculations that are functionally equivalent to testing input $x$ for wizards: That would make the task of deciding about input easier.
Let program $P$ solve problem $(E, F)$. The tests in $|Log_E (F)|$ are those that $P$ can use: They are so to speak at disposal for a program $P$. Which of these tests are actually used by $P$ is a different story. We define the $kernel$ of program $P$, noted $Ker(P)$, to be the set of the strings from $|Log_E (F)|$ that $P$ actually uses for making decisions. The strings in $Ker(P)$ are uniquely identified by the algorithm that $P$ implements. The composition of $Ker(P)$ in terms of strings can also be determined through experiments with the executable of $P$.
Let $H$ be a subset of the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F)|$ of $F$ relative to $E$. We call $H$ complete for problem $(E, F)$ as soon as, for any $x \in E$, we have that $x$ actually belongs to $F$ if and only if $x$ includes at least one string $g$ from $H$. If no proper subset of the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F)|$ happens to be complete for $(E, F)$ then we say that $|Log_E (F)|$ is irreducible. Since $Ker(P)$ is a subset of the reduced logogram, when this last happens to be irreducible we have that any two programs that solve $(E, F)$ have same program kernel, written $Ker(P)=Ker(Q)$. This by no means implies that $P$ and $Q$ shall have to exhibit equal time complexities, however we can make informal remarks that suggest that further investigation of the matter might be worthwhile in this case.
In companion paper we proved that, for $E=CNF, F=SAT$, problem $(E, F)$ cannot have collective certificates in its reduced logogram, and this in turn yielded that its reduced kernel $|Log_E (F)|$ is irreducible. We derived these results from a property of structural independence of SAT that we called “strong internal independence."
In what follows we prove that SAT exhibits a strictly stronger form of structural independence, that we call “complete internal independence." We argue that this form of independence of a decision problem is the strongest possible for a decision problem. Using this stronger property, we will be able to give more explicit form to the informal remarks that we made in [@dizenzoarxiv] on the time complexity of SAT.
Complete Independence of events
===============================
We consider a decision problem $(E, F)$. We already noted that, if $g \in |Log_E (F)|$, then $Exp_E(g)=Exp(g) \cap E$ is fully included in $F$. Thus, $Exp_E (g)$ is an elementary cylinder relative to $E$, and is fully included in $F$. The target $F$ of problem $(E, F)$ is covered with sets $Exp_E (g)$ where $g \in |Log_E (F)|$. Statements such as $x \in Exp_E (g)$ with $g \in |Log_E (F)|$ will be called “events in the universe $F$," and we can rely upon the fact that both the union and the intersection of two events in universe $F$ are events in universe $F$.
Here the events in the universe $F$ are subsets of $F$ being closed in $E$. We are using “event" for subsets of $E$ of the form $E^H$ where $H \subseteq \Sigma_{\infty} (E)$.
Thus, given any decision problem $(E, F)$, we introduce the $cover$ of the target set $F$ associated with $|Log_E (F)|$ to be the family of sets $$\mathcal D_E (F) = \{Exp_E (g) \subseteq F : g \in |Log_E (F)|\}.$$ Its members are the $regions$ of the cover. The cover that is associated with the kernel of a program $P$ solving $(E, F)$ is then $$\mathcal F_P (E, F) = \{Exp_E (g) \subseteq F : g \in Ker(P)\}.$$ Both $\mathcal D_E (F)$ and $\mathcal F_P (E, F)$ are collections of subsets of the target set $F$ whose union is $F$, with $\mathcal F_P (E, F)$ being a subcollection of $\mathcal D_E (F)$.
We are now in good position to define a notion of complete independence of a finite set of events in the universe $F$. By a partition of the set $F$ we understand a collection of events within universe $F$ being pairwise incompatible and exhaustive. Two events in universe $F$ are incompatible as soon as the corresponding sets are disjoint. By a collection of events in universe $F$ being exhaustive we understand that, if input $x$ is in $F$, then at least one of them will occur.
Consider a finite set of events $E_1, E_2, .., E_m$. We will define a notion of complete independence among them. We will reduce the general case to the simple case of a partition. To this end, we take under consideration the $2^m$ products $U_1U_2 .. U_m$ where $U_i$ can be either $E_i$ or its complement $E_i^c = F-E_i$. We may obtain the $2^m$ formal products by developing the form $$(E_1+E_1^c)(E_2+E_2^c)..(E_m+E_m^c)$$ Here product means intersection and we use sum for union to stress that it is disjoint. Some of the $2^m$ products can be void, and we do not take care of them. Those that are nonvoid take the name of atomic constituents $C_1, C_2,.., C_s$ of the partition induced by events $E_1, E_2, .., E_m$ where $s \le 2^m$.
We say that $m$ events $E_1, E_2, .., E_m$ are completely independent as soon as they give rise to $2^m$ nonvoid atomic constituents. If $m$ events are completely independent, then every one of them remains uncertain (we do not know if it happened) even if we are notified the outcome of each of the other $m-1$.
Witnesses and Wizards
=====================
The computations that a decision program $P$ performs on an input $x$ are functionally equivalent to sequences of tests done on $x$. The tests that $P$ can perform on an input, hence those that can occur in one such sequence of tests, are those that search the input word for strings $g \in Ker(P)$. This is a straight consequence of how we defined $Ker(P)$. We actually assume that $P$ can only do calculations that encode tests on $x$ that belong to this collection of tests.
Searching $x$ for a string $g$ amounts to asking if $x$ happens to belong in the absolute elementary cylinder $Exp(g)$ associated with $g$. We thus arrive at the conclusion that all that $P$ can possibly do to arrive at a decision consists in asking questions of this form. Note that $P$ has not got to ask whether $x$ is in $Exp_E (g)$ since $P$ already knows that $x$ is in $E$. This is an important point since asking if $x \in Exp_E (g)$ would be more computationally expensive. Thus, as long as we are dealing with words whose membership in $E$ has already been ascertained, we can freely exchange the relativized cylinders $Exp_E (g)$, $Exp_E (f)$,.. with the corresponding absolute cylinders $Exp(g)$, $Exp(f)$,.. .
In our theory, the state of knowledge of a running program $P$ at any stage during computation $P(x)$ on input $x$ consists of a pile of assertions, namely those that have been collected up to that computation stage. The assertions that are derived in one and same computation are certainly mutually consistent (since they assert properties pertaining to one and same object $x$). We are indebted to Dana Scott for this style of looking at computations. When, for some $g \in Ker(P)$, program $P$ asks if $x$ belongs in $Exp(g)$ (more pedantically, when $P$ performs calculations that amount to testing if $x$ belongs in $Exp(g)$) this question always gets an answer. The answer can be a “yes" when the test is passed, or a “no" when it is failed. In case of a negative answer, the new piece of information “$x$ is not in $Exp(g)$" is acquired on part of the program $P$. Since $Exp_E (g)$ is a subset of $Exp(g)$, the more interesting piece of information “$x$ is not in $Exp_E (g)$" can be inferred from “$x$ is not in $Exp(g)$." Thus, in this case the state of knowledge of program $P$ gets enlarged by the addition of the new piece of information “$x$ is not in $Exp_E (g)$." In case of success the new piece of information which is acquired is of course “$x$ is in $Exp_E (g)$." Since it is already known to $P$ that $x$ is in $E$, in this case the state of knowledge of program $P$ gets enlarged by the addition of the new piece of information “$x$ is in $Exp_E (g)$." (Remarks on what program knows at various stages in a computation shall not be regarded as ventursome as they can be made formal using methods of model theoretic analysis of program knowledge [@fagin].)
In this theory, information regarding $x$ is acquired by $P$ in lumps. The acquisition of a piece of information occurs at the moment when the execution of a sequence of tests is completed. We may well think of a piece of information as being a piece of paper carrying a written note such as “$x$ is in $Exp_E (g)$" or else “$x$ fails to be in $Exp_E (g)$." These notes stack one upon the other until the pile becomes a decisive one: This is the case when the data that was gathered entails one of the events $x \in F$ or $x \in E-F$. (It must be given credit to Scott for these conceptual contents of the theory.)
Since $Ker(P)$ is a subset of $|Log_E (F)|$ which is a reduced set of strings, it cannot be that $Ker(P)$ contains two substrings $f, g$ with $f$ included in $g$. Hence the cylinder associated with, say, $f$ cannot include the cylinder associated with $g$. Thus, $P$ never tests membership of input $x$ into two cylinders one included in the other.
It is instead possible that a cylinder $Exp_E(g)$ with $g$ in $Ker(P)$ will intersect one or more other such cylinders, and be completely included in the union of the intersected cylinders. This can happen when $g$ is a witness for a whole bundle of solutions, or (in somewhat more esoteric manner) when $g$ is a wizard. The next two paragraphs have the details.
#### Witnesses and wizards formally defined
Assume that we are considering an input word $x$ of size $n$. Let $g$ be a string in the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F)|$ of an NP problem $(E, F)$ so that $Exp_E (g)$ is a subset of the target set $F$. We assume that the size of string $g$ is less or equal to $n$, which is written $|g| \le n$, thus $g$ actually belongs in $|Log_E (F^n)|$.
Let us remember that, given any NP problem $(E, F)$, there is a decomposition of the target set $F$ into subsets $F_i$ called solution regions, where $F_i$ is the set of those words $x$ in $E$ that are satisfied by solution $y_i$.
That being granted, we say that $g$ is a witness as soon as its associated relativized cylinder $Exp_E (g)$ is fully included in at least one of the $F_i$s. We say that $g$ is a proper witness as soon as its associated relativized cylinder $Exp_E (g)$ is fully included in exactly one of the $F_i$s. Equivalently, $g$ is a proper witness as soon as $g$ is an encoded sign of satisfiability that points toward a unique solution $y_k$. If $Exp_E (g)$ is included in the intersection of two or more of the $F_i$s then $g$ is an improper witness (also called a pseudowizard).
We say that $g$ is a wizard as soon as $Exp_E (g)$ fails to be fully included in a solution region. Thus, when $g$ is a wizard, its inclusion in a word $x$ belonging to the reference set $E$ is a guarantee that $x$ is satisfiable while nothing can be said about what particular solutions satisfy $x$.
#### Immediate properties of the wizards
Take $g \in |Log_E (F)|$, and assume that $Exp_E (g)$ fails to be fully included in any one single solution region $F_i$. Then $g$ is a wizard. To simplify things, assume that $Exp_E (g)$ is fully included in the union of two solution regions $F_h$ and $F_k$. Then the situation is $$Exp_E(g) \subseteq F_h \cup F_k, Exp_E(g) \not\subseteq F_h, Exp_E(g) \not\subseteq F_k.$$ Let us develop our remarks for some fixed echelon $E^n$, where $n \ge |g|$. Let $f_1,.., f_s$ be all the strings in $\cup_{i=1}^{\alpha(n)} |Log_E (F_i^n)|$ whose associated relativized cylinders intersect $Exp_E (g)$: $$Exp_E(g) \cap Exp_E(f_j) \not= \emptyset, j=1,.., s$$ The reader will remember that $\cup_{i=1}^{\alpha(n)} |Log_E (F_i^n)|$ is the set of all the witnesses that exist in the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F^n)|$. Thus, the strings $f_1,.., f_s$ are exactly those witnesses in the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F^n)|$ whose associated relativized cylinders happen to intersect $Exp_E (g)$.
The strings $f_1,.., f_s$ will be referred to as the witnesses associated with $g$.
We set $Exp_E(f_j) = C_j$ all $j = 1,.., s$. Note that none of sets $C_1,.., C_s$ is included in $Exp_E(g)$. Indeed, should $C_k$ be a subset of $Exp_E(g)$, we would have $g \le f_k$, an absurd since both $g$ and $f_k$ are members of the reduced set $|Log_E (F^n)|$.
We conclude this section proving a theorem.
If $g$ is a wizard and $f_1,.., f_s$ are its associated witnesses, then $Exp_E(g)$ is properly included in the union of the corresponding cylinders $C_1 = Exp_E(f_1),.., C_s = Exp_E(f_s)$.
Let $(E, F)$ be any NP problem with $F_1,.., F_{\alpha(n)}$ as solution regions associated with $n$th echelon $(E^n, F^n)$.
It follows from Theorem 7 of [@dizenzoarxiv] that the set $\bigcup_{i=1}^{\alpha(n)} |Log_E (F_i^n)|$ of all witnesses in the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F^n)|$ is complete for problem $(E, F)$.
This implies that the union of the relativized cylinders associated with the strings in $\bigcup_{i=1}^{\alpha(n)} |Log_E (F_i^n)|$ is coincident with the whole of the target set $F^n$ of problem $(E^n, F^n)$. (In this proof we are reasoning echelon by echelon.)
As consequence, the relativized cylinder $Exp_E(g)$ is coincident with the union of its intersections with cylinders $C_1,.., C_s$.
Hence, $Exp_E(g) \subseteq C_1 \cup C_2 \cup .. \cup C_s$.
By contradiction, let us assume that $Exp_E(g) = C_1 \cup C_2 \cup .. \cup C_s$.
Then $C_1 \cup C_2 \cup .. \cup C_s$ is an elementary relativized cylinder, and $g$ is its signature.
From $Exp_E(g) = C_1 \cup C_2 \cup .. \cup C_s$ follows $C_j \subseteq Exp_E(g)$ all $j=1,.., s$.
$C_j \subseteq Exp_E(g)$ is rewritten $E \cap Exp(f_j) \subseteq E \cap Exp(g)$, and from this last inclusion follows $Exp(f_j) \subseteq Exp(g)$ all $j=1,.., s$.
Hence, $g \le f_j$ all $j=1,.., s$. Absurd, since $g$ and $f_j$ are members of $|Log_E (F^n)|$, which is a reduced set of strings.
We conclude that, if $g$ is a wizard, then, with notations given, (i) $Exp_E(g)$ is a proper subset of $C_1 \cup .. \cup C_s$, and (ii) $C_j \not\subseteq Exp_E(g)$ and $Exp_E(g) \not\subseteq C_j$ all $j=1,.., s$.
Note that (i)-(iii) is not sufficient to conclude that $g$ is a wizard.
Structural Independence of Problems
===================================
One of the themes of this paper is the study of finite collections $\mathcal F$ of subsets of the target $F$ of a decision problem $(E, F)$. This study is related with our interest for notions of structural independence of decision problems.
We have seen that both $\mathcal D_E (F)$ and $\mathcal F_P (E, F)$ are collections of subsets of the target set $F$ of problem $(E, F)$, with $\mathcal F_P (E, F)$ being a subcollection of $\mathcal D_E (F)$. We also have seen that the elements of these collections are elementary relativized cylinder sets. We defined $\mathcal D_E (F)$ to be the collection of all sets of the form $Exp_E (g)$ where $g \in |Log_E (F)|$: Thus, there is one-one onto correspondence between the elementary relativized cylinders in $\mathcal D_E (F)$ and the strings in $|Log_E (F)|$. $\mathcal F_P (E, F)$ is the subcollection of $\mathcal D_E (F)$ that is associated with $Ker(P)$.
#### Pairwise independence of strings
Let $f, g \in \Sigma_{\infty} (E)$ for the whole paragraph. We say that $f$ entangles $g$ relative to $E$ as soon as all $x \in E$ which include $f$ also include $g$ (note that since $f, g \in \Sigma_{\infty} (E)$ there exists $x \in E$ which includes $f$ and there exists $y \in E$ which includes $g$). In [@dizenzoarxiv] we developed a theory of entanglement among strings. That $f$ entangles $g$ relative to $E$ was denoted $f \sqsupseteq^E g$.
$f, g$ independent relative to $E$ means that neither $f \sqsupseteq^E g$ nor $g \sqsupseteq^E f$. Thus, $f, g$ independent relative to $E$ means that (i) there is $x \in E$ which includes $f$ and does not include $g$ and (ii) there is $y \in E$ which includes $g$ and does not include $f$.
Note that $f \sqsupseteq^E g$ if and only if $Exp_E (f) \subseteq Exp_E (g)$. Analogously for $g \sqsupseteq^E f$. Then $f, g$ independent relative to $E$ means that neither $Exp_E (f) \subseteq Exp_E (g)$ nor $Exp_E (g) \subseteq Exp_E (f)$.
#### Internal independence of a problem
We call problem $(E, F)$ internally independent as soon as the strings in $|Log_E (F)|$ are pairwise independent relative to $E$. Thus, $(E, F)$ internally independent $\equiv$ $\mathcal D_E (F)$ is an antichain.
#### Strong internal independence
In our previous paper [@dizenzoarxiv] we defined the property of strong internal independence of a decision problem. We defined problem $(E, F)$ to have this property as soon as for any choice of $s$ distinct strings $f_1,.., f_s$ in $|Log_E (F)|$, the following is true: For every $i$ between $1$ and $s$ there exists a word $x_i \in E$ such that $x_i$ contains $f_i$ and fails to contain any of the remaining strings in $\{f_1,.., f_s\}$.
Strong internal independence of a decision problem implies internal independence.
By contradiction, assume that $(E, F)$ exhibits the strong internal independence property and does not exhibit the simple dependence property.
Thus, not all of the strings in $|Log_E (F)|$ are independent relative to $E$ taken two by two. This is to say that there exist $f, g \in |Log_E (F)|$ such that $Exp_E (f) \subseteq Exp_E (g)$.
With reference to the definition of the strong internal independence property we take $f, g$ as a particular choice for $f_1,.., f_s$. Since $(E, F)$ has the strong internal independence property we have that (i) there exists $x \in E$ such that $x \ge f$ and $x \not\ge g$, (ii) there exists $y \in E$ such that $y \ge g$ and $y \not\ge f$.
On the other side, since $x \ge f$ and $x \in E$, we have that $x \in Exp_E (f)$. By the contradiction hypothesis, we also have $x \in Exp_E (g)$. This implies $x \ge g$, an absurd.
#### Complete internal independence
We shall say that problem $(E, F)$ has the complete internal independence property as soon as, given any finite set $f_1,.., f_s$ of pairwise compatible strings in $|Log_E (F)|$, there exists $x \in E$ such that (i) $x$ includes each of the $f_1,.., f_s$, (ii) $x$ fails to include any other $g \in |Log_E (F)|$ except possibly those that are subsumed by $f_1+..+f_s$.
In Section 9 we defined complete independence of a finite collection of sets in $\mathcal D_E (F)$. We may well rephrase our definition of complete independence of a decision problem as follows: $(E, F)$ is completely independent if any finite collection $E_1,.., E_s$ of pairwise intersecting regions in $\mathcal D_E (F)$ is completely independent.
Application to SAT
==================
The encoding scheme that we adopt converts $CNF$ formulas into words over $\Sigma=\{0, 1, 2\}$. In what follows $E=CNF$, $F=SAT$.
We represent clauses over $x_1,.., x_n$ by sequences of $n$ codes from $\Sigma$. Code $0$ denotes absence of the variable, code $1$ presence without minus, code $2$ presence with minus. E.g., clause $x_1 \vee x_3 \vee -x_4$ becomes 1012.
A whole formula is encoded as a sequence of clauses. We define $F^{nm}$ = satisfiable formulas with $n$ variables and $m$ clauses.
Every encoded formula has a prefix of the form 0..010..01 consisting of $n$ 0s followed by a 1 followed by $m$ 0s followed by a 1. A program $P$ solving $(E, F)$ learns the current values of $n, m$ from this prefix. $P$ shall have to be aware that the $nm$ characters on the immediate right of the prefix encode $m$ clauses over $n$ boolean variables.
The reference set $E=CNF$ is thus encoded as a prefix-free language over $\Sigma=\{0, 1, 2\}$. Given any subset $A \subseteq E$, one has $Exp_E (A)=Exp(A) \cap E=A$. Thus, any subset $A \subseteq E$ is a cylinder relative to reference set $E$. This is to say that any $A \subseteq E$ is a closed set in $E$. Note that these simplifications fairly match with usual programming practice. Note that the target $F$ of problem $(E, F)$ is in any case a cylinder relative to $E$, as required by theory developed above.
The $size$ (or $complexity$) $|x|$ of a boolean formula $x$ is the number of distinct variables that have occurrences in $x$. By the $effective$ $size$ of a satisfiable boolean formula $x$ we understand the minimum number of value assignments to variables that are needed to evaluate the formula to 1. We define the effective size of an unsatisfiable formula to be the size of the formula.
$Example$ Consider formula $x = (x_1 \vee x_3 \vee -x_4) \wedge (x_2 \vee -x_3)$. The size is 4, the effective size is 2. Indeed, the two value assignments to variables $x_1 = 1$ and $x_2 = 1$ are sufficient to set $x$ to 1. This is not the only partial value assignment to variables that satisfies $x$. For example, the partial assignment $x_4=0, x_3=0$ is also sufficient to set the value of $x$ to 1.
If size and effective size of a formula are different we say the formula is $bewitched$ (a formula is $unbewitched$ if the two numbers are equal). If $x$ is bewitched, then certainly $x$ includes a pseudowizard. Let us verify this on formula $x$ in the above example: The encoded version of $x$ is $000010011\flat12\flat12\flat$. It subsumes the strings $000010011\flat\flat\flat\flat1\flat\flat$ and $00001001\flat\flat\flat2\flat\flat2\flat$ that are both pseudowizards. (Remember that pseudowizards are witnesses.)
The unbewitched formulas form a hardest subset of $SAT$, and we may ignore bewitched formulas without loss of generality.
We introduce the sequence $y_1, y_2, ..$ of solutions, and the corresponding sequence $F_1, F_2, ..$ of recursive subsets of $F$. Here the solutions $y_i$ consist of value assignments. The cardinality function is $\alpha(n)=2^n$. The target set $F=SAT$ as well as the solution regions $F_1, F_2, ..$ are closed sets in $E=CNF$. Thus, all these sets are relative cylinders in $E$. These assumptions correspond to properties of $SAT$ that can be derived under various other encoding schemes [@balcazar] [@hemaspaandra].
Before we prove our main result in this paper, let us spend a few words on the logogram of $SAT$. A string in $|Log_E (F^{nm})|$ is a prescription that a word in $F^{nm}$ may or may not be conformant with. We may represent a string in $|Log_E (F^{nm})|$ as a word of length $nm$ over $\{\flat \}\cup \Sigma$ (ignoring prefix). Example for $n=m=3$: String $\flat \flat 11 \flat 2 \flat 2 \flat$ prescribes that first clause shall include $x_3$, second shall include $x_1$ and $-x_3$, third shall include $-x_2$. Note that strings in $|Log_E (F^{nm})|$ only prescribe either $1$ or $2$ as values (by the minimality property of reduced logogram).
Let $E=CNF, F=SAT$. Problem $(E, F)$ exhibits the complete internal independence property.
$Outline$ $of$ $proof$. We prove that, given $s$ distinct, pairwise compatible strings $f_1,.., f_s$ from the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F^{nm})|$, there is $x \in E$ such that (i) $x \ge f_1+f_2+..+f_s$, (ii) for all of the remaining $g \in |Log_E (F^{nm})|$ one has $x \ge g$ if and only if $g \le f_1+f_2+..+f_s$.
We consider $s$ distinct strings $f_1,.., f_s$ taken from $|Log_E (F^{nm})|$. Thus, regarded as a partial function, each $f_i$ will assign only values $1$ or $2$. We assume that $f_1,.., f_s$ are compatible taken two by two.
We shall rely upon the main result proven in [@dizenzoarxiv] namely that SAT has no wizards. By virtue of this result, none of the strings $f_1,.., f_s$ is a wizard. That means that each of them is a witness, which in turn means that each of them consists of a consistent prescription of exactly one literal to each of the $m$ clauses. That a prescription is consistent means that it does not comprise (i) an assignment of a literal to a clause and (ii) the assignment of the negative of that literal to another clause.
Let us consider any two of the strings $f_1,.., f_s$, call them $f_h$ and $f_k$.
Since $f_h$ and $f_k$ are compatible, we cannot find two distinct integers $i, j$, $1 \le i \le n, 1 \le j \le m$, such that (a) $f_h$ assigns literal $x_i$ to clause $j$, (b) $f_k$ assigns literal $-x_i$ to same clause $j$.
Since that holds for any pair $f_h, f_k$, we take it for granted that, if one of the strings $f_1,.., f_s$ prescribes a literal to one of the clauses, none of the remaining strings within $f_1,.., f_s$ will prescribe the negative of that literal to the same clause.
That being granted, we define $x$ to be that uniquely identified formula that has a literal in a clause if and only if at least one of the strings $f_1,.., f_s$ prescribes that literal to that clause.
Formula $x$ subsumes everyone of the strings $f_1,.., f_s$, hence $x$ subsumes their join $f_1+f_2+..+f_s$.
Let $g \in |Log_E (F^{nm})|$ and assume $x \ge g$.
By way of contradiction, assume that $f_1+..+f_s \not\ge g$. We write $f$ for $f_1+..+f_s$ so that we have $Dom(f)=Dom(f_1) \cup..\cup Dom(f_s)$. The hypothesis taken by contradiction is rewritten $f \not\ge g$.
From our definitions about strings, we have that $f \ge g$ if and only if $Dom(g) \subseteq Dom(f)$ and, for any $i \in Dom(g)$, $f(i)=g(i)$. Then, since $f \not\ge g$, only the following two cases are possible:
Case 1. $Dom(g) \not\subseteq Dom(f)$.
In this case, there exists $k \in Dom(g)$ such that $k \not\in Dom(f)$. This last is rewritten $k \not\in Dom(f_1),.., k \not\in Dom(f_s)$.
We made the assumption $x \ge g$. Since $g$ prescribes only $1$ or $2$ as values, this assumption implies $x(i) \not= 0$ for all $i \in Dom(g)$. In particular, we have $x(k) \not= 0$. This is absurd since, by the above construction of formula $x$, we have $x \not= 0$ only in $Dom(f)$.
Case 2. $Dom(g) \subseteq Dom(f)$ but there is an argument value $i \in Dom(g)$ where $f(i) \not= g(i)$.
Since $Dom(g) \subseteq Dom(f)$, we certainly have $i \in Dom(f_1)$ or $i \in Dom(f_2)$ or.. or $i \in Dom(f_s)$. With no loss of generality, we assume $i \in Dom(f_1)$.
We then have $g(i) \not= f_1(i)$.
However, since $x \ge g$ and $i \in Dom(g)$, we also have $x(i)=g(i)$. Then $x(i) \not = f_1(i)$, a contradiction since $f = f_1$ everywhere in $Dom(f_1)$.
On the Time Complexity of SAT
=============================
In this section we set forth a hint of proof of the exponentiality of SAT in the light of Theorem 10 above together with Theorems 8, 9, 10 of companion paper. Remember that $E=CNF$, $F=SAT$. We conjecture that a formal proof can be derived following this hint.
SAT is exponential.
Our hint of proof consists of two parts, (I) and (II).
\(I) It follows from Theorem 10 of [@dizenzoarxiv] that there is a unique subfamily $\mathcal F$ of $\mathcal D_E (F)$ such that $F = \bigcup \mathcal F$, namely $\mathcal F = \mathcal D_E (F)$ itself. As a consequence, for any proper subfamily $\mathcal F \subset \mathcal D_E (F)$ one has $F \not= \bigcup\mathcal F$.
We then have that it cannot be that $\mathcal F_P (E, F)$ is a proper subfamily of the full cover $\mathcal D_E (F)$, otherwise we would have $F \not= \bigcup\mathcal F_P (E, F)$, and then $P$ could not be correct as a program. In particular, since the cardinality of $\mathcal D_E (F)$ grows exponentially with word size, we have that $\mathcal F_P (E, F)$ is not allowed to be a polynomial subfamily of $\mathcal D_E (F)$. Thus, no search algorithm for $SAT$ can only search a polynomial family of sets.
\(II) It remains for us to discuss the possibility that one single algorithm can solve the full search problem for $x$ by directly searching the full exponential family $\mathcal D_E (F)$ in polynomial time. However this can scarcely be the case due to complete absence of any form of dependence among subsets in the reduced logogram $|Log_E (F)|$ for $E=CNF$, $F=SAT$. By this lack of internal dependence, any computation of a program $P$ solving $(E, F)$ is such that the result of any computation step does not change the results that are left possible for the subsequent steps. In the rest of this part we make a few informal remarks on how this lack of dependence comes into play.
We take a general purpose program machine $M$ as computation model. (That $M$ is a program machine means that the process carried out by $M$ is determined by a running program.) We assume that only one program is running at any moment of time within $M$. We keep machine $M$ fixed while we consider an infinite set of programs solving $SAT$ (actually the set of all programs that run on $M$ and solve $SAT$). We emphasize that the hardware is kept fixed while different programs all running on that hardware are compared.
Let $B(x, k)$ be a program running on machine $M$ which for any given input $x \in E$ of size $n$ and every integer $k$ between $1$ and $2^n$ will decide if $x$ has solutions in the range between $y_1$ and $y_k$. Take $Time_B(x, k)$ be the number of time units that algorithm $B$ uses on inputs $x, k$ on machine $M$.
(II$\alpha$) We consider $\alpha(n)=2^n$ strings from reduced logogram $|Log_E(F^{nm})|$ call them $f_1,.., f_{\alpha(n)}$. Since $SAT$ has no wizards, each of these strings is a witness. By way of consequence, each $f$ within $f_1,.., f_{\alpha(n)}$ is associated with one bundle of solutions (one single solution when $f$ is a proper witness).
With no loss of generality, we may choose the strings $f_1,.., f_{\alpha(n)}$ to be all proper witnesses. Besides, we may well choose the strings so that, for $j=1,.., \alpha(n)$, the unique solution associated with $f_j$ is $y_j$. Note that we do not assume that the strings $f_1,.., f_{\alpha(n)}$ are pairwise compatible.
By the strong internal independence of $SAT$, for every $j=1,.., \alpha(n)$ there exists a word $x \in F^{nm}$ which includes string $f_j$ and fails to include all of the remaining strings in $f_1,.., f_{\alpha(n)}$. Thus, $x$ is satisfied by solution $y_j$. Nothing can be said of the remaining solutions since the fact that $x$ fails to include $f_i$ where $i\not=j$ does not exclude that $x$ can possibly include other witnesses associated with solution $y_i$.
However, in the above argument we may keep $f_j$ fixed while varying, for all $i=1,..,\alpha(n), i\not=j$, the string $f_i$ over $|Log_E(F_i^{nm})|$ in any possible manner. We then conclude that, for any single $j$ between $1$ and $2^n$, there exists an $x \in F^{nm}$ which is satisfied by $y_j$ and fails to be satisfied by any other solutions $y_i \not= y_j$.
In particular, given any integer $k$ such that $1 \le k < 2^n$, there exists $x \in F^{nm}$ which is satisfied by solution $y_{k+1}$ but is not satisfied by any one of the solutions in the range from $y_1$ and $y_k$. Thus, it may well be the case that $B(x, k)=0$ and $B(x, k+1)=1$. This statement is a prerequisite for what follows.
(The above argument may seem to us very obvious in the light of our empirical understanding of $SAT$. The internal independence properties of this problem put this on deductive bases.)
(II$\beta$) We will prove the following.
If for any unsatisfiable $x \in E^{nm}$ and any $k<2^n$ we have $Time_B (x, k) = Time_B (x, k+1)$, then there exists another program $A_x$ solving $SAT$ on hardware $M$ such that $$Time_{A_x} (x, k) < Time_{A_x} (x, k+1),$$ $$Time_{A_x} (x, 2^n) \le Time_B (x, 2^n).$$ Indeed, under the above hypotheses on $M$, we can speak of the class of all programs $B$, $C$,.. that solve $SAT$ on machine $M$. Given any input $y$ of size $n$, we can then introduce a most efficient program $A_y$ for particular input $y$ in this class. We understand that $A_y$ is a most efficient program for a particular input $y$ as soon as $A_y$ solves $SAT$ on machine $M$ and, besides, $Time_{A_y}(y, 2^n) \le Time_C(y, 2^n)$ for any other program $C$ solving $SAT$ on hardware $M$. Thus $A_y$ is no worse than any other $C$ solving $SAT$ on $M$ limited to this particular input $y$.
We shall prove that, for an unsatisfiable input $x$, we have $Time_{A_x}(x, i) < Time_{A_x}(x, i+1)$ all $i$, $1 \le i < 2^n$.
If we ignore improper witnesses (which is to say that we disregard bewitched formulas) we have:
$$|Log_E(F_{i+1})| \cap\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)| = \emptyset$$
From Theorem 10 of present paper follows $$\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)| \not\sqsupseteq^E |Log_E(F_{i+1})|$$ $$|Log_E(F_{i+1})| \not\sqsupseteq^E \bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)|$$ (For brevity, in this informal hint we omit the proof that Equations 18, 19 follow from the complete independence of $SAT$.)
Thus, the two sets of strings $|Log_E(F_{i+1})|$ and $\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)|$ are disjoint and there is no entanglement between them.
Since $A_x$ is optimal on input $x$, algorithm $A_x (x, i)$ may perform on $x$ calculations that implement the search of word $x$ for strings in $|Log_E (F_{i+1})|$ only if these calculations can be performed within the same set of machine cycles that are allocated to the calculations that implement the search of word $x$ for strings in $\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)|$.
For this overlap to be an affordable statement it is required that the first search (the one for strings in $|Log_E (F_{i+1})|$) should be implemented by the same set of calculations that implement the second search (the one for strings in $\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)|$) so that, while performing the second search, also the first would be implicitly executed. By theory developed in [@dizenzoarxiv], this kind of magics can actually occur through the mechanism of entanglement between sets of strings. That mechanism allows for different computation tasks to be performed by one and same calculation: It is well possible that one and the same computation implements distinct operations of search, acting upon distinct sets of strings. (In present theory computations occur as searches for strings in disguise: The calculations that a decision program $P$ performs actually implement operations of search of an input word $x$ for certain strings in the kernel of $P$.)
However, from Equations 17-19 it follows that the two sets of strings $\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)|$ and $|Log_E(F_{i+1})|$ are disjoint and there is no entanglement between them. By this lack of entanglement, any overlap between an operation of search for strings in $|Log_E (F_{i+1})|$ and an operation of search in $\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)|$ is excluded.
By virtue of (i) this lack of entanglement, together with (ii) the assumed optimality of the search performed by algorithm $A_x (x, i)$ within set $\bigcup_{j=1}^i |Log_E(F_j)|$, we have that the computation that algorithm $A_x (x, i+1)$ performs cannot take less time than the sum of $Time_{A_x} (x, i)$ plus the minimum time needed to search $x$ for strings in $|Log_E (F_{i+1})|$. Since this latter time cannot be $0$, for all those $x \in E^{nm}$ which are not satisfied by solutions in the range from $y_1$ to $y_{i+1}$ we have $Time_{A_x} (x, i) < Time_{A_x} (x, i+1)$. Hence Equation 15 certainly holds for all unsatisfiable $x \in E^{nm}$ and all integers $k$ such that $1 \le k < 2^n$. Equation 16 holds by definition of algorithm $A_x$.
We conclude that an unsatisfiable $x$ requires exponential time on hardware $M$.
The step from the above informal hint to a possible formal proof is certainly not immediate. We should at least be able to prove that our model of computation $M$ solves in polynomial time all and only those decision problems that are polynomial on Turing machines. Besides, the theory based on the new model should provide some formal notion of independence between computations.
Conclusions
===========
We advocated strings as a fundamental notion for studies on computation. Strings are useful to express the notions of simple, strong, and complete internal independence of a decision problem. We have been led to use strings to become able to define the very basic notion of internal independence of a decision problem. Strings seem to be useful since they are absolutely elementary. Strings are already at work in Computability. The “restrictions" that are often used in the study of circuit complexity are almost one and same notion as strings. (It seems to us that “string" is the correct name.)
By way of curiosity: Our strings seem to be (from a layman’s view) like sampled and discretised versions of the “strings" that the physicists use in their “string theories."
Strings are not made of consecutive letters. A string can be interspersed in a word: By canceling zero or more letters in a word $x$, and leaving blanks in places of letters, we get a string $f$ which is a substring of the original word $x$ (the pun is innocuous: There is no danger in saying that string $f$ is a substring of $x$). In strings, one has information associated with spaces between letters (and hence with multiple periodicities with which letters may occur in long words).
As soon as we have the strings, we are able to define the kernel of a decision program $P$, noted $Ker(P)$. This is a set of strings which capture structural features of both $P$ and the decision problem $(E, F)$ that $P$ solves.
The program kernel $Ker(P)$ is a subset of $|Log_E (F)|$, the reduced logogram of the target set $F$ in base $E$. The reduced logogram consists of substrings of the words in $F$ which exhibit the following property : If a word in $E$ includes one of these strings then it belongs to $F$. We may think of the strings in $|Log_E (F)|$ as kind of genes of the words in $F$. In early notes the logogram was the $genie$ of problem $(E, F)$. The idea clearly comes from biology, where it is known that certain occurrences at given intervals of certain letters within DNA strings convey structural information, and yield observable characters in the macroscopic development of the structures.
Our application to $SAT$ uses structural properties of that problem that seems to have escaped attention so far. We called them “strong internal independence" and “complete internal independence." In companion paper we showed that $SAT$ exhibits the strong internal independence property. In that paper we have shown that, by that property, $SAT$ cannot have collective certificates in its reduced logogram. This was our main result in that paper. Starting from that result, we proved in this paper that $SAT$ exhibits a stronger form of structural independence that we called “complete internal independence."
It seems to us that $SAT$ is difficult due to this extreme form of internal independence: On unsatisfiable inputs, any program solving $SAT$ has exponential worst-case complexity. Our arguments for this conclusion use (i) the complete independence of $SAT$ together with (ii) absence of wizards, that we proved in previous paper. As we are not able, so far, to produce a strictly formal proof (for lack, by far, of a suitable model of computation), we just outlined the ideas of a proof that would use properties (i), (ii). We conjecture that $SAT$ can be proved exponential using the complete independence of $SAT$ together with absence of wizards. We expect that a proof that uses these properties will appear in short time, possibly following the lines of our hint of proof for Theorem 11.
Various relevant candidate proofs of $P \not= NP$ have been set forth in recent years. For some, we do not even have as yet detailed arguments that they fail. A common feature of these efforts is that they try to derive $P \not= NP$ from properties that are known since decades, or use portions of theory (especially one-way functions) that are known since much time. A peculiar feature of our research is that it comes together with a completely new theory, that has applications in diverse fields, and definitely cannot be compressed in few pages. Besides, the property of $SAT$ that is used is completely new in studies on computation.
Acknowledgements
================
I take the occasion to thank the IBM Semea Director of Research Piero Sguazzero for extremely valuable assistance in the proof checking of [@dizenzoarxiv].
[99]{} Agrawal M, Kayal N, and Saxena N. *PRIMES is in P*. Annals of Mathematics, 160(2004), 781-793. Balcazar J, Diaz J, Gabarro J. *Structural Complexity II*. Springer, 1990 Birkhoff G. *Lattice theory*. AMS Volume 25 Di Zenzo S, Bottoni P, Mussio P. *A notion of information related to computation*. Information Processing Letters, 64(1997), 207-215. Di Zenzo S. *SAT Has No Wizards*. [arXiv:0802.1790 \[cs.CC\]]{}. Fagin R, Halpern J H, and Vardi M Y. *A Model-Theoretic Analysis of Knowledge*. Journal of the ACM, 38(1991), 382-428. Hemaspaandra L A, Ogihara M. *The Complexity Theory Companion*. Springer, 2002 Larsen K G and Winskel G. *Using Information Systems to solve recursive domain equations*. Information and Computation, 91(1991), 232-258. Odifreddi P. *Classical Recursion Theory*. North-Holland, 1989 Papadimitriou C H. *Computational Complexity*. Addison-Wesley, 1994 Scott D. *Domains for denotational semantics*. ICALP82, Lecture notes in Computer Science 140, Springer, 1982.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Sun’s internal structure and dynamics can be studied with helioseismology, which uses the Sun’s natural acoustic oscillations to build up a profile of the solar interior. We discuss how solar acoustic oscillations are affected by the Sun’s magnetic field. Careful observations of these effects can be inverted to determine the variations in the structure and dynamics of the Sun’s interior as the solar cycle progresses. Observed variations in the structure and dynamics can then be used to inform models of the solar dynamo, which are crucial to our understanding of how the Sun’s magnetic field is generated and maintained.'
author:
- 'A.-M. Broomhall, P. Chatterjee, R. Howe, A.A. Norton, M.J. Thompson'
bibliography:
- 'ISSI\_helio\_chapter.bib'
title: 'The Sun’s interior structure and dynamics, and the solar cycle'
---
Introduction to helioseismology {#section[intro]}
===============================
Helioseismology is the study of the solar interior using observations of waves that propagate within the Sun. The Sun’s natural acoustic resonant oscillations are known as solar p modes. The p stands for pressure as the main restoring force is a pressure differential. At any one time thousands of acoustic oscillations are traveling throughout the solar interior. Each individual solar p mode is trapped in a specific region of the solar interior, known as a cavity, and its frequency is sensitive to properties, such as temperature and mean molecular weight, of the solar material in the cavity. The sound waves can be considered as damped harmonic oscillators as they are stochastically excited and intrinsically damped by turbulent convection in the outer approximately 30per cent by radius of the solar interior. The strongest p-mode oscillations have a periodicity of approximately 5minutes. The solar oscillations can be observed in two ways: by line-of-sight Doppler velocity measurements over the visible disk; or by measuring the variations in the continuum intensity of radiation, which are caused by the compression of the radiating gas by the waves.
The horizontal structure of p modes can be modeled as spherical harmonics and so can be described by three main components: Harmonic degree, $l$, which indicates the number of node lines on the surface; azimuthal degree, $m$, which describes the number of planes slicing through the equator and takes values between $-l\le m\le l$; and radial degree, $n$, which gives the number of radial nodes in the solar interior. If the Sun was completely spherically symmetric the frequencies of the oscillations would be degenerate in $m$. However, asphericities in the solar interior, such as rotation, temperature variations and the presence of magnetic fields, lift the degeneracy and measurements of the differences in the frequencies of the $m$ components allow inferences to be made concerning the effects responsible for the asphericities.
The frequency of a mode, $\nu_{n,l,m}$, can be expressed in terms of the $m=0$ central frequency, $\nu_{n,l}$, and a polynomial expansion of splitting (or $a$) coefficients, $a_j(n,l)$: $$\label{equation[splitting]}
\nu_{n,l,m}=\nu_{n,l}+\sum^{j_{\textrm{\scriptsize{max}}}}_{j=1}a_j(n,l)\mathcal{P}_j^{(l)}(m),$$ where $\mathcal{P}_j^{(l)}(m)$ are the Ritzwoller-Lavely formulation of the Clebsch-Gordon expansion [@1991ApJ...369..557R] and are given by $$\label{equation[RL]}
\mathcal{P}_j^{(l)}(m)=\frac{l\sqrt{(2l-j)!(2l+j+1)!}}{(2l)!\sqrt{2l+1}}C^{lm}_{j0lm}.$$ Here, $C^{lm}_{j0lm}$ are the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients. The odd-order $a$ coefficients express the difference in mode frequency caused by the modes’ interaction with the rotation profile of the solar interior. The even-order coefficients are sensitive to all other departures from spherical symmetry. These could include local variations in the sound speed or cavity size [@1996MNRAS.278..437B], temperature variations [@1988ApJ...331L.131K], second order rotation effects from the differential rotation [@1992ApJ...394..670D], and the presence of magnetic fields [@1988IAUS..123..175G]. Isolating the contributions of all these effects to the even-order coefficients is extremely difficult.
As sound waves travel from their excitation point near the surface into the solar interior they are refracted because of increasing pressure, and therefore sound speed (since $c_s^2=\frac{\gamma_1P}{\rho}$, where $\gamma_1$ is the first adiabatic exponent). Assuming the direction of travel is not radial the waves follow a curved trajectory which takes them back to the surface where they are reflected by the sharp drop in density. By the time the waves reach the surface they are approximately traveling in a radial direction and so the depth at which the near-surface reflection of the waves occurs depends only on the wave frequency. The p modes are set up by a superposition of such waves, and so the location of the upper edge of the acoustic cavity of the modes – the upper turning point – likewise depends only on frequency, with the upper turning point of low-frequency modes being deeper in the solar interior than the upper turning point of high-frequency modes. The radius of the lower turning point depends on the angle of trajectory and therefore $l$, with low-$l$ modes turning deeper within the solar interior than high-$l$ modes.
Helioseismology can be split into two categories: global and local. Global helioseismology studies the natural resonant acoustic oscillations of the solar interior that are able to form standing waves in the entire Sun, as opposed to local helioseismology, which studies propagating waves in part of the Sun. We now give a brief introduction to each category.
Global helioseismology {#section[global intro]}
----------------------
Global helioseismology can itself be split into two sub-categories: Sun-as-a-star (unresolved) observations; and resolved observations. Sun-as-a-star observations are only sensitive to the lowest harmonic degrees ($0\le l\le 3$, and occasionally $l=4$ and 5). These modes are the truly global modes of the Sun as they travel right to the energy-generating core. However, by making resolved observations of the solar surface spatial filters can be applied that allow measurements of modes with degrees into the 100s or even 1000s.
The Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network has been making Sun-as-a-star line-of-sight velocity observations for over 30 years, covering cycles 21 (although with limited coverage), 22, 23, and 24. BiSON is an autonomous network of 6 ground-based observatories strategically positioned around the world so as to allow observations of the Sun to be made 24hr a day. This is important as gaps in the time domain contaminate frequency spectra, making it more difficult to accurately obtain the parameters that describe the modes, such as their frequencies. One can also make continuous observations of the Sun from space and this is the approach taken by the SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft, which was launched in 1995. Sun-as-a-star observing programs onboard SOHO include the Global Oscillations at Low Frequencies [GOLF; @1995SoPh..162...61G] instrument, which also measures line-of-sight velocity, and the Variability of solar IRrandiance and Gravity Oscillations [VIRGO; @1995SoPh..162..101F], which measures the changes in intensity of the Sun.
VIRGO is also capable of making resolved observations of the Sun, as was the Michelson Doppler Imager [MDI; @1995SoPh..162..129S], also onboard SOHO. Global Oscillations Network Group (GONG) is a ground-based network of 6 sites [@1996Sci...272.1284H], which has been making resolved observations of the Sun since 1995. More recently, the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager [HMI; @2012SoPh..275..229S] and the Atmospheric Imaging Assembly [AIA; @2012SoPh..275...17L] onboard the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) have been used for helioseismic studies [@2011JPhCS.271a2061H; @2011JPhCS.271a2058H]. SDO was only launched in 2010 and so these instruments cannot be used to study previous solar cycles. They are, however, likely to play an important role in helioseismic studies of cycle 24, and possibly beyond.
Local helioseismology {#section[local intro]}
---------------------
Since the advent of helioseismic observations at high spatial resolution, a number of different data analysis techniques known collectively as “local helioseismology” have been developed. They do not rely on the global resonant-mode nature of the observed oscillations: rather, the observations of wave motions are interpreted in terms of their local properties. Three methods in particular are widely used. Ring analysis (or ring-diagram analysis) works within a freqeuncy-wavenumber framework for analysing the oscillations, albeit on localized patches of the solar surface, and may therefore be considered the local-helioseismic analogue of global-mode helioseismology. Time-distance helioseismology (or helioseismic tomography), and the closely related method of acoustic holography, work rather in the framework of interpreting the effect of heterogeneities and flows on propagating waves in terms of travel-time shifts or equivalently phase shifts. These two basically distinct approaches will be described briefly below.
In ring analysis [@1989ApJ...343L..69H], measurements of wave properties are made in localized regions (“tiles”) on the surface of the Sun. The observable - typically the Doppler velocity - over the pixels within the region are Fourier transformed in the two spatial horizontal directions and in time to give wave power as a function of spatial wavenumbers $k_x$, $k_y$ and frequency. In cuts through the 3-D power spectrum at fixed frequency, the power is found to lie in rings corresponding to the different radial orders $n$ of the modes: hence the name “ring analysis”. In the absence of flows or any horizontal inhomogeneities, the dispersion relation of the waves is of the form $\omega = \omega_n(k_h)$, where $k_h \equiv \sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}$ is the magnitude of the horizontal wavenumber vector. In other words, the frequencies do not depend on the direction of the horizontal wavenumber, only on its magnitude: thus, the rings of power are circular and centered on $(k_x,k_y)=(0,0)$. Large-scale flows and magnetic fields, which can change the dispersion relation depending on the direction of propagation of the waves, shift and distort the rings. Further, local changes in the effective isotropic wave speed (such as could be caused by thermal anisotropies) change the frequency at fixed wavenumber or equivalently change the radius of the rings at fixed frequency. These various perturbations to the rings, measured at different frequencies and for different $n$ values, permit the possibility of performing a one-dimensional inversion in depth to infer the large-scale flow, wave speed, etc., below each tile [@2002ApJ...570..855H; @2008SoPh..251..439B; @2010ApJ...713L..16G]. By combining inversion results under different tiles, a three-dimensional subsurface map can be built up. Recently, fully 3-D inversion methods have been developed and implemented that simultaneously invert the data from many different tiles to obtain 3-D maps of subsurface flows directly [@2011JPhCS.271a2002F].
In time-distance helioseismology, travel times of waves that propagate beneath the surface between pairs of surface points are estimated by cross-correlating the observed oscillations between surface points. The cross-correlation function derived by cross-correlating the oscillations at two surface points A and B, say, exhibits a number of “wave packets”. In a ray-theoretic interpretation, these packets correspond to waves that travel between A and B along different ray paths, either traveling directly without intermediate surface bounces, or bouncing at the surface one or more times before arriving at the point of observation. In practice, it can be necessary to average the cross-correlations between many similarly separated pairs of points before the wave packets are clearly visible . Partly for this reason, the observations are typically filtered in some way before the cross-correlations are made. The most common filters are a phase-speed filter or a filter that aims to isolate oscillations corresponding to a particular radial order $n$. Also, usually it is only the first-arrival wave packet – corresponding to propagation between A and B with no intermediate surface bounces – that is used in the subsequent analysis. Travel times are estimated by measuring the location of the wave packet, and a number of different methods are used to do that. Flows, magnetic fields and inhomogeneities experienced by the waves during their propagation from A to B shift the location of the wave packet (and this in turn is measured as a travel-time shift) as well as potentially modifying the width and amplitude of the wave packet. Also, flows can cause a difference in travel time depending on whether the waves are traveling from A to B or from B to A. By measuring travel times between many different pairs of surface points, 3-D subsurface maps of flows and wave-speed inhomogeneities can be made using inverse techniques [@2004ApJ...603..776Z].
For further discussion of the signatures of flows on the ring analysis and time-distance helioseismology measurements, see Section \[sec:2.1\]. For now, however, we return to concentrate on the global modes.
An introduction to global helioseismology and the solar cycle {#section[global intro]}
=============================================================
It has been known since the mid 1980s that p-mode frequencies vary throughout the solar cycle with the frequencies being at their largest when the solar activity is at its maximum .[^1] For a low-$l$ mode at about $3000\,\rm\mu
Hz$ the change in frequency between solar maximum and minimum is about $0.4\,\rm\mu Hz$. By examining the changes in the observed p-mode frequencies throughout the solar cycle we can learn about solar-cycle-related processes that occur beneath the Sun’s surface. The 11 year cycle is seen clearly in Fig. \[figure\[BiSON shifts\]\], which shows the mean frequency shifts of the p modes observed by BiSON and the 10.7cm flux[^2] for comparison .
![Average frequency shifts of “Sun-as-a-star” modes with frequencies between 2.5 and $3.5\,\rm mHz$. The results were obtained from 365d BiSON time series that overlapped by 91.25d. Also plotted is a scaled and shifted version of the 10.7cm flux.[]{data-label="figure[BiSON shifts]"}](freq_shifts_vs_time_2500_3500_365d_flux_incl_old.jpg "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
What causes the observed frequency shifts? The magnetic fields can affect the modes in two ways: directly and indirectly. The direct effect occurs because the Lorentz force provides an additional restoring force resulting in an increase of frequency, and the appearance of new modes. Magnetic fields can influence the oscillations indirectly by affecting the physical properties of the cavities in which the modes are trapped and, as a result, the propagation of the acoustic waves within them. For example, changes in the thermal structure can affect both the propagation speed and the location of the upper turning point. Indirect effects can both increase or decrease the frequencies of p modes.
To date the relative contributions from the direct and indirect effects remain uncertain. @2005ApJ...625..548D suggest that the magnetic fields are too weak in the near-surface layers for the direct effect to contribute significantly to the observed frequency shifts and that the indirect effects dominate the perturbations. However, @2005ApJ...625..548D also suggest that the direct effect may be more important for low-frequency modes deeper within the solar interior where the magnetic field is strong enough to produce a noticeable shift in frequency. These results are still controversial and appear to disagree with the results of @1986Natur.323..603R, who found that field strengths of the order of 500kG would be required at the base of the convection zone to explain the shift. investigated the effect of a magnetic field at the base of the convection zone and a more shallow magnetic field, at a depth of 50Mm, but found their direct influence on the frequencies of p modes was consistently smaller than the change in frequency that is observed. Changes in both the chromospheric magnetic field strength and temperature can explain the observed downturn in the magnitude of the frequency shifts at high frequencies [@1993ApJ...414..898J]. However, as we now describe, it is not only the mode frequencies that vary throughout the solar cycle.
Solar cycle variations in mode powers and lifetimes
---------------------------------------------------
Solar p modes are excited and damped by turbulent convection beneath the solar surface. The process of excitation and damping varies throughout the solar cycle and these variations are observed as changes in the heights and widths of the mode profiles in a frequency-power spectrum. For typical low-$l$ modes, as the surface activity increases the mode frequencies and widths increase but the mode heights decrease. An increase in the linewidths implies that the modes experience more damping at times of high activity and so the lifetimes decrease.
Numerous authors have observed that lifetimes decrease with solar activity and those observations have been made using data from different instrumental regimes and for a range of $l$ . The size of the variation appears to be dependent on $l$ with lower-$l$ modes showing a larger percentage change than high-$l$ modes [e.g. @2009SoPh..258....1B and references therein]. @2009SoPh..258....1B looked at the lifetimes of modes with $300\le l\le600$ and found that in active regions the lifetimes decrease as activity increases by about 13% between minimum and maximum. In quiet regions the lifetimes still decrease with solar activity but to a lesser extent (the lifetimes at solar maximum are about 8% of the lifetimes at solar minimum). This implies that the change to the damping is not just associated with the active regions that appear on the surface. In general p-mode linewidths increase with frequency, except for a plateau region at around $2800\,\rm\mu Hz$. @2000ApJ...543..472K found that the linewidths of modes in the plateau region were most sensitive to the level of solar activity.
Mode powers have been observed to decrease with increasing solar activity . The decrease in mode power is of the order of 20% and has been now been observed by many authors . The total energy of the mode, $E$, can be determined by multiplying the total power of the mode by the mode mass [as defined by @1991sia..book..401C]. The mode energy shows a similar decrease to the mode power, with a maximum to minimum variation of approximately 12% [@2002SoPh..209..247J].
The energy supply rate is determined by multiplying the mode energy by the mode width [e.g. @2000MNRAS.313...32C]. Numerous studies have shown that while the mode energy decreases with activity the energy supply rate shows no solar cycle variation [e.g. @2000MNRAS.313...32C; @2000ApJ...543..472K; @2001ESASP.464...71A; @2001ESASP.464..123T; @2002SoPh..209..247J; @2003ApJ...588.1204H; @2004ApJ...604..969J; @2006ApJ...650..451S]. Therefore, the observed variations in mode energy and mode power probably arise from an increase in damping only. As the energy of the modes decreases between solar minimum and solar maximum this implies that some energy has gone missing.
One potential source of damping is magnetic activity on the solar surface. Active regions are known to suppress the power of p modes, and effect lifetimes, and energy supply rates [e.g. @1981SoPh...69..233W; @1982ApJ...253..386L; @1992ApJ...394L..65B; @2001ApJ...563..410R; @2002ApJ...572..663K; @2004ApJ...608..562H]. However, the associated mechanisms are not yet fully understood. One explanation is that strong-field magnetic regions, such as sunspots, are effective absorbers of p-mode power . @2000ApJ...543..472K suggested that the energy could be in flux tubes, whose numbers increase with solar activity, and the energy could excite oscillations in magnetic elements. Another suggestion is that the efficiency of mode excitation is reduced in magnetic areas [e.g. @1988ApJ...326..462G; @1995ApJ...451..372C; @1996ApJ...464..476J]. Other possible explanations as to why p-mode excitation is suppressed in sunspots include a different height of spectral line formation due to the Wilson depression or a modification of p-mode eigenfunctions by the magnetic field [@2009SoPh..258....1B and references therein].
Another possibility that could alter p-mode damping is variations in the convective properties near the solar surface, which are most likely to arise from the influence of magnetic structures [@2001MNRAS.327..483H]. @2001MNRAS.327..483H theorized that changes of parameters in the convection zone would affect linewidth shapes mainly in the plateau region of a frequency spectrum, as is observed. This, therefore, implies that during times of high-magnetic activity the convection zone is affected sufficiently to produce a measurable change in p-mode linewidths. Several authors have observed that the horizontal size of solar granules decreases from solar minimum to solar maximum . @1988AdSpR...8..159M found that the horizontal granule size decreased by approximately 5% from solar minimum to solar maximum. According to @2001MNRAS.327..483H this should result in an increase in damping rates of about 20%, which is in reasonable agreement with the observed change in damping rates in BiSON data of approximately $24\pm3$%.
We now return to look in more detail at the changes in frequencies of the p modes with solar cycle.
Dependence of solar cycle frequency shifts on $l$ and frequency
===============================================================
Solar cycle frequency shifts, $\delta\nu_{n,l}$, have well-known dependencies on both angular degree, $l$, and frequency, $\nu_{n,l}$, as demonstrated in Fig. \[figure\[shift vs freq\]\] . We now look in more detail at these dependencies and discuss what they tell us about the origin of the perturbation. We note here that the frequency shifts plotted in Fig. \[figure\[shift vs freq\]\] were determined for the central frequency of the mode i.e. the $m=0$ frequency. In section \[section\[surface comp\]\] we discuss the latitudinal dependence of the shifts and there we consider modes with different $m$.
![Left-hand panel: Change in frequency between solar minimum and solar maximum, $\delta\nu$, as a function of mode frequency. The results have been obtained by averaging over different ranges in $l$ (see legend), and by smoothing over $135\,\mu Hz$. Right-hand panel: Frequency shifts that have been scaled by the inertia ratio, $Q_{n,l}$. The errorbars on these figures are not visible because they are smaller than the symbol size. Results obtained using GONG frequencies. []{data-label="figure[shift vs freq]"}](freq_dependence_unscaled.jpg "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Left-hand panel: Change in frequency between solar minimum and solar maximum, $\delta\nu$, as a function of mode frequency. The results have been obtained by averaging over different ranges in $l$ (see legend), and by smoothing over $135\,\mu Hz$. Right-hand panel: Frequency shifts that have been scaled by the inertia ratio, $Q_{n,l}$. The errorbars on these figures are not visible because they are smaller than the symbol size. Results obtained using GONG frequencies. []{data-label="figure[shift vs freq]"}](freq_dependence_scaled.jpg "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
Dependence of solar cycle frequency shifts on mode inertia
----------------------------------------------------------
The main $l$-dependence in $\delta\nu_{n,l}$ is associated with mode inertia. The normalized mode inertia is defined by @1991sia..book..401C as $$\label{equation[mode inertia]}
I_{n,l}=M_\odot^{-1}\int_{v}|\xi|^2\rho\textrm{d}V=
4\pi M_{\odot}^{-1}\int_0^{R_s}|\xi|^2\rho r^2\textrm{d}r=
\frac{M_{n,l}}{M_{\odot}},$$ where $\xi$ is the displacement associated with a mode, suitably normalized at the photosphere, $V$ is the volume of the Sun, and $M_{\odot}$ is the mass of the Sun. $M_{n,l}$ is the ‘mass’ associated with a mode. The physical interpretation of the mode inertia is some measure of the interior mass affected by any given mode. At fixed frequency a decrease in $l$ results in an increase in $M_{n,l}$ and therefore in $I_{n,l}$. In other words as $l$ decreases a greater volume of the interior is associated with the motions generated by the mode. Therefore the high-$l$ modes are more sensitive to a perturbation and so vary more throughout the solar cycle than low-$l$ modes.
The inertia ratio, $Q_{nl}$, is defined by @1991sia..book..401C as: $$Q_{nl} = I_{nl} / \bar{I}(\nu_{nl}),
\label{eqution[inertia ratio]}$$ $\bar{I}(\nu_{nl})$ is the inertia an $l=0$ modes would have at a frequency $\nu_{nl}$. Multiplying the frequency shifts by $Q_{nl}$ removes the $l$ dependence of the frequency shifts at fixed frequency, as can be seen in Fig. \[figure\[shift vs freq\]\]. This makes the dependence a function of frequency alone. Collapsing the $l$ dependence in this manner allows the frequency shifts of a wide range of $l$ to be combined, thereby reducing any uncertainties associated with the shifts and allowing tighter constraints to be placed on the frequency dependence.
Dependence of solar cycle frequency shifts on mode frequency {#section[freq dependence of shifts]}
------------------------------------------------------------
The frequency dependence of the frequency shifts, which can be seen in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[figure\[shift vs freq\]\], is a telltale indicator that the observed 11-year signal must be the result of changes in acoustic properties in the few hundred kilometres just beneath the visible surface of the Sun, a region to which the higher-frequency modes are much more sensitive than their lower-frequency counterparts because of differences in the upper boundaries of the cavities in which the modes are trapped [@1990Natur.345..779L; @1991sia..book..401C]. We now go into more detail.
As mentioned earlier, for a given $l$ the upper turning point of low-frequency modes is deeper than the upper turning point of high-frequency modes. At a fixed frequency lower-$l$ modes penetrate more deeply into the solar interior than higher-$l$ modes. Therefore, higher-frequency modes, and to a lesser extent higher-$l$ modes, are more sensitive to surface perturbations.
@1990Natur.345..779L discuss the origin of the perturbation. If the perturbations were to extend over a significant fraction of the solar interior, asymptotic theory implies that the fractional mode frequency shift would depend mainly on $\nu_{n,l}/l$, which is not what we observe. This implies that the relevant structural changes occur mainly in a thin layer. @1988ESASP.286..321T found that the effect of perturbing a thin layer in the propagating regions of modes, such as the layer where the second-ionization of helium occurs, is an oscillatory frequency dependence in $\delta\nu_{n,l}$. Such a frequency dependence is also not observed, implying that the dominant frequency dependence is not the direct result of, for example, changes in the magnetic field at the base of the convection zone. If the perturbation was confined to the centre of the Sun the size of the frequency shift would increase with decreasing $l$ as low-$l$ modes penetrate deeper into the solar interior than high-$l$ modes. In fact, $\delta\nu_{n,l}$ increases with increasing $l$.
We can think of the frequency dependence as a power law where $\delta\nu_{n,l}\propto\nu_{n,l}^\alpha$. A perturbation from a layer strictly confined to the photosphere (but extending over less than one pressure scale height) is expected to result in an $\alpha=3$ relationship [@1980tsp..book.....C; @1990LNP...367..283G; @1990Natur.345..779L; @1991ApJ...370..752G]. If instead the perturbation extends beneath the surface, the frequency dependence will be weaker and $\alpha$ will get smaller [@1990LNP...367..283G]. @2001MNRAS.324..910C determined that $\alpha<3$, which implies that the significant contribution comes from a perturbation close to the surface, in the sub-photospheric layers. @2008AdSpR..41..861R observed that $\alpha$ is smaller for the lower-frequency modes, which suggests that the perturbation extends to greater depths the lower in frequency one goes. This is consistent with the results of @2005ApJ...625..548D (see Section \[section\[global intro\]\]).
In summary, the oscillations are responding to changes in the strength of the solar magnetic activity near the Sun’s surface. As modes below approximately $1800\,\rm\mu
Hz$ experience almost no solar cycle frequency shift it is reasonable to conclude that the origin of the perturbation is concentrated in a region above the upper turning points of these modes. Fig. \[figure\[upper turning points\]\] shows that the upper turning point of a mode with a frequency of $\sim1800\,\rm\mu
Hz$ is about $0.996R_\odot$ (approximately 3Mm) below the surface. Note that the upper turning point predicted by a model is strongly dependent on the properties of the model at the top of the convection zone.
![Acoustic cut-off frequency as a function of solar radius. The upper turning point of the modes can be thought of in terms of the acoustic cut-off frequency because the upper turning point corresponds to the radius at which the acoustic cut-off frequency equals the mode frequency. The blue curve shows the cut-off frequencies determined from a standard solar model, while the red curve shows the acoustic cut-off frequency in an isothermal limit. Adapted from @2012ApJ...758...43B.[]{data-label="figure[upper turning points]"}](upper.jpg "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
Above $3700\,\rm\mu Hz$ the relationship between frequency shift and activity changes, as the magnitude of the solar cycle frequency shift decreases and oscillates [e.g. @1990Natur.345..779L; @1991ApJ...370..752G; @1996ApJ...456..399J]. Furthermore, above $\sim4100\,\rm\mu Hz$ it appears that modes experience a decrease in frequency as activity increases [@1994SoPh..150..389R; @1998MNRAS.300.1077C].
As we have seen the frequency dependence of the frequency shifts implies that the shifts can be associated with a near-surface perturbation. Therefore, we now move on to directly compare the change in mode frequency with the magnetic field that is observed at the solar surface (and beyond into the solar atmosphere).
Comparison between frequency shifts and the surface magnetic field {#section[surface comp]}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous comparisons have been made between the p-mode frequency shifts and various proxies of the Sun’s surface magnetic field , including the 10.7cm and the International Sunspot Number[^3] (ISN). @2007ApJ...659.1749C compared six different proxies with the low-$l$ mode frequency shifts and demonstrated that better correlations are observed with proxies that measure both the strong and the weak components of the Sun’s magnetic field, such as the Mg II H and K core-to-wing data, the 10.7 cm radio flux, and the He I equivalent width data (as opposed the the ISN and the Kitt Peak Magnetic Index, which mainly sample the strong magnetic flux). The weak-component of the solar magnetic flux is distributed over a wider range of latitudes than the strong component and so a possible explanation of these results is in terms of the latitudinal distribution of the modes used in this study (i.e. low-$l$ modes).
![Comparison of frequency shifts with surface proxies of the Sun’s magnetic field. The left-hand panel shows a comparison with the 10.7cm flux, while the right-hand panel shows a comparison with the ISN. The different activity cycles are indicated by different colours (see legend).[]{data-label="figure[proxy vs shift]"}](freq_shifts_vs_flux_2500_3500_365d.jpg "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}![Comparison of frequency shifts with surface proxies of the Sun’s magnetic field. The left-hand panel shows a comparison with the 10.7cm flux, while the right-hand panel shows a comparison with the ISN. The different activity cycles are indicated by different colours (see legend).[]{data-label="figure[proxy vs shift]"}](freq_shifts_vs_ISN_2500_3500_365d.jpg "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
Fig. \[figure\[proxy vs shift\]\] shows a comparison between two proxies of the Sun’s magnetic field and low-$l$ frequency shifts. Although the agreement is approximately linear the well-known hysteresis is clearly visible, particularly in the case of the sunspot number. This can be explained in terms of the variation in the latitudinal distribution of the surface magnetic field throughout the solar cycle [@2000MNRAS.313..411M]: The different modes have different latitudinal dependencies, as described by the appropriate spherical harmonics (see Section \[section\[intro\]\]), and so the relative influence of the surface magnetic flux on the modes changes throughout the solar cycle as the strong surface magnetic field migrates towards the equator.
As mentioned in Section \[section\[intro\]\] the even splitting coefficients can provide information about departures from spherical symmetry, such as those produced by the presence of a magnetic field. Although the correlation between the even $a$ coefficients and global measures of the Sun’s magnetic field is good, it is not linear. However, the even splitting coefficients are linearly correlated with the corresponding Legendre polynomial decomposition of the surface indicating that the size of the observed frequency shift experienced by a particular mode is dependent on the latitudinal distribution of the surface magnetic flux. Furthermore, @2002ApJ...580.1172H showed that it is possible to use latitudinal inversion techniques to localize the frequency shifts in latitude and, in fact, reconstruct the evolution of the surface magnetic field. An up-to-date version of these inversions can be seen in Fig. \[figure\[shift\_butterfly\]\], which clearly resembles the familiar butterfly diagrams usually associated with the surface magnetic field.
![Frequency shift inversions using GONG data and modes with $40\le l <80$, and $9\le n \le 11$. The size of the shift is indicated by the colour and the black contours show the surface magnetic field at 5G intervals. Updated from @2002ApJ...580.1172H.[]{data-label="figure[shift_butterfly]"}](fshift.jpg "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
Evidence for structural changes due to magnetic fields deeper in the interior
=============================================================================
All that has been discussed above concerns the near-surface magnetic field. However, one of the main advantages of helioseismology is that it allows the deeper interior to be studied. Therefore we now move on to discuss attempts to detect evidence of the solar magnetic field deeper in the solar interior. However, this is understandably hard. The plasma-$\beta$ $(=P_\textrm{\scriptsize{gas}}/P_\textrm{\scriptsize{mag}})$ in the deep interior is significantly greater than unity. Furthermore, the sound speed in the interior increases substantially with depth, meaning the modes spend significantly longer in the near-surface regions than in the deep interior. All this means that the influence of a deep-seated magnetic field on the properties of the oscillations will be limited. However, the rewards for finding evidence of deep-seated magnetic fields are great. For example, many believe the solar dynamo is generated in the tachocline at the base of the convection zone [see @2010LRSP....7....3C for a recent review].
Numerous authors have looked but were unable to find helioseismic evidence for magnetic fields deeper in the solar interior [e.g. @1988IAUS..123..155G; @2000SoPh..192..449B; @2000SoPh..192..481B; @2001MNRAS.327.1029A; @2001MNRAS.324..498B; @2002ESASP.508....7B; @2003ESASP.517..231B; @2002ApJ...580..574E; @2003ApJ...591..432B]. They therefore resorted to putting limits on parameters at the base of the convection zone, such as a maximum change in field strength between solar minimum and maximum of 300kG or a change in sound speed of $\delta c/c=3\times10^{-5}$ [@2002ApJ...580..574E].
@2005ApJ...624..420C and @2005ApJ...633.1187S considered the frequency shift, scaled by mode mass, as a function of the horizontal phase speed, which is given by $$\label{equation[horiz phase speed]}
w=\frac{\nu}{2\pi[l(l+1)]^{1/2}},$$ and so can be related to the lower turning point of the mode. The authors use both MDI and GONG data and use $190\le w \le 1570$. They observed that the scaled frequency shift was approximately constant with horizontal phase speed around solar minimum. However, as the surface magnetic field increased, the scaled frequency shift decreased, but only above a critical horizontal phase speed value, which corresponds to a depth near the base of the convection zone. They interpret this as indicating that the wave speed near the base of the convection zone changes with activity and they find that this behaviour is consistent with a magnetic perturbation at the base of the convection zone. Further, they find that $\delta c/c=1-3\times10^{-5}$, which implies a change in magnetic field of between 170-290kG. These results are consistent with the upper limits set by earlier authors .
@2008ApJ...686.1349B and @2009ASPC..416..477B used a principal component analysis (PCA), which reduces the dimensionality of the data and consequently the noise, to find a small but statistically significant change in the frequencies of modes whose lower turning points are at or near the base of the convection zone. This change is tightly correlated with surface activity. If the change in frequency can be interpreted as a change in sound speed due to the presence of a magnetic field @2009ASPC..416..477B find that their results imply a change in field strength between the maximum of cycle 23 and the preceding minimum of 390kG, just above the limits set previously.
Moving slightly closer to the surface, @2004ApJ...617L.155B showed evidence for solar structure changes around the zone associated with the second ionization of helium (approximately $0.98R_\odot$). A spherically symmetric localized feature or discontinuity in the internal structure of the Sun causes a characteristic oscillatory component in mode frequencies [e.g. @1988IAUS..123..151V; @1990LNP...367..283G; @1994MNRAS.267..209B; @1994MNRAS.268..880R]. @2004ApJ...617L.155B considered changes in the oscillatory signal caused by the zone in which the second ionization of helium occurs, using intermediate degree modes whose lower turning points were below the depth of the second ionization zone of helium but above the base of the convection zone, which is a discontinuity of its own right. @2004ApJ...617L.155B found changes in the amplitude of the oscillatory signal and these variations scaled linearly with the surface magnetic field. They explained this in terms of changes in the equation of state, since magnetic fields contribute to both energy and pressure. These results were verified by @2006ApJ...640L..95V using Sun-as-a-star data, and so using only low-$l$ modes. However, we note that @2011MNRAS.414.1158C found no evidence for a variation in the amplitude of the oscillatory signal.
Further evidence for changes in the solar interior came from @2012ApJ...745..184R, who used the frequency differences of intermediate- and high-degree modes observed between the solar cycle 23 maximum and the preceding minimum to infer changes in the relative sound speed squared. @2012ApJ...745..184R found that the sound speed is larger at solar maximum than at solar minimum at radii greater than $0.8R_\odot$ and that the difference in sound speed increases with radial position from about $0.8R_\odot$ until about $0.985R_\odot$. Below $0.8R_\odot$ the uncertainties are too large and there is too much spurious variation introduced by the inversion process [@1996MNRAS.281.1385H] to definitively state whether the sound speed is greater at solar minimum or maximum. However, at its peak $(\sim0.985R_\odot)$ the relative difference in sound speed squared is of the order of $10^{-4}$, which is statistically significant. Above $0.985R_\odot$ the relative difference in the sound speed decreases with increasing radial position before passing through zero at $\sim0.997R_\odot$ and then becoming negative. These results can be compared to those obtained using local helioseismology techniques to observe sound speed variations beneath a sunspot. For example, @2008SoPh..251..439B also observed the change in sound speed beneath a sunspot goes from positive to negative with increasing radial position. Furthermore the locations at which the change in sign were observed to occur were in good agreement. @2012ApJ...745..184R therefore raises the question over how much of the change in sound speed observed in the global modes is due to local active regions, such as sunspots.
Although determining solar cycle variations in the internal structure of the Sun and uncovering evidence for a deep-seated magnetic field have proved to be very difficult far more success has been attained in measuring changes in the flow fields of the solar interior throughout the solar cycle.
Seismology of flow fields in the convection zone {#sec:2}
================================================
Observational signatures of flows {#sec:2.1}
---------------------------------
Large-scale flows advect the acoustic-gravity waves that propagate in the interior of the Sun. This gives rise to a number of measurable effects in helioseismology that can then be used in turn to make inferences about the properties of the flows. Probably the best-known such effect is that of rotational splitting of the frequencies of global modes. The first-order effect on the frequencies is that the frequencies of modes of like $n$ and $l$ but different $m$ are shifted by an amount that is given by $m$ times a mode-weighted average of the internal solar rotation rate within the acoustic cavity of the mode. The effect is primarily due to advection: there is also a Coriolis contribution to the first-order frequency splitting, but for the observed p modes the Coriolis contribution is very small. In the particular case of a star that is rigidly rotating with uniform rotation rate $\Omega$, the frequency shift experienced by a mode would be $m(1-C_{nl})\Omega$, where the so-called Ledoux factor $C_{nl}$ arises from the Coriolis contribution. The frequency shift due to a more general rotation profile can be written as $m{\bar \Omega}_{nlm}$ where ${\bar\Omega}_{nlm}$ denotes the mode-weighted average of the rotation rate. This is the principal effect of large-scale flows on the frequencies of the global modes. The mode dependence of the averages of the rotation rate is very useful: it enables inferences to be made about the spatial variation of the rotation rate, using inversion techniques.
As discussed in Section \[section\[local intro\]\] above, in the local helioseismic ring analysis approach, in the absence of flows or any horizontal inhomogeneities, the dispersion relation of the waves is $\omega = \omega_n(k_h)$, where $k_h \equiv \sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2}$ is the magnitude of the horizontal wavenumber vector. Thus the frequencies do not depend on the direction of the horizontal wavenumber, only on its magnitude, and so the rings of power are circular and centered on $(k_x,k_y)=(0,0)$. In the presence of a flow, the rings are shifted. Suppose that there is a uniform flow of speed $U$ in the $x$-direction. Then a Doppler shift of the frequencies changes the dispersion relation to become $\omega = \omega_n(k_h) + UK_x$. Provided the flow is weak (in the sense that $U \ll d\omega_n/dk_h$), the rings are still circular but their center is shifted in the $-k_x$ direction by an amount proportional to $U / (d\omega_n/dk_h)$. Thus the direction and magnitude of the ring shift can be used to infer the direction and magnitude of the flow. Analogously to the case of global-mode frequency shifts, for a non-uniform flow (e.g. one that varies with depth) the shifts will be a mode-dependent average and this allows inferences to be made about the spatial variation of subsurface flows.
In time-distance helioseismology, in the absence of flows the travel times in both directions between surface points A and B should be the same. Flows advect the waves and can cause the travel time in one direction (with the flow) to be shorter than the travel time in the opposite direction. In its simplest terms, the effect can be understood by thinking about travel times along ray paths: in one direction the waves travel at a speed $c+{\mathbf U}.{\mathbf s}$, where $c$ is the sound speed, $\mathbf U$ is the flow speed and $\mathbf s$ is a unit vector along the ray in the direction of travel; whereas waves travelling in the opposite direction travel at a different speed in the presence of the flow because they have the sign of $\mathbf s$ reversed. The perturbations to the travel times due to the flow are measured in time-distance helioseismology and, by cross-correlating many different pairs of points, the magnitude and direction of subsurface flows can be inferred.
Rotation {#sec:2.2}
--------
The rotation rate in much of the solar interior has been inferred from global-mode frequency splittings. A typical result for the mean rotation profile, in this case using a Regularized Least Squares (RLS) inversion technique applied to data obtained with the HMI instrument on board SDO, is shown in Fig. \[HMIrot\]. The latitudinal variation of the rotation rate that has long been observed at the surface of the Sun, with the rotation rate decreasing with increasing latitude, is seen to persist through the convection zone (the outer 30 per cent of the Sun). Near the base of the convection zone, there is a transition to what appears to be an essentially uniform rotation rate beneath, so that at the interface there is a region of strong rotational shear which has become known as the tachocline. There is also a region of rotational shear much closer to the Sun’s surface, in about the outer five per cent by radius, so the maximum in the rotation rate occurs a few per cent beneath the surface. As remarked by @2003ESASP.517..283G, in much of the convection zone the contours of isorotation make an angle with the rotation axis of about 25$^\circ$, whereas there is a slight tendency for them to align parallel to the rotation axis (“rotation on cylinders”) in the near-equatorial region [@2005ApJ...634.1405H].
![Solar internal rotation as inferred from HMI observations using a Regularized Least Squares inversion. Contours of isorotation are shown. \[HMIrot\]](mjtquad.jpg){width="8.0cm"}
Observations of torsional oscillations {#sec:2.3}
--------------------------------------
There are temporal variations around the mean rotation profile. The most firmly established of these are the so-called torsional oscillations. At low latitudes, these manifest as weak but coherent bands of faster and slower rotation that start at mid-latitudes as, or even slightly before, sunspots appear at those latitudes during the solar cycle, and migrate equatorwards with the activity bands over a period of a few years. Helioseismology shows that these bands extend in depth at least a third of a way down into the convection zone [@2000ApJ...541..442A; @2000ApJ...533L.163H; @2002Sci...296..101V; @2006ApJ...649.1155H]. At high latitudes, helioseismology has revealed that there is a poleward-migrating branch of the torsional oscillation [@2001ApJ...559L..67A; @2002Sci...296..101V], which may extend over the whole depth of the convection zone. The signal is clearest in the near-surface layers: Fig. \[tors-lat\] shows the torsional oscillations at a depth of one per cent of the solar radius beneath the surface. As these results are based on global helioseismology they do not reflect any differences between the flows in northern and southern hemispheres.
The torsional oscillation was first observed in surface Doppler observations from Mount Wilson [@1980ApJ...239L..33H]. These observations continued until very recently, and have been compared with the helioseismic observations by @2006SoPh..235....1H; when the Doppler observations are symmetrized across the equator the agreement makes it clear that the two techniques are detecting the same phenomenon. The better resolution of the helioseismic measurements at high latitudes makes the poleward-propagating nature of the high-latitude branch more obvious.
![Zonal flow residuals after a temporal mean at each radius/latitude has been subtracted. The residuals here are shown as functions of time and latitude, for a radial location of $0.99R_\odot$. The RLS inversion method was employed, and the results shown are a merge of inversions of HMI, MDI and GONG data. The black contours are of the photospheric magnetic field strength. \[tors-lat\]](comb99.jpg){width="9.0cm"}
A complementary view on torsional oscillations is obtained by looking at the same results but as a function of time and depth at fixed latitude. Four such slices, at different latitudes, are shown in Fig. \[tors-depth\]. At the equator and at $15^\circ$ latitude, there is some hint in the first half of the time period that the torsional oscillation propagates upwards from the middle of the convection zone. At the higher latitudes, there seems to be no propagation in depth. In the second half of the period there is much weaker evidence for upward propagation, although there is still some hint of it at $15^\circ$ latitude.
![Zonal flow residuals from Optimally Localized Averaging inversions of MDI and HMI data. A temporal mean at each radius/latitude has been subtracted. The residuals here are shown as functions of time and radial location, for latitudes (from left to right) $0^\circ$, $15^\circ$, $30^\circ$ and $45^\circ$.\[tors-depth\]](dataslice.jpg){width="10.0cm"}
Flows around active regions {#sec:2.4}
---------------------------
Convection motions manifest themselves at the Sun’s surface and in the subsurface regions on a range of scales. Moreover, strong magnetic fields in sunspots and active regions modify those convective motions, and the maintenance and decay of sunspots likely involves an interplay between the magnetic field and the flows. These flows have been studied using various local helioseismic techniques: with time-distance helioseismology [@2001IAUS..203..189G], ring analysis [@2009ApJ...698.1749H] and helioseismic holography [@2011JPhCS.271a2007B]. Fig. \[Featherstone1\] shows flows around and beneath an active region, obtained from ring analysis data derived from HMI observations. The inversion method employed is a 3-D RLS inversion developed by @2011JPhCS.271a2002F. At the shallowest depths (0.2 Mm), the flows are dominated by the supergranular convection, and that scale is clearly visible. The flow speeds decrease with increasing depth, and the horizontal scale of the convective motions increases.
![Flows around an active region in January 2002, obtained by 3-D inversion of ring-analysis data using HMI observations. Flows are shown at depths (a) 0.2 Mm, (b) 4 Mm, (c) 7 Mm and (d) 11 Mm. Velocity vectors are shown in blue; red and green show the regions of strong positive and negative polarity photospheric magnetic field, respectively. [Adapted from @2011JPhCS.271a2002F][]{data-label="Featherstone1"}](Featherstone2.jpg){width="8.0cm"}
Featherstone et al. also find that strong outflows are typical around sunspots at a depth of 5-6 Mm. Comparable studies with time-distance helioseismology [@2009SSRv..144..249G] agree roughly with the ring-analysis studies in terms of the magnitude of surface flows near sunspots. They are also in agreement that there are strong outflows beneath the surface, but time-distance helioseismology finds that the flow speeds are higher, by about a factor of two. Resolution differences may account for some of the apparent discrepancy.
Meridional circulation: a shallow return flow? {#sec:2.5}
----------------------------------------------
Meridional circulation is the large-scale flow in meridional planes – i.e., flows that are perpendicular to the rotational flow. Meridional circulation in the solar convection zone is an important ingredient in some models of the solar dynamo: in the near-surface regions it transports the remnant flux from old active regions polewards, where the flux is presumed to be subducted and carried down to the bottom of the convection zone, where again a suitably directed meridional circulation may aid the equatorward migration of toroidal magnetic field.
The meridional circulation near the surface of the Sun is only of order 10 m/s, much smaller than the rotation speed and the speeds of convective motions of granules, etc. Hence, although there were pre-helioseismology surface measurements of poleward meridional flow at the surface, these measurements were difficult. In an early application of time-distance helioseismology, [@1997Natur.390...52G] demonstrated that the near sub-surface meridional circulation in both hemispheres is polewards.
Following earlier pioneering attempts by [@1995ApJ...455..746P], Haber and colleagues have applied the ring analysis method extensively to obtain robust results regarding the meridional circulation in the outer few percent of the solar interior from the equator to nearly 60$^\circ$ latitude, e.g. [@2002ApJ...570..855H]. The results show that the meridional circulation is generally poleward in this region. With a lesser degree of certainty, Haber and collaborators find that there are episodes when a submerged counter-flow develops at mid-latitudes.
As well as the possible development of a counter-cell, there are other temporal variations of the meridional circulation in the superficial subsurface layers that appear to be associated spatially and temporally with the torsional oscillations [@2004ApJ...603..776Z; @2010ApJ...713L..16G]
Mass conservation demands that, corresponding to the poleward near-surface meridional flow, there must be an equatorward flow at some depth that closes the circulation. The location of this return flow is a key question in determining how and whether the flux-transport solar dynamo model operates. Ever since the work by [@1997Natur.390...52G], there have been attempts that have hinted at a relatively shallow return flow. @2007AN....328.1009M detected a transition from poleward to equatorward flow at a depth of about 35 Mm, though with substantial error bars on the flow speeds. @2012ApJ...760...84H, using a cross-correlation method to track supergranules, found that the poleward meridional flow extends to about 50 Mm beneath the solar surface and reported a positive detection of equatorward flow at a depth of about 70 Mm. More recently still, arguably the most convincing helioseismic detection to date of a shallow return flow is the work by [@2013ApJ...774L..29Z]. These authors find that the poleward flow extends to about 0.91$R_\odot$ (about 63 Mm depth) with an equatorward flow between 0.82$R_\odot$ and 0.91$R_\odot$, with perhaps a poleward flow again below that, see panel a) in Fig. \[fig:Zhao2013\]. However, even with the latest work, a note of caution is warranted. The result depends on the application of a correction for a systematic center-to-limb bias in the travel-time measurements: the correction seems justified from a data-analysis viewpoint, but as yet the origin of the systematic is not understood.
![The meridional flow profile is shown as obtained by inverting the measured acoustic travel times from two years of HMI data. Panel (a) shows a cross-section view of the profile with the positive velocity directed northward. Panels (b) and (c) show the velocity as functions of latitude averaged over several depths. Panels (d) and (e) show the velocity as functions of depth averaged over different latitudinal bands. From @2013ApJ...774L..29Z.[]{data-label="fig:Zhao2013"}](zhao_fig2.jpg){width="100.00000%"}
Hemispheric Asymmetry: Flows and Magnetic Field Distribution {#sec:4.1}
------------------------------------------------------------
The solar cycle appears to be strongly coupled across the equator as evident in the symmetry of the butterfly diagram. However, a snapshot of the Sun at any given time shows notable differences between the North (N) and South (S). Usually, the hemispheric asymmetry is most notable in the distribution of the surface magnetic field but it is also observed in flows recovered from local helioseismology. So the question arises - by what mechanism are the N and S hemispheres coupled?
Passive diffusion across the geometric equator is often considered the main mechanism of coupling [@2005SoPh..229..345C]. Results from dynamo simulations cause us to question magnetic diffusion (including turbulent diffusion) as the main coupling mechanism. Not only do the diffusion values incorporated into numerical models vary widely, the implementation as a function of depth and the effects of diffusion within the models are not well understood. Therefore, interest has been increasing regarding other, more active, hemispheric coupling mechanisms. N-S flows within latitudinally elongated convective cells (aka “banana cells") allow a mixing of electromagnetic flux from one hemisphere into the other (Passos and Charbonneau, 2014, submitted to A&A) and can contribute to hemispheric coupling.
Local helioseismology techniques, such as ring diagram [@1989ApJ...343L..69H] and time-distance [@1993Natur.362..430D] analysis, are able to determine non-symmetric latitudinal structure in the solar interior. Results from local heliosesmology highlight the differences in the hemispheric flows. These analyses have been used to measure distinct hemispheric differences in the meridional flows and zonal flows at a given time and depth in the interior [see @2011JPhCS.271a2077K and others]. These measured asymmetries provide further quantitative constraints on the dynamo simulations in that the simulations must reproduce hemispheric asymmetries only within the range observed.
Specifically, the extent of hemispheric coupling as determined by surface magnetism is as follows. The N and S polar fields reverse their dominant polarity at distinctly different times, up to 14 months apart in some solar cycles [@2010SoPh..261..193N]. The time of peak sunspot production of one hemisphere is usually lagged by the other, meaning the hemispheres experience solar maxima at different times. Recently, the first half of the 2014 calendar year shows the Southern hemisphere producing significantly more large active regions while the Northern hemisphere peaked in sunspot production earlier in 2013. The amplitudes of each hemispheric solar cycle as measured in sunspot number or area are within 20% of each other and the timing (phase lags) between hemispheres are not more than 25% of the total cycle length [@2010SoPh..261..193N]. For more recent, in-depth analysis, @2010AN....331..765Z and @2013ApJ...765..146M both analyze hemispheric asymmetry and interestingly enough find that a certain hemisphere appears to lead any given cycle and this lead persists for roughly 40 years on average. That is the surface magnetism characteristic of the hemispheric asymmetry.
The extent of the hemispheric coupling as determined by helioseismology is as follows. Zonal flows are seen as bands of faster and slower E-W flows that appear years prior to the appearance of activity on the solar surface. It is often thought that the flow patterns are caused by enhanced cooling by magnetic fields. Meridional flows are considered in many dynamo models as the crucial ingredient which sets the rate at which the toroidal magnetic band (and sunspots) move equatorward. @2011JPhCS.271a2077K determined the zonal and meridional flows as a function of latitude for cycle 23 (years 1996-2010), see Fig. \[fig:Komm2011\]. In the right panel of Fig. \[fig:Komm2011\], note how the meridional flow at 10-15 Mm in the Northern hemisphere weakens in 2005 at 35 N latitude (seen as a break in green color) just before the Northern surface magnetic contour disappears in 2006. Similarly, the Southern hemisphere shows this behavior 2 years later in 2007 at 35 S latitude (again, a break in the green color) just before the Southern magnetic contour disappears in 2008. This $\sim2$ year hemispheric phase lag observed in both the surface magnetism and the meridional flow is tantalizing.
More recently, @2014SoPh..tmp...29K investigated the behavior of the zonal flows as a function of latitude for the time period of 2001 - 2013 from the surface to a depth of 16 Mm using GONG and HMI. Many hemispheric differences are evident in the zonal flows. For example, see Fig. \[fig:Komm2014\] showing the poleward branch of the zonal flow (at 50 degrees) is 6 m s$^{-1}$ faster in the S than the N at a depth of 10 $-$ 13 Mm during cycle 23. In addition, @2013ApJ...774L..29Z detected multiple cells in each hemisphere in the meridional circulation using acoustic travel-time differences. The double-celled profile shows a significant hemispheric asymmetry (see panels (d) and (e) in Fig. \[fig:Zhao2013\]) in a range of latitudes. The profile asymmetry could be due to a phase lag in the hemispheres: does the meridional profile as a function of depth in the Southern hemisphere in 2013 look like the profile did in the Northern hemisphere two years earlier?
It is possible that a perturbation of meridional flow (presumably by convection since the meridional flow is a weak flow strongly driven by convection) in one hemisphere (but not in the other) sets a phase lag between the migration of activity belts, and hence, the sunspot production, that persists for years. Actively searching for correlated hemispheric asymmetric signatures in flows at depth and magnetic field distributions on the surface may provide insight as to which ingredients of the dynamo set the length and amplitude of the sunspot cycle. For an in-depth discussion of N-S hemispheric asymmetry from an observational perspective as compared to the results from dynamo simulations, see Norton et al. (2014) in this volume.
![Komm et al. (2011) recovered zonal (left) and meridional (right) flows as a function of time and latitude for a depth of 10.2- 15.8 Mm. These results were determined from SOHO MDI (before mid-2001) and GONG (after mid-2001) data. Overlaid contours show average magnetic field strength. []{data-label="fig:Komm2011"}](fig11a.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}![Komm et al. (2011) recovered zonal (left) and meridional (right) flows as a function of time and latitude for a depth of 10.2- 15.8 Mm. These results were determined from SOHO MDI (before mid-2001) and GONG (after mid-2001) data. Overlaid contours show average magnetic field strength. []{data-label="fig:Komm2011"}](fig11b.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![Komm et al. (2014) recovered zonal flows as a function of latitude and depth. The zonal flow from GONG (left) is averaged over 149 Carrington rotations and from HMI (right) is averaged over 35 Carrington rotations. The white contour indicates a zero velocity. Errors are less than 0.1 m s$^{-1}$ for GONG and less than 1.0 m s$^{-1}$ for HMI. The poleward branch of the torsional oscillations is stronger in the S by 6 m s$^{-1}$ at a depth of 10-13 Mm during Cycle 23.[]{data-label="fig:Komm2014"}](Komm2014.jpg){width="100.00000%"}
Mean field modelling of solar torsional oscillations
====================================================
Several authors [@Durney:2000; @Covas:etal:2000; @Bushby:2006; @Rempel:2006:dynamo] have developed theoretical models of torsional oscillations, the observational aspects of which are described in Section \[sec:2.3\], by assuming that the torsional oscillations are driven by the Lorentz force of the Sun’s cyclically varying magnetic field, which is associated with sunspot cycle. If this is true, then one would expect the torsional oscillations to follow the sunspot cycles. The puzzling fact, however, is that the torsional oscillations of a cycle begin a couple of years before the sunspots of that cycle appear and at a latitude higher than where the first sunspots are subsequently seen. At first sight, this looks like a violation of causality. How does the effect precede the cause? The following section provides a possible explanation using the Nandy-Choudhuri hypothesis [@Nandy:Choudhuri:2002] in the framework of flux transport dynamos.
Features of solar torsional oscillations and their possible explanations {#sec:obstorosc}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now summarize some of the other important characteristics of torsional oscillations, which a theoretical model should try to explain.
1. Apart from the weaker equatorward-propagating branch which moves with the sunspot belt after the sunspots start appearing, there is also a stronger poleward-propagating branch at high latitudes. The poleward branch lasts for about 9 years whereas the equatorward branch lasts for about 18 years (e.g. see Fig. \[tors-lat\]).
2. The amplitude of the torsional oscillations near the surface is of the order of 4 nHz (20 ms$^{-1}$) when averaged over all latitudes (e.g. see Fig. \[tors-lat\]).
3. The torsional oscillations seem to be present throughout the convection zone, though they appear more intermittent and less coherent as we go deeper down into the convection zone [see Figs. 4, 5 and 6 in @2005ApJ...634.1405H and Fig. \[tors-depth\] here].
4. In the equatorward-propagating branch at low latitudes, the torsional oscillations at the surface seem to have a phase lag of about 2yr compared to the oscillations at the bottom of the convection zone [see Fig. 7 in @2005ApJ...634.1405H and Fig. \[tors-depth\] here]. The rate of upward movement appears to be about 0.05 [$R_{\odot}$]{}yr$^{-1}$ or $1\,\rm m\,s^{-1}$. However, we recall from Section \[sec:2.3\] that evidence for upward propagation is weaker in cycle 24 than observed previously.
5. Torsional oscillation contours of constant phase are inclined at $25^\circ$ to the rotation axis. This is similar to the inclination of contours of constant rotation [see Fig. \[HMIrot\] and @Howe:etal:2004].
Let us now try to understand properties (3) and (4) listed above in some more detail. Property (4) of the torsional oscillations seems to suggest that the bottom of the convection zone is the source of the oscillations, which then propagate upwards. Property (3) then seems puzzling and contrary to common sense. One would expect the oscillations to be more coherent near the source, becoming more diffuse as they move upward further away from the source. However, we know that the magnetic field is highly intermittent within the convection zone and we need to take account of this fact when calculating the Lorentz force due to the magnetic field. Since the convection cells deeper down are expected to have larger sizes, @Choudhuri:2003 suggested that the magnetic field within the convection zone would look as shown in Fig. 1 of that paper. In Fig. 1 of @Choudhuri:2003 the convection granule size is a function of the pressure scale height in the solar convection zone, the intergranular lanes are more intermittent at the bottom of the convection zone and so is the magnetic field which is concentrated into tubes in these lanes. Since the velocity perturbations associated with the torsional oscillations are likely to be concentrated around the magnetic flux tubes, we expect the torsional oscillations to be spatially intermittent at the bottom of the convection zone, as seen in the observational data (property 3). Similarly, since the magnetic field near the surface is less intermittent, a torsional oscillation driven by the Lorentz stress would also appear more coherent there. This may explain the puzzling situation where the torsional oscillations seem to become more coherent as they move further away from the source which is at the footpoints of flux tubes at the bottom of the convection zone. This scenario therefore provides a natural explanation for property (3) of the torsional oscillations, as listed above. Accordingly, let us assume that the torsional oscillation gets initiated in the lower footpoints of the vertical flux tubes, where the Lorentz force builds up due to the production of the toroidal magnetic field. This perturbation then propagates upward along the vertical flux tubes at the Alfvén speed. If the magnetic field inside the flux tubes within the solar convection zone (not below it) is estimated as 500 G (see Section 3 of @Choudhuri:2003), then the Alfvén speed at the bottom of the convection zone is of the order of 300 cm s$^{-1}$ and the Alfvén travel time from the bottom to the top turns out to be exactly of the same order as the phase delay of torsional oscillations at the surface compared to the oscillations at the bottom of the convection zone. This may be an explanation for the property (4). In the next subsection, we shall try to incorporate these ideas into a mean field dynamo model of the solar cycle.
Numerical Modelling efforts
---------------------------
We focus on the scenario where the Lorentz and MAxwell stresses on the flows in the solar interior give rise to the torsional oscillations. Poloidal flows, like the meridional circulation, are also affected. This is important because the meridional circulation is believed to set the clock for the 11yr sunspot cycle. The magnetic feedback on the flows is one of the important non linearities of the solar dynamo. Some authors have proposed that such feedback on differential rotation alone could cause a modulation of solar cycle strengths and lead to grand minima like episodes [@Kitchatinov:etal:1999].
Mean field models of the solar dynamo have been in existence for over two decades now and come in two main flavors: the $\alpha \Omega$, interface, and the flux transport dynamo. Depending on the values of parameters like turbulent diffusivity as compared to meridional circulation speed, the dynamo can also be characterized into advectively or diffusively dominated dynamo regimes [@Jiang:etal:2007; @Yeates:etal:2008]. Such a mean field model of the solar dynamo can then be combined with the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (NS) equation, after including the effects of the Lorentz force and Maxwells stresses, to solve for the torsional oscillations. Several authors [@Covas:etal:2000; @Covas:etal:2004; @Chakraborty:etal:2009] have solved for only the azimuthal component of the mean velocity, $v_{\phi}$ along with the dynamo equations while others [@Rempel:2007] have solved for the evolution of entropy in addition to all three components of the mean velocity. Torsional oscillation models also differ in relation to the magnetic feedback term appearing in the NS equation. In some cases [@Rempel:2007; @Chakraborty:etal:2009; @Covas:etal:2004] only a Lorentz feedback due to the mean magnetic field (macro-feedback), has been used whereas in other cases [@Kitchatinov:etal:1999; @Kueker:etal:1999] only the Maxwell’s stress due to the fluctuating magnetic field (micro-feedback) has been modeled. This is achieved using $\Lambda$-effect formulation of the non-diffusive component of the Reynolds stresses [@Kitchatinov:Ruediger:1993] and quenching the $\Lambda$ coefficients using an algebraic dependence on the mean magnetic field. The saturation of the mean magnetic field in the above case has been achieved using two different mechanisms: In the first mechanism the $\Lambda$ coefficients are quenched along with either the kinetic helicity or the $\alpha$ effect (achieved through the presence of super equipartition fields). The second mechanism was employed by @Covas:etal:2004 who demonstrated that saturation of the solar dynamo can be obtained by means of the Lorentz feedback in the $\phi$ component of the NS equation without requiring any explicit $\alpha$-quenching.
One of the popular models used for an explanation of the sunspot cycle is the flux transport dynamo, in which the meridional circulation carries the toroidal field produced from differential rotation in the tachocline equatorward and carries the poloidal field produced by the Babcock–Leighton mechanism at the surface poleward [@Wang:Sheeley:1991; @Choudhuri:etal:1995]. Since the differential rotation is stronger at higher latitudes in the tachocline than at lower latitudes, the inclusion of solar-like rotation tends to produce a strong toroidal field at high latitudes rather than at the latitudes where sunspots are seen [@Dikpati:Charbonneau:1999; @Kueker:etal:2001]. @Nandy:Choudhuri:2002 proposed a hypothesis to overcome this difficulty. According to their hypothesis, the meridional circulation penetrates slightly below the bottom of the convection zone and the strong toroidal field produced at the high-latitude tachocline is pushed by this meridional circulation into stable layers below the convection zone where magnetic buoyancy is suppressed and sunspots are not formed. Only when the toroidal field is brought into the convection zone by the meridional circulation rising at lower latitudes, does magnetic buoyancy take over and sunspots finally form. The torsional oscillation signals however cannot be buried below the convection zone by the meridional circulation since they can be transmitted out to the surface by Alfvén waves along vertical magnetic field lines, which intermittently thread the convection zone. It may be noted that there is a controversy at the present time as to whether the meridional circulation can penetrate below the convection zone since arguments having been advanced both against [@Gilman:Miesch:2004] and for it [@Garaud:Brummel:2008]. The detailed dynamo model of @Chatterjee:etal:2004 was based on this Nandy-Choudhuri hypothesis, which provided the correct sunspot emergence latitudes and phase relation between the low-latitute toroidal field and the polar fields at the surface.
Another conjecture proposed by @Chakraborty:etal:2009 was that the torsional oscillations are initiated in the lower layers of the solar convection zone where toroidal flux tubes are formed due to differential rotation and are propagated upwards by Alfvén waves. The torsional oscillation signal therefore reaches the solar surface much ahead of the sunspot-forming toroidal magnetic field which is still buried by the downward meridional flow in the stable layers. These authors tried to model torsional oscillations using the @Chatterjee:etal:2004 dynamo model after coupling it to the equation for the mean rotational velocity incorporating a very simple but insightful averaging of the Lorentz force feedback term. The $\phi$ component of the Navier–Stokes equation, is $$\label{eq[ns]}
\rho \left\{ \frac{\pa \vp}{\pa t} + D_u [\vp] \right\} =
D_{\nu} [\vp] + ({\bf F}_L)_{\phi},$$ where $$\label{eq[advection]}
D_u [\vp] = \frac{v_r+v_{\rm alf}}{r} \frac{\pa}{\pa r} (r \vp)
+ \frac{v_{\theta}}{r \sin \theta} \frac{\pa}{\pa \theta} (\sin \theta \vp)$$ is the term corresponding to advection by the meridional circulation $(v_r, v_{\theta})$, and $v_{\rm alf}$ is a constant upward velocity of $300$ cm s$^{-1}$, estimated in Section \[sec:obstorosc\], to account for the upward transport by Alfvén waves when solving our basic equation Eq. \[eq\[ns\]\]. Note that this additional $v_{\rm alf}$ does not represent any actual mass motion and does not have to satisfy the continuity equation, unlike the meridional circulation. $$\label{eq[diffusion]}
D_{\nu} [\vp] = \frac{1}{r^3} \frac{\pa}{\pa r} \left[ \nu \rho r^4 \frac{\pa}{\pa r} \left( \frac
{\vp}{r} \right) \right] + \frac{1}{r^2 \sin^2 \theta} \frac{\pa}{\pa \theta} \left[ \nu \rho
\sin^3 \theta \frac{\pa}{\pa \theta} \left( \frac{\vp}{\sin \theta} \right) \right]$$ is the diffusion term, and $({\bf F}_L)_{\phi}$ is the $\phi$ component of the Lorentz force. The kinematic viscosity $\nu$ is primarily due to turbulence within the convection zone and is expected to be equal to the magnetic diffusivity. If the magnetic field in our model is assumed to have the standard form $$\label{eq[mag field]}
{\bf B} = B (r, \theta, t){\bf e}_{\phi} + \nabla \times [A(r, \theta, t){\bf e}_{\phi}],$$ then the Lorentz force is given by the Jacobian $$\label{eq[lorentz]}
4 \pi ({\bf F}_L)_{\phi} = \frac{1}{s^3} J \left( \frac{s B_{\phi},
s A }{r, \theta} \right),$$ where $s= r \sin \theta$. We, however, have to take some special care in averaging the term in Eq. \[eq\[lorentz\]\], since this is the only term in our equations which is quadratic in the basic variables $(A, B, \vp)$ and has to be averaged differently from all the other terms due to intermittency of the magnetic field in the convection zone. The $\phi$ component of the Lorentz force primarily comes from the radial derivative of the magnetic stress $B_r \Bp /4\pi$. This stress arises when $B_r$ is stretched by differential rotation to produce $\Bp$ and should be non-zero only inside the flux tubes. We assume that $B_r, \Bp$ are the mean field values, whereas $(B_r)_{\rm ft}, (\Bp)_{\rm ft}$ are the values of these quantities inside flux tubes. If $f$ is the filling factor, which is essentially the fractional volume occupied by flux tubes, then we have $B_r = f (B_r)_{\rm ft}$ and $\Bp = f (\Bp)_{\rm ft}$, on assuming the same filling factor for both components for the sake of simplicity. It is easy to see that the mean Lorentz stress would be $$\label{eq[lorentz stress]}
f \frac{(B_r)_{\rm ft}(\Bp)_{\rm ft}}{4 \pi} = \frac{B_r \Bp}{4 \pi f}.$$ This suggests that the correct mean field expression for $({\bf F}_L)_{\phi}$ should be given by the Eq.\[eq\[lorentz\]\] divided by $f$. As pointed out by @Chatterjee:etal:2004, the only non-linearity in our equations comes from the critical magnetic field $B_c$ above which the toroidal field at the bottom of the convection zone is supposed to be unstable due to magnetic buoyancy. @Jiang:etal:2007 found that we have to take $B_c = 108$ G (which is the critical value of the mean toroidal field and not the toroidal field inside flux tubes) to ensure that the poloidal field at the surface has correct values. Once the amplitude of the magnetic field gets fixed in this manner, we find that the amplitude of the torsional oscillations matches observational values only for a particular value of the filling factor $f$. The theoretical model of torsional oscillations proposed by @Chakraborty:etal:2009 thus allows us to infer the filling factor of the magnetic field in the lower layers of the convection zone. Even though the conjecture of @Chakraborty:etal:2009 looks very elegant, upon actual calculation they obtained a large phase lag of $\sim6$ years instead of the observed 2 years between the onset of the low-latitude branch of the torsional oscillation and the first appearance of sunspots of the cycle. However, the radial dependence of the torsional signal was very close to the observed patterns and is shown in Fig. \[fig:chakfg2\]. It is clear in the plot of the torsional oscillation at a latitude of $20^{\circ}$ (left panel of Fig. \[fig:chakfg2\]) that the Lorentz force is concentrated in the tachocline at 0.7[$R_{\odot}$]{}, where the low-latitude torsional oscillations are launched to propagate upward. The plot for latitude $20^{\circ}$ shows that the amplitude of the torsional oscillations becomes larger near the surface due to the perturbations propagating into regions of lower density, which is consistent with observational data. The physics of the high-latitude branch (right panel of Fig. \[fig:chakfg2\]) is, however, very different, with the Lorentz force contours indicating a downward propagation and not a particularly strong concentration at the tachocline. As the poloidal field sinks with the downward meridional circulation at the high latitudes, the latitudinal shear $d \Omega/ d \theta$ in the convection zone acts on it to create the toroidal component and thereby the Lorentz stress. With the downward advection of the poloidal field, the region of Lorentz stress moves downward.
![Theoretical torsional oscillations ($\vp$ in m s$^{-1}$) as functions of depth and time at latitudes $20^{\circ}$ (left) and $70^{\circ}$ (right). The plot for latitude $20^{\circ}$ compares very well with Fig. 4(D) of [@2002Sci...296..101V], Fig. 7 [@2005ApJ...634.1405H], or Fig. \[tors-depth\] here. The contours indicate the Lorentz force $({\bf F}_L)_{\phi}$, the solid and dashed lines indicating positive and negative values.[]{data-label="fig:chakfg2"}](fig3a.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Theoretical torsional oscillations ($\vp$ in m s$^{-1}$) as functions of depth and time at latitudes $20^{\circ}$ (left) and $70^{\circ}$ (right). The plot for latitude $20^{\circ}$ compares very well with Fig. 4(D) of [@2002Sci...296..101V], Fig. 7 [@2005ApJ...634.1405H], or Fig. \[tors-depth\] here. The contours indicate the Lorentz force $({\bf F}_L)_{\phi}$, the solid and dashed lines indicating positive and negative values.[]{data-label="fig:chakfg2"}](fig3b.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Yet another baffling observation which has eluded modelers is the systematic deviation of the isolines of constant phase of the torsional oscillation from the Taylor-Proudman state, where the fluid velocity should be uniform along contours parallel to the rotation axis, as evident from Fig.3B of [@2002Sci...296..101V]. [@Howe:etal:2004] first pointed out that lines of constant phase are inclined at $25^\circ$ to the rotation axis, similar to the isorotation contours. [@Spruit:2003] suggested a thermal origin for the low-latitude branch of the torsional oscillation due to enhanced radiative losses in the active region belts. [@Rempel:2007] showed that only a localized thermal forcing can lead to such deviation from the Taylor-Proudman state. However since the thermal forcing is only concentrated near the surface, it does not explain the observational fact that torsional oscillations encompass almost the entire convection zone. Earlier, @Rempel:2006:dynamo [see Fig. 10 of that paper] showed that applying a surface cooling function confined to sunspot emerging latitudes can give rise to the low-latitude branch of the torsional oscillation where as the magnetic forcing is responsible for the high-latitude branch. According to our knowledge none of the authors have yet obtained the correct phase relation between the low-latitude band of the torsional oscillation and the sunspot migration. The precedence of the low-latitude branch over the first appearance of sunspots is still a mystery.
Note that, all the discussion above are for mean field models which give rise to regular solar cycle amplitudes for a relatively weak magnetic feedback. An exception is the model of [@Kitchatinov:etal:1999] which has a strong magnetic feedback and gives rise to significant modulation in the strengths of successive solar cycles. In reality, the solar cycle amplitudes are irregular or stochastic in nature. Naturally this would give rise to an irregular magnetic feedback on the solar flows and the resulting observed torsional oscillations. The irregular magnetic feedback can not only affect the amplitude of torsional oscillations but also the mean rotation rate of the Sun. It may be important to define the mean rotation rate as a solar cycle averaged quantity rather than a very long temporal average [see @2013ApJ...767L..20H]. Thus, modelling the solar torsional oscillations still remains a very challenging problem.
Was cycle 23 unusual?
=====================
The minimum that preceded cycle 24 was considered to be unusually long and quiet, even for a solar minimum. What can the solar oscillations tell us about the structure of the Sun’s magnetic field during this time? @2012ApJ...758...43B examined the frequency dependence of the frequency shifts observed in Sun-as-a-star data during the last two solar cycles. Fig.\[figure\[smoothed\_shifts\]\] shows the frequency shifts of low-$l$ ($\le 2$) modes in three frequency ranges. The shifts have been smoothed to remove the quasi-biennial variation [e.g. @2010ApJ...718L..19F]. Fig. \[figure\[smoothed\_shifts\]\] shows that the low-frequency modes behave unexpectedly, not just during the recent unusual solar minimum but for the entirety of cycle 23, experiencing little to no frequency shift during this time. Although it is expected that the low-frequency modes experience a smaller shift in frequency than the high-frequency modes (see Section \[section\[freq dependence of shifts\]\]), a comparison with the shifts observed in cycle 22 highlights the discrepancy. More precisely, while the behaviour of the high and intermediate ranges is consistent between cycles 22 and 23, the behaviour of the low-frequency modes changes. This can be explained in terms of the upper turning points of the modes, which as we have said previously, are dependent on the frequency of the mode. If we consider the perturbation responsible for the solar-cycle frequency shifts to be a near-surface magnetic layer. In cycle 22 the upper turning points of the low-frequency modes must lie within the magnetic layer, but in cycle 23 the upper turning points of the low frequency modes must lie beneath the layer, meaning their frequencies are not perturbed by it. These results, therefore, imply a thinning of the magnetic layer (or a change in the upper turning points with respect to the layer). @2012ApJ...758...43B therefore infer that the magnetic layer must be positioned above $0.9965R_\odot$ in cycle 23.
![Smoothed frequency shifts as a function of time observed in three frequency ranges (see captions). The frequency of the oscillations were obtained from 365d Sun-as-a-star BiSON data. An average was taken over modes with $0\le l \le 2$. This figure is adapted from @2012ApJ...758...43B. Scaled, shifted and smoothed versions of the 10.7cm flux (blue dot-dashed line) and the ISN (red dashed line) are plotted for comparison purposes. []{data-label="figure[smoothed_shifts]"}](freq_shifts_all_ranges_365d_smoothed_base_max22_v3.jpg "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}\
A change in behaviour has also been observed in the torsional oscillation. In Fig. \[tors-lat\] it appears that the high-latitude poleward-propagating spin-up, which was prominent in the 2000-2006 epoch, is absent in the present cycle. It has been speculated that the high-latitude branch is a precursor of the following solar cycle, and that its absence at the present time may indicate that cycle 25 may be delayed, weak, or non-existent. Another way to look at the data is to plot the inferred rotation at a single location, as a function of time (Fig. \[hilat\]). It is clear from this representation that the rotation rate at mid- and high-latitudes has been increasing in the past 2-3 years, but more weakly than in the previous cycle. At mid-latitudes, it is also evident that the rotation rate dropped to a lower level than in the previous cycle, so even the weak increase is starting from a lower base [@2013ApJ...767L..20H].
![Rotation rate from Regularized Least Squares inversions (after subtraction of a temporal mean) at latitudes (from left to right) $45^\circ$, $56^\circ$, $68^\circ$ and $79^\circ$, at radius $0.99R$, inferred using an RLS inversion. Colours indicate the data used: GONG (blue), MDI (red) and HMI (green).[]{data-label="hilat"}](thph.jpg){width="8.0cm"}
Summarizing remarks
===================
The Sun’s magnetic field, which is generated in the solar interior, varies on a time scale of 11yrs from minimum to maximum and back again. Measures of the Sun’s surface and atmospheric magnetic field are abundant. In order to really understand the interior of the Sun we use the Sun’s natural oscillations. The frequencies, powers and lifetimes of these oscillations are dependent on the strength of the Sun’s magnetic field, with the most significant influence on the oscillations arising from a near-surface perturbation. In fact, it has been shown that the change in frequency of the oscillations is tightly correlated with the surface magnetic field, once latitudinal distribution is taken into account. Evidence for a magnetic field deeper within the solar interior was hard to come by. However, there is now tentative evidence for solar cycle variations in the second-ionization zone of helium and at the base of the convection zone. Solar cycle variations in the dynamics of the solar interior have been far more forthcoming. For example, the link between flows and active regions, such as sunspots, have been well studied and reveal strong outflows around sunspots. The torsional oscillation has been shown to exist over a substantial fraction of the convection zone. The observational constraints of the torsional oscillations have proven to be key in recent developments in mean field dynamo models. This is particularly pertinent since one of the main aims in any solar cycle study is to improve our understanding of the mechanism by which the Sun’s magnetic field is generated and maintained. Any model of the solar dynamo must explain observational features, including the North-South asymmetry, which is apparent, not only in surface measures of the Sun’s magnetic field but in the flows seen in the solar interior. Finally it has been shown that, from a helioseismic standpoint the Sun’s activity appears to be changing from one cycle to the next. We must remember here that we only have two 11-yr solar cycles for comparison. Although the BiSON data do go back to cycle 21, the fill of the data is poor as the full 6-site network was not established until the early 1990s, meaning that it is hard to make helioseismic inferences about this cycle. It is, therefore, difficult to say, purely in helioseismic terms, which cycle is behaving unusually, or indeed if the behaviour is unusual at all: 11yr only covers half a 22-yr Hale cycle. One can, therefore, only conclude that the helioseismic data imply that the behaviour of the Sun has changed. Hopefully these and other issues surrounding the Sun’s magnetic field will become clearer as we continue to observe the Sun through cycle 24 and beyond.
The paper was stimulated by the workshop “The solar activity cycle: physical causes and consequences". It is a pleasure to thank André Balogh, Hugh Hudson, Kristof Petrovay, Rudolf von Steiger and the International Space Science Institute for financial support, excellent organization and hospitality. This work utilizes Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network data which is run by School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham. This work utilizes GONG data obtained by the NSO Integrated Synoptic Program (NISP), managed by the National Solar Observatory, which is operated by AURA, Inc. under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. The data were acquired by instruments operated by the Big Bear Solar Observatory, High Altitude Observatory, Learmonth Solar Observatory, Udaipur Solar Observatory, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory. [*SOHO*]{} is a mission of international cooperation between ESA and NASA. The Solar Oscillations Investigation (SOI) involving MDI was supported by NASA grant NNX09AI90G to Stanford University. The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. HMI data courtesy of NASA and the HMI consortium; HMI is supported by NASA contract NAS5-02139 to Stanford University. NSO/Kitt Peak data used here were produced cooperatively by NSF/NOAO, NASA/GSFC, and NOAA/SEL; SOLIS data are produced cooperatively by NSF/NSO and NASA/LWS. A-MB thanks the Institute of Advanced Study, University of Warwick for their support. RH acknowledges computing support from the National Solar Observatory. A. Norton is supported by NASA Contract NAS5-02139 (HMI) to Stanford University. We thank N. Featherstone and R. Komm for their help.
[^1]: Please note here that the references listed are not exhaustive, instead we have tried to include useful ones whose reference lists themselves are informative.
[^2]: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-features/solar-radio/noontime-flux/penticton/
[^3]: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
High resolution radio observations remain the most direct way to study the formation and evolution of radio jets associated with the accretion onto massive black holes. We report preliminary results of our seven year VLBA observational program to understand the nature of relativistic beaming in blazars and the surrounding environment of massive black holes.
Most blazars show an apparent outward flow away from an active core. However, in a few sources the motion appears inward, most likely the result of projection of a curved trajectory which bends back toward along the line of sight. The apparent motion of jet features is not always oriented along the direction separating the feature from the core, and in a few cases we have observed a clear change in the direction and velocity of a feature as it flows along the jet. In other sources, the motion appears to follow a simple ballistic trajectory. We find no simple relation between the time scales of flux density changes and apparent component velocities.
author:
- 'K. I. Kellermann, M. L. Lister, and D. C. Homan'
- 'E. Ros and J. A. Zensus'
- 'M. H. Cohen and M. Russo'
- 'R. C. Vermeulen'
title: Superluminal Motion and Relativistic Beaming in Blazar Jets
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
= 100000
Background
==========
It is generally accepted that the blazar phenomenon is due to the anisotropic boosting of the radiation along the direction of motion which gives rise to an apparent enhanced luminosity at all wavelengths if the observer is located close to the direction of motion. There are many observations which support this interpretation including the one sided appearance of blazar jets and the rapid flux density variability observed at many wavelengths. However, the only direct observations of relativistic motion are at radio wavelengths when motion close to the line of sight produces a compression of the time frame resulting in apparent superluminal motion. High resolution interferometric radio images are able to measure such motions which are typically less than one milliarcsecond per year.
Since 1994, we have been using the NRAO Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) at 15 GHz (2 cm) to study this relativistic outflow in a sample of quasars and active galactic nuclei (AGN). Our goal is to understand the nature of the relativistic flow and the origin and propagation of relativistic jets. In particular, we want to know how blazars differ from other quasars and active galactic nuclei. The high resolution radio images often show pronounced bends and twists. We want to know whether or not the flow appears ballistic, that is if individual features have straight trajectories as would occur from a precessing nozzle, or, whether features follow the curvature of the jet characteristic of plasma instabilities. Are there changes in the speed or direction of features as they propagate down the jet? Does the moving pattern actually reflect the bulk flow velocity, or is there a separate pattern velocity, for example reflecting the propagation of shocks along the jet? Is there a characteristic Lorentz factor for different classes of AGN? If not, what is the distribution of Lorentz factors and what determines their value? Blazars typically show pronounced flux density variations on time scales ranging from minutes to years. Do these flux density outbursts reflect the origin of new superluminal components, and how do the time scales of intensity variations relate to apparent velocity?
Our full sample consists of 173 galaxies, quasars, and BL Lac Objects. In order to relate our observations to relativistic beaming models, we wished to define a complete un-biased flux density limited sample. However, as there are no sky surveys at 15 GHz, and AGN are generally flux density variable, there is no simple objective way of obtaining a precisely defined flux density limited sample.
Assuming a constant intrinsic value of the Lorentz factor, $\gamma$, then if the bulk velocity is equal to the pattern velocity, it is easy to calculate the distribution of observed apparent velocity (e.g., Vermeulen & Cohen 1994). However, if there is a distribution of $\gamma$’s, then an analytic solution is more difficult. One of our goals was to compile a sample whose properties can be compared with Monte Carlo simulations of relativistic beaming, so we selected sources on the basis of the parsec scale flux density only, ignoring any contribution from extended (kiloparsec-scale) structure that is not necessarily beamed. Our sample includes all known sources which meet the following criteria.
- Declination $> -20^\circ$
- Galactic latitude $|b| > 2.5^\circ$
- Total 2 cm VLBA flux density $> 1.5$ Jy, ($>2$ Jy if below the celestial equator) at any epoch since 1995.
We refer to this sample as an [*unbiased representative sample*]{}. We have, so far, good multi epoch observations of 96 sources. Observations in progress are expected to increase the number of sources to what will be a complete unbiased sample of about 120 sources. We have constructed the sample by reference to the Kühr 1 Jy catalog (Kühr 1981), the VLA calibrator manual, the JVAS survey, the VLBA Calibrator Survey (Beasley et al. 2002), the 22 GHz VLBI survey of Moellenbrock et al. (1996) the high-frequency peaked samples of Ter[ä]{}sranta et al. (2001) and Dallacasa et al. (2000), and the UMRAO (http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/obs/radiotel/umrao.html) and RATAN (Kovalev et al. 1999) monitoring programs. Although our selection method is somewhat complex, it is based on the directly-measured compact flux density, and does not use a single-epoch spectral index criterion to estimate compact flux density. Also the fact that survey membership is not determined from a single “snapshot” epoch means that we are not excluding potentially interesting sources simply because they happened to be in a low state at the time of the original investigation.
In this paper we present data on the 157 individual features found in the 96 sources in our full sample which have core-jet structure for which we have obtained good multi-epoch data on their motion and which have measured redshifts. We have generally observed each source about once per year, but more often for those sources with rapid changes and less often for those with slow changes. Each image typically has an angular resolution better than 1 milliarcsec, rms noise about 250 $\mu$Jy, and dynamic range better than 1000:1. Images of all of our observations are available at http://www.nrao.edu/2cmsurvey which will soon be supplemented by material describing the motions observed in each source. Throughout this paper we use a cosmology with $H_{0}=65$ km/sec/Mpc, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_{m}=0.3$.
Statistics of Superluminal; Motion
==================================
In spite of decades of studying superluminal source motions, the details of the kinematics have remained elusive. One of the problems is, that contrary to indications of early observations (e.g., Cohen et al. 1977), the radio jets often do not contain simple well defined moving components. Instead, the jets may show a complex brightness distribution with regions of enhanced intensity that may brighten and fade with time. Some features appear to move; others are stationary, or may break up into two or more separate features, and it is often unclear how these moving features are related to the actual underlying relativistic flow.
With these sensitive, high-resolution, high-dynamic range images from the VLBA, we are generally able to define one or more components in each source which have lasted for the duration of our observing program. Figure 1 shows the distribution of apparent linear velocity for the 157 components contained in our full sample that have well-determined motions. This includes 104 quasar components, 31 BL Lac components, and 22 components associated with the nucleus of an active galaxy.
Figure 1 is in marked contrast to early discussions of superluminal motion, which indicated typical values of $\gamma$ in the range 5 to 10 (Cohen et al. 1977, Porcas 1987). We believe that these earlier studies were biased in favor of faster apparent velocities since they were not based on unbiased samples, but rather used velocities which had been reported in the literature and which contained a disproportionate fraction of high velocities, as the slow velocities being “uninteresting” and more difficult to measure, were usually not followed up with further observations nor were they reported in the literature.
Most of the sources in our sample are quasars and their velocity distribution is peaked near low values of [*v/c*]{} between zero and ten, but there is a tail extending out to [*v/c*]{} $\sim$ 34. Features associated with the active nuclei of galaxies all appear to have motions in the range $0 < v/c < 8$, while the BL Lac objects appear more uniformly distributed over the entire range from 0 to 35.
Several of the observed velocities are negative, that is the jet component appears to be approaching rather than receding from the core. However, most of these reported negative velocities are consistent, within the errors, with no significant motion. In other cases, there is evidence of a newly emerging component ejected from the core, and the combination is not resolved by our beam. This causes an apparent shift in the position of the core and a corresponding decrease in the apparent separation of the core and jet component. It is also possible that the true core is not seen, possibly due to absorption, and that both of the components we are observing are part of the moving jet. In a few cases, such as 0454+844, 0735+178, and 1128+385, the apparent decrease in component separation from the core may be due to component motion away from the core along a highly curved jet which bends back toward the line of sight so that the apparent projected separation from the core appears to decrease with time.
We interpret our observations based on relativistic beaming models which assume all sources are relativistic with an intrinsic velocity close to the speed of light described by a Lorentz factor, $\gamma$. In a simple ballistic model, in which all jets have the same Lorentz factor, the effect of Doppler boosting increases the probability of observing sources close to the line of sight. In the case of a flux limited sample, angles close to $1/\gamma$ are commonly observed where $\beta_{\mathrm app}$ $\sim \gamma$ (e.g., Vermeulen & Cohen 1994, Vermeulen 1995). If there is no Doppler boosting, then most sources are expected to lie near the plane of the sky with an apparent velocity near [*c*]{}. The observed velocities do not show the expected concentration near the upper end of the distribution corresponding to the simple single-gamma ballistic model. Ekers & Laing (1990) have commented that light echo models, in particular, which do not invoke any Doppler boosting, are consistent with this kind of observed velocity distribution. Our observed distributions actually peak at lower values than expected from simple light echo models. Moreover, we find a strong correlation between apparent velocity and apparent radio luminosity as expected if the apparent radio luminosity is enhanced by Doppler boosting (Lister et al. 2003a).
Lister and Marscher (1997) have shown that an observed velocity distributions similar to that shown in Figure 1, may be reproduced with a power law distribution of intrinsic Lorentz factors. Our data are consistent with such a distribution having a large excess of small Lorentz factors contained in a volume limited sample (Lister et al. in preparation). Alternatively, the bulk velocity flow which determines the amount of Doppler boosting may be less than the pattern flow which may reflect the propagation of shock fronts rather than the relativistic flow (e.g., Vermeulen $\&$ Cohen 1994). The interpretation of jet kinematics is further complicated if there is a distribution of velocities within a single jet. For example, there may be a fast inner jet surrounded by a more slowly moving outer sheath. In such cases the appearance and apparent velocity will be a complex function of the orientation with respect to the line of sight
Kinematics of Curved jets
=========================
Many of the jets we have observed show pronounced curvature sometimes with multiple oscillations characteristic of plasma instabilities. Individual components may follow a wide range of trajectories. In some cases, such as 3C 273 (1226+023), the location of the bend appears to propagate away from the center of activity. In such cases the motion may be described as ballistic, that is components appear to move along a straight trajectory, but one which may not be pointed toward the most compact feature assumed to be the core. In other cases, such as 3C 279 (1253$-$055), the component motion is more complex and appears to flow along a non radial or even curved trajectory (Homan et al. in preparation).
Figure 2 illustrates an example of non radial motion in the jet of the quasar 3C390.3 (1845+797). In this case the two prominent components appear to be moving with similar velocities of $\sim 2.5c$, but along slightly different trajectories of 27 and 30 degrees. Neither are aligned with the direction of the core or with the extended jet feature which points toward the distant hot spot along position angle = 35.
The Ultra Luminous Infra Red Galaxy 1345+125 (4C 12.50) which has a very curved jet along with a weak counterjet, is consistent with a conical helix of wavelength 280 pc that is the result of Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities driven by a slow precession of the jet nozzle with a half-angle of 23 degrees oriented along an angle of 82 degrees to the line of sight (Lister et al. 2003b).
Time Variability and Motions
============================
It is generally assumed that the large rapid changes in flux density which are frequently observed in blazars are the result of Doppler boosting combined with time compression of the relativistic plasma moving nearly along the line of sight. Small changes in the direction of the flow then can lead to large changes in the apparent luminosity and velocity. Provided that the bulk flow velocity and the pattern velocity are the same, we would expect to see a relation between variability time scale and the apparent transverse linear velocity. L[ä]{}hteenm[ä]{}ki $\&$ Valtaoja (1999) have calculated Doppler boosting factors from Mets[ä]{}hovi 1.3 cm and 8 mm variability data assuming an intrinsic brightness temperature of $5\times 10^{10}$K characteristic of a self absorbed synchrotron source where the particle and magnetic energy is in equilibrium.
We have compared our VLBA observations with both the Mets[ä]{}hovi and 2 cm University of Michigan (UMRAO) variability data. The UMRAO data covers a longer time period and is more densely sampled; however events which appear to be well defined at 8 mm and 1.3 cm are often blended at the longer wavelength. Figure 3 shows that the observations essentially all fit inside the $\gamma = 30$ curve, as they should for a flux density limited sample (Lister $\&$ Marsher 1997), but the detailed distribution does not match the expected one. Further, there are a number of highly variable sources sources, such as 3C 454.3, CTA 102, and 2134+00 which show little or no significant motions. Each of these sources has a highly bent or oscillating jet. Possibly, the bright features which we have observed in these sources reflect stationary positions along the jet where the relativistic flow is oriented close to the line of sight thus giving rise to enhanced radiation due to Doppler boosting. There does appear to be a well defined upper limit to the measured apparent velocity which is close to the variability Doppler factor. Calculations of the variability Doppler factor using intrinsic brightness temperatures closer to the inverse Compton limit lead to even larger scatter and the lack of any clear envelope to the distribution. Also, we note that there is a large dispersion between between Doppler factors deduced from the UMRAO 2 cm data and the shorter wavelength Mets[ä]{}hovi data, so the robustness of the Doppler factors calculated in this way appears to be very uncertain. The relation between $\beta_{\mathrm app}$ and $D_{\mathrm var}$ will be discussed in more detail by Cohen et al. (in preparation).
We acknowledge valuable discussions with Hugh and Margo Aller, Yuri Kovalev jr. and Matthias Kadler.
Beasley, A. J., Gordon, D., Peck, A. B., Petrov, L., MacMillan, D. S., Fomalont, E. B., & Ma, C. 2002, , 141, 13
Cohen, M. H. et al. 1977, Nature, 268, 405
Dallacasa, D., Stanghellini, C., Centonza, M., & Fanti, R. 2000, , 363, 887
Ekers, R., & Laing, R. A. 1990, in Parsec Scale Radio Jets, eds. J.A. Zensus and T. Pearson (Cambridge: University Press), 333
Kovalev, Y. Y., Nizhelsky, N. A., Kovalev, Y. A., Berlin, A. B., Zhekanis, G. V., Mingaliev, M. G., & Bogdantsov, A. V. 1999, , 139, 545
Kühr, H., Witzel, A., Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., & Nauber, U. 1981, , 45, 367
L[ä]{}hteenm[ä]{}ki, A. & Valtaoja, E. 1999, , 521, 493
Lister, M. Ł, 2003a in [*Active Galactic Nuclei: from Central Engine to Host Galaxy*]{}, eds.: S. Colin, F. Combes, & Shlosman, to be published in ASP Conference Series.
Lister, M., L. 2003b, , in press
Lister, M. L. & Marscher, A. P. 1997, , 476, 572
Moellenbrock, G. A. et al. 1996, , 111, 2174
Porcas, R. W. 1987, [*Superluminal Radio Sources*]{}, eds. J. A. Zensus & T. J. Pearson, Cambridge University Press, pg. 12
Ter[" a]{}sranta, H., Urpo, S., Wiren, S., & Valtonen, M. 2001, , 368, 431
Vermeulen, R. C. & Cohen, M. H. 1994, , 430, 467
Vermeulen, R. C. 1995, PNAS, 92, 11385
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper the multipole moments of stationary asymptotically flat spacetimes are considered. We show how the tensorial recursion of Geroch and Hansen can be replaced by a scalar recursion on $\mathbb{R}^2$. We also give a bound on the multipole moments. This gives a proof of the “necessary part” of a long standing conjecture due to Geroch.'
author:
- 'Thomas Bäckdahl${}^*$, Magnus Herberthson[^1]'
title: 'Calculation of, and bounds for, the multipole moments of stationary spacetimes'
---
Introduction
============
The relativistic multipole moments of asymptotically flat spacetimes have been defined by Geroch [@geroch] for static spacetimes and then generalised to the stationary case by Hansen [@hansen]. Together with Beig’s [@beigAPA] generalised definition of centre of mass this gives a coordinate independent description of all asymptotically flat stationary spacetimes.
However, the tensorial recursion which defines the multipole moments , is computationally rather complicated as it stands. In the axisymmetric (static or stationary) case, on the other hand, it was shown, [@backdahl1], [@backdahl2] that the recursion can be replaced by a scalar recursion on $\mathbb{R}$, and that all the moments can be collected into one complex valued function $y$ on $\mathbb{R}$, where the moments are given by the the derivatives if $y$ at $0$.
In the general case, the multipole of order $2^n$ has $2n+1$ degrees of freedom, as compared to one degree of freedom in the axisymmetric case. Therefore, apart from the technical problems, it is not obvious what form a generalisation to the general case should take. In this paper, we show that also in the general stationary case, the recursion can be simplified to a scalar recursion, this time on $\mathbb{R}^2$. This is shown using normal coordinates, complex null geodesics, and exploiting the extra conformal freedom of the conformal compactification.
Using this simplification we can partially confirm an extension of a long standing conjecture by Geroch [@geroch]:
> Given any set of multipole moments, subject to the appropriate convergence condition, there exists a static solution of Einstein’s equations having precisely those moments.
This conjecture has its natural extension to the stationary case.
In this paper we will state the appropriate convergence condition in the general stationary case, i.e., we will prove that this condition is necessary for existence of a stationary solution to Einstein’s equations.
Multipole moments of stationary spacetimes {#tmoments}
==========================================
In this section we quote the definition of multipole moments given by Hansen in [@hansen], which is an extension to stationary spacetimes of the definition by Geroch [@geroch]. We thus consider a stationary spacetime $(M, g_{ab})$ with timelike Killing vector field $\xi^a$. We let $\lambda=-\xi^a\xi_a$ be the norm, and define the twist $\omega$ through $\nabla_a\omega=\epsilon_{abcd}\xi^b\nabla^c\xi^d$. If $V$ is the 3-manifold of trajectories, the metric $g_{ab}$ (with signature $(-,+,+,+)$) induces the positive definite metric $$h_{ab}=\lambda g_{ab}+\xi_a\xi_b$$ on $V$. It is required that $V$ is asymptotically flat, i.e., there exists a 3-manifold $\hat V$ and a conformal factor $\Omega$ satisfying
- [$\hat V = V \cup \Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is a single point]{}
- [$\hat h_{ab}=\Omega^2 h_{ab}$ is a smooth metric on $\hat V$]{}
- [At $\Lambda$, $\Omega=0, \hat D_a \Omega =0, \hat D_a \hat D_b \Omega = 2 \hat h_{ab}$,]{}
where $\hat D_a$ is the derivative operator associated with $\hat h_{ab}$. On $M$, and/or $V$ one defines the scalar potential $$\phi=\phi_M+i\phi_J, \quad \phi_M=\frac{\lambda^2+\omega^2-1}{4\lambda}, \,\phi_J=\frac{\omega}{2\lambda}.$$ The multipole moments of $M$ are then defined on $\hat V$ as certain derivatives of the scalar potential $\hat \phi=\phi/\sqrt \Omega$ at $\Lambda$. More explicitly, following [@hansen], let $\hat R_{ab}$ denote the Ricci tensor of $\hat V$, and let $P=\hat \phi$. Define the sequence $P, P_{a_1}, P_{a_1a_2}, \ldots$ of tensors recursively: $$\label{orgrec} P_{a_1 \ldots a_n}=C[
\hat D_{a_1}P_{a_2 \ldots a_n}-
\tfrac{(n-1)(2n-3)}{2}\hat R_{a_1 a_2}P_{a_3 \ldots a_n}],$$ where $C[\ \cdot \ ]$ stands for taking the totally symmetric and trace-free part. The multipole moments of $M$ are then defined as the tensors $P_{a_1 \ldots a_n}$ at $\Lambda$. The requirement that all $P_{a_1 \ldots a_n}$ be totally symmetric and trace-free makes the actual calculations very cumbersome.
In [@beigPRSL], [@kundu] it was shown that (when the mass is non-zero) there exist a conformal factor $\Omega$ and a chart, such that all components of the metric $\hat h_{ab}$ and the potential $\hat \phi$ are analytic in terms of the coordinates, in a neighbourhood of the infinity-point. Expressed in these coordinates, the exponential map becomes analytic. Therefore, we can use Riemannian normal coordinates and still have analyticity of the metric components and the potential. If the mass is zero, this analyticity condition will be assumed. Thus, henceforth we assume that $\Omega$ is chosen such that the (rescaled) metric and potential are analytic in a neighbourhood of $\Lambda$.
Multipole moments through a scalar recursion on $\mathbb{R}^2$ {#momentsscalar}
==============================================================
Suppose that $(x^1, x^2, x^3)=(x, y, z)$ are normal coordinates (with respect to $\hat h_{ab}$) centred around $\Lambda$. This means that for any constants $a=a^1, b=a^2 , c=a^3$ the curve $t \to (a t,b t,c t)$ is a geodesic, i.e. in terms of coordinates that $$\ddot x^i+\Gamma^i_{kl}\dot x^k \dot x^l=\Gamma^i_{kl}a^k a^l=0$$ where the Christoffel symbols are evaluated at $(a t,b t,c t)$ for appropriate $t$. Due to analyticity, this relation holds for complex values of $a,b,c$, i.e., we can consider geodesics in the complexification $\hat V_\mathbb{C}$ of $\hat V$. Of particular interest is the one-parameter family of curves: $$\gamma_\varphi: t \to (t \cos\varphi,t \sin \varphi, i t),
\qquad t \in [0,t_0), \varphi\in [0,2\pi)$$ for some suitable $t_0$. The tangent vector $\eta^a=\eta^a_\varphi(t)=
\cos\varphi (\frac{\partial}{\partial x^1})^a+\sin\varphi (\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2})^a+i (\frac{\partial}{\partial x^3})^a$ is seen to be a complex null vector along $\gamma_\varphi$. Namely, from $\eta^a \hat D_a \eta^b=0$, we infer that $\eta^a \hat D_a (\eta^b \eta_b)=0$. The (constant) value of $\eta^b \eta_b$ is then found to be $0$ by evaluation at $t=0$.
Next, consider the mapping $F: \mathbb{R}^2 \to V_\mathbb{C}:
(\xi,\zeta) \to (\xi,\zeta,i \sqrt{\xi^2+\zeta^2})$. We let $S$ denote the 2-surface $F(U) \subset \hat V_\mathbb{C}$, where $U \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ is a suitable neighbourhood of $(\xi,\zeta)=(0,0)$. $S$ is then a smooth surface, except at $\Lambda$ where it has a vertex point, closely resembling a null cone in a three dimensional Lorentzian space. The curves $\gamma_\varphi$ are given by $\gamma_\varphi(t)=F(t\cos\varphi,t\sin\varphi)$, and in particular $\eta^a$ lies along $S$. This suggests that we use the polar coordinates $\rho,\varphi$ around $\Lambda$ on $S$ defined via $\xi=\rho\cos\varphi$, $\zeta=\rho\sin\varphi$. We now follow the approach from [@backdahl2], where a useful vector field $\eta^a$ on $\hat V$ was introduced. In [@backdahl2], where the spacetime was axisymmetric, $\eta^a$ was explicitly expressed in terms of the metric cast in the Weyl-Papapetrou form [@wald], and was defined on the whole of $\hat V$ except on the symmetry axis. In this paper the axisymmetry condition is dropped, which makes the construction of a corresponding $\eta^a$ more difficult. In addition, a general spacetime has $2n+1$ degrees of freedom for the multipole moment of order $2^n$, compared to one degree of freedom in the axisymmetric case [@herb]. Nevertheless, it will turn out to be sufficient to know the potential $\hat \phi$ on $S$ to determine all the moments. On $S$, $\eta^a$ has the following properties.
\[etalemma\] Suppose $\hat V$ and $S$ are defined as above. Then there exists a regularly direction dependent (at $\Lambda$) vector field $\eta^a$ on $S$ with the following properties:\
a) $\eta^a \hat D_a \eta^b$ is parallel to $\eta^b$.\
b) For all tensors $T_{a_1 \ldots a_n}$, $\eta^{a_1} \ldots
\eta^{a_n}T_{a_1 \ldots a_n}=\eta^{a_1} \ldots \eta^{a_n}C[T_{a_1
\ldots a_n}]$,\
c) At $\Lambda$, $P_{a_1 \ldots a_n}$ (in $\hat V$) is determined by $\eta^{a_1} \ldots \eta^{a_n}P_{a_1 \ldots a_n}$ (on $S$)
a\) was demonstrated above, b) follows as in [@backdahl2], while c) requires a different argument. A totally symmetric and trace-free tensor $P_{a_1\dots a_n}$ has $2n+1$ degrees of freedom, and in Cartesian coordinates $(x,y,z)$ it can be expressed via the components $P\underbrace{{}_{x \ldots\ldots x}}_{j}\underbrace{{}_{y ..\ldots\ldots y}}_{n-j-1}{}_z$ and $P\underbrace{{}_{x\ldots\ldots x}}_{j}\underbrace{{}_{y\ldots\ldots y}}_{n-j}$. [^2] Therefore, at $\Lambda$, we can write $$\label{reconstrtensor}
\begin{split}
P_{a_1\dots a_n}=
\sum_{j=0}^n{a_{j}C[(dx)_{a_1}\dots(dx)_{a_j}(dy)_{a_{j+1}}\dots(dy)_{a_{n}}]}\\
+\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}{b_{j}C[(dx)_{a_1}\dots(dx)_{a_j}(dy)_{a_{j+1}}\dots(dy)_{a_{n-1}}(dz)_{a_{n}}]}
\end{split}$$ Contracting with $\eta^{a_1}\dots\eta^{a_n}$, and using lemma \[etalemma\]b we find that $$\label{trigpol}
\eta^{a_1}\dots\eta^{a_n}P_{a_1\dots a_n}=\sum_{j=0}^n{a_{j}\cos^j\varphi\sin^{n-j}\varphi}
+i\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}{b_{j}\cos^j\varphi\sin^{n-1-j}\varphi}$$ If the left hand side is zero, the trigonometric polynomial to the right must be identically zero. This means that all the coefficients $a_n$ and $b_n$ are zero, and by that $P_{a_1\dots a_n}$ is zero. In particular the $2n+1$ components in the RHS of are linearly independent. This proves c).
Note that although the moments are encoded in the coefficients $a_n$ and $b_n$, this encoding is dependent on the choice of normal coordinates, i.e., the orientation of the coordinate axes in $T_\Lambda \hat V_\mathbb C$.
We can now replace the recursion on $\hat V$ with a scalar recursion on $S$. Again, we follow [@backdahl2], and define $$\label{fn}
f_n=\eta^{a_1}\eta^{a_2}\dots\eta^{a_n}P_{a_1a_2\dots a_n}, \ n=0,1,2,\ \ldots$$ on $S$. In particular, $f_0=P=\hat\phi=\phi/\sqrt{\Omega}$. The moments $P_{a_1a_2\dots a_n}(\Lambda)$ will now be encoded in the trigonometric polynomial given by the direction dependent limit $\lim_{\rho \to 0}f_n(\rho,\phi)$, which takes the form in . See also lemma \[Slemma\]. Note that although $P_{a_1a_2\dots a_n}$ is analytic on $\hat V$, $f_n$ will not be analytic in terms of $\xi,\eta$ since $\eta^a$ is direction dependent at $\Lambda \in S$. In general we have the following lemmas:
\[Slemma1\] Suppose that $f$ is an analytic function, on a ball of radius $r_0$ around $\Lambda$ on $\hat V$. Then the restriction of $f$ to $S$, $f_L$, can be decomposed as $f_L(\xi,\zeta)=f_1(\xi,\zeta)+i\rho
f_2(\xi,\zeta)$, where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are analytic in terms of $\xi$ and $\zeta$ on the disk $\xi^2+\zeta^2<\frac{r_0^2}{2}$, and where $\rho=\sqrt{\xi^2+\zeta^2}$. Furthermore, if $f$ is real-valued then $f_1$ and $f_2$ are real-valued.
We start by splitting $f=f(x,y,z)$ into its even, $f_e$, and odd, $f_o$, part with respect to $z$. We can now rewrite $f_e(x,y,z)=\tilde f_e(x,y,z^2)$ and $f_o(x,y,z)=z \tilde f_o(x,y,z^2)$, where both $\tilde f_e$ and $\tilde f_o$ are analytic in their arguments (at least near $(0,0,0)$). The restriction of $\tilde f_e$ to $S$ gives $f_1$: $f_1(\xi,\zeta)=\tilde f_e(\xi,\zeta,-(\xi^2+\zeta^2))$, while the restriction of $\tilde f_o$ gives $f_2$: $f_2(\xi,\zeta)=\tilde f_o(\xi,\zeta,-(\xi^2+\zeta^2))$. Adding these, and also noting that $z \to i \rho$ gives the required decomposition. On $S$ we have $|z|^2=\xi^2+\zeta^2$, hence $\xi^2+\zeta^2< \frac{r_0^2}{2}$ implies $x^2+y^2+z^2 < r_0^2$. This gives the domain of analyticity. The reality follows from the construction.
Remark: In $f_L$, the subscript $L$ stands for the ’leading term’.
Although tensor fields on $\hat V$ can be pulled back to $S \setminus \{\Lambda\}$, we will only need their contractions with the appropriate number of $\eta^a$ vectors. This contraction will introduce a direction dependence which shows up in the following lemma.
\[Slemma\] Suppose $T_{a\ldots b}$ is an analytic tensor field on a ball of radius $r_0$ around $\Lambda$ on $\hat V$. Then the scalar field $f_L=\eta^a \ldots \eta^b T_{a\ldots b}$ on $S$ can be written as $f_L(\xi,\zeta)=
\frac{1}{\rho^n}(f_1(\xi,\zeta)+i\rho f_2(\xi,\zeta))$, where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are analytic (on the disk with radius $\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{2}}$ around the origin) in terms of $\xi$ and $\zeta$, and where $\rho=\sqrt{\xi^2+\zeta^2}$. Furthermore, if $T_{a\ldots b}$ is real-valued then $f_1$ and $f_2$ are real-valued.
Consider the scalar field $g=x^a \ldots x^b T_{a\ldots b}$ on $\hat V$, where $$x^a=x\left ( \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right )^a+y\left ( \frac{\partial}{\partial y}\right )^a+z\left ( \frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right )^a .$$ This scalar field is analytic on the same ball as $T_{a\ldots b}$. Hence we can use lemma \[Slemma1\] to obtain analytic functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ such that $g_L=f_1+i\rho f_2$. The reality also follows from lemma \[Slemma1\]. Furthermore, $x^a=\rho\eta^a$ on $S$. Thus $g_L=\rho^n f_L$. But $f_L$ is bounded near the origin, thus we can divide $g_L$ by $\rho^n$ and get the lemma.
We remark that the boundedness of $f_L(\xi,\zeta)=
\frac{1}{\rho^n}(f_1(\xi,\zeta)+i\rho f_2(\xi,\zeta))$ when $\rho \to 0$ implies that both $f_1$ and $f_2$ have zeros of sufficient order at $(\xi,\zeta)=(0,0)$. It also implies that $f_L$ will be direction dependent there.
We can now contract with $\eta^a$ and get the following theorem.
\[scalrarrec2d\] Let $\hat V$ and $S$ be defined as in sections (\[tmoments\]) and (\[momentsscalar\]). Let $\eta^a$ have the properties given by lemma \[etalemma\], and let $f_n$ be defined by .Then the recursion on $\hat V$ takes the form $$\label{scalarrec}
f_n=\eta^a\hat D_af_{n-1}
-\tfrac{(n-1)(2n-3)}{2}\eta^a\eta^b\widehat R_{ab}f_{n-2}$$ on $S$. The moments of order $2^n$ are captured in the direction dependent limit $\lim_{\rho \to 0} f_n(\rho,\varphi)$.
That takes the form follows exactly as in [@backdahl2] using that $\eta^a\hat D_a \eta^b=0$, although the recursion is defined only on $S$ rather than on $\hat V$. The last statement is the content of lemma \[etalemma\]c.
Simplified calculation of the moments
-------------------------------------
In this section, we will show that it is possible to obtain the recursion without the term involving the Ricci tensor. This will be accomplished by using the conformal freedom at hand, i.e. change $\Omega$. The conformal freedom is $\Omega \to
\tilde\Omega=\tfrac{\Omega}{\alpha}$ where $\alpha$ is analytic near $\Lambda$ with $\alpha(\Lambda)=1$[^3]. $\hat D_a (\tfrac{1}{\alpha})$ at $\Lambda$ gives a shift of the moments which corresponds to a ’translation’ of the physical space, [@geroch]. Hence we can assume that $\hat D_a (\tfrac{1}{\gamma})=0$ at $\Lambda$. It is to be noted that a change of $\Omega$ changes the (rescaled) potential $\phi/\sqrt{\Omega}$. It also changes the normal coordinates on $\hat V$, and hence all conclusions must be made with some care. In order to derive the simplified recursion , we will specify a $\alpha$ through $\alpha_L$, the restriction of $\alpha$ to $S$. However, in order to deduce that there exists a [*real-valued*]{} function $\alpha$ which the prescribed values of $\alpha_L$, we need to say more on the representation of $\alpha_L$. This result and a useful estimate is the content of lemma \[serieslemma\].
\[serieslemma\] Let $f_L=f_1(\xi,\zeta)+i\rho f_2(\xi,\zeta)$ where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are analytic on the ball $U=\{ |\xi|^2+|\zeta|^2<r_0^2 \}$, and where $\rho=\sqrt{\xi^2+\zeta^2}$. We can then write $$\label{fcomplex}
f_L(\rho\cos\varphi,\rho\sin\varphi)=
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l c_{l,m} e^{i m \varphi}\rho^l ,$$ where $$\label{complexconv}
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l |c_{l,m}| \rho^l < \infty \; , \; \rho < r_0 .$$ Furthermore, the converse is true; if $f_L$ is a function satisfying and then there are functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ analytic in $U$ such that $f_L=f_1+i\rho f_2$. The functions $f_1$ and $f_2$ are real-valued if and only if the coefficients $c_{l,m}$ satisfy $\bar c_{l,m}=(-1)^{l-m}c_{l,-m}$.
Form the functions $f_1(\frac{x+y}2,\frac{x-y}{2i})$ and $f_2(\frac{x+y}2,\frac{x-y}{2i})$.[^4] These functions are analytic in terms of $x$ and $y$. Therefore there exist coefficients $c_{l,m}$ such that $$\label{f1f2}
f_j(\frac{x+y}2,\frac{x-y}{2i})=\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^l i^{1-j} c_{l+j-1,2k-l}x^ky^{l-k} ,$$ where $j=1$ or $2$, and $$\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^l |c_{l+j-1,2k-l}||x|^k|y|^l < \infty \; , \; |\tfrac{x+y}2|^2+|\tfrac{x-y}{2i}|^2
=\tfrac{1}{2}(|x|^2+|y|^2) < r_0^2 .$$ Now let $x=\rho e^{-i\varphi}$ and $y=\rho e^{i\varphi}$. For all $\rho^2=\tfrac{1}{2}(|x|^2+|y|^2) < r_0^2$ this shows that $$\label{flc}
f_L(\rho\cos\varphi,\rho\sin\varphi)=
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^l c_{l,2k-l} e^{i (2k-l) \varphi}\rho^l +
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^l c_{l+1,2k-l} e^{i (2k-l) \varphi}\rho^{l+1} .$$ The reality condition follows easily from and . A reorganisation gives the first part of the lemma. The converse is given by the substitution $x=\xi+i\zeta$ and $y=\xi-i\zeta$ in . The series converges absolutely for $|\xi|^2+|\zeta|^2=\rho^2 < r_0^2$.
We now show that we can choose $\alpha$ such that the Ricci term in vanishes.
\[nnRnoll\] There exists a real-valued real analytic function $\alpha$ on $\hat V$ such that the Ricci tensor $\tilde R_{ab}$ of the new metric $\tilde h_{ab}=\alpha^{-2}\hat h_{ab}$ satisfies $\tilde \eta^a \tilde \eta^b \tilde R_{ab}=0$ on $\tilde S$, where both $\tilde \eta^a$, $\tilde S$ and the mapping $F$ are defined in terms of coordinates which are normal with respect to the new metric $\tilde h_{ab}$.
We first demonstrate that we can make $\eta^a \eta^b \tilde R_{ab}=0$ on $S$. From [@wald] $$\tilde R_{ab}=\hat R_{ab}+\tfrac{1}{\alpha}\hat D_a \hat D_b \alpha+
\alpha^{-1}\hat h_{ab}\hat h^{cd}\hat D_c \hat D_d\alpha-
2\alpha^{-2}\hat h_{ab}\hat h^{cd}(\hat D_c \alpha) \hat D_d \alpha .$$ On $S$, (using $\eta^a$ and $S$ belonging to $\hat h_{ab}$), this becomes $$\label{rkappa}
\eta^a \eta^b \tilde R_{ab}=
\eta^a\eta^b\hat R_{ab}+\tfrac{1}{\alpha_L}\eta^a\eta^b\hat D_a \hat D_b \alpha_L=
\eta^a\eta^b\hat R_{ab}+\tfrac{1}{\alpha_L}\tfrac{\partial^2 \alpha_L}{\partial\rho^2}$$ where we have used $\eta^a \hat D_a \eta^b=0$. In order to make $\eta^a \eta^b \tilde R_{ab}=0$, we require $$\label{omegaeq}
\alpha_{L \rho\rho}+\eta^a\eta^b\hat R_{ab}\alpha_L=0 .$$ Note that, on $\hat V$, $\hat R_{ab}$ satisfies the conditions of lemma \[Slemma\], therefore from lemma \[Slemma\] and lemma \[serieslemma\] it follows that $$\label{rserie}
\eta^a\eta^b\hat R_{ab}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty b_{n+2}(e^{i\varphi},e^{-i\varphi})\rho^n ,$$ where each $b_n$ is a polynomial of degree at most $n$. It is easy to see that the reality condition from lemma \[serieslemma\] is equivalent to $\overline{b_{n}(e^{i\varphi},e^{-i\varphi})}=(-1)^n b_n(-e^{i\varphi},-e^{-i\varphi})$. Hence the reality of $\hat R_{ab}$ implies this condition. Moreover, since $\hat R_{ab}$ is analytic in a neighbourhood of $\Lambda$, there exists a $\rho_0$ such that for any fixed $\varphi$, the series converges for all $\rho < \rho_0$. Well known ODE theory gives that for each fixed $\varphi$ there exists a solution $\alpha_L$, analytic in $\rho$ for $0 \leq \rho<\rho_0$, i.e., for all $\varphi$ we have $$\alpha_L=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n(\varphi)\rho^n , \quad \rho < \rho_0 .$$ We note that $a_0=1$ while $a_1$ can be chosen to be 0 (translation). $\alpha_L$ will have the right regularity if we can show that each $a_n(\varphi)$ is a polynomial in $e^{i\varphi}$ and $e^{-i\varphi}$ of degree at most $n$. Equation becomes $$-\sum_{n=0}^\infty n(n-1) a_n\rho^{n-2}=
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{j=0}^\infty b_{n+2} a_j\rho^{n+j}.$$ Equating powers of $\rho$ we get $$\label{reckappa}
-(n+2)(n+1)a_{n+2}=\sum_{m=0}^n b_{m+2} a_{n-m},\quad n \geq 0 .$$ The polynomials $a_0$ and $a_1$ has maximal degree $0$ respective $1$. The polynomials $b_n$ has maximal degree $n$. Straightforward induction shows that $a_n$ has maximal degree $n$. Induction and also implies $\overline{a_n(e^{i\varphi},e^{-i\varphi})}=(-1)^n a_n(-e^{i\varphi},-e^{-i\varphi})$. Thus, due to lemma \[serieslemma\], there are real-valued analytic functions $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ such that $\alpha_L=\alpha_1+i\rho \alpha_2$. The function $\alpha=\alpha_1(x,y)+z\alpha_2(x,y)$ is then a real-valued analytic extension of $\alpha_L$ to a ball in $\hat V$. This shows that there exist an $\alpha$ such that $\eta^a \eta^b \tilde R_{ab}=0$ on $S$.
However, it then also follows that $\tilde \eta^a \tilde \eta^b \tilde R_{ab}=0$ on $\tilde S$. From $\alpha$ we get $\tilde \Omega=\Omega/\alpha$, and the corresponding new metric $\tilde h_{ab}=\alpha^{-2}\hat h_{ab}$. Note that in , where now $\eta^a\eta^b\widehat R_{ab}=0$, the recursion is stated in terms of $\hat D_a$, i.e., it is expressed in terms of $\hat h_{ab}$ instead of $\tilde h_{ab}$. From $\tilde h_{ab}$ we get new normal coordinates, i.e., $(x,y,z)$ in $T_\Lambda \hat V_\mathbb C$, are mapped into $\hat V_\mathbb C$ using the exponential map belonging to $\tilde h_{ab}$. We then construct $\tilde \eta^a$ and the mapping $F$ with respect to these coordinates. Now, null geodesics, of which $S$ consists, are conformally invariant, although they become non-affinely parametrised. This means that $\tilde \eta^a \propto \eta^a$, and that points in $S$ are mapped into points in $\tilde S$. Thus $\tilde \eta^a \tilde \eta^b\tilde R_{ab} \propto \eta^a \eta^b\tilde R_{ab}=0$ on $\tilde S$ (or $S$).
Henceforth we denote all entities defined via $\tilde h_{ab}$ instead of $\hat h_{ab}$ with a tilde. In particular, $\tilde D_a$ will denote the derivative operator associated with $\tilde h_{ab}$. Applying lemma \[nnRnoll\] to theorem \[scalrarrec2d\] we immediately get the following theorem.
\[scalrarreducedrec2d\] Let $\hat V$ and $\tilde S$ be defined as in sections and , where $\tilde S$ is defined in terms of normal coordinates connected to $\tilde h_{ab}$. Let $\tilde \eta^a$ have the properties given by lemma \[etalemma\] with respect to $\tilde h_{ab}$, and let $\tilde f_n$ be defined by with $\tilde \eta^a$ replacing $\eta^a$. Then the recursion on $\tilde V$ takes the form $$\label{scalarreducedrec}
\tilde f_n=\tilde \eta^a\tilde D_a\tilde f_{n-1}=(\tilde \eta^a \tilde D_a)^n \tilde f_0
=\frac{\partial^n}{\partial \tilde \rho^n}\tilde f_0$$ on $\tilde S$. The moments of order $2^n$ are captured in the direction dependent limit $\lim_{\tilde \rho \to 0} \tilde f_n(\tilde \rho,\varphi)$.
Since $\tilde \eta^a \tilde D_a$ is $\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde \rho}$, each $\tilde f_n$ is easily derived from $\tilde f_0$. Also, from lemma \[etalemma\]c), we (again) know that the $2n+1$ degrees of freedom of $P_{a_1 \ldots a_n}$ at $\Lambda$ are encoded in $\tilde f_n$.
Bounds on the moments
=====================
All multipole moments are encoded in $\tilde f_0$, and we note that the recursion is identical to the recursion emanating from a scalar function in $\mathbb{R}^3$ (after inversion). It is clear that many different functions on $\mathbb{R}^3$ will produce the same moments, but if we also require that the function, $g$ say, is harmonic, $g$ is uniquely determined by the moments.
Thus, provided that we can connect a function which is harmonic in a neighbourhood of ${\mathbf 0} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ to each $\tilde f_0$, we have the following theorem:
\[bounds\] Suppose that $(M,g_{ab})$ is a stationary asymptotically flat spacetime, admitting an analytic (rescaled) potential and an analytic chart[^5] on the conformally compactified manifold of timelike Killing trajectories, around the infinity point $\Lambda$. Then there exist a (flat-)harmonic function $g$ in a neighbourhood of ${\mathbf 0}\in T_{\Lambda}\hat V \cong \mathbb{R}^3$, such that all multipole moments of $M$ are given by $$\label{harmrec}
P_{a_1\dots a_n}(\Lambda)=(\nabla_{a_1} \dots \nabla _{a_n} g)(0) ,$$ where $\nabla_a$ in the LHS of is the flat derivative operator in $\mathbb{R}^3$. This puts a bound on the multipole moments, since the Taylor expansion $\sum_{|\alpha|\geq 0}\frac{\mathbf{r}^\alpha}{\alpha!}(\partial_\alpha g)(\mathbf 0)$ of $g$ converges in a neighbourhood of the origin in $\mathbb{R}^3$.
By lemma \[serieslemma\] we have $$\tilde f_L(\rho\cos\varphi,\rho\sin\varphi)=
\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l c_{l,m} e^{i m \varphi}\rho^l, \quad \rho < r_0$$ for some $r_0>0$, and we know that $\tilde f_L$ fully determines the moments of $M$. We will now define the function $g$, which will be shown to be harmonic in a neighbourhood of the origin. Finally we will argue that $g$ has the correct derivatives at $\mathbf 0$, i.e., that the equality is valid (for all $n \geq 0$). First we define the coefficients $$a_{l,m}=c_{l,m}i^{-m-l} 2^{1-l}\pi \frac{\sqrt{(l+m)!(l-m)!}}{\Gamma(l+\tfrac{1}2)\sqrt{2l+1}} .$$ and the function $$g(r,\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l a_{l,m} Y^m_l(\theta,\varphi) r^l .$$ Due to the construction, $g$ is harmonic at those (interior) points for which the sum converges. We now establish convergence. From the identity $$\sum_{m=-l}^l |Y_l^m(\theta,\varphi) |^2=\frac{2l+1}{4\pi}$$ we get $$\begin{gathered}
\left | \sum_{m=-l}^l a_{l,m}Y^m_l \right | \leq
\sum_{m=-l}^l \left | a_{l,m}Y^m_l \right | \leq
\left ( \sum_{m=-l}^l | a_{l,m}|^2 \right )^{\frac{1}{2}}
\left ( \sum_{m=-l}^l |Y_l^m |^2 \right )^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
=\left ( \sum_{m=-l}^l | \sqrt{\tfrac{2l+1}{4\pi}} a_{l,m}|^2 \right )^{\frac{1}{2}}
=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2^l\Gamma(l+\tfrac{1}2)} \left (
\sum_{m=-l}^l \left | c_{l,m} \sqrt{(l+m)!(l-m)!}\right |^2 \right )^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{gathered}$$ Furthermore, the inequality $(l+m)!(l-m!)\leq (2l)!$, when $-l\leq m\leq l$ follows from the convexity of $\ln(\Gamma(x))$. Therefore $$\left | \sum_{m=-l}^l a_{l,m}Y^m_l \right |
\leq \frac{\sqrt{\pi}\sqrt{(2l)!}}{2^l\Gamma(l+\tfrac{1}2)}
\left ( \sum_{m=-l}^l | c_{l,m} |^2 \right )^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ Next, the inequality $\frac{\pi (2l)!}{4^{l}\Gamma\left(l+\tfrac{1}2\right)^2}
=\frac{(2l)!!}{(2l-1)!!}=(2l+1)\frac{(2l)!!}{(2l+1)!!}\leq 2l+1$ gives $$\left | \sum_{m=-l}^l a_{l,m}Y^m_l \right |
\leq \sqrt{2l+1}\left ( \sum_{m=-l}^l | c_{l,m} |^2 \right )^{\frac{1}{2}}
\leq \sqrt{2l+1}\sum_{m=-l}^l | c_{l,m} |$$ But for all $\epsilon>0$ we have $\sqrt{2l+1}(1+\epsilon)^{-l} \rightarrow 0$ as $l\rightarrow \infty$. So the factor $\sqrt{2l+1}$ will not affect the radius of convergence.
Hence $$\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l a_{l,m}Y^m_l r^l \; \text{ converges if } r< r_0 .$$ This shows that $g$ is well defined in a neighbourhood of $\mathbf 0$ in $T_\Lambda \hat V$, and we must now show that we have equality in . We will do this by forming $g_L$ and then compare with $\tilde f_L$. Note, however, that $\tilde f_L$ is defined on $\tilde S \subset V_\mathbb{C}$, while $g_L$ will be defined on the corresponding surface $\bar S=S_{\tilde h_{ab}(\Lambda)}$ in $T_\Lambda \hat V_\mathbb{C}$. (By $\bar S$ we denote the surface defined by $F$ as previously, but where $F$ now maps $(\xi,\zeta)$ into $T_\Lambda \hat V_\mathbb{C}$ via the flat metric $\tilde h_{ab}(\Lambda)$.) This means that $f_L$ and $g_L$ really can be compared only at $\Lambda$ (i.e. $\mathbf 0 \in T_\Lambda \hat V$), where also the equality is evaluated. On the other hand, the radial derivatives of both entities are well defined and comparable at $\Lambda$. In other words, if both $\tilde f_L$ and $g_L$ are equal when expressed in terms of the coordinates $\xi, \zeta$, they will produce the same derivatives/moments. To summarise; in the case of $g$, the function $F$ and the vector $\eta^a$ are simply interpreted in $T_{\Lambda} \hat V_\mathbb{C}$ rather than in $V_\mathbb{C}$.
To proceed, we recall that $$Y^m_l(\theta,\varphi)=i^{m-|m|}\sqrt{\frac{(2l+1)(l-|m|)!}{4\pi(l+|m|)!}}P^{|m|}_l(\cos\theta)e^{im\varphi}$$ for $-l\leq m\leq l$, and that $$P^m_l(\cos\theta)=(-1)^m2^{-l} \sin^m\theta \sum_{k=0}^{\bigl \lfloor \tfrac{l-m}{2} \bigr \rfloor}
\frac{(-1)^k (2l-2k)!}{k!(l-k)!(l-2k-m)!}\cos^{l-m-2k}\theta$$ where $0\leq \theta \leq \pi$ and $m\geq 0$. Therefore, $$g(r,\theta,\varphi)=\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l \sum_{k=0}^{\bigl \lfloor \tfrac{l-|m|}{2} \bigr \rfloor}
\frac{ c_{l,m}\sqrt{\pi}(l-|m|)!(2l-2k)! e^{i m \varphi}\rho^{|m|} z^{l-|m|-2k} r^{2k}}
{i^{l-|m|}(-1)^k 4^lk!(l-k)!(l-|m|-2k)!\Gamma(l+\tfrac{1}2)} ,$$ where $z=r\cos\theta$, $\rho=r\sin\theta$. When we take the restriction of $g$ to $\bar S$, i.e., form $g_L$, only the terms with $k=0$ survives since $r_L=0$. Thus $$g_L(\rho\cos\theta,\rho\sin\theta)
=\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l
\frac{ c_{l,m}\sqrt{\pi}(2l)! e^{i m \varphi}\rho^l}
{4^l l!\Gamma(l+\tfrac{1}2)}
=\sum_{l=0}^\infty\sum_{m=-l}^l c_{l,m}e^{i m \varphi}\rho^l=\tilde f_L,$$ which means that we have equality in .
Discussion
==========
In this paper we have studied the multipole moments of stationary asymptotically flat spacetimes. By using normal coordinates, and by exploiting the conformal freedom, we could show that the tensorial recursion could be replaced by the scalar recursion . This recursion is a direction dependent recursion on $\mathbb{R}^2$, where the moments are encoded in the direction dependent limits at $\Lambda$.
Using this setup, we could also show that the multipole moments cannot grow too fast. In essence, the rescaled potential behaves (locally) in the manner of a harmonic function on $\mathbb{R}^3$. The bounds on the moments given in theorem \[bounds\] gives the necessary part in a conjecture due to Geroch [@geroch], and it is of course tempting to conjecture that this condition on the moments also will be sufficient (as long as the monopole is real-valued).
Whether this can be proved using the techniques presented here is still an open question.
We also remark that similar questions concerning the convergence of asymptotic expansions in the static case are currently being studied by Friedrich, using a different technique, [@friedrich].
[99]{} Beig, R., *The Multipole Expansion in General Relativity*, Acta Physica Austriaca, [**53**]{}, 249 (1981). Beig, R., Simon, W., *On the multipole expansion for stationary spacetimes*, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, [**376**]{}, 333 (1981). Bäckdahl, T., Herberthson, M., *Static axisymmetric spacetimes with prescribed multipole moments*, Class. Quantum Grav. [**22**]{}, 1607 (2005). Bäckdahl, T., Herberthson, M., *Explicit multipole moments of stationary axisymmetric spacetimes*, Class. Quantum Grav. [**22**]{}, 3585 (2005). Friedrich, H., *On the convergence of certain expansions at space-like infinity of asymptotically flat, static vacuum solutions*, <http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/webseminars/pg+ws/2005/gmr/1202/friedrich/> Geroch, R., *Multipole Moments. II. Curved Space*, J. Math. Phys., [**11**]{}, 2580 (1970). Hansen, R.O., *Multipole moments of stationary spacetimes*, J. Math. Phys., [**15**]{}, 46 (1974). Herberthson, M., *The gravitational dipole and explicit multipole moments of static axisymmetric spacetimes*, Class. Quantum Grav. [**21**]{}, 5121 (2004). Kundu, P., *On the analyticity of stationary gravitational fields at spatial infinity*, J. Math. Phys., [**22**]{}, 2006 (1981). Wald, R.M., *General Relativity*, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1984.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden. e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: In brief, any index occurrence of several z’s can be removed via $P_{zz\dots}+P_{xx\dots}+P_{yy\dots}=0$.
[^3]: A more natural condition is the equivalent statement $\Omega \to \tilde\Omega=\Omega \alpha$. However, this formulation gives slightly neater calculations.
[^4]: Although we will always take $\xi$ and $\zeta$ to be real, they are temporarily complexified in this proof.
[^5]: As discussed before, the analyticity has been proved for the case with non-zero mass.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The vertices of any (combinatorial) Kashiwara crystal graph carry a natural monoid structure given by identifying words labelling vertices that appear in the same position of isomorphic components of the crystal. We prove some foundational results for these crystal monoids, including the observation that they have decidable word problem when their weight monoid is a finite rank free abelian group. The problem of constructing finite complete rewriting systems, and biautomatic structures, for crystal monoids is then investigated. In the case of Kashiwara crystals of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$ (corresponding to the $q$-analogues of the Lie algebras of these types) these monoids are precisely the generalised plactic monoids investigated in work of Lecouvey. We construct presentations via finite complete rewriting systems for all of these types using a unified proof strategy that depends on Kashiwara’s crystal bases and analogies of Young tableaux, and on Lecouvey’s presentations for these monoids. As corollaries, we deduce that plactic monoids of these types have finite derivation type and satisfy the homological finiteness properties left and right $\mathrm{FP}_\infty$. These rewriting systems are then applied to show that plactic monoids of these types are biautomatic and thus have word problem soluble in quadratic time.'
address:
- |
Centro de Matemática e Aplicações\
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia\
Universidade Nova de Lisboa\
2829–516 Caparica\
Portugal
- |
School of Mathematics\
University of East Anglia\
Norwich NR4 7TJ\
United Kingdom
- |
Centro de Matemática e Aplicações\
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia\
Universidade Nova de Lisboa\
2829–516 Caparica\
Portugal
- |
Centro de Álgebra da Universidade de Lisboa\
Av. Prof. Gama Pinto 2\
1649–003 Lisboa\
Portugal\
author:
- 'Alan J. Cain'
- 'Robert D. Gray'
- António Malheiro
bibliography:
- '\\jobname\_extracted.bib'
title: 'Crystal monoids & crystal bases: rewriting systems and biautomatic structures for plactic monoids of types An, Bn, Cn, Dn, and G2'
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3] [^4] [^5]
Introduction
============
The Plactic monoid is a fundamental algebraic object which captures a natural monoid structure carried by the set of semistandard Young tableaux. It arose originally in the work of Schensted [@schensted_longest] on algorithms for finding the maximal length of a nondecreasing subsequence of a given word over the ordered alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}_n = \set{1 < 2 < \ldots < n}$. The output of Schensted’s algorithm is a tableau and, by identifying pairs of words that lead to the same tableau, one obtains the Plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$ of rank $n$. Following this, Knuth [@knuth_permutations] found a finite set of defining relations for the Plactic monoid. An in-depth systematic study of the Plactic monoid was then carried out in the work of Schützenberger [@schtzenberger1977] and Lascoux and Schützenberger [@lascoux_plaxique]. Since then, the Plactic monoid and its corresponding semigroup algebra, the Plactic algebra, have found applications in various aspects of representation theory and algebraic combinatorics. Schützenberger [@schutzenberger_pour] argues that the Plactic monoid ought to be considered as one of the fundamental monoids in algebra. He gives several reasons to support this claim, including the fact that the Plactic monoid was used to give the first correct proofs of the Littlewood–Richardson rule for products of Schur functions by Schützenberger himself [@schtzenberger1977] and independently by Thomas [@thomas_baxter; @thomas_schensted]. (For further details on the Littlewood–Richardson rule and the history of attempts to prove it, see [@lothaire_algebraic Section 5.4], [@green_polynomial Appendix], [@vanleeuwen_littlewood § 4], and [@stanley_enumerative2 Chapter 7, Appendix 1].)
Numerous other applications of the Plactic monoid have since been discovered including a combinatorial description of Kostka–Foulkes polynomials [@lascoux_plaxique; @lascoux_foulkes], a noncommutative version of the Demazure character formula, and of the Schubert polynomials [@Lascoux_Schubert; @schutzenberger_Schubert]. The Plactic monoid has motivated a wide range of other interesting work including the discovery of variations on this monoid like the shifted [@serrano_shifted] and hypoplactic monoids [@krob_noncommutative], Littelmann’s generalization to Plactic algebras for semisimple Lie algebras [@littelmann_plactic], the investigation of the Chinese monoid [@cassaigne_chinese], Hilbert series (growth functions) [@duchamp_plactic], the conjugacy problem [@cm_conjugacy], homogeneous monoids and algebras which include monoids attached to set-theoretic solutions to Yang–Baxter equations [@Okninski2014; @Jespers2015; @Cedo2012(2); @DehornoyYBE], semigroup identities [@KubatIdentities], and the theory of quadratic normalization [@DehornoyArxiv]. Some structural results for Plactic algebras were obtained in [@cedo_plactic; @kubat_plactic]. An excellent general introduction to the Plactic monoid is given in the article of Lascoux, Leclerc and Thibon [@lothaire_algebraic Chapter 5].
One of the most exciting connections which has recently emerged are the links between the Plactic monoid and Kashiwara’s crystal basis theory. This subject has its origins in the theory of quantum groups [@hong_quantumgroups]. The notion of the quantised enveloping algebra, or quantum group, $U_q({\mathfrak{g}})$ associated with a symmetrisable Kac–Moody Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ was discovered independently by Drinfeld [@Drinfeld1985] and Jimbo [@Jimbo1985] in 1985 while studying solutions of the quantum Yang–Baxter equations. Kashiwara [@kashiwara_crystalizing; @kashiwara_crystalbases] introduced crystals in order to give a combinatorial description of modules over $U_q({\mathfrak{g}})$ when $q$ tends to zero. Crystals are extremely useful combinatorial tools for studying representations of these algebras. For example, knowing the crystal of a representation allows one to deduce tensor product and branching rules involving that representation. Since its introduction this important theory has been developed and generalised in multiple directions e.g. to quantum affine algebras, superalgebras and quantum queer superalgebras; see [@Kang_walls; @Benkart_super; @Grantcharov_TAMS; @Grantcharov_JEMS]. The connection with the Plactic monoid comes via the study of crystal bases of $U_q({\mathfrak{sl}}_{n})$-modules. These type-$A_n$ crystals have vertex set corresponding to all words over the alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}_n = \set{1 < 2 < \ldots < n}$, directed edges labelled by colours from the set $I = \{1, 2, \ldots, n-1 \}$ which are determined by the Kashiwara operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$, and weights coming from the free abelian group $\mathbb{Z}^n$ given by word content (see [ ]{} for full details of this construction). An isomorphism between two connected components of the crystal is a weight preserving bijection which maps edges to edges preserving colours. If one defines a relation by saying that two words are equivalent if there is an isomorphism between their respective connected components mapping one vertex to the other then it turns out that this relation on ${\mathcal{A}}_n^*$ is equal to the Plactic relation mentioned above. In this way, the Plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$ may be defined in terms of crystals of type $A_n$. There are a number of explicit constructions known for crystals of representations of other quantum algebras. In addition to type $A_n$, explicit descriptions of crystals are known for simple Lie algebras of types $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and the exceptional type $G_2$; see [@hong_quantumgroups; @KangMisra; @kashiwara_crystalgraphs; @Littelmann1995; @lecouvey_survey]. For crystals of each of these types, aspects of theory have been developed. As part of their description of crystals of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$, Kashiwara and Nakashima [@kashiwara_crystalgraphs] develop the correct generalisation of semistandard tableaux for classical types via the notion of admissible column. For all of these types, Lecouvey obtained finite presentations via Knuth-type relations for the corresponding crystal monoids (as defined in [ ]{} below), he also gives Schensted–type insertion algorithms and establishes a Robinson–Schensted type correspondence in all of these cases [@lecouvey_cn; @lecouvey_bndn; @lecouvey_survey]. Bumping and sliding algorithms for $C_n$-tableaux were also independently obtained by Baker [@Baker2000]. Analogous results for infinite rank quantum groups were given by Lecouvey in [@lecouvey_infinite].
In addition to shedding new light on the connection between the Plactic monoid and the representation theory of Lie algebras, this viewpoint also gives rise to a natural family of monoids arising from crystals, generalising the classical Plactic monoid. Following Kashiwara [@KashiwaraBanff] a crystal is an edge-coloured directed graph satisfying a certain simple set of axioms. As we shall see in [ ]{} below, every abstract combinatorial crystal gives rise to a monoid, in the same way that the classical Plactic monoid arises from $A_n$ above. Examples of Crystal monoids (with weights from a free abelian group) include the classical Plactic monoid $Pl(A_n)$, each of the Plactic-type monoids studied by Lecouvey in [@lecouvey_cn; @lecouvey_bndn; @lecouvey_survey], and also other important well-studied monoids such as the bicyclic monoid. In more detail, as mentioned above, in the general abstract definition of combinatorial crystal (see [ ]{} below for a full definition) the vertices correspond to words over a finite alphabet $X$, and weight-preserving isomorphisms between connected components define a congruence $\sim$ on the free monoid $X^*$. The corresponding crystal monoid is then the monoid $X^* / {\sim}$ obtained by factoring the free monoid by this congruence. This connects the theory of Kashiwara crystals directly to combinatorial semigroup theory (the study of semigroups defined by generators and relations), combinatorics on words, and formal language theory. For instance, Lecouvey’s results [@lecouvey_cn; @lecouvey_bndn; @lecouvey_survey] show in particular that for all classical types, these crystal monoids $X^* / {\sim}$ are all finitely presented. Powerful tools exist for studying monoids defined by presentations in this way, including the theories of (Noetherian and confluent) string rewriting systems [@book_srs] and automata theory, specifically the theory of automatic groups and monoids [@epstein_wordproc; @campbell_autsg]. The defining property for automatic groups and monoids is the existence of a rational set of normal forms (with respect to some finite generating set $A$) such that we have, for each generator in $A$, a finite automaton that recognizes pairs of normal forms that differ by multiplication by that generator. It is a consequence of the definition that automatic monoids (and in particular automatic groups) have word problem that is solvable in quadratic time [@campbell_autsg Corollary 3.7]. Automatic groups have attracted a lot of attention over the last 25 years, in part because of the large number of natural and important classes of groups that have this property. The class of automatic groups includes: various small cancellation groups [@gersten_smallcancellation], Artin groups of finite and large type [@holt_artingroups], braid groups, and hyperbolic groups in the sense of Gromov [@gromov_hyperbolic]. In parallel, the theory of automatic monoids has been extended and developed over recent years. Classes of monoids that have been shown to be automatic include divisibility monoids [@picantin_finite], singular Artin monoids of finite type [@corran_singular], and monoids arising from confluence monadic rewriting systems [@otto_srsauto; @c_mrsassm]. Several complexity and decidability results for automatic monoids are obtained in [@lohrey_decidability]. Other aspects of the theory of automatic monoids that have been investigated include connections with the theory of Dehn functions [@otto_dehn] and complete rewriting systems [@otto_automonversus].
In the cases that they are applicable, these tools of string rewriting systems and automatic structures give rise to algorithms for working with the monoids, which can in particular be used to study decidability and complexity questions. These are very natural aspects of theory to develop given the fundamental role that algorithms play in the theory of Plactic monoids, tableaux and Kashiwara crystals outlined above. Of course any results about the complexity of algorithms for working with these monoids (algorithms that operate on words) may be translated to results about algorithms for working with the corresponding tableaux and crystal graphs (see Section \[sec:biautomaticity\] for examples of this). It was precisely these kinds of ideas that motivated the current authors’ paper [@cgm_plactic] on the classical Plactic monoid. It was pointed out by E. Zelmanov \[during his plenary lecture at the international conference *Groups and Semigroups: Interactions and Computations* (Lisbon, 25–29 July 2011)\] that since Schensted’s algorithm can be used to show that the Plactic monoid has word problem that is solvable in quadratic time, it is natural to ask whether Plactic monoids are automatic. This is a natural question since (as mentioned above) all automatic monoids have word problem decidable in quadratic time. In [@cgm_plactic] we gave an affirmative answer to this question. We did this by first constructing a finite complete rewriting system for the Plactic monoid, with respect to the set of column generators. Beginning with this finite complete rewriting system, we then showed that for Plactic monoids finite, transducers may be constructed to perform left (respectively right) multiplication by a generator. We then applied this result to show that Plactic monoids of arbitrary finite rank are biautomatic (the strongest form of automaticity for monoids). Other consequences of these results include the fact that Plactic algebras of finite rank admit finite Gröbner–Shirshov bases, Plactic monoids of finite rank satisfy the homological finiteness property $\mathrm{FP}_\infty$, and the homological finiteness property $\mathrm{FDT}$, and that Plactic algebras are automaton algebras in the sense of Ufnarovski; see [@ufnarovski_introduction] or more recently [@Okninski2014].
From the point of view of crystals, these results say that string rewriting systems and transducers can be used to compute efficiently with crystals of type $A_n$. Our interest in this paper is to investigate the extent to which these tools can be applied to other Kashiwara crystals and crystal monoids. The results in this article will show that such tools can be successfully developed for all of the classical types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and for the exceptional type $G_2$. As in the case of the classical Plactic monoid our results will also show that these monoids have finite derivation type and satisfy the homological finiteness properties left and right $\mathrm{FP}_\infty$, and that the corresponding semigroup algebras are automaton algebras and all admit finite Gröbner–Shirshov bases. In addition to these results, in this article we shall also prove several fundamental results which lay the foundations of the study of crystal monoids in general which will be the subject of future work. In more detail, in this paper we deploy Kashiwara’s crystal bases to construct finite complete rewriting systems presenting Plactic monoids of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$. We take a unified approach that treats every type in the same way. We use column generators and our rewriting system has rules that (loosely speaking) replace an adjacent pair of columns by the unique tableau that represents their product. The key is to use crystal basis theory to analyze the shape of these tableaux by examining the corresponding highest-weight tableaux; this allows us to prove that the rewriting system is noetherian. These ‘two-column lemmata’ (see Section \[sec:twocolumnlemmata\]) are where we have to vary our approach between the various types of Plactic monoid.
Equipped with our finite complete rewriting systems, we then proceed to prove that Plactic monoids of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$ are biautomatic. Again we make use of crystal basis theory to analyze, in the highest-weight case, the rewriting that occurs after multiplication of a normal form word by a single generator. This allows us to prove that this rewriting can always be carried out by a finite-state automaton.
Note that we recover, using this new approach, our previous results that classical Plactic monoids (of type $A_n$) can be presented by finite complete rewriting systems and are biautomatic [@cgm_plactic]. Indeed, the rewriting system we obtain here in the $A_n$ case coincides with the one obtained before. However, the proof here is radically different from our earlier work, which relied entirely on the combinatorial properties of Young tableaux and made no mention of crystal basis theory.
While writing this paper, we came across the work of Hage [@hage_plactic], who independently constructed a finite complete rewriting system for ${\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)$. Hage’s approach differs from ours in making use of Lecouvey’s insertion algorithms, whereas we use Lecouvey’s presentations. (Hage does not consider biautomaticity or its consequences.)
Crystals and plactic monoids
============================
In this section we will formulate the main concepts that are used throughout the paper. We will give a combinatorial description of the different types of plactic monoids and present Kashiwara’s characterization of plactic monoids in terms of crystal graphs. We first consider the type $A_n$, then develop the general theory, then return to present the remaining cases $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$ and $G_2$. For more details, see [@lecouvey_cn; @lecouvey_bndn; @lecouvey_survey]. As far as possible, our exposition is purely combinatorial and avoids delving into the deep theory underlying crystal graphs. We refer the reader to [@hong_quantumgroups] for a detailed account of this theory.
Notation
--------
We denote the empty word (over any alphabet) by ${\varepsilon}$. For an alphabet $X$, we denote by $X^*$ the set of all words over $X$ including the empty word ${\varepsilon}$. When $X$ is a generating set for a monoid $M$, every element of $X^*$ can be interpreted either as a word or as an element of $M$. For words $u,v \in X^*$, we write $u=v$ to indicate that $u$ and $v$ are equal as words and $u=_X v$ to denote that $u$ and $v$ represent the same element of the monoid $M$. The length of $u \in X^*$ is denoted $|u|$, and, for any $x \in X$, the number of occurences of the symbol $x$ in $u$ is denoted $|u|_x$.
Definitions of crystal graph and crystal graph of type An {#sec:crystalsdef}
---------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this paper, a directed graph with labels from $I$ is a set $V$ of vertices equipped with a set $E$ of triples drawn from $V \times I \times V$. A triple $(v,i,v') \in E$ is interpreted as an edge from the vertex $v$ to a vertex $v'$ with label $i$. A path starting at $u \in V$ and ending at $w \in V$ is a (possibly empty) sequence of edges $(u,i_0,v_1)$, $(v_1,i_1,v_2)$, …, $(v_n,i_n,w)$; note that all paths are directed. Notice that vertices and edges may appear multiple times on a path.
For our purposes, a [*crystal basis*]{} is a directed labelled graph with vertex set $X$ and label set $I$ satisfying the conditions:
1. For all $x \in X$ and $i \in I$, there is at most one edge starting at $x$ labelled by $i$ and at most one edge ending at $x$ labelled by $i$.
2. For all $i \in I$, there is no infinite path made up of edges labelled by $i$.
(Notice that the second condition implies that a crystal basis cannot contain an $i$-labelled directed circuit.)
(Strictly speaking, such a graph is a graphical description of the representation-theoretic notion of a crystal basis; see [@hong_quantumgroups § 4.2] for details. More precisely, every (integrable highest weight) representation of a symmetrizable Kac–Moody algebra has a crystal associated to it. However, not every crystal arises from such a representation. Indeed, there has been research on finding a simple set of local axioms that characterize those crystals that arise from such representations; see [@stembridge_local]. In fact, the two conditions above coincide with axioms (P1) and (P2) in the characterization of the crystal graphs of integrable highest-weight modules for simply-laced quantum Kac–Moody algebras in [@stembridge_local].)
For each $i\in I$, define partial maps ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ called the [*Kashiwara operators*]{} on the set $X$ as follows: for each edge $(a,i,b)$, which we will represent graphically as $$\includegraphics{cgm_crystal-figure0.pdf},
$$ define ${\tilde{f}}_i (a) = b$ and ${\tilde{e}}_i (b) = a$.
We illustrate these definitions using a running example, which will eventually yield the ‘crystal graph of type $A_n$’. For a natural number $n$, define the ordered alphabet $${\mathcal{A}}_n = \set{1 < 2 < \ldots < n},$$ and consider the following crystal basis: $$\label{eq:an:crystalbasis}
\includegraphics{cgm_crystal-figure1.pdf},
$$ This graph has vertex set ${\mathcal{A}}_n$ and labels from the set $\set{1,\ldots,n-1}$. From this graph, we have, for example, ${\tilde{e}}_1(2) = 1$ and ${\tilde{f}}_2(2) = 3$. Note that ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ are only partially defined: for example, ${\tilde{e}}_1(3)$ is undefined.
Using the definition of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$, we can build an extended directed labelled graph, called the [*crystal graph*]{} arising from the given crystal basis. The vertex set is the free monoid $X^*$ on $X$. The edges will be defined by partially extending the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ to $X^*$, as follows: for all $u, v \in X^*$ and $i \in I$, define inductively $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{e}}_i(uv) &=
\begin{cases}
u\, {\tilde{e}}_i(v) & \text{if ${\varphi}_i(u)<{\epsilon}_i(v)$} \\
{\tilde{e}}_i(u)\,v & \text{if ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$}
\end{cases}; \label{eq:ei} \\
{\tilde{f}}_i(uv) &=
\begin{cases}
{\tilde{f}}_i(u)\,v & \text{if ${\varphi}_i(u)>{\epsilon}_i(v)$} \\
u\,{\tilde{f}}_i(v) & \text{if ${\varphi}_i(u) \leq {\epsilon}_i(v)$}
\end{cases},\label{eq:fi}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\epsilon}_i$ and ${\varphi}_i$ are auxiliary maps on $X^*$ defined as follows: for $w\in X^*$, let $$\begin{aligned}
{\epsilon}_i(w) & = \max\gset[\big]{k \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup\set{0}}{\text{$\underbrace{{\tilde{e}}_i\cdots {\tilde{e}}_i}_{\text{$k$ times}}(w)$ is defined}}; \\
{\varphi}_i(w) & = \max\gset[\big]{k \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup\set{0}}{\text{$\underbrace{{\tilde{f}}_i\cdots{\tilde{f}}_i}_{\text{$k$ times}}(w)$ is defined}}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the definition is not circular: the definitions of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ depend, via ${\epsilon}_i$ and ${\varphi}_i$, only on ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ applied to *strictly shorter* words; the recursion terminates with ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ applied to single symbols from the alphabet $X$, which we defined from the crystal basis (in our running example, the graph ). However, it is not immediately clear that the actions of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ are well-defined: in calculating ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ for some $w \in X^*$, it is conceivable that the result could depend on the chosen factorizations of $w$ as $uv$. Actually, for crystals that arise from representations of quantum Kac–Moody algebras, the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ are well-defined. Here, in order to develop the theory of crystal monoids in full generality we shall, after stating some necessary definitions, give a purely combinatorial proof verifying that these operators are well-defined.
We first define, for each $i \in I$, a map $\rho_i : X^* \to \gset{{-}^p{+}^q}{p,q \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup\set{0}}$. (Note that the symbols ${+}$ and ${-}$ here, and in the following discussion, are simply letters in the alphabet $\set{{+},{-}}$.) For a word $w \in X^*$, define $\rho_i(w)$ to be the word obtained by replacing each symbol $x$ of $w$ by ${-}^{{\epsilon}_i(x)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(x)}$, then iteratively deleting subwords ${+}{-}$ until a word of the form ${-}^p{+}^q$ remains. (These maps $\rho_i$ are well-defined because $\parens[\big]{\set{{+},{-}},\set{{+}{-}\to {\varepsilon}}}$ is a complete rewriting system; see [ ]{} for background on rewriting systems. The maps $\rho_i$ can be viewed as homomorphisms from $X^*$ to the bicyclic monoid, which is presented by $\pres{{+},{-}}{({+}{-},{\varepsilon})}$; see [@grillet_semigroups § I.6] for background on semigroup presentations and the bicyclic monoid.)
Note further that each symbol ${+}$ or ${-}$ in the computed word $\rho_i(w)$ is a symbol that ‘survives’ from the original replacement of symbols $x$ by ${-}^{{\epsilon}_i(x)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(x)}$. Furthermore, each symbol ${+}$ or ${-}$ in $\rho_i(w)$ is contributed by a uniquely determined symbol of $w$ (since two subwords ${+}{-}$ cannot partially overlap with each other).
The following result shows the connection between $\rho_i$ and the action of the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$. The reader may wish to look forward to the computation of $\rho_i$ in [ ]{} to see how this result is applied.
\[prop:computingef\] Let $w = w_1\cdots w_k$, where $w_h \in X$, and $i \in I$. Then
1. 1. ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ is defined if and only if $\rho_i(w)$ contains at least one symbol ${-}$.
2. If ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ is defined, ${\tilde{e}}_i(w) = w_1\cdots w_{j-1}{\tilde{e}}_i(w_j)w_{j+1}\cdots w_k$, where $w_j$ is the symbol that contributed the rightmost symbol ${-}$ in $\rho_i(w)$.
3. If ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ is defined, $w = {\tilde{f}}_i({\tilde{e}}_i(w))$.
2. 1. ${\tilde{f}}_i(w)$ is defined if and only if $\rho_i(w)$ contains at least one symbol ${+}$.
2. If ${\tilde{f}}_i(w)$ is defined, ${\tilde{f}}_i(w) = w_1\cdots w_{j-1}{\tilde{f}}_i(w_j)w_{j+1}\cdots w_k$, where $w_j$ is the symbol that contributed the leftmost symbol ${+}$ in $\rho_i(w)$.
3. If ${\tilde{f}}_i(w)$ is defined, $w = {\tilde{e}}_i({\tilde{f}}_i(w))$.
3. $\rho_i(w) = {-}^{{\epsilon}_i(w)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(w)}$.
The proof is by induction on $|w|$. For $|w| = 1$ (that is, $w \in X$), the three parts are immediately consequences of the definitions of ${\tilde{e}}_i$, ${\tilde{f}}_i$, ${\epsilon}_i$, ${\varphi}_i$, and $\rho_i$ from the crystal basis.
So let $|w| > 1$ and suppose parts 1 to 3 hold for words that are strictly shorter than $w$. Choose a factorization of $w$ as $uv$, where both $u$ and $v$ are shorter than $w$. (So neither $u$ nor $v$ is the empty word.) By the induction hypothesis, $\rho_i(u) = {-}^{{\epsilon}_i(u)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(u)}$ and $\rho_i(v) =
{-}^{{\epsilon}_i(v)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(v)}$. So, by the definition of $\rho_i$, we can compute the word $\rho_i(w)$ by computing $\rho_i(u)\rho_i(v)$ and deleting subwords ${+}{-}$ until we obtain a word of the desired form. There are two possible cases to consider:
- Suppose ${\varphi}_i(u) < {\epsilon}_i(v)$. Then when we delete subwords ${+}{-}$ from ${-}^{{\epsilon}_i(u)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(u)}{-}^{{\epsilon}_i(v)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(v)}$, all of the left block of symbols ${+}$ are removed, and at least one symbol from the right block of symbols ${-}$ survives. So the resulting word contains at least one symbol ${-}$, and the rightmost symbol ${-}$ was contributed by some symbol in $v$. By definition, ${\tilde{e}}_i(uv) = u{\tilde{e}}_i(v)$. Notice that ${\epsilon}_i(v) > 0$ and so ${\tilde{e}}_i$ is defined. That is, ${\tilde{e}}_i$ acts on some symbol in the right factor $v$. By the induction hypothesis, ${\tilde{e}}_i$ acts on the symbol of $v$ that contributed the rightmost symbol ${-}$ to $\rho_i(v)$, which, as we have just seen, must be the symbol of $uv$ that contributed the rightmost symbol ${-}$ to $\rho_i(uv)$.
- Suppose ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$. Then when we delete subwords ${+}{-}$ from ${-}^{{\epsilon}_i(u)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(u)}{-}^{{\epsilon}_i(v)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(v)}$, all of the right block of symbols ${-}$ are removed. Thus the symbols ${-}$ that remain are precisely the ${\epsilon}_i(u)$ symbols ${-}$ that were contributed by symbols in $u$.
Since ${\tilde{e}}_i(uv) = {\tilde{e}}_i(u)w$ by definition, it follows that ${\tilde{e}}_i(uv)$ is defined if and only if ${\tilde{e}}_i(u)$ is defined if and only if ${\epsilon}_i(u) > 0$ if and only if there is at least one symbol ${-}$ in $\rho_i(u)$. In this case, ${\tilde{e}}_i$ applies to the first factor $u$, and so, by the induction hypothesis, ${\tilde{e}}_i$ acts on the symbol of $u$ that contributed the rightmost symbol ${-}$ to $\rho_i(u)$, which, as we have just seen, must be the symbol of $uv$ that contributed the rightmost symbol ${-}$ to $\rho_i(uv)$.
This proves parts 1(a) and 1(b) for $w$. Similar reasoning proves parts 2(a) and 2(b) for $w$.
Suppose ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ is defined, so that part 1(b) applies. Note that the symbol ${\tilde{e}}_i(w_j)$ contributes the leftmost symbol ${+}$ to $\rho_i({\tilde{e}}_i(w))$, because $\rho_i({\tilde{e}}_i(w_j))$ contains at least one symbol $+$ since ${\varphi}_i({\tilde{e}}_i(w_j)) = {\varphi}_i(w_j) + 1$ by the definition of ${\varphi}_i$ from the crystal basis. Hence, when applying ${\tilde{f}}_i$ to ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$, the operator acts on the symbol ${\tilde{e}}_i(w_j)$. Since ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ are mutually inverse (when defined) on the alphabet $X$, it follows that ${\tilde{f}}_i({\tilde{e}}_i(w)) = w$. Similar reasoning shows that ${\tilde{e}}_i({\tilde{f}}_i(w))=w$. This proves part 1(c) for $w$. Similar reasoning proves part 2(c) for $w$.
Consider the maximum value of $k$ for which ${\tilde{e}}_i^k(uv)$ is defined. If ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$, then the operator acts on the first factor $u$, and this action is defined ${\epsilon}_i(u)$ times. Applications of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ to $u$ do not affect whether the inequality ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$ holds, so if the operator applies to the first factor $u$, it does not subsequently apply to the second factor $v$. Thus, if ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$, then ${\epsilon}_i(uv) = {\epsilon}_i(u)$. On the other hand, if ${\varphi}_i(u) < {\epsilon}_i(v)$, then the operator acts on the second factor $v$. Each such application reduces the ${\epsilon}_i$-image of the second factor, so this happens ${\epsilon}_i(v) - {\varphi}_i(u)$ times before the operator acts on the first factor $u$, and, as already shown, this action is defined for ${\epsilon}_i(u)$ times. Hence, if ${\varphi}_i(u) < {\epsilon}_i(v)$, then the maximum $k$ for which ${\tilde{e}}_i^k(uv)$ is defined is ${\epsilon}_i(u) + {\epsilon}_i(v) - {\varphi}_i(u)$. Thus, if ${\varphi}_i(u) < {\epsilon}_i(v)$, then ${\epsilon}_i(uv) = {\epsilon}_i(u) + {\epsilon}_i(v) - {\varphi}_i(u)$.
Similar reasoning shows that if ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$, then ${\varphi}_i(uv) = {\varphi}_i(v)$, and that if ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$, then ${\varphi}_i(uv) = {\varphi}_i(u) - {\epsilon}_i(v) + {\varphi}_i(v)$. Hence $\rho_i(uv)$ is: $$\begin{cases}
{-}^{{\epsilon}_i(u) - {\varphi}_i(u) + {\epsilon}_i(v)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(v)} & \text{if ${\varphi}_i(u) < {\epsilon}_i(v)$,}\\
{-}^{{\epsilon}_i(u)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(u) - {\epsilon}_i(v) + {\varphi}_i(v)} & \text{if ${\varphi}_i(u) \geq {\epsilon}_i(v)$.}\\
\end{cases}$$ which proves part 3.
It is immediate from [ ]{} that the actions of the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ are well-defined. Furthermore, [ ]{} gives the following practical method, first described in [@kashiwara_crystalgraphs], for computing the actions of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ on a word $w \in X^*$: Compute $\rho_i(w)$ by writing down the word obtained by replacing each symbol $x$ by ${-}^{{\epsilon}_i(x)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(x)}$ and then deleting subwords ${+}{-}$. The resulting word will have the form ${-}^{{\epsilon}_i(w)} {+}^{{\varphi}_i(w)}$. If ${\epsilon}_i(w)=0$, then ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ is undefined. If ${\epsilon}_i(w)>0$ then we obtain ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ by taking the symbol $x$ that contributed the rightmost $-$ of $\rho_i(w)$ and changing it to ${\tilde{e}}_i(x)$. If ${\varphi}_i(w)=0$, then ${\tilde{f}}_i(w)$ is undefined. If ${\varphi}_i(w)>0$ the we obtain $f_i(w)$ by taking the symbol $x$ that contributed the leftmost $+$ of $\rho_i(w)$ and changing it to ${\tilde{f}}_i(x)$.
\[eg:kashiwara\] Let $w = 12231233112232 \in {\mathcal{A}}_3^*$. Let us compute ${\tilde{e}}_2(w)$ and ${\tilde{f}}_2(w)$ using the above method: $${\arraycolsep=0pt
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccl}
1&2&2&3&1&2&3&3&1&1&2&2&3&2&\quad{\text{(the word $w$)}} \\
\phantom{+}&+&+&-&\phantom{+}&+&-&-&\phantom{+}&\phantom{+}&+&+&-&+&\quad{\text{(replacing each $x$ by ${-}^{{\epsilon}_i(x)}{+}^{{\varphi}_i(x)}$)}} \\
\phantom{+}&+& & &\phantom{+}& & &-&\phantom{+}&\phantom{+}&+& & &+&\quad{\text{(deleting subwords ${+}{-}$)}} \\
\phantom{+}& & & &\phantom{+}& & & &\phantom{+}&\phantom{+}&+& & &+&\quad{\text{(deleting subword ${+}{-}$)}} \\
\end{array}}$$ So $\rho_2(w) = {+}{+}$, and so ${\epsilon}_2(w) = 0$ and ${\varphi}_2(w) = 2$. So ${\tilde{e}}_2(w)$ is undefined, and ${\tilde{f}}_2(w)$ is obtained by taking the symbol $2$ above the leftmost remaining ${+}$ and changing it to ${\tilde{f}}_2(2) = 3$. That is, $f_2(w) = 12231233113232$.
Notice in particular that if, during the deletion of subwords ${+}{-}$, the word that we obtain begins with ${-}$, then this symbol ${-}$ will remain in place throughout all subsequent deletions, and so ${\epsilon}_i(w)>0$, and so ${\tilde{e}}_i(w)$ is defined. This observation is important, and we will use it repeatedly throughout the paper. (There is a dual observation for words ending in $+$ implying that ${\tilde{f}}_i(w)$ is defined, but we will not need this.)
In the crystal graph, we have an edge from $w$ to $w'$ labelled by $i$ if and only if $w' = {\tilde{f}}_i(w)$ (or, equivalently, $w
= {\tilde{e}}_i(w')$). Note that ${\epsilon}_i(u)$ is the length of the longest path consisting of edges labelled by $i$ that ends at $u$. Dually, ${\varphi}_i(u)$ is the length of the longest path consisting of edges labelled by $i$ that starts at $u$.
Returning to the running example, the crystal graph arising from the crystal basis , which has vertex set ${\mathcal{A}}_n^*$, is called the [*crystal graph of type $A_n$*]{} and is denoted $\Gamma_{A_n}$. Part of $\Gamma_{A_3}$ is shown in [ ]{}. Note that the length $1$ words form a connected component that is exactly the original directed labelled graph .
![Part of the crystal graph of type $A_3$. Notice that the empty word ${\varepsilon}$ and the word $123$ are isolated vertices. Note also that the length $1$ words form a connected component that is exactly the original crystal basis .[]{data-label="fig:an:crystalgraph"}](cgm_crystal-figure2.pdf)
Weights
-------
A [*weight function*]{} is (in our abstract combinatorial setting) a homomorphism ${\mathrm{wt}}: X^* \to P$, where $P$ is some monoid (called the [*weight monoid*]{}) such that there is a partial order $\leq$ on $P$ (not necessarily compatible with multiplication in $P$) with the following property: for all $u \in X^*$ and $i \in I$, if ${\tilde{e}}_i(u)$ is defined, then ${\mathrm{wt}}(u) < {\mathrm{wt}}\parens[\big]{{\tilde{e}}_i(u)}$, and if ${\tilde{f}}_i(u)$ is defined, then ${\mathrm{wt}}\parens[\big]{{\tilde{f}}_i(u)} < u$.
Let $u,v \in X^*$. The word $u$ has [*higher weight*]{} than the word $v$ (or, equivalently, the word $v$ has [*lower weight*]{} than the word $u$) if ${\mathrm{wt}}(v) < {\mathrm{wt}}(u)$. Thus the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$, when defined, always yield a word of higher weight, and the operators ${\tilde{f}}_i$, when defined, always yield a word of lower weight.
In the case of our running example, let $P$ be ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ and define ${\mathrm{wt}}: {\mathcal{A}}_n^* \to {\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ to be the homomorphism extending the map $${\mathrm{wt}}(a) = (\underbrace{0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0}_{\mathclap{\text{$a$-th component is $1$}}})\qquad\text{for $a \in {\mathcal{A}}_n$.}$$ In this example, the order on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ is defined by: $$(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n) \leq (\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_n) \iff (\forall k)\parens[\Big]{\sum_{i < k}\alpha_i \leq \sum_{i < k}\beta_i}.$$ In the remainder of the paper, we will not need to explicitly compare orders: we simply use the fact that ${\tilde{e}}_i$, when defined, raise weight, and ${\tilde{f}}_i$, when defined, lowers weight.
The abstract definitions of weight monoid and weight functions given here are more general than in the literature. Usually the weight monoid $P$ is a free abelian group; actually, the weight monoids of the specific crystal graphs we consider in this paper are all of this type.
In the crystal graph $\Gamma_X$, a vertex that has maximal weight within a particular component is called a [*highest-weight vertex*]{}. (In the specific crystal graphs we consider later, it will turn out that each component contains a *unique* highest-weight vertex.)
The following result, stated by Lecouvey [@lecouvey_survey Lemma 5.3.1] for a particular crystal monoid, is a direct consequence of the definitions of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ in and :
\[lem:highestweightfactors\] For any words $w_1,w_2 \in X^*$, the word $w_1 w_2$ is a vertex of highest weight of a connected component of the crystal graph $\Gamma_{X} $ if and only if:
1. $ w_1$ is a vertex of highest weight (that is, ${\epsilon}_i( w_1) = 0$);
2. for all $i = 1,\ldots,n$ we have ${\epsilon}_i(w_2)\leq {\varphi}_i (w_1)$ .
Relations from crystal graphs {#sec:relfromcrystals}
-----------------------------
For any word $w \in X^*$, let $B(w)$ be the connected component of the crystal graph containing the vertex $w$. A [*crystal isomorphism*]{} is a bijection ${\varphi}$ between two connected components $B(w)$ and $B(w')$ that maps directed edges labelled by $i$ to directed edges labelled by $i$ (in the sense that if $(x,i,y)$ is an edge in $B(w)$, then $({\varphi}(x),i,{\varphi}(y))$ is an edge in $B(w')$), sends non-edges to non-edges, and preserves weights (in the sense that ${\mathrm{wt}}(u) = {\mathrm{wt}}({\varphi}(u))$ for any $u \in B(w)$). If there is a crystal isomorphism between $B(w)$ and $B(w')$, we say that $B(w)$ and $B(w')$ are isomorphic.
We say $u \in B(w)$ and $v \in B(w')$ lie in the [*same position*]{} of isomorphic components $B(w)$ and $B(w')$ if there is an isomorphism between $B(w)$ and $B(w')$ that maps $u$ to $u'$; this is denoted by $u \sim v$. We now aim to show that this relation $\sim$ is a congruence on the monoid $X^*$ ([ ]{} below). For this we require the following two technical lemmata:
\[lem:efdefinedpreservedbyiso\] Let $u,v,u',v' \in X^*$. Suppose $u \sim v$ and $u' \sim v'$, and let $\theta' : B(u) \to B(v)$ and $\theta : B(u') \to B(v')$ be crystal isomorphisms such that $\theta(u) = v$ and $\theta'(u') = v'$. Let $i \in I$. Then:
1. ${\tilde{e}}_i(uu')$ is defined if and only if ${\tilde{e}}_i(vv')$ is defined. If both are defined, exactly one of the following statements holds:
1. ${\tilde{e}}_i(uu') = u{\tilde{e}}_i(u')$ and ${\tilde{e}}_i(vv') = v{\tilde{e}}_i(v')$;
2. ${\tilde{e}}_i(uu') = {\tilde{e}}_i(u)u'$ and ${\tilde{e}}_i(vv') = {\tilde{e}}_i(v)v'$.
2. ${\tilde{f}}_i(uu')$ is defined if and only if ${\tilde{f}}_i(vv')$ is defined. If both are defined, exactly one of the following statements holds:
1. ${\tilde{f}}_i(uu') = u{\tilde{f}}_i(u')$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i(vv') = v{\tilde{f}}_i(v')$;
2. ${\tilde{f}}_i(uu') = {\tilde{f}}_i(u)u'$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i(vv') = {\tilde{f}}_i(v)v'$.
Since $\theta$ and $\theta'$ are crystal isomorphisms, $${\epsilon}_i(u) = {\epsilon}_i(v),\enspace{\varphi}_i(u) = {\varphi}_i(v),\enspace{\epsilon}_i(u') = {\epsilon}_i(v'),\;\text{ and }\;{\varphi}_i(u') = {\varphi}_i(v').$$ The result now follows directly from the definitions of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$.
\[lem:gdefinedpreservedbyiso\] Let $u,v,u',v' \in X^*$. Suppose $u \sim v$ and $u' \sim v'$, and let $\theta : B(u) \to B(v)$ and $\theta' : B(u') \to B(v')$ be crystal isomorphisms such that $\theta(u) = v$ and $\theta'(u') = v'$. Let ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}$ be a sequence of operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$. Then:
1. ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu')$ is defined if and only if ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(vv')$ is defined.
2. When both ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu')$ and ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(vv')$ are defined, the sequence ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}$ may be partitioned in a unique way into two subsequences ${\tilde{g}}_{j_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}$ and ${\tilde{g}}_{k_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu') &= {\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u){\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u'), \\
{\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(vv') &= {\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(v){\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(v'); \\
\intertext{where}
\theta\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u)\bigr) &= {\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(v), \\
\theta\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u')\bigr) &= {\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(v').
\end{aligned}$$
This result follows by iterated application of [ ]{}.
\[prop:isomdefinescong\] The relation $\sim$ is a congruence on the free monoid $X^*$.
It is clear from the definition that $\sim$ is an equivalence relation; it thus remains to prove that $\sim$ is compatible with multiplication in $X^*$.
Let $u,v,u',v' \in X^*$. Suppose $u \sim v$ and $u' \sim v'$. Then there exist crystal isomorphisms $\theta : B(u) \to B(v)$ and $\theta' : B(u') \to B(v')$ such that $\theta(u) = v$ and $\theta'(u') = v'$.
Define a map $\Theta : B(uu') \to B(vv')$ as follows. For $w \in B(uu')$, choose a sequence ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}$ of operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ such that ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu') = w$; such a sequence exists because $w$ lies in the connected component $B(uu')$. Define $\Theta(w)$ to be ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(vv')$; note that this is defined by [ ]{}.
It is necessary to prove that $\Theta$ is well-defined. Suppose that ${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_1}},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_n}}$ is a sequence of operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ such that ${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_n}}(uu') = w$, and let $z = {\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_n}}(vv')$. Note that by [ ]{},
- the sequence ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}$ partitions into two subsequences ${\tilde{g}}_{j_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}$ and ${\tilde{g}}_{k_1},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}$ such that $${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu') = {\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u){\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u');$$
- the sequence ${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_1}},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_n}}$ partitions into two subsequences ${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_1}},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_p}}$ and ${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_1}},\ldots,{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_q}}$ such that $${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_n}}(uu') = {\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_p}}(u){\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_q}}(u').$$
Since both ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu')$ and ${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_n}}(uu')$ equal $w$, and since ${\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u)$ and ${\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_p}}(u)$ have length $|u|$, it follows that $$\label{eq:isomdefinescong}
\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u) &= {\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_p}}(u); \\
{\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u') &= {\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_q}}(u').
\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta(w) &= {\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(vv') && \text{[by definition]} \\
&= {\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(v){\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(v') && \text{[by
{ \ifdefined\hyperref {\hyperref[lem:gdefinedpreservedbyiso]{Lemma\penalty 200\ \ref*{lem:gdefinedpreservedbyiso}\relax}} \else {Lemma\penalty 200\ \relax\ref{lem:gdefinedpreservedbyiso}\relax} \fi}]} \\
&= \theta\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u)\bigr)\theta'\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u')\bigr) \\
&= \theta\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_p}}(u)\bigr)\theta'\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_q}}(u')\bigr) && \text{[by
\eqref{eq:isomdefinescong}]}\\
&= {\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\jmath_p}}(v){\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{k_q}}(v') \\
&= {\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_1}}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{\hat{\imath_n}}(vv') \\
&= z.
\end{aligned}$$ So $\Theta$ is well-defined.
By [ ]{}, $\Theta$ and its inverse preserve labelled edges. To see that $\Theta$ preserves weight, proceed as follows. Since $\theta$ and $\theta'$ are crystal isomorphisms, ${\mathrm{wt}}(u) = {\mathrm{wt}}(v)$ and ${\mathrm{wt}}(u') = {\mathrm{wt}}(v')$. Since ${\mathrm{wt}}$ is a homomorphism, ${\mathrm{wt}}(uu') = {\mathrm{wt}}(vv')$. Therefore if ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu')$ and ${\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(vv')$ are both defined, then both sequences partition as in [ ]{}, and so $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathrm{wt}}(w) \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(uu')\bigr) \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u){\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u')\bigr) \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u)\bigr){\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u')\bigr) \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl(\theta({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(u))\bigr){\mathrm{wt}}\bigl(\theta'({\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(u'))\bigr) \\
&\qquad\text{[since $\theta$ and $\theta'$ preserve weights]} \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(\theta(u))\bigr){\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(\theta'(u'))\bigr) \\
&\qquad\text{[since $\theta$ and $\theta'$ are crystal isomorphisms]} \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(v)\bigr){\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(v')\bigr) \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{j_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{j_s}(v){\tilde{g}}_{k_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{k_t}(v')\bigr) \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}\bigl({\tilde{g}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{g}}_{i_r}(vv')\bigr) \\
={}& {\mathrm{wt}}(\Theta(w)).
\end{aligned}$$
Thus $\Theta$ is a crystal isomorphism. Hence $uu' \sim vv'$. Therefore the relation $\sim$ is a congruence.
Let $X$ be an alphabet forming the vertex set of a crystal basis, ${\mathrm{wt}}: X^* \rightarrow P$ a weight function, and $\sim$ the congruence on $X^*$ that relates two words if they lie in the same position of isomorphic components of the crystal graph $\Gamma_X$. Then we call $X^*/{\sim}$ the *crystal monoid* determined by the crystal $\Gamma_X$ with weight function ${\mathrm{wt}}$ and weight monoid $P$.
In our running example, the crystal monoid we obtain (that is, the factor monoid ${\mathcal{A}}_n^*/{\sim}$) is the [*plactic monoid of type $A_n$*]{} and is denoted ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$. This definition coincides with the usual definitions via the Knuth relations or Young tableaux (see, for example, [@hong_quantumgroups Ch. 7]), and indeed we will use tableaux in the sequel. [ ]{} shows examples of isomorphic components of the crystal graph of type $A_3$. In [ ]{} on page , the two components $B(112)$ and $B(121)$ are isomorphic, but the two components comprising the isolated vertices ${\varepsilon}$ and $123$ are not isomorphic, since ${\mathrm{wt}}({\varepsilon}) \neq {\mathrm{wt}}(123)$.
![Three isomorphic components of the crystal graph of type $A_3$. Vertices in the same position represent the same element of ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_3)$. For example, $2113$, $2131$, and $2311$ all represent the same element.[]{data-label="fig:an:crystalgraphisocomps"}](cgm_crystal-figure3.pdf)
Note that if multiplication in $P$ is algorithmically computable, then the weights of words in $X^*$ are computable. If the crystal basis is finite (and so the crystal monoid is finitely generated), then it is possible to compute the connected component of any word in $X^*$. If both these conditions hold, then we can decide whether two components are isomorphic, and thus check whether two words are $\sim$-related. In short, we have the following:
\[prop:wordproblemcrystal\] If a crystal monoid arises from a finite crystal basis, and has a weight monoid in which multiplication is computable, then it has soluble word problem.
In particular, when the weight monoid $P$ is a free abelian group of finite rank (which it will be in all the specific examples we consider below) then [ ]{} applies, and the crystal monoid will have soluble word problem. Notice, however, that this result says nothing about the *complexity* of the word problem. We will see that ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$ and the plactic monoids of other types, which we will define shortly, are all biautomatic and thus have word problem soluble in quadratic time [@campbell_autsg Corollary 3.7].
Crystal graphs of types Bn, Cn, Dn and G2
-----------------------------------------
In our running example above, we constructed the crystal graph of type $A_n$ and defined the plactic monoid of type $A_n$. The ‘type $A_n$’ part of the name is because this plactic monoid parameterizes representations of the $q$-analogue of the universal enveloping algebra of the semisimple Lie algebras of type $A_n$. There are analogous plactic monoids of types $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$, parameterizing representations of the $q$-analogues of the universal enveloping algebras of the semisimple Lie algebras of the corresponding types. These plactic monoids arise as crystal monoids in the same way as ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$, but starting from different crystal bases and definitions of the weight function.
The weight functions defined here in this section are simply abstract versions of weights arising from the root systems of the corresponding Lie algebras; see [@lecouvey_survey § 3.3] for details.
### Type Bn
For type $B_n$ we consider the ordered alphabet $${\mathcal{B}}_n = \set[\big]{1 < 2 < \ldots < n < 0 < {\overline{n}} < \ldots < {\overline{2}} < {\overline{1}}}.$$ Note that $0$ is greater than $n$. The crystal basis for type $B_n$ is: $$\includegraphics{cgm_crystal-figure4.pdf}
$$ The weight function ${\mathrm{wt}}: {\mathcal{B}}_n^* \to {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{wt}}(1) &= (1,0,\ldots,0), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(a) &= (\underbrace{0,\ldots,0,-1,1,0,\ldots,0}_{\mathclap{\text{$a-1$-th and $a$-th components nonzero}}}) && \text{for $a \in \set{2,\ldots,n-1}$;} \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(n) &= (0,\ldots,0,-1,2), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(0) &= (0,\ldots,0), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}({\overline{a}}) &= -{\mathrm{wt}}(a) && \text{for $a \in \set{1,\ldots,n}$.}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting graph is the [*crystal graph of type $B_n$*]{}, denoted $\Gamma_{B_n}$, and the monoid that arises is the [*plactic monoid of type $B_n$*]{}, denoted ${\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)$.
### Type Cn
For type $C_n$ we consider the ordered alphabet $${\mathcal{C}}_n = \set[\big]{1 < 2 < \ldots < n < {\overline{n}} < {\overline{n-1}} < \ldots < {\overline{1}}}.$$ The crystal basis for type $C_n$ is: $$\includegraphics{cgm_crystal-figure5.pdf},
$$ The weight function ${\mathrm{wt}}: {\mathcal{C}}_n^* \to {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{wt}}(1) &= (1,0,\ldots,0), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(a) &= (\underbrace{0,\ldots,0,-1,1,0,\ldots,0}_{\mathclap{\text{$a-1$-th and $a$-th components nonzero}}}) && \text{for $a \in \set{2,\ldots,n}$,} \\
{\mathrm{wt}}({\overline{a}}) &= -{\mathrm{wt}}(a) && \text{for $a \in \set{1,\ldots,n}$.}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting graph is the [*crystal graph of type $C_n$*]{}, denoted $\Gamma_{C_n}$, and the monoid that arises is the [*plactic monoid of type $C_n$*]{}, denoted ${\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)$.
### Type Dn
For type $D_n$ we consider the ordered alphabet $${\mathcal{D}}_n = \set[\big]{1 < 2 < \ldots < n-1 < \begin{array}{c}{\overline{n}}\\n\end{array} < {\overline{n-1}} < \ldots < {\overline{2}} < {\overline{1}}};$$ note that $n$ and ${\overline{n}}$ are incomparable and that $n-1 < n < {\overline{n-1}}$ and $n-1 < {\overline{n}} < {\overline{n-1}}$. The crystal basis for type $D_n$ is: $$\includegraphics{cgm_crystal-figure6.pdf},
$$ The weight function ${\mathrm{wt}}: {\mathcal{D}}_n^* \to {\mathbb{Z}}^n$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{wt}}(1) &= (1,0,\ldots,0), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(a) &= (\underbrace{0,\ldots,0,-1,1,0,\ldots,0}_{\mathclap{\text{$a-1$-th and $a$-th components nonzero}}}) && \text{for $a \in \set{2,\ldots,n-2}$,} \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(n-1) &= (0,\ldots,0,-1,1,1), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(n) &= (0,\ldots,0,-1,2), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}({\overline{a}}) &= -{\mathrm{wt}}(a) && \text{for $a \in \set{1,\ldots,n}$.}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting graph is the [*crystal graph of type $D_n$*]{}, denoted $\Gamma_{D_n}$, and the monoid that arises is the [*plactic monoid of type $D_n$*]{}, denoted ${\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)$.
### Type G2
For type $G_2$ we consider the ordered alphabet $${\mathcal{G}}_2 = \set[\big]{1 < 2 < 3 < 0 < {\overline{3}} < {\overline{2}} < {\overline{1}}}.$$ The crystal basis for type $G_2$ is: $$\label{eq:g2:crystalbasis}
\includegraphics{cgm_crystal-figure7.pdf},
$$ The weight function ${\mathrm{wt}}: {\mathcal{G}}_2^* \to {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{wt}}(1) &= (1,0) \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(2) &= (-1,1), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(3) &= (2,-1), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}(0) &= (0,0), \\
{\mathrm{wt}}({\overline{a}}) &= -{\mathrm{wt}}(a) && \text{for $a \in \set{1,2,3}$.}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting graph is the [*crystal graph of type $G_2$*]{}, denoted $\Gamma_{G_2}$, and the monoid that arises is the [*plactic monoid of type $G_2$*]{}, denoted ${\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)$.
Properties of crystal graphs of types An, Bn, Cn, Dn and G2
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$ or $G_2$, and let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the corresponding alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}_n$, ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, ${\mathcal{D}}_n$ or ${\mathcal{G}}_2$. As described above, we have a crystal graph $\Gamma_{X}$ and a plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$ of each of the given types. For clarity and brevity in explanations, define, for all $x,y \in {\mathcal{X}}$ with $x \leq y$, $${\mathcal{X}}[x,y] = \gset{z \in {\mathcal{X}}}{x \leq z \leq y}.$$ Recall that the Kashiwara operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ respectively raise and lower weights whenever they are defined.
An important and non-obvious fact for us will be that each connected component of a crystal graph $\Gamma_X$ contains a *unique* highest-weight vertex [@lecouvey_survey § 3.1]. (It is not true for crystal monoids in general that the connected components of the crystal have have unique highest-weight vertices.) For any word $w \in {\mathcal{X}}^*$, denote by $w^0$ the unique highest-weight vertex in $B(w)$. Thus there exist $i_1, \ldots, i_r \in \set{1,\ldots,n}$ such that $w^0 = {\tilde{e}}_{i_1} \ldots {\tilde{e}}_{i_r}(w)$, or, equivalently $w = {\tilde{f}}_{i_r} \ldots {\tilde{f}}_{i_1}(w^0)$.
Notice that for $\Gamma_{X}$, we have $u \sim v$ if and only if $u^0 \sim v^0$ and there exist $i_1, \ldots, i_r \in \set{1,\ldots,n}$ such that $$u = {\tilde{f}}_{i_r} \cdots {\tilde{f}}_{i_1}(u^0) \text{ and } v = {\tilde{f}}_{i_r} \cdots {\tilde{f}}_{i_1}(v^0).$$
Strategy of proofs for rewriting systems {#sec:strategyrewriting}
========================================
Before giving further definitions and background, we pause to outline the strategy of our proofs for our construction of rewriting systems. This will serve to motivate and place in context the tableaux theory we will shortly discuss. (We refer the reader forward to [ ]{} for definitions and terminology on rewriting systems.)
Young tableaux serve as a cross-section of the plactic monoid of type $A_n$: two words in ${\mathcal{A}}_n^*$ represent the same element of ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$ if and only if they give the same tableau when Schensted’s insertion algorithm (see [@schensted_longest] and [@lothaire_algebraic Ch. 5]) is applied to them. The other types of plactic monoids have analogous (but substantially different) types of tableaux. Any of these tableaux, when read column-by-column from right to left, yields a word that represents the corresponding element of the monoid.
Thus the columns of a given type are generators for the plactic monoid of that type. Most products of columns are not tableaux. Following [@lecouvey_bndn], we call an arbitrary product of columns a tabloid. The key to constructing our rewriting systems and automatic structures is to use column generators and rewrite tabloids to tableaux. More formally, we consider a pair of columns that form a tabloid that is *not* a tableau. This is the left-hand side of a rewriting rule. The right-hand side of the corresponding rewriting rule is the unique tableau that represents the same element of the monoid as this tabloid. Pictorially, rewriting will look like the following $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=3mm,y=3.5mm,baseline=-7mm]
\foreach \x/\xheight in {0/4,1/5,2/4,3/3,4/3,5/4,6/2,7/4,8/5,9/4,10/3,11/3,12/4,13/5,14/3,15/1} {
\draw ($ (15,0) - (\x,0) $) rectangle ($ (14,0)-(\x,\xheight) $);
};
\draw[fill=lightgray] ($ (15,0) - (5,0) $) rectangle ($ (14,0)-(5,4) $);
\draw[fill=lightgray] ($ (15,0) - (6,0) $) rectangle ($ (14,0)-(6,2) $);
\end{tikzpicture}
\;{\rightarrow}\;
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=3mm,y=3.5mm,baseline=-7mm]
\foreach \x/\xheight in {0/4,1/5,2/4,3/3,4/3,7/4,8/5,9/4,10/3,11/3,12/4,13/5,14/3,15/1} {
\draw ($ (15,0) - (\x,0) $) rectangle ($ (14,0)-(\x,\xheight) $);
};
\draw[densely dashed] ($ (15,0) - (5,0) $) rectangle ($ (13,0)-(5,3.5) $);
\node[font=\large] at (9,-1.75) {$T$};
\end{tikzpicture}\,,$$ where $T$ is the tableau representing the same element as the two shaded columns. Thus we gradually rewrite a tabloid towards a product of columns where every adjacent pair of columns forms a tableau; as we shall see, the whole product then forms a tableau.
The main difficulty in the proof is showing that this rewriting is terminating, and this requires a careful analysis of what shapes of tableaux can result from a product of two columns. This is where the theory of crystal graphs comes into play, for the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ preserve shapes of tableaux. Thus it suffices to consider shapes of tableaux that can result from a *highest-weight* product of two columns, for we thus gain the information we need about arbitrary products of two columns. [ ]{} contains the lemmata about products of two columns for all types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$. Armed with these lemmata, we construct the various rewriting systems in parallel in [ ]{}.
Tableaux and tabloids
=====================
In this section we give the necessary background on tableaux theory for plactic monoids types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$; see [@kashiwara_crystalgraphs] and [@lecouvey_survey] for further details.
Young tableaux and columns
--------------------------
A Young diagram $Y$ (of shape $\lambda$) associated to a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k)$ is a finite array of left-justified boxes whose $i$-th row has length $\lambda_i$. A [*Young tableau*]{} $T$ of shape $\lambda$ is a filling of a Young diagram by symbols from the fixed alphabet such that (i) the entries of any column strictly increase from top to bottom, and (ii) the entries along each row weakly increase from left to right.
A [*column*]{} (of type $A_n$) is a tableau of column shape $\lambda=(1,\ldots,1)$: $$\tikz[tableau]\matrix {x_1 \\ x_2 \\ |[dottedentry]| \null \\x_k\\};$$
A [*column*]{} of type $B_n$, $C_n$ and $D_n$ is, respectively, a Young diagram of column shape of the form $$\tikz[tableau]\matrix { |[minimum height=10mm]| {\beta_+} \\ |[minimum height=10mm]| {\beta_0}\, \\ |[minimum height=10mm]| {\beta_-}\\};\,, \qquad
\tikz[tableau]\matrix { |[minimum height=10mm]| \gamma_+ \\ |[minimum height=10mm]| \gamma_-\\};\,,\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad
\tikz[tableau]\matrix { |[minimum height=10mm]| \delta_+ \\ |[minimum height=10mm]| \delta \\ |[minimum height=10mm]| \delta_-\\};\,,$$ where
- $\beta_+$ is filled with symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[1,n]$, and is strictly increasing from top to bottom;
- $\beta_0$ is filled with symbols $0$;
- $\beta_-$ is filled with symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{1}}]$, and is strictly increasing from top to bottom;
- $\gamma_+$ is filled with symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[1,n]$, and is strictly increasing from top to bottom;
- $\gamma_-$ is filled with symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{1}}]$, and is strictly increasing from top to bottom;
- $\delta_+$ is filled with symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[1,n-1]$, and is strictly increasing from top to bottom;
- $\delta_+$ is filled with symbols $n$ and ${\overline{n}}$, with different symbols in vertically adjacent cells.
- $\delta_-$ is filled with symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$, and is strictly increasing from top to bottom.
A [*column*]{} of type $G_2$ is a Young tableau with entries from ${\mathcal{G}}_2$, of column shape, of one of the following three forms: $$\tikz[tableau]\matrix {a \\};,\quad
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {a \\ b \\};\text{ with $a < b$,}\quad\text{or }
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {0 \\ 0 \\};.$$
The [*height*]{} $h(\beta)$ of a column $\beta$ (of any type) is the number of boxes in the column. The [*reading*]{} $w(\beta)$ of a column is the word obtained by reading the sequence of symbols in the boxes from top to bottom. We identify a column with its reading. A word is a [*column word*]{} if it the reading of a (necessarily unique) column.
### Admissible columns
Let $\beta$ be a column (of any type) and let $z\leq n$. We denote by $N_\beta(z)$ the number of symbols $x$ in $\beta$ such that $x\leq z$ or ${\overline{z}}\leq x$.
A column $\beta$ is [*admissible*]{} if each of the following conditions is satisfied:
1. $N_\beta(z) \leq z$, for any $z\leq n$;
2. if $\beta$ is of type $B_n$ and $0$ is in $\beta$, then $h(\beta)\leq n$;
3. if $\beta=\tikz[tableau]\matrix {a \\ b \\};$ is of type $G_2$ and height $2$, then $$\begin{cases}
{\mathrm{dist}}(a,b) \leq 2 & \text{for $a \in \set{1,0}$,} \\
{\mathrm{dist}}(a,b) \leq 3 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ where ${\mathrm{dist}}(a,b)$ is the number of arrows between $a$ and $b$ in the crystal basis for $G_2$.
Note that all columns of type $A_n$ are admissible.
The following is a complete list of all twenty-one admissible columns of type $G_2$: $$\label{eq:g2admissiblecolumns}
\begin{aligned}
\set[\Bigg]{
&\tikz[tableau]\matrix {1\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {2\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {3\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {0\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {{\overline{3}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {{\overline{2}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {{\overline{1}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {1\\2\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {1\\3\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {2\\3\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {2\\0\\};,\\
&\phantom{\tikz[tableau]\matrix {1\\};,}\;\,
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {2\\{\overline{3}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {0\\{\overline{3}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {3\\{\overline{3}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {3\\0\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {3\\{\overline{2}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {0\\{\overline{2}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {{\overline{3}}\\{\overline{2}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {{\overline{3}}\\{\overline{1}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {{\overline{2}}\\{\overline{1}}\\};,\;
\tikz[tableau]\matrix {0\\0\\};\,
}.
\end{aligned}$$
An [*admissible column word*]{} is a word that is the reading of a (necessarily unique) admissible column.
### The functions l and r
We say that a column $\beta$ contains a pair $(z,{\overline{z}})$ if both symbols $z$ and ${\overline{z}}$ appear in $\beta$, or if $\beta$ is of type $C_n$ and $0$ appears in $\beta$. In the following paragraphs we define partial functions $\ell$ and $r$ on the set of columns of some type. The resulting columns $\ell(\beta)$ and $r(\beta)$, when defined, do not contain pairs $(z,{\overline{z}})$. For simplicity and uniformity, for columns of type $A_n$ we define $r(\beta)=\ell(\beta)=\beta$.
Let $\beta$ be a column of type $B_n$ or $C_n$ and let $I_\beta = \set{ z_s < \ldots < z_{r+1} < z_r=0, \ldots, z_1=0 }$ be the set of symbols $z$ for which $\beta$ contains the pair $(z,{\overline{z}})$. We say that a column $\beta$ of type $B_n$ or $C_n$ can be [*split*]{} if there exists a set $J_\beta$ of symbols $t_s < \cdots < t_1$ such that
- $t_1$ is maximal such that $t_1 < z_1$ and the symbols $t_1$ and ${\overline{t_1}}$ do not appear in $\beta$;
- for $i=2, \ldots, s$, the symbol $t_i$ is maximal such that $t_i < \min\set{t_{i-1},z_i}$, $t_i \not\in \beta$, and $\overline{t_i} \not\in \beta$.
If $\beta$ can be split, $r(\beta)$ is obtained from $\beta$ by replacing $\overline{z_i}$ with $\overline{t_i}$ for each $i$, and $\ell(\beta)$ is obtained from $\beta$ by replacing $z_i$ with $t_i$ for each $i$, always reordering to obtain a column if necessary (c.f. [@lecouvey_bndn Example 3.1.7]).
The operators $r$ and $\ell$ defined for columns of type $B_n$ can be extended to columns of type $D_n$ as follows: for any $D_n$ column $\beta$, let $\beta_0$ be the column obtained by replacing all subwords ${\overline{n}}n$ by $00$ in $\beta$. Note that $\beta_0$ is always a $B_n$ column. Let $r(\beta)$ and $\ell(\beta)$ be $r(\beta_0)$ and $\ell(\beta_0)$ (as defined for type $B_n$ columns). Observe that if $\beta$ is a type $D_n$ column that does not contain a subword ${\overline{n}}n$, it is also a $B_n$ column and $\beta_0 = \beta$ and so the definitions of $r(\beta)$ and $\ell(\beta)$ coincide regardless of whether $\beta$ is viewed as a column of type $B_n$ or $D_n$.
A column $\beta$ of type $B_n$, $C_n$ or $D_n$ is admissible if and only if both $r(\beta)$ and $\ell(\beta)$ are defined [@lecouvey_survey Proposition 4.3.3]. This fact will be important in the definition of tableaux in the following subsection.
Tabloids and tableaux
---------------------
Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$ or $G_2$. A [*tabloid*]{} of type $X$ is a sequence of admissible columns $\beta_r,\ldots, \beta_1$ of type $X$, which we write in a planar form by writing each column vertically beside each other in the order $\beta_r,\ldots, \beta_1$ from left to right. For example, $$\label{eq:exampletabloid}
\tikz[tableau]\matrix{
1 \& 1 \& 2 \& 3 \& 1 \\
3 \& 2 \& 4 \& {\overline{3}} \& {\overline{5}} \\
{\overline{2}} \& 5 \& 5 \& \& {\overline{4}} \\
\& {\overline{3}} \& \& \& {\overline{3}} \\
\& {\overline{2}} \\
};$$ is a tabloid with five columns. For brevity, we also use the inline form $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta_r \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta_1\\};$ to denote the tableau with columns $\beta_r,\ldots, \beta_1$. The [*reading*]{} $w(T)$ of a tabloid $T=\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta_r \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta_1\\};$ is the word $w(\beta_1)\cdots w(\beta_r)$. Note that the columns of the tabloid are read from rightmost to leftmost, and each column is read from top to bottom. Thus the reading of the tabloid is $1{\overline{5}}{\overline{4}}{\overline{3}}3{\overline{3}}245125{\overline{3}}{\overline{2}}13{\overline{2}}$, as shown here: $$\begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{scope}[tableau]
\matrix (t) {
1 \& 1 \& 2 \& 3 \& 1 \\
3 \& 2 \& 4 \& {\overline{3}} \& {\overline{5}} \\
{\overline{2}} \& 5 \& 5 \& \& {\overline{4}} \\
\& {\overline{3}} \& \& \& {\overline{3}} \\
\& {\overline{2}} \\
};.
\end{scope}
\draw[->,lightgray,thick,rounded corners=3mm]
($ (t-1-5.north east) + (-1mm,3mm) $) -- ($ (t-4-5.south east) + (-1mm,-3mm) $) --
($ (t-1-4.north east) + (-1mm,3mm) $) -- ($ (t-2-4.south east) + (-1mm,-3mm) $) --
($ (t-1-3.north east) + (-1mm,3mm) $) -- ($ (t-3-3.south east) + (-1mm,-3mm) $) --
($ (t-1-2.north east) + (-1mm,3mm) $) -- ($ (t-5-2.south east) + (-1mm,-3mm) $) --
($ (t-1-1.north east) + (-1mm,3mm) $) -- ($ (t-3-1.south east) + (-1mm,-5mm) $);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ Note that different tabloids may have the same reading. For example, the following tabloid has the same reading as : $${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{
1 \& 5 \& 1 \& 2 \& {\overline{3}} \& 3 \& 1 \\
3 \& {\overline{3}} \& 2 \& 4 \& \& \& {\overline{5}} \\
{\overline{2}} \& {\overline{2}} \& \& 5 \& \& \& {\overline{4}} \\
\& \& \& \& \& \& {\overline{3}} \\
};}.$$ For any word $u \in {\mathcal{X}}^*$ there is at least one tabloid whose reading is $u$: if $u = u_1\cdots u_k$, where $u_i \in {\mathcal{X}}$, then the tabloid ${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{u_k \& |[dottedentry]| \& u_1\\};}$ has reading $u$. (Notice that each column ${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{u_i\\};}$ (of height $1$) is admissible.)
We now define a relation $\preceq$ on the sets of admissible columns of each type. For types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$, the definition proceeds as follows: for two admissible columns $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, define
- $\beta_2 \leq \beta_1$ if $h(\beta_2) \geq h(\beta_1)$ and the rows of the tabloid ; are weakly increasing from left to right;
- $\beta_2 \preceq \beta_1$ if $r(\beta_2) \leq \ell(\beta_1)$.
Note that for any admissible column $\beta$, we have $\ell(\beta) \leq \beta \leq r(\beta)$; hence $\beta_2 \preceq \beta_1$ implies $\beta_2 \leq \beta_1$.
For type $G_2$, the definition is more complicated: for columns $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\tikz[tableau]\matrix{a\\}; \preceq \tikz[tableau]\matrix{b\\}; \iff{}& (a \leq b) \land \bigl((a,b) \neq (0,0)\bigr) \\
\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{a\\b\\}; \preceq \tikz[tableau]\matrix{c\\}; \iff{}& (a \leq c) \land \bigl((a,c) \neq (0,0)\bigr) \\
\tikz[baseline=-1mm]\draw[white] (0,5mm);\smash{\tikz[tableau]\matrix{a\\b\\}; \preceq \tikz[tableau]\matrix{c\\d\\};} \iff{}&
(a \leq c) \land \bigl((a,c) \neq (0,0)\bigr) \\
&\land (b \leq d) \land \bigl((b,d) \neq (0,0)\bigr) \\
&\land \bigl(a \in \set{2,3,0} \implies {\mathrm{dist}}(a,d) \geq 3\bigr) \\
&\land \bigl(a = {\overline{3}} \implies {\mathrm{dist}}(a,d) \geq 2\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ A ‘Hasse diagram’ illustrating the order $\preceq$ on admissible columns of type $G_2$ is shown in [ ]{}.
\(12) at (0,0) [1\
2\
]{}; (13) at (1,0) [1\
3\
]{}; (23) at (2,1) [2\
3\
]{}; (20) at (2,0) [2\
0\
]{}; (23bar) at (3,0) [2\
|[3]{}\
]{}; (30) at (4,-1) [3\
0\
]{}; (33bar) at (4,0) [3\
|[3]{}\
]{}; (00) at (4,-2.5) [0\
0\
]{}; (03bar) at (4,1) [0\
|[3]{}\
]{}; (32bar) at (5,0) [3\
|[2]{}\
]{}; (02bar) at (6,0) [0\
|[2]{}\
]{}; (3bar2bar) at (6,-1) [|[3]{}\
|[2]{}\
]{}; (3bar1bar) at (7,0) [|[3]{}\
|[1]{}\
]{}; (2bar1bar) at (8,0) [|[2]{}\
|[1]{}\
]{}; (1) at (2,2.5) [1\
]{}; (2) at (4,2.5) [2\
]{}; (3) at (6,2.5) [3\
]{}; (0) at (7,2.5) [0\
]{}; (3bar) at (8,2.5) [|[3]{}\
]{}; (2bar) at (9,2.5) [|[2]{}\
]{}; (1bar) at (10,2.5) [|[1]{}\
]{};
\(12) – (13); (13) – (2,-2.5) – (00); (13) – (23); (13) – (20); (13) – (2,-1) – (30); (23) – (23bar); (20) – (23bar); (23bar) – (03bar); (23bar) – (33bar); (00) – (6,-2.5) – (3bar1bar); (03bar) – (6,1) – (3bar1bar); (33bar) – (32bar); (30) – (32bar); (32bar) – (02bar); (32bar) – (3bar2bar); (02bar) – (3bar1bar); (3bar2bar) – (3bar1bar); (3bar1bar) – (2bar1bar); (13) – (1); (1) – (2); (23bar) – (2); (2) – (3); (32bar) – (3); (32bar) – (3); (3) – (0); (3bar1bar) – (3bar); (0) – (3bar); (2bar1bar) – (2bar); (3bar) – (2bar); (2bar) – (1bar);
Note that the relation $\preceq$ is transitive and antisymmetric, but is not reflexive in general.
Let $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ be columns of type $D_n$ such that $h(\beta_2)\geq h(\beta_1)$. We say that the tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta_2 \& \beta_1\\};$ contains an [*$a$-configuration*]{}, with $a\notin \set{{\overline{n}},n}$, if:
- $a=x_p$, ${\overline{n}}=x_r$ are symbols of $\beta_2$ and ${\overline{a}}=y_s$, $n=y_q$ symbols of $\beta_1$; or
- $a=x_p$, ${n}=x_r$ are symbols of $\beta_2$ and ${\overline{a}}=y_s$, ${\overline{n}}=y_q$ symbols of $\beta_1$
where the integers $p,q,r,s$ are such that $p\leq q < r\leq s$. Denote by $\mu(a)$ the integer defined by $\mu(a)=s-p$.
A [*tableau*]{} of type $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$ or $G_2$ is a tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta_r \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta_1\\};$ such that $\beta_{i+1} \preceq \beta_{i}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,r-1$. A tableau of type $D_n$ is a tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta_r \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta_1\\};$ such that $\beta_{i+1} \preceq \beta_{i}$ and the tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{r(\beta_{i+1}) \& \ell
(\beta_{i}) \\};$ does not contain an $a$-configuration with $\mu(a) = n- a$, for all $i=1,\ldots,r-1$.
\[lem:efonfactors\] Let $T = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta_m \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta_1\\};$ be a tabloid of type $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$. Let $i \in \set{1, \ldots, n}$. Let $u_j = w(\beta_j)$ for $j \in {1,\ldots,m}$, so that $w(T) = u_1\cdots u_m$. Suppose $v = {\tilde{f}}_i(w(T))$ (respectively, $v = {\tilde{e}}_i(w(T))$) is defined. Factor $v$ as $v = v_1\cdots v_m$, where $|v_j| = |u_j|$. Then:
1. There exists some $k \in \set{1, \ldots, m}$ such that $v_j=u_j$ for $j \neq k$ and $v_k = {\tilde{f}}_i(u_k)$ (respectively, $v_k = {\tilde{e}}_i(u_k)$).
2. Each word $v_j$ is an admissible column word, and so $v$ is the reading of the tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\gamma_m \& |[dottedentry]| \& \gamma_1\\};$.
3. For all $j\in \set{1,\ldots, m-1}$, we have $\beta_{j+1}\preceq \beta_{j}$ if and only if $\gamma_{j+1}\preceq \gamma_{j}$. In particular, $T$ is a tableau if and only if $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\gamma_m \& |[dottedentry]| \& \gamma_1\\};$ is a tableau.
See [@kashiwara_crystalgraphs] for types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$; see [@lecouvey_survey] for type $G_2$.
In light of the preceding lemma, we can think of applying the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ to a tabloid $T$: using the notation of the lemma, ${\tilde{f}}_i(T)$ (respectively, ${\tilde{e}}_i(T)$), when defined, is the tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\gamma_m \& |[dottedentry]| \& \gamma_1\\};$. Note that ${\tilde{f}}_i$ and ${\tilde{e}}_i$ preserve shapes of tabloids and preserve the $\preceq$ relation between adjacent columns, and in particular preserve tableaux. Thus the words in a given connected component are readings of tabloids with the same shape. (See [ ]{}.) Furthermore, iterated application of this lemma shows that in a given connected component of one of the crystal graphs, either every word is the reading of a tableau or no word is the reading of a tableau. In a connected component where every word is the reading of a tableau, all the corresponding tableaux have the same shape. (However, it is not true in general that two same-shape tabloids belong to the same component.)
![The three connected components of the crystal graph of type $A_3$ shown in [ ]{}, but with vertices drawn as tableaux and tabloids rather than written as words. The left-hand component consists entirely of tableaux of the same shape. The other two components each consist of tabloids that are not tableaux. Although there are in general many tabloids with a given reading, it is always possible to view words in a given connected component as readings of tabloids of the same shape.[]{data-label="fig:an:crystalgraphisocompstabloids"}](cgm_crystal-figure8.pdf)
We can now say that tabloid $T$ has highest weight if ${\tilde{e}}_i(T)$ is undefined for all $i$. Note that this is equivalent to the word $w(T)$ being of highest weight. Furthermore, we have the following characterization of highest weight tableaux:
\[lem:highestweightableauchar\] Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$. An $X$ tableau has highest weight if and only if it has $i$-th row filled with $i$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, except that in the ${\mathcal{D}}_n$ case the $n$-th row can instead be filled with ${\overline{n}}$.
See [@kashiwara_crystalgraphs] for types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$; see [@lecouvey_survey] for type $G_2$.
Note also that [ ]{} can be recovered easily using the definition of the operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and the relation $\preceq$.
For example, $${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{
1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \\
2 \& 2 \& 2 \& 2 \& 2 \\
3 \& 3 \& 3 \\
4 \& 4 \\
};}$$ is a highest weight tableau of type $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$ or $D_n$ for any $n \geq 4$; $${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{
1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \\
2 \& 2 \& 2 \\
{\overline{3}} \& {\overline{3}} \\
};}$$ is a highest weight tableau of type $D_3$ (that is, $D_n$ with $n=3$); and $${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{
1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \\
2 \& 2 \& 2 \& 2 \\
};}$$ is a highest weight tableau of type $G_2$.
\[thm:tableauxcrossection\] Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$, and let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the corresponding alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}_n$, ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, ${\mathcal{D}}_n$ or ${\mathcal{G}}_2$. Then for any $u \in {\mathcal{X}}^*$, there is a unique tableau $P(u)$ such that $u \sim_X w(P(u))$. Thus the set of tableaux form a cross-section of the monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X) = {\mathcal{X}}^*/{\sim_X}$.
Presentations for plactic monoids {#subsec:presentations}
---------------------------------
The classical plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n) = {\mathcal{A}}_n^*/{\sim_{A_n}}$ is presented by $\pres{{\mathcal{A}}_n}{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{A_n} \cup
{\mathcal{R}}_2^{A_n}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}_1^{A_n} &= \gset[\big]{(yzx,yxz), (xzy,zxy)}{x < y <z}; \\
{\mathcal{R}}_2^{A_n} &= \gset[\big]{(xyx,xxy), (xyy,yxy)}{x < y}.\end{aligned}$$ These are the so-called [*Knuth relations*]{}.
For our purposes we use the convention that ${\overline{0}}=0$ and that ${\overline{{\overline{z}}}}=z$.
The plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n) = {\mathcal{B}}_n^*/{\sim_{B_n}}$ is presented by $\pres{{\mathcal{B}}_n}{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{B_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_2^{B_n}
\cup {\mathcal{R}}_3^{B_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_4^{B_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}_1^{B_n} ={}& \gset[\big]{(yzx,yxz),(xzy,zxy)}{x\neq {\overline{z}} \land x< y < z}; \\
{\mathcal{R}}_2^{B_n} ={}& \gset[\big]{(xyx,xxy)}{x\neq 0 \land x\neq {\overline{y}} \land x< y} \\
& \cup \gset{(xyy,yxy)}{y\neq 0 \land x\neq {\overline{y}} \land x< y}; \\
{\mathcal{R}}_3^{B_n} ={}& \gset[\big]{(y\overline{(x-1)}(x-1),yx\overline{x}),(x\overline{x}y,\overline{(x-1)}(x-1)y)}{1< x\leq n \land x\leq y\leq \overline{x}} \\
& \cup \set{(0\overline{n}n,\overline{n}n0)}; \\
{\mathcal{R}}_4^{B_n} ={}& \gset[\big]{(00x,0x0),(0\overline{x}0,\overline{x}00)}{x\leq n};\end{aligned}$$ and where the relation ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n}$ is defined as follows: let $w = w(C)$ be a non-admissible column word for which each strict factor is admissible; let $z$ be the smallest (with respect to $ <$) unbarred symbol of $w$ such that the pair $(z,{\overline{z}})$ occurs in $w$ and $N_C(z) > z$, otherwise set $z = 0$. Let $\widetilde{w}$ be the column word obtained by erasing the pair $(z,{\overline{z}})$ in $w$ if $z\leq n$ and erasing $0$ otherwise. The relation ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n}$ consists of all such pairs $(w,\tilde{w})$. (See [@lecouvey_bndn Definition 3.2.2].)
Notice that relations ${\mathcal{R}}_1^{A_n}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_2^{A_n}$ are the restrictions to the set ${\mathcal{A}}_n^*$ of the relations ${\mathcal{R}}_1^{B_n}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_2^{B_n}$, respectively.
The plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n) = {\mathcal{C}}_n^*/{\sim_{C_n}}$ is presented by $\pres{{\mathcal{C}}_n}{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{C_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_2^{C_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_3^{C_n}
\cup {\mathcal{R}}_5^{C_n}}$, where $${\mathcal{R}}_1^{C_n} = {\mathcal{R}}_1^{B_n};\qquad {\mathcal{R}}_2^{C_n} ={\mathcal{R}}_2^{B_n}; \qquad {\mathcal{R}}_3^{C_n}={\mathcal{R}}_3^{B_n}; \qquad {\mathcal{R}}_5^{C_n} = {\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n};$$ except that we naturally exclude defining relations that involve $0$. (See [@lecouvey_survey Definition 5.1.2].)
The plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n) = {\mathcal{D}}_n^*/{\sim_{D_n}}$ is presented by $\pres{{\mathcal{D}}_n}{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{D_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_2^{D_n}
\cup {\mathcal{R}}_3^{D_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_4^{D_n} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}}$, where $${\mathcal{R}}_1^{D_n} = {\mathcal{R}}_1^{B_n};\qquad {\mathcal{R}}_2^{D_n} ={\mathcal{R}}_2^{B_n}; \qquad {\mathcal{R}}_3^{D_n}={\mathcal{R}}_3^{B_n}; \qquad {\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n} = {\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n};$$ except that we naturally exclude defining relations that involve $0$, and $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal{R}}_4^{D_n} = \set[\big]{(n{{\overline{n}}}\,{{\overline{n}}},{\overline{(n-1)}}(n-1){\overline{n}}),({\overline{n}}nn,{\overline{(n-1)}}(n-1)n) \\
({\overline{n}}{\overline{(n-1)}}(n-1),{{\overline{n}}}\,{{\overline{n}}}n), (n{\overline{(n-1)}}(n-1), nn{\overline{n}})}.\end{gathered}$$ (See [@lecouvey_survey Definition 5.1.3].)
We now state the following auxiliary results that we will use in the sequel:
\[lem:commutingcolumns\] Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$ and let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the corresponding alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}_n$, ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$ or ${\mathcal{D}}_n$. Let $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathcal{X}}[1,n]^*$ be words that are readings of columns (that is, strictly increasing words) such that every symbol of $\alpha$ appears in $\beta$. Then $\alpha\beta =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(X)} \beta\alpha$.
This follows directly from the defining relations ${\mathcal{R}}_1^{X}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_2^{X}$; one can also use Schensted’s insertion algorithm for ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$ (see [@lothaire_algebraic Chapter 5]) and note that the required defining relations also appear in the presentations for the other types of plactic monoid.
\[lem:deleting\] Let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be one of the alphabets ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_n$. Consider a word $w = 12\cdots q {\overline{x_1}}\,{\overline{x_2}}\cdots{\overline{x_k}}$ for some $q \in {\mathcal{X}}[1,n]$, ${\overline{x_i}} \in
{\mathcal{X}}[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$ and $1 \leq x_k < x_{k-1} < \ldots < x_1 \leq q$. Then $w =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}({\mathcal{X}})} u$, where $u$ is the word obtained from $12\cdots q$ by deleting the symbols $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_k$. In particular, $u$ is either empty or is an admissible column containing fewer than $q$ symbols.
Let $u^{(i)}$ be the word obtained by deleting $x_1, \ldots, x_i$ from $1 2 \cdots q$. Then $u^{(i)} {\overline{x_{i+1}}}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}({\mathcal{X}})} u^{(i+1)}$ is an ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{\mathcal{X}}$ relation. Note that $w = u^{(0)}$. By induction, therefore, $u = u^{(k)}$ is a column with $u^{(0)} {\overline{x_1}} \ldots {\overline{x_k}} =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}({\mathcal{X}})} u^{(k)}$. Clearly $|u|$ is less than $q$. Since $u$ contains only symbols from ${\mathcal{X}}[1,q]$, it follows that $N_u(z) \leq z$ for all $z$ and so $u$ is an admissible column if it is non-empty.
Giving a presentation for ${\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)$ requires the auxiliary partial map $\Theta$ on ${\mathcal{G}}_2^2$ defined as per the following table: $$\begin{array}{r|cccccccccccccc}
w & 21 & 31 & 01 & {\overline{3}}1 & {\overline{3}}2 & {\overline{2}}1 & {\overline{2}}2 & {\overline{1}}1 & {\overline{1}}2 & {\overline{2}}3 & {\overline{1}}3 & {\overline{1}}0 & {\overline{1}}{\overline{3}} & {\overline{1}}{\overline{2}} \\
\hline
\vbox to 4mm{} w\Theta & 12 & 13 & 23 & 20 & 2{\overline{3}} & 30 & 3{\overline{3}} & 00 & 0{\overline{3}} & 3{\overline{2}} & 0{\overline{2}} & {\overline{3}}{\overline{2}} & {\overline{3}}{\overline{1}} & {\overline{2}}{\overline{1}}
\end{array}$$ The monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)$ is presented by $\pres{{\mathcal{G}}_2}{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_2^{G_2} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2} \cup {\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}}$ (see [@lecouvey_survey Definition 5.1.4]), where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2} ={}& \set[\big]{(10,1),(1{\overline{3}},2),(1{\overline{2}},3),(2{\overline{2}},0),(2{\overline{1}},{\overline{3}}),(3{\overline{1}},{\overline{2}}),(0{\overline{1}},{\overline{1}})}, \\
{\mathcal{R}}_2^{G_2} ={}& \set[\big]{(1{\overline{1}},{\varepsilon})}, \\
{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2} ={}& \gset[\big]{(abc,a(bc)\Theta)}{ab \in \operatorname{im}\Theta,bc\in\operatorname{dom}\Theta} \\
&\cup \gset[\big]{(abc,(ab)\Theta^{-1}c)}{ab \in \operatorname{im}\Theta, b \geq c, bc \neq 00, bc \notin \operatorname{dom}\Theta}, \\
{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2} ={}& \set[\big]{(123,110)} \\
&\cup \gset[\big]{((abc,(ab)\Theta^{-1}c)}{ab \in \operatorname{im}\Theta, bc \in \operatorname{im}\Theta, abc\neq123}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have given this presentation in a slightly different way from Lecouvey [@lecouvey_survey Definition 5.1.4], but the sets of defining relations ${\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}$, ${\mathcal{R}}_2^{G_2}$, ${\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}$, and ${\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}$ still correspond to the crystal isomorphisms identified by Lecouvey, and hence these relations generate the same congruence as those of Lecouvey.
Two-column lemmata {#sec:twocolumnlemmata}
==================
As described in the strategic overview of our proofs in [ ]{}, this section examines products of two admissible columns that do not form a tableau. In order to prove that the rewriting system we will construct is terminating, we have to know about the shape of the tableau that results from this product. Informally, we will show that the resulting tableau either:
1. Has fewer entries than the original two columns.
2. Has the same number of entries but only one column.
3. Has the same number of entries, two columns, and has a shorter rightmost column.
The results are given formally in the following five subsections as [ ]{}, \[lem:bn:palphabeta\], \[lem:cn:palphabeta\], \[lem:dn:palphabeta\], and \[lem:g2:palphabeta\]. These lemmata actually give more information than we need for proving termination of the rewriting system, because we will also use them in proving biautomaticity later in the paper. We consider the classical types in the order $A_n$, $C_n$, $B_n$, $D_n$, reflecting the increasing order of complexity of the arguments. Type $G_2$ is considered last, because it uses a rather different approach from the other types.
An
--
Throughout this section, let $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathcal{A}}_n^*$ be columns such that $\beta \not\preceq \alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ is a word of highest weight. Note that the tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix {\beta \& \alpha\\};$ is not a tableau. Our aim is to learn about the shape of $P(\alpha\beta)$ (where $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the unique tableau whose reading is equal to $\alpha\beta$ in the plactic monoid ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$; see [ ]{}); for the conclusion, see [ ]{}. There are essentially two cases, depending on whether the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$ (treated in [ ]{}) or is $1$ (treated in [ ]{}). The proof of [ ]{} uses [ ]{}, and indeed we need to prove a number of subsidiary lemmata along the way. [ ]{} is a ‘roadmap’ showing the dependencies between the lemmata.
(alpha) [\[lem:an:alpha\]]{}; (betafirstsymbol) at ($ (alpha) + (1,0) $) [\[lem:an:betafirstsymbol\]]{}; (betafirstsymbolbraceupper) at ($ (betafirstsymbol) + (-.5,-.9) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 45mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{}; (alphabetalabel) at ($ (betafirstsymbolbraceupper) + (-2,-.6) $)
$\alpha=$\
$\beta$ begins
; (1pplus1) at ($ (alphabetalabel) + (1,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
$p{+}1\cdots$
; (1p1) at ($ (alphabetalabel) + (2,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
$1\cdots$
; (1n1) at ($ (alphabetalabel) + (3,0) $)
$1\cdots n$\
$1\cdots$
; (beta1prefixofalpha) at ($ (1p1) + (.5,-2.5) $) [\[lem:an:beta1prefixofalpha\]]{}; (beta1) at ($ (beta1prefixofalpha) + (0,-1) $) [\[lem:an:beta1\]]{}; (palphabeta) at ($ (beta1) + (0,-1) $) [\[lem:an:palphabeta\]]{}; (alpha1topbetapplus1onecolumn) at ($ (1pplus1) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:an:alpha1topbetapplus1onecolumn\]]{}; (betanot1) at ($ (alpha1topbetapplus1onecolumn) + (0,-1) $) [\[lem:an:betanot1\]]{};
(alpha) to (betafirstsymbolbraceupper); (betafirstsymbol) to (betafirstsymbolbraceupper); (1p1) to (beta1prefixofalpha); (1n1) to (beta1prefixofalpha); (beta1prefixofalpha) to (beta1); (1pplus1) to (alpha1topbetapplus1onecolumn); (alpha1topbetapplus1onecolumn) to (betanot1); (betanot1) to (beta1); (beta1) to (palphabeta);
\[lem:an:alpha\] We have $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for some $p \in {\mathcal{A}}_n[1,n]$.
By [ ]{}, $\alpha$ is a highest weight column (and thus a highest-weight tableau), and thus has the required form by [ ]{}.
\[lem:an:betafirstsymbol\]
1. If $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-1$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ or $p+1$.
2. If $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$.
Let $x$ be the first symbol of $\beta$, so that $\beta = x\beta'$.
1. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-1$. Recall the technique for practical computation of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ given in after [ ]{}. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{A}}_n[2,p] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} &\, {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x \in {\mathcal{A}}_n[p+2,n] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-} &\rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots. \\
\end{array}\egroup$$ (The overbraces indicate where the symbols $+$ and $-$ come from. We will use this notation without further comment throughout this section.) In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$ or $p+1$.
2. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots n$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{A}}_n[2,n] \implies& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} & \,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots \\
\end{array}\egroup$$ This contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibility is that $x$ is $1$.
\[lem:an:alpha1topbetapplus1onecolumn\] Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ and $\beta$ begins with $p+1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the single column $\alpha\beta$.
Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for $p \leq n$. Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$, [ ]{} shows that $p \leq n-1$ and $\beta$ begins with $p+1$. Since $\alpha$ is a column ending in $p$ and $\beta$ is a column beginning with $p+1$, it follows that $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta$.
\[lem:an:betanot1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta$.
This follows immediately from [ ]{} and \[lem:an:alpha1topbetapplus1onecolumn\].
Let $\beta_1$ be the maximal prefix of $\beta$ whose symbols form an interval of ${\mathcal{A}}_n$ (viewed as an ordered set).
\[lem:an:beta1prefixofalpha\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$.
Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for $p \leq n$. Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, then $\beta_1 = 1\cdots s$ for some $s \leq n$. If $s \geq p$, then $\beta\preceq\alpha$, which is a contradiction, so $s < p$ and so $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$.
\[lem:an:beta1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ consists of two columns, the rightmost column of $P(\alpha\beta)$ is $\beta_1$, which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols, and in total $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
(0,0) rectangle (1,5.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); at (1,0) [$\beta \not\preceq \alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4.5) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,3); (0,3) rectangle (1,5.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4.5) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (0.5,3) [${\neq}1$]{}; at (0.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [$\hat\beta$]{};
(1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); (2,0) rectangle (3,3); (0,0) rectangle (1,2.5); at (1.5,0) [$\mathllap{\hat\beta \not\preceq\;}\alpha\mathrlap{\;\preceq \beta_1}$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\neq}1$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4.5) [$p$]{}; at (2.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (2.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (2.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{}; at (0.5,1.5) [$\hat\beta$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,5); (1,0) rectangle (2,3); at (1,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (1.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (1.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{};
(2.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (6.5,2); at (4.5,2.75) [([ ]{})]{}; (9.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)}$]{} (13.5,2); at (11.5,2.75) [([ ]{})]{}; (17.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)}$]{} (21.5,2); at (19.5,3) [([ ]{})]{};
Let $\hat\beta$ be such that $\beta = \beta_1\hat\beta$. By [ ]{}, $\beta_1 =
1\cdots s$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. So $\alpha\beta_1 =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)} \beta_1\alpha$ by the [ ]{} and so $\alpha\beta =
\alpha\beta_1\hat\beta =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)} \beta_1\alpha\hat\beta$.
We now want to apply [ ]{} with $\hat\beta$ in place of $\beta$ (since $1$ is not the first symbol of $\hat\beta$) and so deduce that $P(\alpha\hat\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\hat\beta$. (See [ ]{}.) To do this, we need to prove that $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest-weight word and that $\hat\beta \not\preceq \alpha$. We will then obtain the result as follows: since $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$ and thus of $\alpha\hat\beta$, we have $\beta_1 \preceq \alpha\hat\beta$ and so $P(\alpha\beta) = \beta_1\alpha\hat\beta$, the rightmost column of which is $\beta_1$, which is a proper prefix of $\alpha$ and so contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols. Finally, note that $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $|\beta_1\alpha\hat\beta| = |\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
It remains to show that $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest-weight word and that $\hat\beta \not\preceq \alpha$. Let us prove the first claim. For $i < s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$, and for $i > s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {\varepsilon}$. Hence if $i \neq s$, we have $\rho_i(\alpha\beta_1\hat\beta) = \rho_i(\alpha\hat\beta)$. Furthermore, $\rho_s(\hat\beta) = {\varepsilon}$, because it does not contain $s$ (since $\beta_1\hat\beta$ is a column) and does not contain the $s+1$ (by the maximality of $\beta_1$), and these are the only symbols that could contribute $+$ or $-$ to the image of $\rho_s$. Hence $\rho_s(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{-}\rho_s(\hat\beta) = {\varepsilon}$. In each case, $\rho_i(\alpha\hat{\beta})$ does not start with ${-}$ and so $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest weight word.
Now we turn to proving that $\hat\beta \not \preceq \alpha$. Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ and $\beta$ is a column, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ cannot be $1$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $\hat\beta$ and $\alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq \alpha$.
\[lem:an:palphabeta\] The tableau $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and consists of either one column or two columns, the rightmost of which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
If the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, then by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols and consists of two columns, the rightmost of which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols. Otherwise, by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta$, which contains $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
Before proceeding to the other cases, we emphasize the following: In the proof of [ ]{}, when $\beta$ begins with $1$, we first of all deal with the prefix $\beta_1$ of $\beta$. After this, we are reduce to the case where $\beta$ does not begin with $1$. This idea of dealing with a prefix and then reducing to other cases will be used many times in the lemmata for types $C_n$, $B_n$, and $D_n$, and it this that sometimes necessitates considering cases in what might naively seem like an odd order.
Cn
--
Throughout this subsection, let $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathcal{C}}_n^*$ be admissible columns such that $\beta \not\preceq \alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ is of highest weight. As in the previous subsection, our aim is to learn about the shape of $P(\alpha\beta)$. The conclusion, as given in [ ]{}, is similar to the $A_n$ case, with the additional possibility that $P(\alpha\beta)$ can contain contain fewer than $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols (and indeed may be empty). The case analysis is more complicated: although the main division is into the cases where the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ or is not $1$, this second case require further subdivision. The ‘roadmap’ showing dependencies between lemmata is given in [ ]{}.
(cnalpha) [\[lem:cn:alpha\]]{}; (cnbetafirstsymbol) at ($ (cnalpha) + (1,0) $) [\[lem:cn:betafirstsymbol\]]{}; (cnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper) at ($ (cnbetafirstsymbol) + (-.5,-.9) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 70mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{}; (cnalphabetalabel) at ($ (cnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper) + (-3,-.6) $)
$\alpha=$\
$\beta$ begins
; (cn1p1) at ($ (cnalphabetalabel) + (1,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
$1\cdots$
; (cn1ppplus1) at ($ (cnalphabetalabel) + (2,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
$p{+}1\cdots$
; (cn1ppbar) at ($ (cnalphabetalabel) + (3,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
${\overline{p}}\cdots$
; (cn1n1) at ($ (cnalphabetalabel) + (4,0) $)
$1\cdots n$\
$1\cdots$
; (cn1nnbar) at ($ (cnalphabetalabel) + (5,0) $)
$1\cdots n$\
${\overline{n}}\cdots$
; (cnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) at ($ (cn1n1) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:cn:alpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols\]]{}; (cnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) at ($ (cn1ppplus1) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:cn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\]]{}; (cnbetanot1) at ($ (cnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) + (1,-1) $) [\[lem:cn:betanot1\]]{}; (cnbeta1prefixofalpha) at ($ (cn1p1) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:cn:beta1prefixofalpha\]]{}; (cnbeta1) at ($ (cnbeta1prefixofalpha) + (0,-1) $) [\[lem:cn:beta1\]]{}; (cnpalphabeta) at ($ (cnbeta1) + (1,-1) $) [\[lem:cn:palphabeta\]]{};
(cnalpha) to (cnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper); (cnbetafirstsymbol) to (cnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper); (cn1ppbar) to (cnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols); (cn1nnbar) to (cnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols); (cnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) to (cnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (cnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) to (cnbetanot1); (cn1ppplus1) to (cnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (cn1p1) to (cnbeta1prefixofalpha); (cn1n1.south) |- ($ (cnbeta1prefixofalpha) + (.5,.5) $) – (cnbeta1prefixofalpha); (cnbeta1prefixofalpha) to (cnbeta1); (cnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) to (cnbetanot1); (cnbetanot1) to (cnpalphabeta); (cnbetanot1) to (cnbeta1); (cnbeta1) to (cnpalphabeta);
\[lem:cn:alpha\] We have $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for some $p \in {\mathcal{C}}_n[1,n]$.
By [ ]{}, $\alpha$ is a highest weight column (and thus a highest-weight tableau), and thus has the required form by [ ]{}.
\[lem:cn:betafirstsymbol\]
1. If $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-1$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, $p+1$, or ${\overline{p}}$.
2. If $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ or ${\overline{n}}$.
Let $x$ be the first symbol of $\beta$, so that $\beta = x\beta'$.
1. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-1$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n[2,p] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} &\, {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n[p+2,n] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-} &\rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{p+1}}] \implies{}& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-} &\rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots;\\
x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{p-1}},{\overline{1}}] \implies{}& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-} &{-}&\rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta')&{}={-}\cdots. \\
\end{array}\egroup$$ (Recall our convention that ${\overline{{\overline{z}}}}=z$.) In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$, $p+1$, or ${\overline{p}}$.
2. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots n$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n[2,n] \implies& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} & \,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_x(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots \\
x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}] \implies& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-}& {-} & \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots
\end{array}\egroup$$ In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$ or ${\overline{n}}$.
The next step will be to analyze what happens in the two cases of [ ]{} when the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. As we will show, in each situation $P(\alpha\beta)$ is a single column that contains no more than $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
First we consider the possibilities arising from cases 1 and 2 of [ ]{} where the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{p}}$ or ${\overline{n}}$:
\[lem:cn:alpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for $p \leq n$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{p}}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single admissible column that is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
(0,3.5) rectangle (1,4.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,3); (1,0) rectangle (2,4); at (1,0) [$\beta \not\preceq \alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\overline{p}}$]{}; at (0.5,4) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(2.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (6.5,2);
(0,0) rectangle (1,4); (0,4) rectangle (1,7); (0,7.5) rectangle (1,8.5); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,4) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,4) [${\overline{p}}$]{}; at (0.5,8) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(8.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)}$]{} (12.5,2); at (10.5,3) [(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{C_n}$)]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,3); at (0.5,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,2.5) [$q$]{};
(See [ ]{}.) The word $\beta$ is a column and so consists of symbols ${\overline{x_1}}\,{\overline{x_2}}\ldots{\overline{x_k}}$ with $x_k < x_{k-1} < \ldots < x_1 = p$. Thus by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a column containing fewer that $p = |\alpha|$ symbols, and, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$. Since $\alpha\beta$ is of highest weight, so is $P(\alpha\beta)$. Thus, if it is non-empty, it is a prefix of $1\cdots n$. Since it contains fewer than $p$ symbols, it is thus a proper prefix of $\alpha = 1\cdots p$.
Parallel to the previous subsection, let $\beta_1$ be the maximal prefix of $\beta$ whose symbols form an interval of ${\mathcal{C}}_n[1,n]$ (viewed as an ordered set).
First we consider another possibility arising from case 1 of [ ]{}, where the first symbol of $\beta$ is $p+1$:
\[lem:cn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\] Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ and $\beta_1 = (p+1)\cdots t$ for $p < t \leq n$. Let $\hat\beta$ be such that $\beta=\beta_1\hat\beta$. Then:
1. If $\hat\beta = {\varepsilon}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots t$.
2. If $\hat\beta \neq {\varepsilon}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a proper prefix of $1\cdots t$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
If $\hat\beta = {\varepsilon}$, then $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots p(p+1)\cdots t = \alpha\beta$, which is a column.
So assume that $\hat\beta \neq {\varepsilon}$. Let $\hat\alpha = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots (p+1)p\cdots t = 1\cdots
t$. Note that $\hat\alpha\hat\beta = \alpha\beta_1\hat\beta = \alpha\beta$ and so $\hat\alpha\hat\beta$ has highest weight. The words $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ are also admissible columns, and the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is certainly not $1$. Thus neither is the first symbol of $r(\hat\beta)$, since $r$ can only replace a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $r(\hat\beta)$ and $\ell(\hat\alpha) = \hat\alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq
\hat\alpha$.
Thus [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$, $\hat\beta$, and $t$ in place of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $p$, respectively. Consider the cases that can arise:
1. If $t \leq n-1$, case 1 of [ ]{} holds and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is either $1$, $t+1$, or ${\overline{t}}$. As noted above, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is not $1$. By the maximality of the prefix $\beta_1$, the symbol $t+1$ is not in $\beta$ and thus cannot be the first symbol of $\hat\beta$. Therefore the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is ${\overline{t}}$, and so [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$, $\hat\beta$, and $t$ in place of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $p$, respectively, to show that $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ is empty or a proper prefix of $\hat\alpha = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots t$. Note also that, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then neither does $\hat\beta$ and so in this case $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ must contain $1\cdots q$. Since $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta) = P(\alpha\beta)$ and $|\hat\alpha| = |\alpha\beta_1| \leq |\alpha\beta|$, the result follows.
2. If $t = n$, case 2 of [ ]{} holds and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is either $1$ or ${\overline{n}}$. As noted above, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is not $1$; it is thus ${\overline{n}}$. So [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ in place of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively, to show that $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ is empty or a proper prefix of $1\cdots n$. Note also that, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then neither does $\hat\beta$ and so in this case $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ must contain $1\cdots q$. Since $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta) = P(\alpha\beta)$ and $|\hat\alpha\hat\beta| = |\alpha\beta|$, the result follows.
\[lem:cn:betanot1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ and contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols. If $\beta = \beta_1$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta$. If $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
One of the two cases of [ ]{} holds, with the first symbol of $\beta$ not being $1$:
1. In case 1, the result follows from [ ]{} and \[lem:cn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\].
2. In case 2, the result follows from [ ]{}.
This completes the analysis when the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. We now turn to the case when the first symbol is $1$, but we will apply some of the preceding lemmata during the analysis.
\[lem:cn:beta1prefixofalpha\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. Furthermore, in the case where $\beta_1 =
1\cdots s$:
1. if $s < n-1$, then the symbol $s+1$ and symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$ are not in $\beta$;
2. if $s = n-1$ and $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, then either $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$, and so symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$ are not in $\beta$.
Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, we have $\beta_1 = 1\cdots s$ for some $s \leq n$. If $s \geq p$, then $\beta\preceq\alpha$, which is a contradiction, so $s < p$ and so $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. In particular, since $p \leq n$, it is impossible that $s=n$, and so $s \leq n-1$.
Suppose $s < n-1$. Then $s+1$ is not a symbol of $\beta_1$ since $\beta_1$ has maximal length, and so all other symbols of $\beta$ are strictly greater than $s+1$; hence $s+1$ is not a symbol of $\beta$. Furthermore, if ${\overline{x}}
\in {\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$, then ${\overline{x}}$ is not a symbol of $\beta$, since otherwise $N_\beta(x) = x+1 > x$, contradicting $\beta$ being admissible.
Suppose that $s = n-1$ and so $\alpha = 1\cdots n$. Then $\beta$ cannot contain any symbol $x$ from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$, for this would imply $N_\beta(x) > x$, contradicting $\beta$ being admissible. So, since the length of an admissible column is bounded by $n$, we have $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$ or $\beta=\beta_1n$. The last possibility gives $\beta = \alpha$, contradicting $\beta \not\preceq\alpha$.
\[lem:cn:beta1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains two columns, contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and its rightmost column is $\beta_1$, which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
(0,0) rectangle (1,5.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); at (1,0) [$\beta \not\preceq \alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4.5) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,3); (0,3) rectangle (1,5.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); (0,6) rectangle (1,7); at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4.5) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (0.5,3) [${\neq}1$]{}; at (0.5,6.5) [${\overline{s}}$]{}; at (0.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [$\hat\beta$]{};
(0,3) rectangle (1,4); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); (2,0) rectangle (3,3); (0,0) rectangle (1,2.5); at (1.5,0) [$\mathllap{\hat\beta \not\preceq\;}\alpha\mathrlap{\;\preceq \beta_1}$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\neq}1$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4) [$p$]{}; at (2.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (2.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (0.5,3.5) [${\overline{s}}$]{}; at (2.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{}; at (0.5,1.5) [$\hat\beta$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,5); (1,0) rectangle (2,3); at (1,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (1.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (1.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{};
(2.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (6.5,2); at (4.5,2.75) [([ ]{})]{}; (9.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)}$]{} (13.5,2); at (11.5,2.75) [([ ]{})]{}; (17.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)}$]{} (21.5,2); at (19.5,3) [([ ]{})]{};
(See [ ]{}.) Let $\hat\beta$ be such that $\beta = \beta_1\hat\beta$. By [ ]{}, $\beta_1 =
1\cdots s$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. So $\alpha\beta_1 =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)} \beta_1\alpha$ by the [ ]{} and so $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1\hat\beta =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)} \beta_1\alpha\hat\beta$.
We now aim to show that $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest-weight word. We have to consider several cases:
1. Suppose that $s < n-1$. Then for $i < s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$, and for $i > s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {\varepsilon}$. Hence if $i \neq s$, we have $\rho_i(\alpha\beta_1\hat\beta) = \rho_i(\alpha\hat\beta)$. Furthermore, $\rho_s(\hat\beta) = {+}^k$ where $k \in \set{0,1}$, because $\hat\beta$ contains at most one symbol ${\overline{s+1}}$ (since $\beta_1\hat\beta$ is a column), does not contain a symbol $s$ (by the maximality of $\beta_1$), and does not contain the symbols $s+1$ or ${\overline{s}}$ (by [ ]{}), and these are the only symbols that could contribute $+$ or ${-}$ to the image of $\rho_s$. Hence $\rho_s(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{-}{+}^k = {+}^k$.
2. Suppose that $s=n-1$. For $i \leq n-1$, the same reasoning as in the previous case shows that $\rho_i(\alpha\hat\beta)$ is either empty or begins with ${+}$. It remains to consider $\rho_n(\alpha\hat\beta)$. Note that $\alpha = 1\cdots n$ (since $\beta$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$); thus $\rho_{n}(\alpha) = {+}$. By [ ]{} either $\beta=\beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$.
1. Suppose $\beta =\beta_1$. Then $\rho_n(\hat\beta)= {\varepsilon}$, so $\rho_{n}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}$.
2. Suppose $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$. Then $\rho_{n}(\hat\beta) = {-}$ and so $\rho_{n}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{-} =
{\varepsilon}$.
In each case, $\rho_i(\alpha\hat{\beta})$ does not start with ${-}$ and so $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest weight word.
Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ and $\beta$ is a column, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ cannot be $1$. Thus neither is the first symbol of $r(\hat\beta)$, since $r$ can only replace a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $r(\hat\beta)$ and $\ell(\alpha) = \alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq \alpha$.
Thus by [ ]{} with $\hat\beta$ in place of $\beta$, $P(\alpha\hat\beta) = \gamma$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ and contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols. Furthermore, since $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$, neither does $\hat\beta$, and so $\gamma$ contains $1\cdots s$. Hence $\gamma \preceq \beta_1$ and so $P(\alpha\beta) = \beta_1\gamma$. Since $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$, it contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
Finally, since $\gamma$ contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols, $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta| + |\beta_1| = |\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
\[lem:cn:palphabeta\] The tableau $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and is either empty or consists of either one column or two columns, the rightmost of which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
If the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, then by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains two columns, contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and its rightmost column contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols. If the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$, then by either of the possibilities in [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a column containing at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
Bn
--
Throughout this section, let $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathcal{B}}_n^*$ be admissible columns such that $\beta \not\preceq \alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ is of highest weight. As in the previous subsections, our aim is to learn about the shape of $P(\alpha\beta)$. The conclusion, as given in [ ]{}, is identical (in statement, not in proof) to the $C_n$ case. This reflects the fact that the case analysis is similar to type $C_n$ but with the additional complication of the extra symbol $0$ in the alphabet.
(bnalpha) [\[lem:bn:alpha\]]{}; (bnbetafirstsymbol) at ($ (bnalpha) + (1,0) $) [\[lem:bn:betafirstsymbol\]]{}; (bnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper) at ($ (bnbetafirstsymbol) + (-.5,-.9) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 85mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{}; (bnalphabetalabel) at ($ (bnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper) + (-3.5,-.6) $)
$\alpha=$\
$\beta$ begins
; (bn1p1) at ($ (bnalphabetalabel) + (1,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
$1\cdots$
; (bn1ppplus1) at ($ (bnalphabetalabel) + (2,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
$p{+}1\cdots$
; (bn1ppbar) at ($ (bnalphabetalabel) + (3,0) $)
$1\cdots p$\
${\overline{p}}\cdots$
; (bn1n1) at ($ (bnalphabetalabel) + (4,0) $)
$1\cdots n$\
$1\cdots$
; (bn1n0) at ($ (bnalphabetalabel) + (5,0) $)
$1\cdots n$\
$0\cdots$
; (bn1nnbar) at ($ (bnalphabetalabel) + (6,0) $)
$1\cdots n$\
${\overline{n}}\cdots$
; (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) at ($ (bn1nnbar) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:bn:alpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols\]]{}; (bnalpha1topbeta0fewersymbols) at ($ (bn1n0) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:bn:alpha1tonbeta0fewersymbols\]]{}; (bnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) at ($ (bn1ppplus1) + (0,-2.5) $) [\[lem:bn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\]]{}; (bnbetanot1) at ($ (bnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) + (1,-1) $) [\[lem:bn:betanot1\]]{}; (bnbeta1prefixofalpha) at ($ (bn1p1) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:bn:beta1prefixofalpha\]]{}; (bnbeta1) at ($ (bnbeta1prefixofalpha) + (0,-2) $) [\[lem:bn:beta1\]]{}; (bnpalphabeta) at ($ (bnbeta1) + (1,-1) $) [\[lem:bn:palphabeta\]]{};
(bnalpha) to (bnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper); (bnbetafirstsymbol) to (bnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper); (bn1ppbar) |- ($ (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) + (-.7,.7) $) – (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols); (bn1n0) to (bnalpha1topbeta0fewersymbols); (bn1nnbar) to (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols); (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) to (bnalpha1topbeta0fewersymbols); (bnalpha1topbeta0fewersymbols) – ($ (bnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) + (1,1) $) – (bnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) – ($ (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) + (-1,-1) $) – (bnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (bnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) |- (bnbetanot1); (bn1ppplus1) to (bnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (bn1p1) to (bnbeta1prefixofalpha); (bn1n1.south) |- ($ (bnbeta1prefixofalpha) + (.5,.5) $) – (bnbeta1prefixofalpha); (bnbeta1prefixofalpha) to (bnbeta1); (bnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) to (bnbetanot1); (bnbetanot1) to (bnpalphabeta); (bnbetanot1) to (bnbeta1); (bnbeta1) to (bnpalphabeta);
\[lem:bn:alpha\] We have $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for some $p \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[1,n]$.
By [ ]{}, $\alpha$ is a highest weight column (and thus a highest-weight tableau), and thus has the required form by [ ]{}.
\[lem:bn:betafirstsymbol\]
1. If $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-1$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, $p+1$, or ${\overline{p}}$.
2. If $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, $0$, or ${\overline{n}}$.
Let $x$ be the first symbol of $\beta$, so that $\beta = x\beta'$.
1. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-1$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[2,p] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} &\, {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[p+2,n] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-} &\rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x = 0 \implies{}& \rho_{n}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-}{+} &\rho_{x}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots;\\
x = {\overline{n}} \implies{}& \rho_{n}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-}{-} &\rho_{n}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots;\\
x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{p+1}}] \implies{}& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-} &\rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots;\\
x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{p-1}},{\overline{1}}] \implies{}& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-} &{-}&\rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta')&{}={-}\cdots. \\
\end{array}\egroup$$ In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$, $p+1$, or ${\overline{p}}$.
2. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots n$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[2,n] \implies& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} & \,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_x(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}] \implies& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-}& {-} & \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots.
\end{array}\egroup$$ In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$, $0$, or ${\overline{n}}$.
The next step will be to analyze what happens in the two cases of [ ]{} when the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. As we will show, in each situation $P(\alpha\beta)$ is a single column that contains no more than $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
First we consider the possibilities arising from cases 1 and 2 of [ ]{} where the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{p}}$ or ${\overline{n}}$:
\[lem:bn:alpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for $p \leq n$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{p}}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single admissible column that is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
(The reader may wish to refer to [ ]{}, which illustrates this proof when symbols $C$ are replaced by $B$ throughout.) The word $\beta$ is a column and so consists of symbols ${\overline{x_1}}\,{\overline{x_2}}\ldots{\overline{x_k}}$ with $1 \leq x_k < x_{k-1} < \ldots < x_1 = p$. (Note that $\beta$ does not include symbols $0$.) Thus by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a column containing fewer that $p = |\alpha|$ symbols, and, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{C}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$. Since $\alpha\beta$ is of highest weight, so is $P(\alpha\beta)$. Thus, if it is non-empty, it is a prefix of $1\cdots n$. Since it contains fewer than $p$ symbols, it is thus a prefix of $\alpha
= 1\cdots p$.
The other possibility arising from case 1 of [ ]{}, where the first symbol of $\beta$ is $p+1$, will be considered later since it reduces to some of the other cases.
The next step is to consider the possibility in case 2 of [ ]{} where $\beta$ begins with $0$:
\[lem:bn:alpha1tonbeta0fewersymbols\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots n$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is $0$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix (not necessarily proper) of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
(0,4.5) rectangle (1,5.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,2.5); (0,2.5) rectangle (1,4); (1,0) rectangle (2,5); at (1,0) [$\beta \not\preceq \alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$0$]{}; at (0.5,2.5) [$0$]{}; at (0.5,3.25) [$\gamma$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,9.5) rectangle (1,10.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,5); (0,5) rectangle (1,7.5); (0,7.5) rectangle (1,9); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$0$]{}; at (0.5,7.5) [$0$]{}; at (0.5,8.25) [$\gamma$]{}; at (0.5,10) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,7) rectangle (1,8); (0,0) rectangle (1,5); (0,5) rectangle (1,6.5); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$\gamma$]{}; at (0.5,7.5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,7) rectangle (1,8); (0,0) rectangle (1,5); (0,5) rectangle (1,6.5); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,7.5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,4); at (0.5,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$q$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,4); at (0.5,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,4) [$n$]{};
(7.5,1.5) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (9.5,1.5); (11.5,1.5) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)}$]{} (15.5,1.5); at (13.5,2.5) [(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n}$)]{}; (17.5,2) edge node\[applinecase\] [$\gamma$ empty]{} node\[applinelabel,near end\] [$=$]{} (21.5,-3); (17.5,2.5) edge node\[applinecase\] [$\gamma$ non-empty]{} node\[applinelabel,near end\] [$=$]{} (21.5,7); (17.5,3.5) edge node\[text=black,font=,pos=.625,sloped\] [([ ]{})]{} (21.5,8); (23.5,7) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)}$]{} (27.5,7); at (25.5,8) [([ ]{})]{};
(See [ ]{}.) Let $\beta = 0^h\gamma$, where $h \geq 1$ is maximal. Then $1\cdots n0 =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)} 1\cdots n$ is a relation of type ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n}$. Thus $\alpha\beta =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)} \alpha\gamma$ by a sequence of applications of relations of type ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n}$. If $\gamma$ is empty, $P(\alpha\beta) = \alpha$. So assume $\gamma$ is not empty. Note that by the maximality of $h$, the word $\gamma$ is a column beginning with a symbol in ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{1}}]$; this implies that $\gamma \not\preceq\alpha$. Since $\alpha\beta =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)}
\alpha\gamma$, the word $\alpha\gamma$ has highest weight. So, by [ ]{} with $\gamma$ in place of $\beta$, the first symbol of $\gamma$ is ${\overline{n}}$. Thus by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta) = P(\alpha\gamma)$ is equal to a single column that is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. Finally note that if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, neither does $\gamma$, and so in this case $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
Parallel to the previous subsection, let $\beta_1$ be the maximal prefix of $\beta$ whose symbols form an interval of ${\mathcal{B}}_n[1,n]$ (viewed as an ordered set).
First we consider another possibility arising from case 1 of [ ]{}, where the first symbol of $\beta$ is $p+1$:
\[lem:bn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\] Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ and $\beta_1 = (p+1)\cdots t$ for $p < t \leq n$. Let $\hat\beta$ be such that $\beta=\beta_1\hat\beta$.
1. If $\hat\beta = {\varepsilon}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots t$.
2. If $\hat\beta \neq {\varepsilon}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ and contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
If $\hat\beta = {\varepsilon}$, then $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots p(p+1)\cdots t = \alpha\beta$, which is a column.
So assume that $\hat\beta \neq {\varepsilon}$. Let $\hat\alpha = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots (p+1)p\cdots t = 1\cdots
t$. Note that $\hat\alpha\hat\beta = \alpha\beta_1\hat\beta = \alpha\beta$ and so $\hat\alpha\hat\beta$ has highest weight. The words $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ are also admissable columns, and the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is certainly not $1$. Thus neither is the first symbol of $r(\hat\beta)$, since $r$ can only replace a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $r(\hat\beta)$ and $\ell(\hat\alpha) = \hat\alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq
\hat\alpha$.
Thus [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$, $\hat\beta$, and $t$ in place of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $p$, respectively. Consider the cases that can arise:
1. If $t \leq n-1$, case 1 of [ ]{} holds and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is either $1$, $t+1$, or ${\overline{t}}$. As noted above, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is not $1$. By the maximality of the prefix $\beta_1$, the symbol $t+1$ is not in $\beta$ and thus cannot be the first symbol of $\hat\beta$. Therefore the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is ${\overline{t}}$, and so [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$, $\hat\beta$, and $t$ in place of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $p$, respectively, to show that $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ is a proper prefix of $\hat\alpha = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots t$ containing fewer that $|\hat\alpha|$ symbols. Note also that, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then neither does $\hat\beta$ and so in this case $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ must contain $1\cdots q$. Since $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta) = P(\alpha\beta)$ and $|\hat\alpha| = |\alpha\beta_1| \leq
|\alpha\beta|$, the result follows.
2. If $t = n$, case 2 of [ ]{} holds and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is either $1$, $0$, or ${\overline{n}}$. As noted above, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is not $1$. So [ ]{} or [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ in place of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively, to show that $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ that contains at most $|\hat\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols. Note also that, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then neither does $\hat\beta$ and so in this case $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ must contain $1\cdots q$. Since $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta) = P(\alpha\beta)$ and $|\hat\alpha\hat\beta| =
|\alpha\beta|$, the result follows.
\[lem:bn:betanot1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ and contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols. If $\beta = \beta_1$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta$. If $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
One of the two cases of [ ]{} holds, with the first symbol of $\beta$ not being $1$:
1. In case 1, the result follows from [ ]{} and \[lem:bn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\].
2. In case 2, the result follows from [ ]{} and \[lem:bn:alpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols\].
Finally, it remains to consider what happens when the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$.
\[lem:bn:beta1prefixofalpha\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta_1 = 1\cdots s$, then
1. if $s < n-1$, then the symbols $s+1$ and symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$ are not in $\beta$.
2. if $s = n-1$ and $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, then either $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_10$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$, and so symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$ are not in $\beta$.
Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, we have $\beta_1 = 1\cdots s$, and $s \leq n$. If $s \geq p$, then $\beta\preceq\alpha$, which is a contradiction, so $s < p$ and so $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. In particular, since $p \leq n$, it is impossible that $s=n$, and so $s \leq n-1$.
Suppose $s < n-1$. Then $s+1$ is not a symbol of $\beta_1$ since $\beta_1$ has maximal length, and so all other symbols of $\beta$ are strictly greater than $s+1$; hence $s+1$ is not a symbol of $\beta$. Furthermore, if ${\overline{x}}
\in {\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$, then ${\overline{x}}$ is not a symbol of $\beta$, since otherwise $N_\beta(x) = x+1 > x$, contradicting $\beta$ being admissible.
Suppose that $s = n-1$ and so $\alpha = 1\cdots n$. Then $\beta$ cannot contain any symbol $x$ from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$, for this would imply $N_\beta(x) > x$, contradicting $\beta$ being admissible. So, since the length of an admissible column is bounded by $n$, we have $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1 0$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$ or $\beta=\beta_1n$. The last possibility gives $\beta = \alpha$, contradicting $\beta
\not\preceq\alpha$.
\[lem:bn:beta1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains two columns, contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and its rightmost column is $\beta_1$, which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
(The reader may wish to refer to [ ]{}, which illustrates this proof when symbols $C$ are replaced by $B$ throughout, and the references to [ ]{} and \[lem:cn:betanot1\] are replaced by [ ]{} and \[lem:bn:betanot1\].) Let $\hat\beta$ be such that $\beta = \beta_1\hat\beta$. By [ ]{}, $\beta_1 =
1\cdots s$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. So $\alpha\beta_1 =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)} \beta_1\alpha$ by the [ ]{} and so $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1\hat\beta =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)} \beta_1\alpha\hat\beta$.
We now aim to show that $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest-weight word. We have to consider several cases:
1. Suppose that $s < n-1$. Then for $i < s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$, and for $i > s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {\varepsilon}$. Hence if $i \neq s$, we have $\rho_i(\alpha\beta_1\hat\beta) = \rho_i(\alpha\hat\beta)$. Furthermore, $\rho_s(\hat\beta) = {+}^k$, where $k \in \set{0,1}$, because $\hat\beta$ contains at most one symbol ${\overline{s+1}}$ (since $\beta_1\hat\beta$ is a column), does not contain a symbol $s$ (by the maximality of $\beta_1$), and does not contain the symbols $s+1$ or ${\overline{s}}$ (by [ ]{}), and these are the only symbols that could contribute $+$ or ${-}$ to the image of $\rho_s$. Hence $\rho_s(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{-}{+}^k = {+}^k$.
2. Suppose that $s=n-1$. For $i \leq n-1$, the same reasoning as in the previous case shows that $\rho_i(\alpha\hat\beta)$ is either empty or begins with ${+}$. It remains to consider $\rho_n(\alpha\hat\beta)$. Then $\alpha = 1\cdots n$ (since $\beta$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$). Then by [ ]{} either $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta = \beta_10$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$.
1. Suppose $\beta=\beta_1$. Then $\rho_n(\hat\beta) = {\varepsilon}$, so $\rho_n(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{+}$.
2. Suppose $\beta=\beta_10$. Then $\rho_n(\hat\beta) = {-}{+}$, so $\rho_n(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{+}{-}{+} = {+}{+}$.
3. Suppose $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$. Then $\rho_n(\hat\beta) = {-}{-}$, so $\rho_n(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{+}{-}{-} = {\varepsilon}$.
In each case, $\rho_i(\alpha\hat{\beta})$ does not start with ${-}$ and so $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest weight word.
Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ and $\beta$ is a column, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ cannot be $1$. Thus neither is the first symbol of $r(\hat\beta)$, since $r$ can only replace a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $r(\hat\beta)$ and $\ell(\alpha) = \alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq \alpha$.
Thus by [ ]{} with $\hat\beta$ in place of $\beta$, $P(\alpha\hat\beta) = \gamma$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ and contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols. Furthermore, since $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$, neither does $\hat\beta$, and so $\gamma$ contains $1\cdots s$. Hence $\gamma \preceq \beta_1$ and so $P(\alpha\beta) = \beta_1\gamma$. Since $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$, it contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
Finally, since $\gamma$ contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols, $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta| + |\beta_1| = |\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
\[lem:bn:palphabeta\] The tableau $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and is either empty or consists of either one column or two columns, the rightmost of which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
If the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, then by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains two columns, contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and its rightmost column contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols. If the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$, then by either of the possibilities in [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a column containing at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
Dn
--
Throughout this section, let $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathcal{D}}_n^*$ be admissible columns such that $\beta \not\preceq \alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ is of highest weight. As in the previous subsections, our aim is to learn about the shape of $P(\alpha\beta)$. The conclusion, as given in [ ]{}, is identical (in statement, not in proof) to the $C_n$ and $B_n$ cases.
(dnalpha) [\[lem:dn:alpha\]]{}; (dnbetafirstsymbol) at ($ (dnalpha) + (1,0) $) [\[lem:dn:betafirstsymbol\]]{}; (dnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper) at ($ (dnbetafirstsymbol) + (-.5,-.9) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 108mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{};
(dnalphalabel) at ($ (dnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper) + (-6,-.3) $)
; (dn1p) at ($ (dnalphalabel) + (2,0) $)
$1\cdots p$
; at ($ (dn1p) + (0,-.3) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 28mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{}; (dn1nminus1) at ($ (dnalphalabel) + (5.5,0) $)
$1\cdots n{-}1$
; at ($ (dn1nminus1) + (0,-.3) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 38mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{}; (dn1n) at ($ (dnalphalabel) + (8.5,0) $)
$1\cdots n$
; at ($ (dn1n) + (0,-.3) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 18mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{}; (dn1nbar) at ($ (dnalphalabel) + (10.5,0) $)
$1\cdots {\overline{n}}$
; at ($ (dn1nbar) + (0,-.3) $) [$\overbrace{\hbox{\vrule width 18mm height 0cm depth 0cm}}$]{}; (dnalphabetalabel) at ($ (dnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper) + (-6,-1) $)
$\beta$ begins
; (dn1p1) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (1,0) $)
$1\cdots$
; (dn1ppplus1) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (2,0) $)
$p{+}1\cdots$
; (dn1ppbar) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (3,0) $)
${\overline{p}}\cdots$
; (dn1nminus11) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (4,0) $)
$1\cdots$
; (dn1nminus1n) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (5,0) $)
$n\cdots$
; (dn1nminus1nbar) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (6,0) $)
${\overline{n}}\cdots$
; (dn1nminus1nminus1bar) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (7,0) $)
${\overline{n{-}1}}\cdots$
; (dn1n1) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (8,0) $)
$1\cdots$
; (dn1nnbar) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (9,0) $)
${\overline{n}}\cdots$
; (dn1nbar1) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (10,0) $)
$1\cdots$
; (dn1nbarn) at ($ (dnalphabetalabel) + (11,0) $)
$n\cdots$
;
(dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) at ($ (dn1nminus1n) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:dn:alpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols\]]{}; (dnalpha1tonbetanbarbetachar) at ($ (dn1nnbar) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbetanbarbetachar\]]{}; (dnalpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols) at ($ (dnalpha1tonbetanbarbetachar) + (0,-1) $) [\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols\]]{}; (dnalpha1tonbarbetanbetachar) at ($ (dn1nbarn) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbarbetanbetachar\]]{}; (dnalpha1tonbarbetanfewersymbols) at ($ (dnalpha1tonbarbetanbetachar) + (0,-1) $) [\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbarbetanfewersymbols\]]{}; (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols) at ($ (dn1nminus1nbar) + (0,-3.5) $) [\[lem:dn:alpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols\]]{}; (dnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) at ($ (dn1ppplus1) + (0,-3.5) $) [\[lem:dn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\]]{}; (dnbetanot1) at ($ (dn1nminus11) + (0,-5) $) [\[lem:dn:betanot1\]]{}; (dnbeta1prefixofalpha) at ($ (dn1p1) + (0,-3.5) $) [\[lem:dn:beta1prefixofalpha\]]{}; (dnbeta1) at ($ (dnbeta1prefixofalpha) + (0,-1.5) $) [\[lem:dn:beta1\]]{}; (dnpalphabeta) at ($ (dnbeta1) + (1.5,-1) $) [\[lem:dn:palphabeta\]]{};
(dnalpha) to (dnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper); (dnbetafirstsymbol) to (dnbetafirstsymbolbraceupper); (dn1ppbar) |- ($ (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) + (-.5,.5) $) – (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols); (dn1nminus1nminus1bar) |- ($ (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) + (.5,.5) $) – (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols); (dn1nnbar) – (dnalpha1tonbetanbarbetachar); (dnalpha1tonbetanbarbetachar) – (dnalpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols); (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) – ($ (dnalpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols) + (-1,1) $) – (dnalpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols); (dn1nbarn) – (dnalpha1tonbarbetanbetachar); (dnalpha1tonbetanbarbetachar) – (dnalpha1tonbarbetanbetachar); (dnalpha1tonbarbetanbetachar) – (dnalpha1tonbarbetanfewersymbols); (dn1nminus1n) – ($ (dn1nminus1n) + (0,-.5) $) -| ($ (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols.north) + (-.125,0) $); ($ (dn1nminus1nbar.south) + (.125,0) $) – ($ (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols.north) + (.125,0) $); ($ (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols.south) + (.25,0) $) – ($ (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols) + (-.75,.75) $) – (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols); (dnalpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols) – ($ (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols) + (1,1) $) – (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols); (dnalpha1tonbarbetanfewersymbols) – ($ (dnalpha1tonbarbetanfewersymbols) + (-1,-1) $) – (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols); (dn1ppplus1) – (dnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) – ($ (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) + (-1,0) $) – (dnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols) – (dnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn); (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) – ($ (dnalpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols) + (-1.125,-1.125) $) – ($ (dnbetanot1.north) + (-.125,0) $); (dnalpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols) |- ($ (dnbetanot1) + (.5,.5) $) – (dnbetanot1); (dnalpha1tonbarbetanfewersymbols) |- (dnbetanot1); (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols) – ($ (dnalpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols) + (0,-.5) $) -| ($ (dnbetanot1.north) + (.125,0) $); (dnalpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn) – (dnbetanot1); ($ (dn1p1.south) + (-.25,0) $) – ($ (dnbeta1prefixofalpha.north) + (-.25,0) $); (dn1nminus11) – ($ (dn1nminus11) + (0,-.5) $) -| (dnbeta1prefixofalpha); (dn1n1) – ($ (dn1n1) + (0,-.75) $) -| ($ (dnbeta1prefixofalpha.north) + (.25,0) $); (dnbeta1prefixofalpha) – (dnbeta1); (dnbetanot1) – (dnbeta1); (dnbetanot1) – (dnpalphabeta); (dnbeta1) – (dnpalphabeta);
\[lem:dn:alpha\] Either $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for some $p \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[1,n]$, or $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$.
By [ ]{}, $\alpha$ is a highest weight column (and thus a highest-weight tableau), and thus has the required form by [ ]{}.
In the previous cases $A_n$, $C_n$, and $B_n$, the word $\alpha$ was always of the form $1\cdots p$. Here, there is the immediate additional complication that alpha could be $1\cdots(n-1){\overline{n}}$.
\[lem:dn:betafirstsymbol\]
1. If $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-2$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, $p+1$, or ${\overline{p}}$.
2. If $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1)$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, $n$, ${\overline{n}}$, or ${\overline{n-1}}$.
3. If $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ or ${\overline{n}}$.
4. If $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$, then the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ or $n$.
Let $x$ be the first symbol of $\beta$, so that $\beta = x\beta'$.
1. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$, where $p \leq n-2$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[2,p] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} &\, {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[p+2,n] \implies{}& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-} &\rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots; \\
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{p+1}}] \implies{}& \rho_{x}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\varepsilon}& {-} &\rho_{x}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots;\\
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{p-1}},{\overline{1}}] \implies{}& \rho_{x}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-} &{-}&\rho_{x}(\beta')&{}={-}\cdots. \\
\end{array}\egroup$$ In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$, $p+1$, or ${\overline{p}}$.
2. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1)$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[2,n-1] \implies& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} & \,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots \\
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-2}},{\overline{1}}] \implies& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-}& {-} & \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots
\end{array}\egroup$$ In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$, $n$, ${\overline{n}}$, or ${\overline{n-1}}$.
3. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots n$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[2,n] \implies& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} & \,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots \\
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}] \implies& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-}& {-} & \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots
\end{array}\egroup$$ In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$ or ${\overline{n}}$.
4. Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrccll}
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[2,n-1] \implies& \rho_{x-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha} & \,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{x} & \rho_{x-1}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots \\
x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{1}}] \implies& \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-}& {-} & \rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta') &{}={-}\cdots
\end{array}\egroup$$ In each case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are that $x$ is $1$ or $n$.
The next step will be to analyze what happens in the cases 1–4 in [ ]{} when the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. As will be shown, in each situation $P(\alpha\beta)$ is a single column that contains no more than $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
First we consider one of the possibilities arising from cases 1 and 2 of [ ]{}. The case where the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{p}}$ is easier:
\[lem:dn:alpha1topbetapbarfewersymbols\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ for $p \leq n-1$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{p}}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single admissible column that is a prefix of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
(The reader may wish to refer to [ ]{}, which illustrates this proof when symbols $C$ are replaced by $D$ throughout.) The word $\beta$ is a column and so consists of symbols ${\overline{x_1}}\,{\overline{x_2}}\ldots{\overline{x_k}}$ with $1 \leq x_k < x_{k-1} < \ldots < x_1 = p$. (Note that $\beta$ does not include symbols $n$ or ${\overline{n}}$.) Thus by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a column containing fewer that $p = |\alpha|$ symbols, and, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$. Since $\alpha\beta$ is of highest weight, so is $P(\alpha\beta)$. Thus, if it is non-empty, it is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ or $1\cdots(n-1){\overline{n}}$. Since it contains fewer than $p \leq n-1$ symbols, it is thus a prefix of $\alpha = 1\cdots p$.
The next step is to consider cases 3 and 4 of [ ]{}, because some of the other possibilities can be reduced to this situation. For case 3, the method is to characterize $\beta$ in [ ]{} and then prove the result in [ ]{}:
\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbetanbarbetachar\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots n$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{n}}$, then either $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k {\overline{n-1}}\gamma$ for some $k \geq 0$ and a (possibly empty) strictly increasing word $\gamma$ over ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-2}},{\overline{1}}]$, or $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k$, or $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k n$.
Since $\beta$ is a column of type $D_n$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{n}}$, then $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})\beta'$ for some maximal $k \geq 0$ and $\beta'$ a (possibly empty) word over ${\mathcal{D}}_n[n,{\overline{1}}]$.
Suppose first that $\beta' = {\overline{x}}\gamma$, where ${\overline{x}} \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-2}},{\overline{1}}]$. Then $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rccccll}
\rho_{x}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{\varepsilon}}}^{{\overline{n}}}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}({\varepsilon})^k}}^{\mathclap{(n{\overline{n}})^k}}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}-}}^{{\overline{x}}}&\rho_{x}(\gamma) &{}= {-}\cdots, \\
\end{array}\egroup$$ which contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. So if $\beta'$ is non-empty, it either has the form ${\overline{n-1}}\gamma$ or $n\gamma$. It remains to show that $\gamma$ must be empty in the latter case.
Suppose that $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^kn{\overline{x}}\gamma'$ where $k$ is maximal for some ${\overline{x}} \in
{\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{1}}]$ and $\gamma = {\overline{x}}\gamma'$. Since $k$ is maximal, ${\overline{x}} \neq {\overline{n}}$, so ${\overline{x}} \in
{\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$. However, $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrcccccll}
{\overline{x}} \in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-2}},{\overline{1}}] \implies{}& \rho_{x}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{\varepsilon}}}^{{\overline{n}}}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}({\varepsilon})^k}}^{\mathclap{(n{\overline{n}})^k}}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{\varepsilon}}}^{n}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}-}}^{{\overline{x}}}&\rho_{x}(\gamma') &{}= {-}\cdots; \\
{\overline{x}} = {\overline{n-1}} \implies{}& \rho_{n-1}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {+}{-}&{+}&({-}{+})^k&{-}&{-}&\rho_{n-1}(\gamma') &{}= {-}\cdots.
\end{array}\egroup$$ In either case, this contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight.
\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbetanbarfewersymbols\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots n$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{n}}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix (not necessarily proper) of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq n-1$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
(0,4.5) rectangle (1,5.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,4); (1,0) rectangle (2,5); at (1,0) [$\beta \not\preceq \alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,4.5) rectangle (1,5.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,2.5); (0,2.5) rectangle (1,4); (1,0) rectangle (2,5); at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,0.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,1) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,2.5) [${\overline{\;\;\;\mathclap{n{-}1}\;\;\;}}$]{}; at (0.5,3.25) [$\gamma$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,2.5) rectangle (1,3.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,2); (1,0) rectangle (2,5); at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,0.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,1) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,3) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,3) rectangle (1,4); (0,0) rectangle (1,2.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,5); at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,0.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,1) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,1.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,3.5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,9.5) rectangle (1,10.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,5); (0,5) rectangle (1,7.5); (0,7.5) rectangle (1,9); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,5.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,6) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,7.5) [${\overline{\;\;\;\mathclap{n{-}1}\;\;\;}}$]{}; at (0.5,8.25) [$\gamma$]{}; at (0.5,10) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,7.5) rectangle (1,8.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,5); (0,5) rectangle (1,7); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,5.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,6) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,8) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,8) rectangle (1,9); (0,0) rectangle (1,5); (0,5) rectangle (1,7.5); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,5.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,6) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,6.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,8.5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,6.5) rectangle (1,7.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,4.5); (0,4.5) rectangle (1,6); at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [$n{-}1$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [${\overline{\;\;\;\mathclap{n{-}1}\;\;\;}}$]{}; at (0.5,7) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,4); at (0.5,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$q$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,4.5); at (0.5,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$q$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [$n{-}1$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,5); at (0.5,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$q$]{};
(2.5,1.5) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (4.5,-7); (2.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (4.5,2); (2.5,2.5) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (4.5,9); (7.5,-7) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (9.5,-7); (11.5,-7) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (15.5,-7); (17.5,-7) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (21.5,-7); at (19.5,-6) [([ ]{})]{}; (7.5,9) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (15.5,9); (17.5,9) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (21.5,9); at (19.5,10) [(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)]{}; (7.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (12.5,2); (14.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (21.5,2); at (18,3) [(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)]{};
(See [ ]{}.) By [ ]{}, there are three cases. If $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k
{\overline{n-1}}\gamma$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\beta ={}& 1\cdots n{\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k{\overline{n-1}}\gamma \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1)(n{\overline{n}})^k{\overline{n-1}}\gamma &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)} \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1)(n{\overline{n}})^{k-1}{\overline{n-1}}\gamma &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)} \\
&\vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n-1}}\gamma, &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)}
\end{aligned}$$ which, by [ ]{}, is equal to either the empty word or to a single column that is a prefix of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$ (which can only happen for $q \leq n-2$ since $\beta$ contains ${\overline{n}}$ and ${\overline{n-1}}$), then neither does $\gamma$, and so $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$ by [ ]{}.
If $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\beta ={}& 1\cdots n{\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1)(n{\overline{n}})^k &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)} \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1)(n{\overline{n}})^{k-1} &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)} \\
&\vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1), &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)}
\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$ for any $q \leq n-1$.
Finally, if $\beta = {\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^k n$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha\beta ={}& 1\cdots n{\overline{n}}(n{\overline{n}})^kn \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1)(n{\overline{n}})^kn &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)} \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1)(n{\overline{n}})^{k-1}n &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)} \\
&\vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}{}& 1\cdots (n-1)n, &&\text{(by ${\mathcal{R}}_5^{D_n}$)} \\
={}& \alpha.
\end{aligned}$$ Clearly $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$ for any $q \leq n-1$.
The method for case 4 of [ ]{} is parallel: characterize $\beta$ in [ ]{} and then prove the result in [ ]{}:
\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbarbetanbetachar\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is $n$, then either $\beta = n({\overline{n}}n)^k
{\overline{n-1}}\gamma$ for some $k \geq 0$ and a (possibly empty) strictly increasing word $\gamma$ over ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-2}},{\overline{1}}]$, or $\beta =
n({\overline{n}}n)^k$, or $\beta = n({\overline{n}}n)^k {\overline{n}}$.
Parallel to the proof of [ ]{}, except that one considers $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rrcccccll}
{\overline{x}} = {\overline{n-1}} \implies{}& \rho_{n}(\alpha\beta) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}{-}}}^{\alpha}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}}}^{n}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}({-}{+})^k}}^{\mathclap{({\overline{n}}n)^k}}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{{\overline{n}}}&\,{\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{{\overline{x}}}&\rho_{x}(\gamma) &{}= {-}\cdots
\end{array}\egroup$$ to get a contradiction in the case ${\overline{x}} = {\overline{n-1}}$.
\[lem:dn:alpha1tonbarbetanfewersymbols\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is $n$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix (not necessarily proper) of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq n-1$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
Parallel to the proof of [ ]{}, using [ ]{}, and noting that when $\beta = n({\overline{n}}n)^k {\overline{n}}$, we get $P(\alpha\beta) = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}} = \alpha$.
Finally, for case 2 of [ ]{}, we can reduce all sub-cases to previously-proven results:
\[lem:dn:alpha1tonminusonebetanfewersymbols\] If $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1)$ and the first symbol of $\beta$ is $n$, ${\overline{n}}$, or ${\overline{n-1}}$ then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of either $1\cdots n$ or $1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$ that contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq
n-1$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
(0,4.5) rectangle (1,5.5); (0,0) rectangle (1,4); (1,0) rectangle (2,5); at (1,0) [$\beta \not\preceq \alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n{-}1$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$x$]{}; at (0.5,5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,4) rectangle (1,5); (0,0) rectangle (1,3.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,5.5); at (1,0) [$\hat\beta \not\preceq \hat\alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n{-}1$]{}; at (1.5,5.5) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,4) rectangle (1,5); (0,0) rectangle (1,3.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,5.5); at (1,0) [$\hat\beta \not\preceq \hat\alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,5) [$n{-}1$]{}; at (1.5,5.5) [${\overline{n}}$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$n$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [${\overline{q}}$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,4); at (0.5,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$q$]{};
(2.5,1.5) edge node\[applinecase\] [$x={\overline{n{-}1}}$]{} (6,-3); (6,-3) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (10,-3); (10,-3) edge (13.5,1.5); at (8,-2) [([ ]{})]{}; (2.5,2) edge node\[applinecase\] [$x=n$]{} node\[applinelabel,near end\] [$=$]{} (6.5,2); at (5,2.5) [([ ]{})]{}; (9.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (13.5,2); at (11.5,2.8) [([ ]{})]{}; (2.5,2.5) edge node\[applinecase\] [$x={\overline{n}}$]{} node\[applinelabel,near end\] [$=$]{} (6.5,11); (2.5,3.75) edge node\[text=black,font=,pos=.625,sloped\] [([ ]{})]{} (6.5,12.25); (9.5,11) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (13.5,2.5); (9.75,12.5) edge node\[text=black,font=,pos=.675,sloped\] [([ ]{})]{} (13.5,4.25);
(See [ ]{}.) If the first symbol of $\beta$ is ${\overline{n-1}}$, then the result follows from [ ]{}.
So suppose $\beta = x\hat\beta$, where $x$ is $n$ or ${\overline{n}}$. Let $\hat\alpha = 1\cdots(n-1)x$. Then $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ are admissable columns and $\alpha\beta = \hat\alpha\hat\beta$. The first symbol of $\hat\beta$ cannot be $1$. Thus neither is the first symbol of $r(\hat\beta)$, since $r$ can only replace a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $r(\hat\beta)$ and $\ell(\hat\alpha) =
\hat\alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq \hat\alpha$.
If $x = n$, then case 3 of [ ]{} holds with $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ in place of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is ${\overline{n}}$ and so the result follows from [ ]{} with $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ in place of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, since $P(\alpha\beta) = P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ and $\hat\alpha = 1\cdots n$, noting in particular that $|\hat\alpha| \leq |\alpha\beta|$.
If $x = {\overline{n}}$, then case 4 of [ ]{} holds with $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ in place of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is $n$ and so the result follows from [ ]{} with $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ in place of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, since $P(\alpha\beta) = P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ and $\hat\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$, noting in particular that $|\hat\alpha| \leq |\alpha\beta|$.
In a slight variation on previous subsections, let $\beta_1$ be the maximal prefix of $\beta$ whose symbols form an interval of ${\mathcal{D}}_n[1,n-1]$ (viewed as an ordered set).
Now we consider another possibility arising from case 1 of [ ]{}, where the first symbol of $\beta$ is $p+1$:
\[lem:dn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\] Suppose $\alpha = 1\cdots p$ and $\beta_1 = (p+1)\cdots t$ for $p < t \leq n-1$. Let $\hat\beta$ be such that $\beta=\beta_1\hat\beta$.
1. If $\hat\beta = {\varepsilon}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots t$.
2. If $\hat\beta \neq {\varepsilon}$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of either $1\cdots n$ or $1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$ and contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots
q$.
If $\hat\beta = {\varepsilon}$, then $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots p(p+1)\cdots t$, which is an admissible column.
So assume that $\hat\beta \neq {\varepsilon}$. Let $\hat\alpha = \alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots (p+1)p\cdots t = 1\cdots
t$. Note that $\hat\alpha\hat\beta = \alpha\beta_1\hat\beta = \alpha\beta$ and so $\hat\alpha\hat\beta$ has highest weight. The words $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ are also admissible columns, and the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is certainly not $1$. Thus neither is the first symbol of $r(\hat\beta)$, since $r$ can only replace a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $r(\hat\beta)$ and $\ell(\hat\alpha) = \hat\alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq
\hat\alpha$.
Thus [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$, $\hat\beta$, and $t$ in place of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $p$, respectively. Consider the cases that can arise:
1. If $t \leq n-2$, case 1 of [ ]{} holds and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is either $1$, $t+1$, or ${\overline{t}}$. As noted above, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is not $1$. By the maximality of the prefix $\beta_1$, the symbol $t+1$ (which is less than or equal to $n-1$) is not in $\beta$ and thus cannot be the first symbol of $\hat\beta$. Therefore the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is ${\overline{t}}$, and so [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$, $\hat\beta$, and $t$ in place of $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $p$, respectively, to show that $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ is a proper prefix of $\hat\alpha =
\alpha\beta_1 = 1\cdots t$ containing fewer that $|\hat\alpha|$ symbols. Note also that, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then neither does $\hat\beta$ and so in this case $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ must contain $1\cdots q$. Since $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta) = P(\alpha\beta)$ and $|\hat\alpha| = |\alpha\beta_1| \leq
|\alpha\beta|$, the result follows.
2. If $t = n-1$, case 2 of [ ]{} holds and so the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is either $1$, $n$, ${\overline{n}}$, or ${\overline{n-1}}$. As noted above, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ is not $1$. So [ ]{} applies with $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ in place of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively, to show that $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ is a prefix of $1\cdots n$ or $1\cdots
(n-1){\overline{n}}$ that contains at most $|\hat\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols. Note also that, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, then neither does $\hat\beta$ and so in this case $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta)$ must contain $1\cdots q$. Since $P(\hat\alpha\hat\beta) = P(\alpha\beta)$ and $|\hat\alpha\hat\beta| =
|\alpha\beta|$, the result follows.
\[lem:dn:betanot1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$. If $\beta = \beta_1$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ is the column $\alpha\beta$; otherwise $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of either $1\cdots n$ or $1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$ and contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols. Furthermore, if $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{q}},{\overline{1}}]$, where $q \leq p$, then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains $1\cdots q$.
One of the four cases of [ ]{} holds, with the first symbol of $\beta$ not being $1$:
1. In case 1, the result follows from [ ]{} and \[lem:dn:alpha1topbetapplus1fewersymbolsoronecolumn\].
2. In case 2, the result follows from [ ]{}.
3. In case 3, the result follows from [ ]{}.
4. In case 4, the result follows from [ ]{}.
Finally, it remains to consider what happens when the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$.
\[lem:dn:beta1prefixofalpha\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. Furthermore, if $\beta_1 =
1\cdots s$, then:
1. if $s < n-1$, then the symbol $s+1$ and symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$ are not in $\beta$;
2. if $s = n-1$ and $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, then either $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$, and so symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$ are not in $\beta$;
3. if $s = n-1$ and $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$, then either $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1n$, and so symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$ are not in $\beta$.
Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, we have $\beta_1 = 1\cdots s$ for some $s \leq n-1$.
Suppose $s < n-1$. Then $s+1$ is not a symbol of $\beta_1$ since $\beta_1$ has maximal length, and so all other symbols of $\beta$ are strictly greater than $s+1$; hence $s+1$ is not a symbol of $\beta$. Furthermore, if ${\overline{x}}
\in {\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$, then ${\overline{x}}$ is not a symbol of $\beta$, since otherwise $N_\beta(x) = x+1 > x$, contradicting $\beta$ being admissible.
Suppose that $s = n-1$ and $\alpha = 1\cdots n$. Then $\beta$ cannot contain any symbol ${\overline{x}}$ from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$, for this would imply $N_\beta(x) > x$, contradicting $\beta$ being admissible. So, since the length of an admissible column is bounded by $n$, we have $\beta = \beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$ or $\beta=\beta_1n$. The last possibility cannot arise since $\beta \not\preceq\alpha$.
The reasoning for $s = n-1$ and $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$ parallels the previous paragraph.
\[lem:dn:beta1\] Suppose the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$. Then $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains two columns, contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and its rightmost column is $\beta_1$, which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
(0,0) rectangle (1,5.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); at (1,0) [$\beta \not\preceq \alpha$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4.5) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,3); (0,3) rectangle (1,5.5); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); (0,6) rectangle (1,7); at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4.5) [$p$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (0.5,3) [${\neq}1$]{}; at (0.5,6.5) [${\overline{s}}$]{}; at (0.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{}; at (0.5,4.5) [$\hat\beta$]{};
(0,3) rectangle (1,4); (1,0) rectangle (2,4.5); (2,0) rectangle (3,3); (0,0) rectangle (1,2.5); at (1.5,0) [$\mathllap{\hat\beta \not\preceq\;}\alpha\mathrlap{\;\preceq \beta_1}$]{}; at (0.5,0) [${\neq}1$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,4) [$p$]{}; at (2.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (2.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (0.5,3.5) [${\overline{s}}$]{}; at (2.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{}; at (0.5,1.5) [$\hat\beta$]{};
(0,0) rectangle (1,5); (1,0) rectangle (2,3); at (1,0) [$P(\alpha\beta)$]{}; at (0.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (1.5,0) [$1$]{}; at (0.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (1.5,3) [$s$]{}; at (1.5,1.5) [$\beta_1$]{};
(2.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=$]{} (6.5,2); at (4.5,2.75) [([ ]{})]{}; (9.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (13.5,2); at (11.5,2.75) [([ ]{})]{}; (17.5,2) edge node\[applinelabel\] [$=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)}$]{} (21.5,2); at (19.5,3) [([ ]{})]{};
(See [ ]{}.) Let $\hat\beta$ be such that $\beta = \beta_1\hat\beta$. By [ ]{}, $\beta_1 =
1\cdots s$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$. So $\alpha\beta_1 =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)} \beta_1\alpha$ by the [ ]{} and so $\alpha\beta = \alpha\beta_1\hat\beta =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)} \beta_1\alpha\hat\beta$.
We now aim to show that $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest-weight word. We have to consider several cases:
1. Suppose that $s < n-1$. Then for $i < s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$, and for $i > s$, we have $\rho_i(\beta_1) = {\varepsilon}$. Hence if $i \neq s$, we have $\rho_i(\alpha\beta_1\hat\beta) =
\rho_i(\alpha\hat\beta)$. Furthermore, $\rho_s(\hat\beta) = {+}^k$ for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}\cup\set{0}$, since $\hat\beta$ does not contain the symbols $s+1$ or ${\overline{s}}$ by [ ]{}, and these are the only symbols that could contribute ${-}$ to the image of $\rho_s$. Hence $\rho_s(\alpha\hat\beta) =
{+}{-}{+}^k = {+}^k\cdots$.
2. Suppose that $s=n-1$. For $i < n-1$, the same reasoning as in the previous case shows that $\rho_i(\alpha\hat\beta)$ is either empty or begins with ${+}$. It remains to consider $\rho_{n-1}(\alpha\hat\beta)$ and $\rho_n(\alpha\hat\beta)$. Then either $\alpha = 1\cdots n$ or $\alpha = 1\cdots n-1{\overline{n}}$ (since $\beta$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$). Then:
1. Suppose that $\alpha = 1\cdots n$, so that $\rho_{n-1}(\alpha) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$ and $\rho_{n}(\alpha) = {+}{+} =
{\varepsilon}$. Then by [ ]{} either $\beta=\beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$.
1. Suppose $\beta =\beta_1$. Then $\rho_{n-1}(\hat\beta) = {\varepsilon}$ and $\rho_n(\hat\beta)= {\varepsilon}$, so $\rho_{n-1}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {\varepsilon}$ and $\rho_{n}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{+}$.
2. Suppose $\beta=\beta_1{\overline{n}}$. Then $\rho_{n-1}(\hat\beta) = {+}$ and $\rho_{n}(\hat\beta) = {-}$ and so $\rho_{n-1}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}$ and $\rho_{n}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{+}{-} = {+}$.
2. Suppose that $\alpha = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$, so that $\rho_{n-1}(\alpha) = {+}{+}$ and $\rho_{n}(\alpha) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$. Then by [ ]{} either $\beta=\beta_1$ or $\beta=\beta_1n$.
1. Suppose $\beta =\beta_1$. Then $\rho_{n-1}(\hat\beta) = {\varepsilon}$ and $\rho_n(\hat\beta)= {\varepsilon}$, so $\rho_{n-1}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{+}$ and $\rho_{n}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {\varepsilon}$.
2. Suppose $\beta=\beta_1n$. Then $\rho_{n-1}(\hat\beta) = {-}$ and $\rho_{n}(\hat\beta) = {+}$ and so $\rho_{n-1}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}{+}{-} = {+}$ and $\rho_{n}(\alpha\hat\beta) = {+}$.
In each case, $\rho_i(\alpha\hat{\beta})$ does not start with ${-}$ and so $\alpha\hat\beta$ is a highest weight word.
Since the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$ and $\beta$ is a column, the first symbol of $\hat\beta$ cannot be $1$. Thus neither is the first symbol of $r(\hat\beta)$, since $r$ can only replace a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence the first row of the tabloid with columns $r(\hat\beta)$ and $\ell(\alpha) = \alpha$ (in that order) has a strict decrease in its first row, and thus $\hat\beta \not\preceq \alpha$.
Thus by [ ]{} with $\hat\beta$ in place of $\beta$, the tableau $P(\alpha\hat\beta) =
\gamma$ is either empty or a single column that is a prefix of either $1\cdots n$ or $1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$ and contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols. Furthermore, since $\beta$ does not contain symbols from ${\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{s}},{\overline{1}}]$, neither does $\hat\beta$, and so $\gamma$ contains $1\cdots s$. Hence $\beta_1 \preceq
\gamma$ and so $P(\alpha\beta) = \beta_1\gamma$. Since $\beta_1$ is a proper prefix of $\alpha$, it contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
Finally, since $\gamma$ contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta|$ symbols, $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains at most $|\alpha\hat\beta| + |\beta_1| = |\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
\[lem:dn:palphabeta\] The tableau $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and is either empty or consists of either one column or two columns, the rightmost of which contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
If the first symbol of $\beta$ is $1$, then by [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains two columns, contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and its rightmost column contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols. If the first symbol of $\beta$ is not $1$, then by either of the possibilities in [ ]{}, $P(\alpha\beta)$ is either empty or a column containing at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols.
G2
--
Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be admissible $G_2$ column words such that $\beta \not\preceq \alpha$ and $\alpha\beta$ is a highest-weight word. As in the previous subsections, our aim is to learn about the shape of $P(\alpha\beta)$; for the conclusion, see [ ]{}. However, the approach is different. Recall that there are only finitely many admissible $G_2$ columns (the admissible $G_2$ columns are listed in , and the relation $\preceq$ on admisible $G_2$ columns is illustrated in [ ]{}). Thus, our approach is simply to characterize the finitely many possibilities for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in [ ]{}, and then to compute $P(\alpha\beta)$ in each case and derive the conclusion in [ ]{}.
\[lem:g2:alphabetachar\] Either:
1. $\alpha = 1$ and $\beta \in \set{2,0,{\overline{1}},23,00}$; or
2. $\alpha = 12$ and $\beta \in \set{1,3,{\overline{2}},13,30,3{\overline{3}},{\overline{2}}{\overline{1}}}$.
Since $\alpha\beta$ is of highest weight [ ]{}, $\alpha$ is a highest weight column (and thus a highest-weight tableau). The highest weight admissible columns of lengths $1$ and $2$ are $1$ and $12$, so either $\alpha = 1$ or $\alpha =12$.
1. Suppose $\alpha = 1$. Let $\beta = x\beta'$, where $x \in {\mathcal{G}}_2$. If $x = 1$, then $\beta \preceq\alpha$, which is a contradiction. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
x = 3 \implies& \rho_{2}(\alpha\beta) = \rho_2(13\beta') = {-}\rho_2(\beta') = {-}\cdots;\\
x = {\overline{3}} \implies& \rho_{1}(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(1{\overline{3}}\beta') = {+}{-}{-}\rho_1(\beta') = {-}\cdots;\\
x = {\overline{2}} \implies& \rho_{2}(\alpha\beta) = \rho_2(1{\overline{2}}\beta') = {-}\rho_2(\beta') = {-}\cdots.
\end{aligned}$$ In each case, the supposition contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. So $x$ must be $2$, $0$, or ${\overline{1}}$; if $|\beta| = 1$, these are the possibilities for $\beta$.
Suppose now that $|\beta| = 2$. This cannot occur when $x={\overline{1}}$, for no admissible column begins with ${\overline{1}}$. The admissible column words of length $2$ beginning with $2$ and $0$ are $23$, $20$, $2{\overline{3}}$, and $00$, $0{\overline{3}}$ and $0{\overline{2}}$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\beta=20 \implies & \rho_1(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(120) = {+}{-}{-}{+} = {-}{+}, \\
\beta=2{\overline{3}} \implies & \rho_1(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(12{\overline{3}}) = {+}{-}{-}{-} = {-}{-}, \displaybreak[0]\\
\beta=0{\overline{3}} \implies & \rho_1(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(10{\overline{3}}) = {+}{-}{+}{-}{-} = {-}, \\
\beta=0{\overline{2}} \implies & \rho_2(\alpha\beta) = \rho_2(10{\overline{2}}) = {-},
\end{aligned}$$ each of which contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities are $\beta = 23$ and $\beta=00$.
2. Suppose $\alpha = 12$. Let $\beta = x\beta'$, where $x \in {\mathcal{G}}_2$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
x=2\implies & \rho_1(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(122\beta') = {+}{-}{-}\rho_1(\beta') = {-}\cdots, \\
x=0\implies & \rho_1(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(120\beta') = {+}{-}{-}{+}\rho_1(\beta') = {-}{+}\cdots, \displaybreak[0]\\
x={\overline{3}}\implies & \rho_1(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(12{\overline{3}}\beta') = {+}{-}{-}{-}\rho_1(\beta') = {-}{-}\cdots, \\
x={\overline{1}}\implies & \rho_1(\alpha\beta) = \rho_1(12{\overline{1}}\beta') = {+}{-}{-}\rho_1(\beta') = {-}\cdots,
\end{aligned}$$ each of which contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. So $x$ must be $1$, $3$, or ${\overline{2}}$. If $|\beta|=1$, these are the possibilities for $\beta$.
Suppose now that $|\beta|=2$. The admissible column words of length $2$ beginning with $1$, $3$, and ${\overline{2}}$ are $12$, $13$, $30$, $3{\overline{3}}$, $3{\overline{2}}$, ${\overline{2}}{\overline{1}}$. Note first that $\beta \neq 12$ since $\beta \not\preceq
\alpha$. Furthermore $$\beta=3{\overline{2}} \implies \rho_2(\alpha\beta) = \rho_2(123{\overline{2}}) = {+}{-}{-} = {-},$$ which contradicts $\alpha\beta$ being of highest weight. The remaining possibilities for $\beta$ are $13$, $30$, $3{\overline{3}}$, and ${\overline{2}}{\overline{1}}$.
\[lem:g2:palphabeta\] Either $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains fewer that $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, or else has only one column, or else its rightmost column contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols.
Using [ ]{}, we will systematically enumerate the possible words $\alpha\beta$ and calculate their corresponding tableaux. The results are show in [ ]{}.
------------ ---------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
*Shape of* *Shape of*
; $\alpha$ $\beta$ *Defining relations applied* $P(\alpha\beta)$ *$P(\alpha\beta)$*
; $1$ $2$ — $12$ ;
; $1$ $0$ $10 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 1$ $1$ ;
; $1$ ${\overline{1}}$ $1{\overline{1}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_2^{G_2}} {\varepsilon}$ ${\varepsilon}$
; $1$ $23$ $123 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 110 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 11$ $11$ ;
; $1$ $00$ $100 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 10 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 1$ $1$ ;
; $12$ $1$ $121 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 112$ $112$ ;
; $12$ $3$ $123 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 110 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 11$ $11$ ;
; $12$ ${\overline{2}}$ $12{\overline{2}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 10 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 1$ $1$ ;
; $12$ $13$ $1213 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 1123 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 1110 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 111$ $111$ ;
; $12$ $30$ $1230 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 1100 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 110 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 11$ $11$ ;
; $12$ $3{\overline{3}}$ $123{\overline{3}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 110{\overline{3}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 11{\overline{3}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 12$ $12$ ;
; $12$ ${\overline{2}}{\overline{1}}$ $12{\overline{2}}{\overline{1}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 10{\overline{1}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 1{\overline{1}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_2^{G_2}} {\varepsilon}$ ${\varepsilon}$
------------ ---------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ --------------------
: Case analysis for the proof of [ ]{}.[]{data-label="tbl:g2:palphabeta"}
In each case, we get a tableau that contains fewer that $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols (and that is in some case empty), and in the cases when the number of symbols in the tableau is equal to $|\alpha\beta|$, either the tableau contains only one column, or else contains two columns and the number of symbols in the rightmost column is less than $|\alpha|$.
Constructing the rewriting system {#sec:rewriting}
=================================
We now turn to actually constructing the finite complete rewriting systems presenting ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$, ${\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)$, ${\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)$, ${\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)$, and ${\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)$. The constructions can be carried out in parallel, because the only differences are the apeals to the different lemmata from [ ]{}. We first of all recall the necessary definitions about rewriting systems in [ ]{}; for further background, see [@book_srs] or [@baader_termrewriting]. For background on semigroup presentations generally, see [@ruskuc_phd] or [@higgins_techniques].
Preliminaries {#subsec:srs}
-------------
Let $\leq$ be a total order on an alphabet $A$. Define a total order $\leq_{\text{lex}}$ on $A^*$ by $w \leq_{\text{lex}}w'$ if and only if either $w$ is proper prefix of $w'$ or if $w=paq$, $w'=pbr$ and $a \leq b$ for some $p,q,r \in A^*$, and $a,b \in
A$. The order $\leq_{\text{lex}}$ is the [*lexicographic order induced by $\leq$*]{}. Notice that $\leq_{\text{lex}}$ is not a well-order, but that it is left compatible with concatenation. Define also a total order $\leq_{\text{lenlex}}$ on $A^*$ by $$w \leq_{\text{lenlex}}w' \iff (|w| < |w'|) \lor \bigl((|w| = |w'|) \land (w \leq_{\text{lex}}w')\bigr).$$ The order $\leq_{\text{lenlex}}$ is the [*length-plus-lexicographic order induced by $\leq$*]{}. The order $\leq_{\text{lenlex}}$ is a well-order and is left compatible with concatenation.
A [*string rewriting system*]{}, or simply a [*rewriting system*]{}, is a pair $(A,{R})$, where $A$ is a finite alphabet and ${R}$ is a set of pairs $(\ell,r)$, usually written $\ell {\rightarrow}r$, known as [*rewriting rules*]{} or simply [*rules*]{}, drawn from $A^* \times A^*$. The single reduction relation ${\rightarrow}_{{R}}$ is defined as follows: $u {\rightarrow}_{{R}} v$ (where $u,v \in A^*$) if there exists a rewriting rule $(\ell,r) \in {R}$ and words $x,y \in A^*$ such that $u = x\ell y$ and $v = xry$. That is, $u
{\rightarrow}_{{R}} v$ if one can obtain $v$ from $u$ by substituting the word $r$ for a subword $\ell$ of $u$, where $\ell {\rightarrow}r$ is a rewriting rule. The reduction relation ${\rightarrow^*}_{{R}}$ is the reflexive and transitive closure of ${\rightarrow}_{{R}}$. The process of replacing a subword $\ell$ by a word $r$, where $\ell {\rightarrow}r$ is a rule, is called [*reduction*]{} by application of the rule $\ell {\rightarrow}r$; the iteration of this process is also called reduction. A word $w \in A^*$ is [*reducible*]{} if it contains a subword $\ell$ that forms the left-hand side of a rewriting rule in ${R}$; it is otherwise called [*irreducible*]{}.
The rewriting system $(A,{R})$ is [*finite*]{} if both $A$ and ${R}$ are finite. The rewriting system $(A,{R})$ is [*noetherian*]{} if there is no infinite sequence $u_1,u_2,\ldots \in A^*$ such that $u_i {\rightarrow}_{{R}} u_{i+1}$ for all $i \in {\mathbb{N}}$. That is, $(A,{R})$ is noetherian if any process of reduction must eventually terminate with an irreducible word. The rewriting system $(A,{R})$ is [*confluent*]{} if, for any words $u, u',u'' \in A^*$ with $u {\rightarrow^*}_{{R}} u'$ and $u {\rightarrow^*}_{{R}} u''$, there exists a word $v \in A^*$ such that $u' {\rightarrow^*}_{{R}} v$ and $u'' {\rightarrow^*}_{{R}} v$. A rewriting system that is both confluent and noetherian is [*complete*]{}. If $(A,{R})$ is a complete rewriting system, then for every word $u$ there is a unique irreducible word $w$ such that $u {\rightarrow^*}_{{R}} w$; this word is called the [*normal form*]{} of $u$. If $(A,{R})$ is complete, then the language of normal form words forms a cross-section of the monoid: that is, each element of the monoid presented by $\pres{A}{{R}}$ has a unique normal form representive.
Construction
------------
Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$, and let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the corresponding alphabet from ${\mathcal{A}}_n$, ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, ${\mathcal{D}}_n$, or ${\mathcal{G}}_2$. Let $$\Sigma = \gset{c_\sigma}{\text{$\sigma$ is an admissible $X$ column}}.$$ Note that $\Sigma$ is finite since there are finitely many admissible $X$ columns.
Let $T$ consist of the following rewriting rules: $$\begin{aligned}
c_\sigma c_\tau &{\rightarrow}{\varepsilon}&&\text{$\tau\not\preceq\sigma$ and $P(\sigma\tau)$ is empty,} \label{eq:length0}\\
c_\sigma c_\tau &{\rightarrow}c_\upsilon &&\text{$\tau\not\preceq\sigma$ and $P(\sigma\tau)$ is the $1$-col.~tableau $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\upsilon\\};$,} \label{eq:length1}\\
c_\sigma c_\tau &{\rightarrow}c_\upsilon c_\phi &&\text{$\tau\not\preceq\sigma$ and $P(\sigma\tau)$ is the $2$-col.~tableau $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\phi\&\upsilon\\};$,} \label{eq:length2}\\
c_\sigma c_\tau &{\rightarrow}c_\upsilon c_\phi c_\chi&&\text{$\tau\not\preceq\sigma$ and $P(\sigma\tau)$ is the $3$-col.~tableau $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\chi\&\phi\&\upsilon\\};$.}\label{eq:length3}\end{aligned}$$ Note that since $P(\sigma\tau)$ is a tableau, the subscripts $\upsilon$, $\phi$, and $\chi$ are always admissible columns.
Note that if $\sigma,\tau$ are admissible columns with $\tau \not\preceq \sigma$, then $P(\sigma\tau)$ has at most three columns by [ ]{}, \[lem:cn:palphabeta\], \[lem:bn:palphabeta\], \[lem:dn:palphabeta\], and \[lem:g2:palphabeta\] (that is, by the two-column lemmata for types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$). Thus every such pair of columns gives rise to a rewriting rule in $T$. (Note that rules of the form $c_\sigma c_\tau {\rightarrow}c_\upsilon c_\phi c_\chi$ only arise when $X=G_2$, because $P(\sigma\tau)$ has at most two columns in the other cases.) Finally, note that $T$ is finite since there are finitely many possibilities for $\sigma$ and $\tau$, and the right-hand side of each rule is uniquely determined by the left-hand side.
The idea is that a word $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ corresponds to the tabloid $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)}\\};$, and that if this tabloid is not a tableau, then there are two adjacent columns between which the relation $\preceq$ does not hold. These columns (as represented by some subword $c_\sigma c_\tau$ with $\tau \not\preceq\sigma$) are rewritten to a tableau (as represented by a word in $\Sigma^*$). Thus, in terms of words in $\Sigma^*$, tabloids are rewritten to become more ‘tableau-like’, and the irreducible words correspond to tableaux.
\[lem:noetherian\] The rewriting system $(\Sigma,T)$ is noetherian.
Let $\trianglelefteq$ be any total order on $\Sigma$ that extends the partial order induced by lengths of columns, in the sense that $|\sigma| \leq |\tau| \implies c_\sigma \trianglelefteq c_\tau$ for any two admissible columns $\sigma$ and $\tau$.
Let the map $L : \Sigma^* \to {\mathbb{N}}\cup \set{0}$ send each word to the sum of the lengths of the subscripts of its symbols: that is, $$L\bigl(c_{\sigma^{(1)}}c_{\sigma^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\sigma^{(h)}}\bigr) = \sum_{i=1}^h |\sigma^{(i)}|.$$
Define a total order $\sqsubset$ on $\Sigma^*$ by $$\begin{aligned}
u \sqsubset v \iff{}& \bigl(L(u) < L(v)\bigr) \\
&\lor \Bigl(\bigl(L(u) = L(v)\bigr) \land \bigl(u \trianglelefteq_{{\text{lenlex}}} v\bigr)\Bigl).
\end{aligned}$$ That is, $\sqsubset$ first orders by the total number of symbols in the tabloid to which a word corresponds, then by the length of the word, and then lexicographically based on the ordering $\trianglelefteq$ of $\Sigma$.
Let $c_\sigma c_\tau$ be the left-hand side of a rewriting rule and let $w$ be its right-hand side. So $\tau
\not\preceq \sigma$. Let $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathcal{X}}^*$ be such that $|\alpha| = |\sigma|$ and $|\beta| = |\tau|$ and $\alpha\beta$ is the highest-weight word in the crystal component of $\sigma\tau$. Then $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are admissible columns with $\beta\not\preceq\alpha$ by [ ]{}. So for $X = A_n$ (respectively, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, $G_2$), [ ]{} (respectively, \[lem:bn:palphabeta\], \[lem:cn:palphabeta\], \[lem:dn:palphabeta\], \[lem:g2:palphabeta\]) shows that $P(\alpha\beta)$ contains at most $|\alpha\beta|$ symbols, and consists of at most three columns, and if it contains more than one column, the rightmost column contains fewer than $|\alpha|$ symbols. Since $P(\sigma\tau)$ has the same shape as $P(\alpha\beta)$ by [ ]{}, it follows that $|w| \leq 3$, that $L(w) \leq L(c_\sigma c_\tau)$, and that if $L(w) = L(c_\sigma c_\tau)$ then either $|w| = 1$ or $w \trianglelefteq_{{\text{lenlex}}} c_\sigma c_\tau$ (since the leftmost symbol of $w$ has a subscript of length less than $|\sigma| = |\alpha|$ in the case $|w| > 1$). That is, an application of a rewriting rule must decrease a word either with respect to $L({\cdot})$ or with respect to $\trianglelefteq_{{\text{lenlex}}}$.
Thus rewriting a word always decreases it with respect to $\sqsubset$. Since there are no infinite $\sqsubset$-descending chains, any process of rewriting must terminate. Hence $(\Sigma,T)$ is noetherian.
The rewriting system $(\Sigma,T)$ is confluent.
Let $u \in \Sigma^*$ and let $u'$ and $u''$ be words with $u {\rightarrow^*}u'$ and $u {\rightarrow^*}u''$. By [ ]{}, there are irreducible words $w' = c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k)}}$ and $w'' = c_{\gamma^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\gamma^{(m)}} \in \Sigma^*$ such that $u' {\rightarrow^*}w'$ and $u'' {\rightarrow^*}w''$. Since $w'$ is irreducible, it does not contain the left-hand side of any rule in $T$. Thus, by the comments after the definition of $T$, we have $\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \beta^{(j)}$ for $j = 1,\ldots,k-1$. That is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(k)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)}\\};$ is a tableau. Similarly, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\gamma^{(m)}\&|[dottedentry]|\&\gamma^{(1)}\\};$ is a tableau (with $m$ columns). But the readings of these tableau (that is, $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(k)}$ and $\gamma^{(1)}\cdots\gamma^{(m)}$) are equal in ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$, and tableaux form a cross-section of ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$ by [ ]{} . Hence $k = m$ and $\beta^{(j)} = \gamma^{(j)}$ for $j=1,\ldots,k$, and so $w' = w''$. Thus $v = w' = w''$ is a word such that $u' {\rightarrow^*}v$ and $u'' {\rightarrow^*}v$. Therefore $(\Sigma,T)$ is confluent.
For any $X \in \set{A_n,B_n,C_n,D_n,G_2}$, there is a finite complete rewriting system $(\Sigma,T)$ that presents ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$.
Construct the finite complete rewriting system $(\Sigma,T)$ as above. It remains to prove that $\pres{\Sigma}{T}$ presents ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$. To this end, let $\pres{{\mathcal{X}}}{{\mathcal{R}}^X}$ be the presentation for ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$ from [ ]{}. We are going to prove that $\pres{\Sigma}{T}$ and $\pres{{\mathcal{X}}}{{\mathcal{R}}^X}$ present the same monoid.
First notice that if $\sigma = \sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k$ is an admissible column, where $\sigma_i \in
{\mathcal{X}}$, then a sequence of applications of rules from $T$ of type lead from $c_{\sigma_1}\cdots c_{\sigma_k}$ to $c_{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k}$: $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\sigma_1}c_{\sigma_2}c_{\sigma_3}\cdots c_{\sigma_{k-1}}c_{\sigma_k} &{\rightarrow}_T c_{\sigma_1\sigma_2}c_{\sigma_3}\cdots c_{\sigma_{k-1}}c_{\sigma_k} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}_T c_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_{k-1}}c_{\sigma_k} \\
&{\rightarrow}_T c_{\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_{k-1}\sigma_k}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus we can apply Tietze transformations to $\pres{\Sigma}{T}$ to replace each symbol $c_{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k}$ with $c_{\sigma_1}\cdots c_{\sigma_k}$ and then remove the generators $c_{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k}$ with $k > 1$. The result of this is a new presentation $\pres{\Sigma'}{T'}$ where the generating symbols in $\Sigma'$ are $c_x$ for $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$, so we can replace each $c_x$ by $x$ to obtain a new presentation $\pres{{\mathcal{X}}}{T''}$. It remains to show that every defining relation in $T''$ is a consequence of those in ${\mathcal{R}}^X$ and vice versa.
Note that $T''$ can be obtained from $T$ by replacing each symbol $c_{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k}$ by $\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k$. Thus every defining relation in $T''$ is of the form $(u,v)$, where $u$ is the reading of a two-column tabloid and $v$ is the reading of a tableau, and $u =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(X)} v$. Since $\pres{{\mathcal{X}}}{{\mathcal{R}}^X}$ presents ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$, the defining relation $(u,v)$ is a consequence of ${\mathcal{R}}^X$.
On the other hand, let $(u,v)$ be a defining relation in ${\mathcal{R}}^X$. By inspection of the definition of ${\mathcal{R}}^X$ in [ ]{}, $v$ is the reading of a tableau, and $P(u) = v$. Suppose this tableau is $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)}\\};$, where $\beta^{(1)}$, …, $\beta^{(m)}$ are admissible columns of type $X$. Suppose $u = u_1\cdots u_t$, and note that every symbol $u_i$ is an admissible column of type $X$. Since $P(u) = v$, the word $c_{u_1}\cdots c_{u_t}$ rewrites to $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ under the rewriting system $(\Sigma,T)$. Fix a sequence of rewriting $c_{u_1}\cdots c_{u_t} {\rightarrow^*}_T c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$. Replacing each symbol $c_{\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k}$ by $\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k$ throughout this sequence of rewriting yields a sequence from $u = u_1\cdots u_t$ to $\beta^{(1)}\cdots \beta^{(m)} = v$ where every step is an application of a relation from $T''$. Hence $(u,v)$ is a consequence of $T''$.
Since every defining relation in $T''$ is a consequence of those in ${\mathcal{R}}^X$ and vice versa, $\pres{{\mathcal{X}}}{T''}$ and $\pres{{\mathcal{X}}}{{\mathcal{R}}^X}$ present the same monoid, and thus $\pres{\Sigma}{T}$ presents ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$.
The following corollary is immediate [@squier_finiteness]:
Plactic monoids of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$ have finite derivation type.
By a result originally proved by Anick in a different form [@anick_homology], but also proved by various other authors (see [@brown_geometry; @cohen_stringrewriting]):
Plactic monoids of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$ are of type right and left $\mathrm{FP}_\infty$.
Biautomaticity lemmata
======================
In this section, we lay the groundwork for constructing biautomatic structures for plactic monoids in [ ]{}.
The language of representatives of the biautomatic structure will be the language of irreducible words of the rewriting system $(\Sigma,T)$ constructed in [ ]{}. To prove that this gives us a biautomatic structure, we must understand how products of the form $c_xc_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots
c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}$ and $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}c_x$ rewrite, where $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots
c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}$ is an irreducible word and $c_x \in \Sigma$ is such that $|x| = 1$. It will suffice to consider the situations where $x\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(\ell)}$ and $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(\ell)}x$ are highest weight words, because, as we shall see, the rewriting of $c_xc_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}$ and $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots
c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}c_x$ proceeds ‘in the same way’ in the general case.
Left-multiplication by transducer {#subsec:leftmult}
---------------------------------
### An, Bn, Cn, Dn
Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$ and let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the corresponding alphabet from ${\mathcal{A}}_n$, ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, or ${\mathcal{D}}_n$. In these cases, the rewriting that occurs on left-multiplication by a generator is very similar, and so we treat these cases in parallel. The goal is to prove [ ]{}, which contains all the information we need for the eventual proof of biautomaticity.
Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $X$ columns, such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)}\\};$ is a tableau). Let $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$ be such that $x\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word. Recall that $x\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(h)}$ is a highest-weight word for all $h \leq m$ by [ ]{}. In particular, $x$ is a highest-weight word and so $x = 1$. The aim is to examine how the corresponding word over $\Sigma$ (that is, $c_1 c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$) is rewritten by $T$ to an irreducible word. We are going to prove that this rewriting involves a single left-to-right pass through the word, that it only changes the length of the word by at most $1$, and that this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer (see [ ]{}).
The tabloid corresponding to $c_1 c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ has the following form: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw[fill=gray] (6,0) rectangle (7,2);
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,5} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (6,0) {$?$};
\path (7,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
\path[draw] (6,-4) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=west,inner sep=.5mm] {$\beta^{(1)}$} -| (5.5,0);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ (The symbol $?$ indicates that either $\preceq$ or $\not\preceq$ may hold between these columns.) First, if $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $1$ (so that $r(\beta^{(1)}$ also begins with $1$), then $\beta^{(1)} \preceq 1$ and so $c_1 c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ is irreducible and no rewriting takes place. So assume that $\beta^{(1)}$ does not begin with $1$. Then the first symbol of $r(beta^{(1)})$ is not $1$ since $r$ replaces a symbol $x$ with a symbol that is greater than or equal to $x$. Hence $\beta^{(1)} \not\preceq 1$.
Since $1\beta^{(1)}$ is a highest-weight word, we can apply some of the lemmata from [ ]{} to gain information from about the first symbol of $\beta^{(1)}$:
1. If $X = A_n$, then the first symbol of $\beta^{(1)}$ is $2$ (only if $n \geq 2$) by [ ]{}.
2. If $X = C_n$, then the first symbol of $\beta^{(1)}$ is $2$ (only if $n \geq 2$) or ${\overline{1}}$ by [ ]{}.
3. If $X = B_n$, then the first symbol of $\beta^{(1)}$ is $2$ (only if $n \geq 2$) or $0$ (only if $n=1$) or ${\overline{1}}$ by [ ]{}.
4. If $X = D_n$, then the first symbol of $\beta^{(1)}$ is $2$ (only if $n \geq 2$) or ${\overline{2}}$ (only if $n=2$) or ${\overline{1}}$ by [ ]{}.
Furthermore, the two-column lemmata tell us about $P(1\beta^{(1)})$: by [ ]{}, \[lem:cn:betanot1\], \[lem:bn:betanot1\], and \[lem:dn:betanot1\], $P(1\beta^{(1)})$ is either empty or a prefix (not necessarily proper) of $12\cdots n$ or, only in the case $X=D_n$, of $1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$. In the latter case where $P(1\beta^{(1)})$ is non-empty, it is thus a column, and we let $\gamma^{(1)} = P(1\beta{(1)})$. So the corresponding rewriting begins $$c_1 c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} {\rightarrow}\begin{cases}
c_{\gamma^{(1)}}c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} & \text{if $P(1\beta^{(1)}) \neq {\varepsilon}$;} \\
c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} & \text{if $P(1\beta^{(1)}) = {\varepsilon}$.}
\end{cases}$$
In the case where $P(1\beta^{(1)}) = {\varepsilon}$, the rewriting stops. So assume that $P(1\beta^{(1)}) \neq
{\varepsilon}$. We now need to know about the column $\beta^{(2)}$:
\[lem:leftmult:beta21\] The column $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
If $\beta^{(2)} \preceq \gamma^{(1)}$, then since $\gamma^{(1)}$ begins with $1$, so does $\beta^{(2)}$. So assume $\beta^{(2)} \not\preceq \gamma^{(1)}$.
1. If $X = A_n$, then $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $2$. Since $\beta^{(2)} \preceq \beta^{(1)}$, the column $\beta^{(2)}$ must begin with either $1$ or $2$. With the aim of obtaining a contradiction, suppose it begins with $2$. Then $\rho_1(1\beta^{(1)}\beta^{(2)}) = {+}{-}{-}\cdots = {-}\cdots$, which contradicts $x\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}$ being of highest weight. Thus $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
2. If $X = C_n$, then $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $2$ or ${\overline{1}}$. We consider these cases separately; each one leads to the conclusion that $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
Suppose $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $2$. Then since $\beta^{(2)} \preceq \beta^{(1)}$, the column $\beta^{(2)}$ must begin with either $1$ or $2$. With the aim of obtaining a contradiction, suppose it begins with $2$. We get a contradiction in two different ways, depending on whether $\beta^{(1)}$ contains ${\overline{2}}$:
- Suppose $\beta^{(1)}$ contains ${\overline{2}}$. Then $\ell(\beta^{(1)})$ begins with $1$ and so $\beta^{(2)}$ must begin with $1$, which is a contradiction.
- Suppose $\beta^{(1)}$ does not contain ${\overline{2}}$. Then $\rho_1(\beta^{(1)})$ is either ${-}$ or ${-}{-}$ (the $2$ at the start contributes ${-}$; if there is a ${\overline{1}}$ at the end, it contributes another ${-}$). Hence $\rho_1(1\beta^{(1)}\beta^{(2)}) = {+}{-}{-}\cdots = {-}\cdots$, which contradicts $x\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}$ being of highest weight.
Therefore $\beta^{(2)}$ must begin with $1$.
Suppose $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with ${\overline{1}}$. Then $\beta^{(1)} = {\overline{1}}$ and so $P(1\beta^{(1)})$ is empty. Thus then $\beta^{(2)}\cdots \beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word that is the reading of a tableau; hence $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
3. If $X = B_n$, then $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $2$ (only if $n\geq 2$) or $0$ (only if $n=1$) or ${\overline{1}}$. We consider these cases separately; each one leads to the conclusion that $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
Suppose that $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $0$. Then $n=1$ and $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with either $1$ or $0$. If $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $0$, then we get a contradiction, for $r(\beta^{(2)})$ begins with ${\overline{1}}$ (which replaces the $0$) and $\ell(\beta^{(1)})$ begins with $1$ (which replaces the $0$), and so $r(\beta^{(2)}) \not\leq \ell(\beta^{(1)})$, contradicting $\beta^{(2)} \preceq \beta^{(1)}$. So $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
Suppose $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $2$. Then $\beta^{(2)}$ must begin with either $1$ or $2$. If $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $2$, the same contradictions arise as in the $X=C_n$ case. Thus $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
Suppose $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with ${\overline{1}}$. By the same reasoning as in the $C_n$ case, $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
4. If $X = D_n$, then $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $2$ or ${\overline{2}}$ (only if $n=2$) or ${\overline{1}}$. We consider these cases in turn; each one leads to the conclusion that $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$.
If $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with $2$, then $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$ by the same reasoning as in the $X = C_n$ case. If $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with ${\overline{1}}$, then $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$ by the same reasoning as in the $X = C_n$ case.
The remaining case is to show that when $\beta^{(1)}$ begins with ${\overline{2}}$ (and so $n=2$), then $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$. Indeed, if $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with ${\overline{2}}$, then $\ell(\beta^{(2)})$ begins with $1$, by the definition of $\ell$. Then since $r(\beta^{(2)}) \leq \ell(\beta^{(1)})$, it follows that $r(\beta^{(2)})$ begins with $1$, and so $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$ by the definition of $r$.
As a consequence of [ ]{} and the fact that the first row of the columns $\beta^{(i)}$ must form a non-decreasing sequence since $\preceq$ holds between adjacent columns, it follows that all columns to the left of $\beta^{(2)}$ also begin with $1$. That is, the tabloid corresponding to $c_1 c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ has the following form: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw[fill=gray] (6,0) rectangle (7,2);
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,5} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (6,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,5} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (7,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
\path[draw] (6,-4) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=west,inner sep=.5mm] {$\beta^{(1)}$} -| (5.5,0);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ In the situation we are considering, $P(1\beta^{(1)})$ is a single column $\gamma^{(1)}$, so after rewriting $c_1 c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} {\rightarrow}c_{\gamma^{(1)}}c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$, the corresponding tabloid has the form $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw[fill=gray] (5,0) rectangle (6,7);
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,4} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (5,0) {$?$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,5} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (6,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
\path[draw] (5,-4) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=west,inner sep=.5mm] {$\beta^{(2)}$} -| (4.5,0);
\path[draw] (7,-2) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=west,inner sep=.5mm] {$\gamma^{(1)}$} -| (5.5,0);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ If $\beta^{(2)} \preceq \gamma^{(1)}$, then $c_{\gamma^{(1)}}c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ is irreducible and no further rewriting occurs. So assume $\beta^{(2)} \not\preceq \gamma^{(1)}$. Note that $\gamma^{(1)}\beta^{(2)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}$ is also a highest weight word.
For $j = 2,\ldots,m$, define $\hat\beta^{(j)}$ to be the longest contiguous prefix of $\beta^{(j)}$ containing only symbols from ${\mathcal{X}}[1,\ldots,n-1]$. Note that because $\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \beta^{(j)}$, each symbol of $\beta^{(j+1)}$ is less than or equal to the symbol of $\beta^{(j)}$ in the same row. Thus the prefix $\hat\beta^{(j+1)}$ must be at least as long as the prefix $\hat\beta^{(j)}$, and so $\hat\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \hat\beta^{(j)}$. So the situation is as follows, where the horizontal lines in each column indicate the end of $\hat\beta^{(j)}$: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,7) rectangle (0,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,5) rectangle (1,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,5) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,4) rectangle (3,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,3) rectangle (4,6);
\draw[fill=gray] (5,0) rectangle (6,7);
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,4} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (5,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,5} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (6,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
\path[draw] (5,-4) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=west,inner sep=.5mm] {$\beta^{(2)}$} -| (4.5,0);
\path[draw] (7,-2) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=west,inner sep=.5mm] {$\gamma^{(1)}$} -| (5.5,0);
\end{tikzpicture}$$ (Also note that since $\beta^{(2)} \not\preceq \gamma^{(1)}$ and $\gamma^{(1)}\beta^{(2)}$ has highest weight, it follows that $\hat\beta^{(2)}$ coincides with the prefix $\beta_1$ of $\beta$ defined in [ ]{}.)
Since $\beta^{(2)}$ begins with $1$, by [ ]{}, \[lem:cn:beta1\], \[lem:bn:beta1\], and \[lem:dn:beta1\], $P(\gamma^{(1)}\beta^{(2)})$ has two columns, the rightmost of which is $\hat\beta^{(2)}$. Let $\gamma^{(2)}$ be the left column of $P(\gamma^{(1)}\beta^{(2)})$. So we have $$c_{\gamma^{(1)}}c_{\beta^{(2)}}\ldots c_{\beta^{(m)}} {\rightarrow}c_{\hat\beta^{(2)}}c_{\gamma^{(2)}}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\ldots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$$ Similarly, if $\beta^{(3)}\preceq\gamma^{(2)}$, the word $c_{\hat\beta^{(2)}}c_{\gamma^{(2)}}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\ldots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ is irreducible. So suppose $\beta^{(3)} \not\preceq \gamma^{(2)}$. We claim $\gamma^{(2)}\beta^{(3)}$ is a highest weight word. This follows since $\hat\beta^{(2)}$ is a prefix of both $\gamma^{(2)}$ and $\beta^{(3)}$ (since it is a prefix of $\hat\beta^{(3)}$) and so commutes with both by the [ ]{}. Thus $\gamma^{(2)}\beta^{(3)}\hat\beta^{(2)} =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(X)} \hat\beta^{(2)}\gamma^{(2)}\beta^{(3)}$ and so, since highest-weight words are closed under taking prefixes, $\gamma^{(2)}\beta^{(3)}$ is highest weight. Thus, again by [ ]{}, \[lem:cn:beta1\], \[lem:bn:beta1\], and \[lem:dn:beta1\], $P(\gamma^{(2)}\beta^{(3)})$ has two columns, the rightmost of which is $\hat\beta^{(3)}$.
Continuing in this way, we get a sequence of admissible columns $\gamma^{(2)},\ldots,\gamma^{(k)}$ for some $k \leq m$ with $\beta^{(j+1)} \not\preceq \gamma^{(j)}$ and $P(\gamma^{(j)}\beta^{(j+1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{\gamma^{(j+1)} \& \hat\beta^{(j+1)} \\};}$ for $j=1,\ldots,k-1$, and $$\label{eq:rightmultrewriting}
\begin{aligned}
&c_{\gamma^{(1)}}c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\hat\beta^{(2)}}c_{\gamma^{(2)}}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\hat\beta^{(2)}}c_{\hat\beta^{(3)}}c_{\gamma^{(3)}}c_{\beta^{(4)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
&\quad\vdots\\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\hat\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\hat\beta^{(k)}}c_{\gamma^{(k)}}c_{\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}},
\end{aligned}$$ where $k$ is such that the word $c_{\hat\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\hat\beta^{(k)}}c_{\gamma^{(k)}}c_{\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ is irreducible. (Recall from above that $\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \beta^{(j)}$.) Then $\beta^{(k+1)} \preceq
\gamma^{(k)}$. The corresponding tabloid is now a tableau of the form: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,7) rectangle (0,10);
\draw[fill=gray] (1,0) rectangle (2,6);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,5);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,5);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,4);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,3);
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,5} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,6} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}$$ Note finally that rewriting of the form can be carried out by a transducer that stores $c_{\gamma^{(j)}}$ in its state, reads $c_{\beta^{(j+1)}}$ and, when relevant, outputs $c_{\hat\beta^{(j+1)}}$.
In summary, we have proven the following lemma:
\[lem:anbncndn:leftmultbytrans\] Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$ and let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the corresponding alphabet from ${\mathcal{A}}_n$, ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, or ${\mathcal{D}}_n$. Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $X$ columns, such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)}\\};$ is an $X$ tableau). Let $x \in {\mathcal{X}}$ be such that $x\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word. Rewriting $c_x c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ to normal form involves a single left-to-right pass through the word, and this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer. Furthermore, the lengths of $c_x c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $1$.
### G2
Let $\beta^{(1)},\cdots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $G_2$ columns, such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\cdots,m-1$ (that is, ${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \&\beta^{(1)}\\};}$ is a tableau), and let $x \in {\mathcal{G}}_2$ be such that $x\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word. Recall that $x\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(h)}$ is a highest-weight word for all $h \leq m$ by [ ]{}. In particular, $x$ is a highest-weight word and so $x = 1$.
We are going to analyze how $c_xc_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ rewrites to normal form. Again, the aim is to prove that this rewriting involves a single left-to-right pass through the word, which can be carried out by a transducer (see [ ]{}). However, we require a fairly complicated analysis of cases, shown in [ ]{}. In the table, every possible admissible column is listed as a possibility for $\beta^{(1)}$. In those cases where we also have to consider $\beta^{(2)}$ or $\beta^{(3)}$, there are fewer possibilities because of the restriction $\beta^{(3)} \preceq \beta^{(2)} \preceq \beta^{(1)}$. (We refer the reader to the ‘Hasse diagram’ of the relation $\preceq$ of $G_2$ columns in [ ]{}.) Most of these cases are ruled out by the requirement that $x\beta^{(1)}\beta^{(2)}\beta^{(3)}$ is of highest weight. For example, the case where $\beta^{(1)} = 2$ and $\beta^{(2)}=2$ is impossible, because $$\bgroup\arraycolsep=0pt\def\arraystretch{1.4}\begin{array}{rcccll}
\rho_{1}(x\beta^{(1)}\beta^{(2)}\cdots) ={}& {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{+}}}^{x} &\, {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{\beta^{(1)}} & {\overbrace{\vphantom{)^k}{-}}}^{\beta^{(2)}} & \cdots &{}={-}\cdots; \\
\end{array}\egroup$$ All other cases listed as ‘not highest weight’ in [ ]{} are ruled out in the same way, by considering either $\rho_1$ or $\rho_2$.
-------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------
$x=1$ $\beta^{(1)}=1$
(lr) [2-5]{} $\beta^{(1)}=2$ $\beta^{(2)}=1$
$\beta^{(2)}=2$
$\beta^{(2)}=12$
$\beta^{(2)}=13$
$\beta^{(2)}=23$
$\beta^{(2)}=20$
$\beta^{(2)}=2{\overline{3}}$
(lr) [2-5]{} $\beta^{(1)}=3$
(lr) [2-5]{} $\beta^{(1)}=0$ $\beta^{(2)}=1$ Case 4
(lr) [3-5]{} $\beta^{(2)}=2$ $\beta^{(3)}=1$ Case 5
$\beta^{(3)}=2$ Not highest weight ($\rho_1$)
$\beta^{(3)}=12$ Case 6
$\beta^{(3)}=13$ Case 7
$\beta^{(3)}=23$ Not highest weight ($\rho_1$)
$\beta^{(3)}=20$ Not highest weight ($\rho_1$)
(lr) [3-5]{} $\beta^{(2)}=3$
$\beta^{(2)}=12$ Case 8
$\beta^{(2)}=13$
$\beta^{(2)}=23$ Case 9
$\beta^{(2)}=20$
(lr) [2-5]{} $\beta^{(1)}={\overline{3}}$
$\beta^{(1)}={\overline{2}}$
$\beta^{(1)}={\overline{1}}$ Case 10
$\beta^{(1)}=12$ Case 11
$\beta^{(1)}=13$
$\beta^{(1)}=23$ Case 12
$\beta^{(1)}=00$ Case 13
$\beta^{(1)}=20$
$\beta^{(1)}=2{\overline{3}}$
$\beta^{(1)}=0{\overline{3}}$
$\beta^{(1)}=3{\overline{3}}$
$\beta^{(1)}=30$
$\beta^{(1)}=3{\overline{2}}$
$\beta^{(1)}=0{\overline{2}}$
$\beta^{(1)}={\overline{3}}{\overline{2}}$
$\beta^{(1)}={\overline{3}}{\overline{1}}$
$\beta^{(1)}={\overline{2}}{\overline{1}}$
-------------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------
: Cases for left-multiplication in $G_2$[]{data-label="tbl:g2:leftmultcases"}
There are thirteen remaining cases in [ ]{}, but we reassure the reader that many of these quickly only result in one or two rewriting steps, and in the others the rewriting behaves in a straightforward way. Let us consider each of these cases in turn.
*Case 1*. $\beta^{(1)} = 1$. Then $\beta^{(1)} \preceq x$ and so no rewriting occurs: the word $c_xc_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ is in normal form.
*Cases 2–3a*. $\beta^{(1)} = 2$ and $\beta^{(2)} \in \set{1,12,13}$. Now, since $\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \beta^{(j)}$ for all $j$, the columns $\beta^{(2)}$, …, $\beta^{(m)}$ consist of zero or more columns $1$, followed by zero or more columns $13$, followed by zero or more columns $12$ (see [ ]{}). Notice that this subsumes the three possibilities for $\beta^{(2)}$. Note that $P(x\beta^{(1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{12\\};}$, and $P(121) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{12 \& 1\\};}$, and $P(1213) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& 1\\};}$, as can be seen from [ ]{}.
When there is at least one column $13$, rewriting begins $$\begin{aligned}
c_1c_2c_1^{p}c_{13}^{q}c_{12}^{r}
{\rightarrow}{}& c_{12}c_1^{p}c_{13}^{q}c_{12}^{r} \\
{\rightarrow^*}{}& c_1^{p}c_{12}c_{13}^{q}c_{12}^{r} \\
{\rightarrow}{}& \begin{cases}
c_1^{p}c_{12}^{r+1} & \text{if $q = 0$,} \\
c_1^{p+3}c_{13}^{q-1}c_{12}^{r} & \text{if $q \geq 1$.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In either case, the final word is in normal form since $1 \preceq 13$ and $1 \preceq 12$.
*Case 4*. $\beta^{(1)}=0$ and $\beta^{(2)}=1$. Then $P(x\beta^{(1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1\\};}$. Since $1 \preceq 1$, the rewriting to normal form is simply $$c_1c_0c_{1}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}c_{1}c_{1}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.$$
*Cases 5–7*. $\beta^{(1)}=0$, $\beta^{(2)}=2$, and $\beta^{(3)} \in \set{1,12,13}$. Since $\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \beta^{(j)}$ for all $j$, the columns $\beta^{(3)}$, …, $\beta^{(m)}$ consist of zero or more columns $1$, followed by zero or more columns $13$, followed by zero or more columns $12$. Since $P(1\beta^{(1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1\\};}$ and $P(1\beta^{(2)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{12\\};}$, rewriting proceeds in one of two ways, similarly to case 2. If there is a column $13$ present, rewriting proceeds $$\begin{aligned}
c_1c_0c_2c_1\cdots c_1c_{13}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}{}& c_1c_2c_1\cdots c_1c_{13}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}& c_{12}c_1\cdots c_1c_{13}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow^*}{}& c_1\cdots c_1c_{12}c_{13}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}& c_1\cdots c_1c_1c_1c_1c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.\end{aligned}$$ This word is in normal form since, regardless of whether $\beta^{(k)}$ is $12$ or $13$, we have $1 \preceq \beta^{(k)}$. When there is no column $13$, the columns $1$ are followed immediately by columns $12$, and so rewriting begins $$\begin{aligned}
c_1c_0c_2c_1\cdots c_1c_{12}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}{}& c_1c_2c_1\cdots c_1c_{12}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}& c_{12}c_1\cdots c_1c_{12}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow^*}{}& c_1\cdots c_1c_{12}c_{12}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}},\end{aligned}$$ whichs is in normal form.
*Case 8*. $\beta^{(1)}=0$ and $\beta^{(2)}=12$. Then $P(x\beta^{(1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1\\};}$. Since $12 \preceq 1$, the rewriting to normal form is simply $$c_1c_0c_{12}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}c_{1}c_{12}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.$$
*Case 9*. $\beta^{(1)}=0$ and $\beta^{(2)}=23$. Now, since $\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \beta^{(j)}$ for all $j$, the remaining columns $\beta^{(3)}$, …, $\beta^{(m)}$ consist of zero or more columns $23$, zero or more columns $13$, and zero or more columns $12$. Note that $P(x\beta^{(1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1\\};}$, and $P(1\beta^{(2)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1 \& 1\\};}$, as can be seen from [ ]{}. So rewriting proceeds as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
c_1c_0c_{23}c_{23}\cdots c_{23}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}{}& c_1c_{23}c_{23}\cdots c_{23}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}& c_1c_1c_{23}\cdots c_{23}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow^*}{}& c_1c_1c_1\cdots c_1c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Regardless of whether $\beta^{(k)}$ is $13$ or $12$, we have $\beta^{(k)} \preceq 1$, so this word is in normal form. Note that there is exactly one symbol $c_1$ in the final word for each symbol $c_{23}$ in the initial word.
*Case 10*. $\beta^{(1)}={\overline{1}}$. Since $P(1{\overline{1}}) = {\varepsilon}$, as can be seen from [ ]{}, the rewriting to normal form is simply $$c_1c_{{\overline{1}}}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}c_{\beta^{(3)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.$$
*Case 11*. $\beta^{(1)}=12$. Since $12 \preceq 1$, the word $c_1c_{12}c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ is in normal form.
*Case 12*. $\beta^{(1)}=23$. Since $\beta^{(j+1)} \preceq \beta^{(j)}$ for all $j$, the remaining columns $\beta^{(2)}$, …, $\beta^{(m)}$ consist of zero or more columns $23$, zero or more columns $13$, and zero or more columns $12$. Note that $P(x\beta^{(1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1 \& 1\\};}$, as can be seen from [ ]{}. So rewriting proceeds as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
c_1c_{23}c_{23}\cdots c_{23}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}{}& c_1c_1c_{23}\cdots c_{23}c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow^*}{}& c_1c_1c_1\cdots c_1c_{\beta^{(k)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.\end{aligned}$$ Regardless of whether $\beta^{(k)}$ is $13$ or $12$, we have $\beta^{(k)} \preceq 1$, so this word is in normal form.
*Case 13*. $\beta^{(1)}=00$. Since $\beta^{(2)} \preceq \beta^{(1)}$, it follows that $\beta^{(2)}$ is either $13$ or $12$ (note that $00 \not\preceq 00$). Since $P(x\beta^{(1)}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1\\};}$, as can be seen from [ ]{}, the rewriting to normal form is simply $$c_1c_{00}c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}
{\rightarrow}c_1c_{\beta^{(2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.$$ Regardless of whether $\beta^{(2)}$ is $13$ or $12$, we have $\beta^{(2)} \preceq 1$, so this word is in normal form.
This completes the case analysis. Note that in each case, the lengths of $c_x c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $2$. (The maximum difference $2$ occurs in cases 5–7 and 10.) In summary, we have proven the following lemma.
\[lem:g2:leftmultbytrans\] Let $\beta^{(1)},\cdots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $G_2$ columns, such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\cdots,m-1$ (that is, ${\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \&\beta^{(1)}\\};}$ is a tableau), and let $x \in {\mathcal{G}}_2$ be such that $x\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word. Rewriting $c_x c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ to normal form involves a single left-to-right pass through the word, and this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer. Furthermore, the lengths of $c_x c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $2$.
Right-multiplication by transducer {#subsec:rightmult}
----------------------------------
We now turn our attention to right-multiplication. Unlike left-multiplication, the cases $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$ are sufficiently different that we have to consider them separately.
### An
Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $A_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{A}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is an $A_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. We are going to examine how the corresponding word over $\Sigma$ (that is, $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$) rewrites to an irreducible word. The aim is to prove that this rewriting involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, which can be carried out by a transducer (see [ ]{}).
First, note that since the prefix $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word by [ ]{}, each column $\beta^{(i)}$ is of the form $1\cdots p_i$ for some $p_i \in {\mathcal{A}}[1,n]$ and $p_{i+1} \geq p_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ by [ ]{}. That is, the tabloid corresponding to the word $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is of the form: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,10);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,9);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,7);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,5);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw (9,0) rectangle (10,2);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (1,2);
\foreach \x in {2,3,...,9} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (1,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {2,3,...,10} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (1,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$x$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (7.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$
The assumption that $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is of highest weight puts a restriction on $x$, as the following lemma shows:
\[lem:an:rightmultgen\] Either $x=1$, or $x = p_k+1$ for some $k \in \set{1,\ldots,m}$ such that $p_k < n$.
This lemma, and its proof, essentially parallel and strengthen [ ]{}.
Suppose that $x \neq 1$ and $x \neq p_k+1$ for all $k$. Then for each $i$, either $\rho_{x-1}(\beta^{(k)}) =
{\varepsilon}$ (when $x-1 > p_k$) or $\rho_{x-1}(\beta^{(k)}) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$ (when $x-1 < p_k$), and so $\rho_{x-1}(\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x) = {-}$, contracting the assumption of highest weight.
We consider the cases $x=p_k+1$ and $x=1$ separately.
First, suppose $x = p_k+1$, and assume that $k$ is maximal with this property. Then for $j > k$, the symbol $x$ appears in $\beta^{(j)}$ and so by the [ ]{}, $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{x \& \beta^{(j)} \\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(j)} \& x\\};$, while $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{x \& \beta^{(k)} \\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(k)}x\\};$. Thus in the case $k=6$, the column $x$ commutes past the columns $\beta^{(9)}$, $\beta^{(8)}$, and $\beta^{(7)}$, resulting in a tabloid of the following form: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\begin{scope}[yshift=-30mm]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,7);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,6);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,5);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw (9,0) rectangle (10,2);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (3,0) rectangle (4,2);
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (4,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (4,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$x$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (7.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ The final rewriting step appends $x$ to the bottom of the column $\beta^{(6)}$, giving a tableau of the following form: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\begin{scope}[yshift=-60mm]
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (3,7) rectangle (4,9);
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (4,0) ++(-.5,7) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$x$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ So the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m-1)}}c_xc_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
&\vdots \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k)}}c_xc_{\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k)}x}c_{\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now consider the other case, when $x=1$. Define $k$ to be maximal such that $\beta^{(k)} = 1$. Then $x \not \preceq \beta^{(j)}$ and $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{x \& \beta^{(j)} \\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(j)} \& x\\};$ for all $j > k$, and $x \preceq \beta^{(k)}$ so the resulting tableau (with $k = 2$) is of the form $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw (9,0) rectangle (10,2);
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (8,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$x$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ and the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m-1)}}c_xc_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
&\vdots \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k)}}c_{\beta^{(k+1)}}c_xc_{\beta^{(k+2)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k)}}c_xc_{\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that in both cases the length of the normal form word differs from $m$ by at most $1$. In summary, we have proved the following lemma:
\[lem:an:rightmultbytrans\] Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $A_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{A}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& \cdots \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is an $A_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. Rewriting $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ to normal form involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, and this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer. Furthermore, the lengths of $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $1$.
### Cn
Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $C_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $C_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. As we did for type $A_n$, we are going to examine how the corresponding word over $\Sigma$ (that is, $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$) rewrites to an irreducible word. Again, the aim is to prove that this rewriting involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, which can be carried out by a transducer (see [ ]{}).
Since $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word by [ ]{}, each column $\beta^{(i)}$ is of the form $1\cdots p_i$ for some $p_i \in {\mathcal{C}}[1,n]$, and $p_{i+1} \geq p_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ by [ ]{}.
The reasoning will proceed in a similar way to the $A_n$ case, except that there is the additional possibility that $x$ may be ${\overline{p_k}}$, as shown in the following lemma:
\[lem:cn:rightmultgen\] Either $x=1$, or $x = p_k+1$ for some $k \in \set{1,\ldots,m}$ such that $p_k < n$, or $x = {\overline{p_k}}$ for some $k \in \set{1,\ldots,m}$.
Suppose that $x \neq 1$ and $x \neq p_k+1$ and $x \neq {\overline{p_k}}$ for all $k$. If $x \in {\mathcal{C}}[1,n]$, then the same contradiction arises as in the proof of [ ]{}. If $x \in {\mathcal{C}}[{\overline{n}},{\overline{1}}]$, then for each $k$, either $\rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta^{(k)}) = {\varepsilon}$ (when ${\overline{x}} > p_k$) or $\rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta^{(k)})
= {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$ (when ${\overline{x}} < p_k$), and so $\rho_{{\overline{x}}}(\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x) = {-}$, contradicting the assumption of highest weight.
If $x = 1$ or $x = p_k+1$, then the rewriting proceeds in the same way as in the $A_n$ case. So suppose $x = {\overline{p_k}}$. If $p_k > 1$, we will assume that $k$ is minimal with this property; if $p_k = 1$, we will assume that $k$ is maximal with this property.
Now, $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{{\overline{p_k}} \& \beta^{(m)}\\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{1\cdots (p_k-1)(p_k+1)\cdots p_{m} \\};$, since $\beta^{(m)}{\overline{p_k}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_5^{C_n}} 1\cdots (p_k-1)(p_k+1)\cdots p_{m}$. Pictorially (using $k = 6$ as an example), we have: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw[fill=lightgray] (0,0) rectangle (1,6) rectangle (0,9);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw[fill=black] (.5,5) circle[radius=1.5pt] -- +(-1,0) node[anchor=east,font=\scriptsize,inner sep=.5mm] {$p_6 - 1$};
\draw[fill=black] (.5,7) circle[radius=1.5pt] -- +(-1,0) node[anchor=east,font=\scriptsize,inner sep=.5mm] {$p_6 + 1$};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (1,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,9) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$
Now, for $m > j > k$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\beta^{(j)}1\cdots (p_k-1)(p_k+1)\cdots p_{j+1} \\
={}& \underbrace{1\cdots p_j}\underbrace{1\cdots (p_k-1)(p_k+1)\cdots p_j}(p_j+1)\cdots p_{j+1} \\
& \qquad\text{[by the { \ifdefined\hyperref {\hyperref[lem:commutingcolumns]{Commuting columns lemma\penalty 200\ \ref*{lem:commutingcolumns}\relax}} \else {Commuting columns lemma\penalty 200\ \relax\ref{lem:commutingcolumns}\relax} \fi}]} \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)}{}& \overbrace{1\cdots (p_k-1)(p_k+1)\cdots p_j}\overbrace{1\cdots p_j}(p_j+1)\cdots p_{j+1} \\
={}& 1\cdots (p_k-1)(p_k+1)\cdots p_j \beta^{(j+1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Write $\hat\beta^{(j)}$ for $\beta^{(j)}$ with the symbol $p_k$ deleted. Then we have $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\hat\beta^{(j+1)} \& \beta^{(j)}\\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(j+1)} \&
\hat\beta^{(j)}\\};$ for all $j = k+1,\ldots,m-1$. (Note that when $p_k = 1$, we know from the maximality of $k$ that $\beta^{(j)} \neq 1$.)
Pictorially, with $k=6$, $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm,baseline=-10mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (1,0) rectangle (2,6) rectangle (1,8);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw[fill=black] (1.5,5) circle[radius=1.5pt] -- +(-2,0) node[anchor=east,font=\scriptsize,inner sep=.5mm] {$p_6 - 1$};
\draw[fill=black] (1.5,7) circle[radius=1.5pt] -- +(-2,0) node[anchor=east,font=\scriptsize,inner sep=.5mm] {$p_6 + 1$};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (2,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\; =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)} \;
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm,baseline=-10mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (2,0) rectangle (3,6) rectangle (2,8);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw[fill=black] (2.5,5) circle[radius=1.5pt] -- +(-3,0) node[anchor=east,font=\scriptsize,inner sep=.5mm] {$p_6 - 1$};
\draw[fill=black] (2.5,7) circle[radius=1.5pt] -- +(-3,0) node[anchor=east,font=\scriptsize,inner sep=.5mm] {$p_6 + 1$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (3,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ Essentially, the ‘gap’ in the columns moves from left to right through the tableau. The rewriting continues until the ‘gap’ reaches the column $\beta^{(k)}$. When $p_k \neq 1$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\hat\beta^{(k+1)} \& \beta^{(k)}\\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(k+1)} \&
\hat\beta^{(k)}\\};$, where $\hat\beta^{(k)} = 1\cdots (p_k-1).$ Thus $\hat\beta^{(k)} \preceq
\beta^{(k-1)}$ since by the minimality of $k$ we have $p_{k-1} < p_k$. That is, pictorially: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw[fill=lightgray] (3,0) rectangle (4,6);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\draw[fill=black] (3.5,5) circle[radius=1.5pt];
\draw (3.5,5) |- +(1,2) node[anchor=west,font=\scriptsize,inner sep=.5mm] {$p_6 - 1$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ and the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_{{\overline{p_k}}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m-1)}}c_{\hat\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\hat\beta^{(m-1)}}c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
&\vdots \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k-1)}}c_{\hat\beta^{(k)}}c_{\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.\end{aligned}$$
When $p_k = 1$, we have $\hat\beta^{(k+1)} = 2\cdots p_{k+1}$ (and we know $p_{k+1} > 1$ by the maximality of $k$) and so $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\hat\beta^{(k+1)} \& \beta^{(k)}\\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(k+1)}\\};$. That is, pictorially, with $k=2$: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm,baseline=-10mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw[fill=gray] (6,0) rectangle (7,4);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\draw (8,0) rectangle (9,2);
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,6,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (7,0) {$\not\preceq$};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\path (7,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$2$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,4) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\;=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)}\;
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=4mm,y=-2mm,baseline=-10mm]
\begin{scope}
\draw (0,0) rectangle (1,10);
\draw (1,0) rectangle (2,9);
\draw (2,0) rectangle (3,9);
\draw (3,0) rectangle (4,7);
\draw (4,0) rectangle (5,6);
\draw (5,0) rectangle (6,5);
\draw[fill=gray] (6,0) rectangle (7,5);
\draw (7,0) rectangle (8,2);
\foreach \x in {1,2,...,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (\x,0) {$\preceq$};
};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\path (\x,0) ++(-.5,0) node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=north] {$1$};
};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (.5,10) {$p_9$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (1.5,9) {$p_8$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (2.5,9) {$p_7$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (3.5,7) {$p_6$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (4.5,6) {$p_5$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (5.5,5) {$p_4$};
\node[font=\tiny,anchor=south,inner sep=.4mm] at (6.5,5) {$p_3$};
\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}$$ and the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_{{\overline{p_k}}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m-1)}}c_{\hat\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\hat\beta^{(m-1)}}c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
&\vdots \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k-1)}}c_{\beta^{(k)}}c_{\hat\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}} \\
{\rightarrow}{}&c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(k-1)}}c_{\beta^{(k+1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that in each case the length of the normal form word differs from $m$ by at most $1$. In summary, we have proved the following lemma:
\[lem:cn:rightmultbytrans\] Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $C_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{C}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $C_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. Rewriting $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ to normal form involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, and this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer. Furthermore, the lengths of $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $1$.
### Bn
Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $B_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $B_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. As we did for types $A_n$ and $C_n$, we are going to examine how the corresponding word over $\Sigma$ (that is, $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$) rewrites to an irreducible word. In fact, the analysis reduces almost entirely to the $C_n$ case: there is only one easy extra case. Again, the aim is to prove that this rewriting involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, which can be carried out by a transducer (see [ ]{}).
Since $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight tableau, each column $\beta^{(i)}$ is of the form $1\cdots p_i$ for some $p_i \in {\mathcal{B}}[1,n]$, and $p_{i+1} \geq p_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ by [ ]{}.
\[lem:bn:rightmultgen\] One of the following holds:
1. $x=1$;
2. $x = p_k+1$ for some $k \in \set{1,\ldots,m}$ such that $p_k < n$;
3. $x=0$ (only if $p_m = n$);
4. $x = {\overline{p_k}}$ for some $k \in \set{1,\ldots,m}$.
Suppose that $x \neq 1$, $x \neq p_k+1$, $x \neq 0$, and $x \neq {\overline{p_k}}$ for all $k$. If $x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[1,n]$, then the same contradiction arises as in the proof of [ ]{}. If $x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n[{\overline{n}},{\overline{1}}]$, then the same contradiction arises as in the proof of [ ]{}.
Finally, suppose $x = 0$. If $p_m \neq n$, then $\rho_n(\beta^{(k)}) = {\varepsilon}$ for each $k$ and so $\rho_{n}(\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}0) = {-}{+}$, contracting the assumption of highest weight.
If $x = 1$ or $x = p_k+1$, then the rewriting proceeds in the same way as in the $A_n$ case, and if $x = {\overline{p_k}}$, then the rewriting proceeds in the same way as the $C_n$ case. So suppose $x=0$. Then $p_m = n$ and so $\beta^{(m)}0 = 1\cdots n0 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_5^{B_n}} 1\cdots n = \beta^{(m)}$; thus $P(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{0 \& \beta^{(m)}\\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)}\\};$. So the corresponding rewriting is $$c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_{0} {\rightarrow}c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}.$$
Note that in each case the length of the normal form word differs from $m$ by at most $1$. In summary, we have proved the following lemma:
\[lem:bn:rightmultbytrans\] Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $B_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{B}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $B_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. Rewriting $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ to normal form involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, and this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer. Furthermore, the lengths of $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $1$.
### Dn
Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $D_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $D_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. As for the other types, we are going to examine how the corresponding word over $\Sigma$ (that is, $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$) rewrites to an irreducible word. As before, the aim is to prove that this rewriting involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, which can be carried out by a transducer (see [ ]{}).
Since $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word by [ ]{}, each column $\beta^{(i)}$ is of the form $1\cdots p_i$ for some $p_i \in {\mathcal{D}}[1,n] \cup {\mathcal{D}}[1,{\overline{n}}]$, and $p_{i+1} \geq p_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ by [ ]{}.
\[lem:dn:rightmultgen\] One of the following holds:
1. $x=1$;
2. $x = p_k+1$ for some $k \in \set{1,\ldots,m}$ such that $p_k < n-1$;
3. $x=n$ (only if $\beta^{(k)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$ for some $k$ or $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots
(n-1){\overline{n}}$);
4. $x={\overline{n}}$ (only if $\beta^{(k)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$ for some $k$ or $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots n$);
5. $x = {\overline{p_k}}$ for some $k \in \set{1,\ldots,m}$ such that $p_k \leq n-1$.
Suppose that $x \neq 1$, $x \neq p_k+1$, $x \neq n$, $x \neq {\overline{n}}$, and $x \neq {\overline{p_k}}$ for all $k$. If $x \in
{\mathcal{D}}_n[1,n-1]$ then the same contradiction arises as in the proof of [ ]{}. If $x \in
{\mathcal{D}}_n[{\overline{n-1}},{\overline{1}}]$, then the same contradiction arises as in the proof of [ ]{}.
Now, suppose $x = n$. If $\beta^{(k)} \neq 1\cdots (n-1)$ for all $k$ and $\beta^{(m)} \neq 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$, then $\rho_{n}(\beta^{(j)}) = {\varepsilon}$ (when $\beta^{(j)} = 1\cdots p_j$ for $p_j \leq n-2$) and $\rho_{n-1}(\beta^{(j)})
= {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$ (when $\beta^{(j)} = 1\cdots n$) and so $\rho_{n-1}(\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}n) = {-}$, contradicting the assumption of highest weight.
Similar reasoning shows that $x={\overline{n}}$ only if $\beta^{(k)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$ for some $k$ or $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots n$, using $\rho_n$ to get the contradictions.
If cases (1) and (2) of [ ]{} hold, or case (3) holds with $\beta^{(k)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$ for some $k$, then the rewriting proceeds in the same way as in the $A_n$ case. If case (5) holds, or case (4) holds with $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots n$, then the rewriting proceeds in the same way as the $C_n$ case.
We thus have two remaining case: case (3) with $x=n$ and $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$, or case (4) with $x={\overline{n}}$ and $\beta^{(k)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$ for some $k$.
Suppose $x = {\overline{n}}$ and $\beta^{(k)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$ for some $k$. The case where $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots n$ has already been covered. So, by the definition of $\preceq$, either $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$ or $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$. Consider these cases separately:
1. $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots (n-1)$. So $P(\beta^{(m)}{\overline{n}})$ is the single column $\beta^{(m)}{\overline{n}}$ and so the corresponding rewriting is $$c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_{{\overline{n}}} {\rightarrow}c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}{\overline{n}}}.$$
2. $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$. Then rewriting proceeds in the same way as in the $A_n$ case, but with ${\overline{n}}$ in place of $n$.
Finally, suppose $x = n$ and $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots (n-1){\overline{n}}$. It is easy to see that rewriting is symmetric to the case $C_n$ where $x = {\overline{n}}$ and $\beta^{(m)} = 1\cdots n$.
Note that in each case the length of the normal form word differs from $m$ by at most $1$. In summary, we have proved the following lemma:
\[lem:dn:rightmultbytrans\] Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $D_n$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{D}}_n$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $D_n$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. Rewriting $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ to normal form involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, and this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer. Furthermore, the lengths of $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $1$.
### G2 {#subsubsec:g2:rightmult}
Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $G_2$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{G}}_2$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $G_2$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. Since $\beta^{(1)}\ldots\beta^{(m)}$ is a highest-weight word, each column $\beta^{(i)}$ is either $1$ or $12$ by [ ]{}. Notice that, by the definition of $\preceq$ for type $G_2$, some $\beta^{(j)}$ is $12$ if and only if the leftmost column $\beta^{(m)}$ is $12$, and some $\beta^{(j)}$ is $1$ if and only if the rightmost column $\beta^{(1)}$ is $1$. As for the other types, we are going to examine how the corresponding word over $\Sigma$ (that is, $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$) rewrites to an irreducible word. As before, the aim is to prove that this rewriting involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, which can be carried out by a transducer (see [ ]{}).
We first prove the following lemma, which tells us about the possible cases for $x$ and the restrictions this puts on the columns $\beta^{(j)}$. We will then consider separately the rewriting that occurs according to whether some $\beta^{(j)}$ is the column $12$.
\[lem:g2:rightmultgen\] The generator $x$ can be
1. $1$;
2. $2$, only if there is at least one column $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
3. $3$, only if there is at least one column $12$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
4. $0$, only if there is at least one column $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
5. ${\overline{3}}$, only if there are at least two columns $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
6. ${\overline{2}}$, only if there is at least one column $12$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
7. ${\overline{1}}$, only if there is at least one column $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$.
Note first that $\rho_1(1) = {+}$, $\rho_1(12) = {+}{-} = {\varepsilon}$, $\rho_2(1) = {\varepsilon}$, $\rho_2(12) = {+}$, so $\rho_1(\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)})$ consists of a string of symbols ${+}$ whose length is the number of columns $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$, and $\rho_2(\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)})$ consists of a string of symbols ${+}$ whose length is the number of columns $12$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$. The result now follows by considering how many symbols ${+}$ are required to cancel symbols ${-}$ in $\rho_i(x)$:
1. Nothing to prove.
2. Since $\rho_1(2) = {-}$, there must be at least one column $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
3. Since $\rho_2(3) = {-}$, there must be at least one column $12$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
4. Since $\rho_1(0) = {-}{+}$, there must be at least one column $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
5. Since $\rho_1({\overline{3}}) = {-}{-}$, there must be at least two columns $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
6. Since $\rho_2({\overline{2}}) = {-}$, there must be at least one column $12$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$;
7. Since $\rho_1({\overline{1}}) = {-}$, there must be at least one column $1$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$.
Consider first the case where there is no column $12$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$. That is, $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x = 1^m x$. In this case, $x$ can be $1$, $2$, $0$, ${\overline{3}}$ (only if $m \geq
2$), or ${\overline{1}}$ by [ ]{}, and so: $$\begin{aligned}
&\tikz[tableau]\matrix{x \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\}; \\
&\qquad=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)}
\begin{cases}
\tikz[tableau]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\}; & \text{if $x = 1$;} \\[1mm]
\tikz[tableau]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\2\\}; & \text{if $x = 2$;} \\[3.5mm]
\tikz[tableau]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\}; & \text{if $x = 0$, since $P(10) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{1\\};}$;} \\[1mm]
\tikz[tableau]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\2\\}; & \text{if $x = {\overline{3}}$, since $P(1{\overline{3}}) = {\tikz[tableau,]\matrix{2\\};}$;} \\[3.5mm]
\tikz[tableau]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\}; & \text{if $x = {\overline{1}}$ since $P(1{\overline{1}}) = {\varepsilon}$;} \\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding rewriting of $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_{x}$ to normal form involves a single rewriting step at the right end of the word. Note that the length of the normal form differs from $m$ by at most $2$.
Next consider the case where there is at least one column $12$ among the $\beta^{(j)}$. That is, $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x = 1^h(12)^k x$, with $k \geq 1$ and $h \geq 0$. In this case, $x$ can be $1$, $2$ (only if $h\geq 1$), $3$, $0$ (only if $h\geq 1$), ${\overline{3}}$ (only if $h \geq 2$), ${\overline{2}}$, or ${\overline{1}}$ (only if $h\geq 1$).
1. $x=1$. Then since $121 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 112$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \\ 2\\};$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix]{1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-2.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
& \vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix]{1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ So the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_1
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_1c_{12} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_1c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
2. $x=2$. Then since $122 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 212$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{2 \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 2\\ 2 \\};)$. As noted above, there is at least one column $1$ present. Thus: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {2 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 2 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-2.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
& \vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 2 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-5.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \& 2\\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ So the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_2
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_2c_{12} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{1}c_2c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12} \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
3. $x=3$. Then since $123 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 110 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 11$ and $1211 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 1121 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 1112$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{3 \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \\};)$ and $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& 1 \\ \& \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& 1 \\ 2\\};$.
Hence: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {3 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-2.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \& \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-3.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
& \vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if we add the extra rewriting rule $c_{12}c_1c_1 {\rightarrow}c_1c_1c_{12}$, the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_{12}c_3
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_1c_1 \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_1c_1c_{12} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_1c_1c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
4. $x=0$. Then since $120 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 210 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 21$ and $1221 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 2121 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 2112$ and $121 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 112$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{0 \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 2\\};$ and $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 2 \& 1\\ \& \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \& 2 \\ 2\\};$ and $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 2 \& 1 \\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \\ 2\\};$. As noted above, there is at least one column $1$ present. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {0 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 2 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-2.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \& \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-3.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
& \vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 2 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-5.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if we add the extra rewriting rules $c_{12}c_2c_1 {\rightarrow}c_2c_1c_{12}$ and $c_1c_2c_1 {\rightarrow}c_1c_{12}$, the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_{12}c_0
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_2c_1 \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_2c_1c_{12} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_2c_1c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12} \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
5. $x={\overline{3}}$. Then since $12{\overline{3}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_4^{G_2}} 21{\overline{3}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 22$ and $1222
=_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 2122 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 2212$ and $1122 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 1212$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{{\overline{3}} \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{2 \& 2 \\};)$ and $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{2 \& 2 \& 1 \\ \& \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 2 \& 2 \\ 2\\};$ and $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{2 \& 2 \& 1 \& 1 \\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \\ 2 \& 2\\};$. As noted above, there are at least two columns $1$ present. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {{\overline{3}} \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {2 \& 2 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-2.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \& \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-3.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
& \vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 2 \& 2 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-5.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \& 2 \& 2\\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if we add the extra rewriting rules $c_{12}c_2c_2 {\rightarrow}c_2c_2c_{12}$ and $c_2c_2c_1c_1 {\rightarrow}c_{12}c_{12}$, the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\cdots c_1c_1c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_{12}c_{{\overline{3}}}
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_1c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_2c_2 \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_1c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_2c_2c_{12} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_1c_{1}c_2c_2c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12} \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_{12}c_{12}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
6. $x={\overline{2}}$. Then since $12{\overline{2}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 10 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 1$ and $121 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 112$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{{\overline{2}} \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1\\};$ and $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 1 \\ 2\\};$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {{\overline{2}} \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-2.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
& \vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \cdots \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ So the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_{12}c_{{\overline{2}}}
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_1 \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_1c_{12} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_{1}c_1c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
7. $x={\overline{1}}$. Then since $12{\overline{1}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} = 1{\overline{3}} =_{{\mathcal{R}}_1^{G_2}} 2$ and $122 =_{{\mathcal{R}}_3^{G_2}} 212$, we have $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{{\overline{1}} \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{2\\};$ and $P(\tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{2 \& 1 \\ \& 2\\};) = \tikz[tableau,topalign]\matrix{1 \& 2 \\ 2\\};$. As noted above, there is at least one column $1$ present. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {{\overline{1}} \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {2 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& 2 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \& |[dottedentry]| \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,3,4,5,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-2.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
& \vdots \\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 2 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \cdots \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {2,3,4,5,6,7,8} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-1.north east) {$\not\preceq$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\\
=_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)} {}&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(tableau-1-1.base)]
\matrix[tableaumatrix] (tableau) {1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \& 1 \& 1 \& |[dottedentry]| \& 1 \\ 2 \& \cdots \& 2 \& 2 \\};
\foreach \x in {1,2,3,4,5,6,7} {
\node[font=\scriptsize,anchor=south] at (tableau-1-\x.north east) {$\preceq$};
};
\end{tikzpicture}\end{aligned}$$ So the corresponding rewriting is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\cdots c_1c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_{12}c_{{\overline{1}}}
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}c_{2} \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_{1}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_2c_{12} \\
&\qquad\vdots \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_{1}c_2c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12} \\
&{\rightarrow}c_{1}\cdots c_1c_{12}c_{12}\cdots c_{12}c_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
In each case, the corresponding rewriting using ${\mathcal{T}}$, augmented by rules corresponding to:
- tabloids with shape $\tikz[shapetableau]\matrix{\null \& \null \& \null \\ \& \& \null\\};$ rewriting to tableaux with shape $\tikz[shapetableau]\matrix{\null \& \null \& \null
\\ \null\\};$
- tabloids with shape $\tikz[shapetableau]\matrix{\null \& \null \& \null \\};$ rewriting to tableaux with shape $\tikz[shapetableau]\matrix{\null \& \null \\ \null\\};$
- tabloids with shape $\tikz[shapetableau]\matrix{\null \& \null \& \null \& \null\\};$ rewriting to tableaux with shape $\tikz[shapetableau]\matrix{\null \& \null \\ \null \& \null\\};$
can be computed in a single right-to-left pass. Note that in each case the length of the normal form word differs from $m$ by at most $2$. In summary, we have proved the following lemma:
\[lem:g2:rightmultbytrans\] Let $\beta^{(1)},\ldots,\beta^{(m)}$ be admissible $G_2$ columns and let $x \in {\mathcal{G}}_2$ be such that $\beta^{(i+1)} \preceq \beta^{(i)}$ for $i=1,\ldots,m-1$ (that is, $\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(m)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)} \\};$ is a $G_2$ tableau), and such that $\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(m)}x$ is a highest-weight word. Rewriting $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ to the normal form, using ${\mathcal{T}}$ augmented by the additional rules above, involves a single right-to-left pass through the word, and this rewriting can be carried out by a transducer. Furthermore, the lengths of $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(m)}}c_x$ and its corresponding normal form differ by at most $2$.
Building the biautomatic structure {#sec:biautomaticity}
==================================
Equipped with the lemmata from [ ]{} and \[subsec:rightmult\], we are now ready to prove biautomaticity for the plactic monoids. First, we recall the essential definitions in [ ]{}. We also state a result that allows us to discuss rational relations rather than synchronous rational relations, which helps avoids some technical reasoning ([ ]{}). In [ ]{}, we then proceed to build the biautomatic structures and to examine some consequences and applications of biautomaticity.
Preliminaries {#subsec:biautopreliminaries}
-------------
This subsection contains the definitions and basic results from the theory of automatic and biautomatic monoids needed hereafter. For further information on automatic semigroups, see [@campbell_autsg]. We assume familiarity with basic notions of automata and regular languages (see, for example, [@hopcroft_automata]) and transducers and rational relations (see, for example, [@berstel_transductions]).
Let $A$ be an alphabet and let $\$$ be a new symbol not in $A$. Define the mapping ${\delta_{\mathrm{R}}}: A^* \times A^* \to ((A\cup\{\$\})\times (A\cup
\{\$\}))^*$ by $$(u_1\cdots u_m,v_1\cdots v_n) \mapsto
\begin{cases}
(u_1,v_1)\cdots(u_m,v_n) & \text{if }m=n,\\
(u_1,v_1)\cdots(u_n,v_n)(u_{n+1},\$)\cdots(u_m,\$) & \text{if }m>n,\\
(u_1,v_1)\cdots(u_m,v_m)(\$,v_{m+1})\cdots(\$,v_n) & \text{if }m<n,
\end{cases}$$ and the mapping ${\delta_{\mathrm{L}}}: A^* \times A^* \to ((A\cup\{\$\})\times (A\cup \{\$\}))^*$ by $$(u_1\cdots u_m,v_1\cdots v_n) \mapsto
\begin{cases}
(u_1,v_1)\cdots(u_m,v_n) & \text{if }m=n,\\
(u_1,\$)\cdots(u_{m-n},\$)(u_{m-n+1},v_1)\cdots(u_m,v_n) & \text{if }m>n,\\
(\$,v_1)\cdots(\$,v_{n-m})(u_1,v_{n-m+1})\cdots(u_m,v_n) & \text{if }m<n,
\end{cases}$$ where $u_i,v_i \in A$.
\[def:autstruct\] Let $M$ be a monoid. Let $A$ be a finite alphabet representing a set of generators for $M$ and let $L \subseteq A^*$ be a regular language such that every element of $M$ has at least one representative in $L$. For each $a \in A \cup \{{\varepsilon}\}$, define the relations $$\begin{aligned}
L_a &= \{(u,v): u,v \in L, {ua} =_M {v}\}\\
{}_aL &= \{(u,v) : u,v \in L, {au} =_M {v}\}.\end{aligned}$$ The pair $(A,L)$ is an [*automatic structure*]{} for $M$ if $L_a{\delta_{\mathrm{R}}}$ is a regular languages over $(A\cup\{\$\})
\times (A\cup\{\$\})$ for all $a \in A \cup \{{\varepsilon}\}$. A monoid $M$ is [*automatic*]{} if it admits an automatic structure with respect to some generating set.
The pair $(A,L)$ is a [*biautomatic structure*]{} for $M$ if $L_a{\delta_{\mathrm{R}}}$, ${}_aL{\delta_{\mathrm{R}}}$, $L_a{\delta_{\mathrm{L}}}$, and ${}_aL{\delta_{\mathrm{L}}}$ are regular languages over $(A\cup\{\$\}) \times (A\cup\{\$\})$ for all $a \in A \cup \{{\varepsilon}\}$. A monoid $M$ is [*biautomatic*]{} if it admits a biautomatic structure with respect to some generating set. \[Note that biautomaticity implies automaticity.\]
Unlike the situation for groups, biautomaticity for monoids and semigroups, like automaticity, is dependent on the choice of generating set [@campbell_autsg Example 4.5]. However, for monoids, biautomaticity and automaticity are independent of the choice of *semigroup* generating sets [@duncan_change Theorem 1.1].
Hoffmann & Thomas have made a careful study of biautomaticity for semigroups [@hoffmann_biautomatic]. They distinguish four notions of biautomaticity for semigroups, which are all equivalent for groups and more generally for cancellative semigroups [@hoffmann_biautomatic Theorem 1] but distinct for semigroups [@hoffmann_biautomatic Remark 1 & § 4]. In the sense used in this paper, ‘biautomaticity’ implies *all four* of these notions of biautomaticity.
In proving that $R{\delta_{\mathrm{R}}}$ or $R{\delta_{\mathrm{L}}}$ is regular, where $R$ is a relation on $A^*$, a useful strategy is to prove that $R$ is a rational relation (that is, a relation recognized by a finite transducer [@berstel_transductions Theorem 6.1]) and then apply the following result, which is a combination of [@frougny_synchronized Corollary 2.5] and [@hoffmann_biautomatic Proposition 4]:
\[prop:rationalbounded\] If $R \subseteq A^* \times A^*$ is rational relation and there is a constant $k$ such that $\bigl||u|-|v|\bigr| \leq k$ for all $(u,v) \in R$, then $R{\delta_{\mathrm{R}}}$ and $R{\delta_{\mathrm{L}}}$ are regular.
Construction {#subsec:biautoconstruct}
------------
In [ ]{} and \[subsec:rightmult\], we studied the rewriting that occurs when a highest-weight normal form word is left- or right-multiplied by a generator. We now turn to building biautomatic structures for the plactic monoids of each type. The strategy is to show that the same kind of rewriting occurs when a normal form word, not necessarily of highest weight, is left- or right-multiplied by a generator, and thus that such rewriting can be carried out by a two-tape automaton.
\[thm:biautomaticity\] The plactic monoids ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$, ${\mathrm{Pl}}(B_n)$, ${\mathrm{Pl}}(C_n)$, ${\mathrm{Pl}}(D_n)$, and ${\mathrm{Pl}}(G_2)$ are biautomatic.
Let $X$ be one of the types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, and $G_2$ and let ${\mathcal{X}}$ be the corresponding alphabet from ${\mathcal{A}}_n$, ${\mathcal{B}}_n$, ${\mathcal{C}}_n$, ${\mathcal{D}}_n$, or ${\mathcal{G}}_2$. Let $(\Sigma,T)$ be the rewriting system constructed in [ ]{}.
The Kashiwara operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ and ${\tilde{f}}_i$ apply to words over ${\mathcal{X}}$. For convenience, we will apply them to words over $\Sigma$ as follows: define $${\tilde{e}}_i(c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}) = c_{\gamma^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\gamma^{(\ell)}},$$ where ${\tilde{e}}_i(\beta^{(1)}\cdots\beta^{(\ell)}) = \gamma^{(1)}\cdots\gamma^{(\ell)}$ and $|\beta^{(j)}| = |\gamma^{(j)}|$ for $j=1,\ldots,k$. Define ${\tilde{f}}_i$ on $\Sigma^*$ analogously. Notice that ${\tilde{e}}_i(\tikz[tableau]\matrix{\beta^{(\ell)} \& |[dottedentry]| \& \beta^{(1)}\\};) = \tikz[tableau]\matrix{\gamma^{(\ell)} \&
\cdots \& \gamma^{(1)}\\};$ since the Kashiwara operators preserves shapes by [ ]{}. We will say a word $c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(\ell)}} \in \Sigma^*$ has highest weight if $\beta^{(1)}\cdots \beta^{(\ell)}$ has highest weight, or, equivalently, if ${\tilde{e}}_i(c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(\ell)}})$ is undefined for all $i$.
Let $L$ be the language of irreducible words of this rewriting system. That is $$L = \gset[\big]{c_{\gamma^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\gamma^{(\ell)}} \in \Sigma^*}{\text{$\gamma^{(j+1)} \preceq \gamma^{(j)}$ for $j=1,\ldots,\ell-1$}}.$$ We are going to show that $(\Sigma,L)$ is a biautomatic structure for ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$.
Let $u = c_{\gamma^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\gamma^{(\ell)}} \in L$, let $c_y \in \Sigma$ where $y \in X$, and let $v \in L$ be such that $c_{\gamma^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\gamma^{(\ell)}}c_y =_{{\mathrm{Pl}}(X)} v$.
Let $i_1,\ldots,i_m$ be such that ${\tilde{e}}_{i_m}\cdots{\tilde{e}}_{i_1}(c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}c_y) = c_{\gamma^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\gamma^{(\ell)}}c_x$ is a highest weight word. By [ ]{}, \[lem:cn:rightmultbytrans\], \[lem:bn:rightmultbytrans\], \[lem:dn:rightmultbytrans\], and \[lem:g2:rightmultbytrans\], there is a sequence of rewriting $$\label{eq:rightmulthighestweightrewriting}
c_{\gamma^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\gamma^{(\ell)}}c_x {\rightarrow}u_1 {\rightarrow}\ldots {\rightarrow}u_p \in L,$$ where the rewriting proceeds from right to left in a single pass. (As described in [ ]{}, when $X$ is $G_2$ we have to add some extra rules to $T$ to get rewriting that proceeds in a single right-to-left pass.) By [ ]{}, applying the composition of Kashiwara operators ${\tilde{f}}_{i_1}\cdots{\tilde{f}}_{i_m}$ to every term in the sequence gives a sequence of rewriting $$uc_y = c_{\beta^{(1)}}\cdots c_{\beta^{(\ell)}}c_y {\rightarrow}v_1 {\rightarrow}\ldots {\rightarrow}v_p = v \in L,$$ where the rewriting proceeds from right to left in a single pass. This rewriting can be computed by a transducer that reads from right to left and stores a short ‘working’ subword in its state. Since the class of rational relations are closed under reversal, $L_{c_y}$ is a rational relation.
Let $c_\sigma \in \Sigma$. So $\sigma$ is an admissible $X$ column and $\sigma = \sigma_1\cdots\sigma_k$ for some $\sigma_i \in {\mathcal{X}}$, with $k \leq n$. So $$\label{eq:composingrationalrelations}
L_{c_\sigma} = L_{\sigma_1}\circ \cdots \circ L_{\sigma_k}.$$
Furthermore, by [ ]{}, \[lem:cn:rightmultbytrans\], \[lem:bn:rightmultbytrans\], \[lem:dn:rightmultbytrans\], and \[lem:g2:rightmultbytrans\], in , we have $\bigl|\ell - |u_p|\bigr| \leq K$ for a constant $K$. Hence if $(u,v) \in L_{c_y}$, then $\bigl||u| - |v|\bigr| \leq K$. Thus it follows from that if $(u,v) \in L_{c_\sigma}$, then $\bigl||u| - |v|\bigr| \leq
|\sigma|K$. Hence $L_{c_\sigma}$ is a synchronous rational relation by [ ]{}.
Similar reasoning applied to left multiplication but using [ ]{} and \[lem:g2:leftmultbytrans\] shows that ${}_{c_\sigma}L$ is a synchronous rational relation. Therefore $(\Sigma,L)$ is a biautomatic structure for ${\mathrm{Pl}}(X)$.
[ ]{} has several important corollaries. We emphasize that these are purely crystal-theoretic consequences of the biautomaticity of the plactic monoids:
\[corol:wordproblem\] For the crystal graphs of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, or $G_2$, there is a quadratic-time algorithm that takes as input two vertices and decides whether they lie in the same position in isomorphic components.
Two vertices lie in the same position in isomorphic connected components if and only if they represent the same element of the plactic monoid of the given type. This monoid is biautomatic by [ ]{}, and biautomatic (and automatic) monoids have word problem soluble in quadradic time [@campbell_autsg Corollary 3.7].
Note in passing that [ ]{} cannot be deduced directly from tableaux insertion algorithms except in the $A_n$ case. Schensted’s insertion algorithm (see [@lothaire_algebraic Chapter 5]) can solve the word problem in ${\mathrm{Pl}}(A_n)$ in quadratic time because inserting a single symbol into a tableau takes linear time. However, in types $B_n$, $C_n$, and $D_n$ inserting a single symbol into a tableau may take more that linear time (see [@lecouvey_cn § 4] and [@lecouvey_bndn § 3.3]), because in certain cases a recursion arises that requires inserting an entire column symbol by symbol into the remainder of the tableau.
\[corol:isomorphiccomponents\] For the crystal graphs of types $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$, $D_n$, or $G_2$, there is a quadratic-time algorithm that takes as input two vertices and decides that whether they lie in isomorphic components.
Let $B(u_1)$ and $B(u_2)$ be two components of the crystal graph, where $u_1$ and $u_2$ are any vertices of these components. Apply operators ${\tilde{e}}_i$ to transform $u_1$ and $u_2$ to highest-weight words $v_1$ and $v_2$ respectively. It is easy to see that each application of ${\tilde{e}}_i$ takes linear time in the length of the word. Each symbol of the word can be altered a bounded number of times by the various ${\tilde{e}}_i$, so computing $v_1$ and $v_2$ takes at most quadratic time in the lengths of $u_1$ and $v_1$. Then $B(u_1)$ and $B(u_2)$ are isomorphic if and only if $v_1$ and $v_2$ lie in the same position in $B(u_1)$ and $B(u_2)$, which can be decided in quadratic time by [ ]{}.
[^1]: The first author was supported by an Investigador <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FCT</span> fellowship (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">IF</span>/01622/2013/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CP</span>1161/[ CT]{}0001).
[^2]: Much of the research leading to this paper was undertaken during visits by the second author to the Centro de Álgebra da Universidade de Lisboa and the Centro de Matemática e Aplicações, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. We thank both centres and universities for their hospitality. These visits were funded by the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FCT</span> project <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PEst-OE</span>/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MAT</span>/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">UI</span>0143/2014 (held by CAUL) and the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FCT</span> exploratory project <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">IF</span>/01622/2013/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CP</span>1161/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CT</span>0001 (attached to the first author’s fellowship).
[^3]: For the first and third authors, this work was partially supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) through the project <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">UID</span>/[ MAT]{}/00297/2013 (Centro de Matemática e Aplicações).
[^4]: For the third author, this work was partially developed within the research activities of the Centro de Álgebra da Universidade de Lisboa, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FCT</span> project <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PEst-OE</span>/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">MAT</span>/<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">UI</span>0143/2014.
[^5]: The authors thank Cédric Lecouvey for supplying offprints, Duarte Chambel Ribeiro for pointing out an error, and Vanda Martins for dealing with administrative matters arising from the second author’s visits to Lisbon.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We propose a definition of computable manifold by introducing computability as a structure that we impose to a given topological manifold, just in the same way as differentiability or piecewise linearity are defined for smooth and PL manifolds respectively. Using the framework of computable topology and Type-2 theory of effectivity, we develop computable versions of all the basic concepts needed to define manifolds, like *computable atlases* and *(computably) compatible* computable atlases. We prove that given a computable atlas $\Phi$ defined on a set $M$, we can construct a computable topological space $(M, \tau_\Phi, \beta_\Phi,
\nu_\Phi)$, where $\tau_\Phi$ is the topology on $M$ induced by $\Phi$ and that the equivalence class of this computable space characterizes the *computable structure* determined by $\Phi$. The concept of *computable submanifold* is also investigated. We show that any compact computable manifold which satisfies a computable version of the $T_2$-separation axiom, can be embedded as a computable submanifold of some euclidean space $\euclidean{q}$, with a computable embedding, where $\euclidean{q}$ is equipped with its usual topology and some canonical computable encoding of all open rational balls.
address:
- |
Instituto de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México\
Ciudad Universitaria, México D.F. 04510, México
- |
Instituto de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México\
Ciudad Universitaria, México D.F. 04510, México
author:
- 'Marcelo A. Aguilar'
- Rodolfo Conde
bibliography:
- 'bib/biblio.bib'
title: '**Computable structures on topological manifolds**'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study Thurston’s Lipschitz and curve metrics, as well as the arc metric on the Teichmüller space of the torus equipped with hyperbolic metrics with one boundary component of fixed length. We construct natural Lipschitz maps between two such hyperbolic surfaces that generalize Thurston’s stretch maps. The construction is based on maps between ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals. We prove the following: (1) On the Teichmüller space of the torus with one boundary component, the Lipschitz metric and the curve metric coincide and give a geodesic metric. (2) On the same Teichmüller space, the arc metric and the curve metrics coincide when the length of the boundary component is $\leq 4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$, but differ when the boundary length is large.
We obtain several applications of this construction, including results on the Teichmüller spaces of closed hyperbolic surfaces: we construct novel Thurston geodesics and use them in particular to show that the sum-symmetrization of the Thurston metric is not Gromov hyperbolic.
*Keywords.—* Teichmüller space, hyperbolic surface, Lipschitz metric, curve metric, Thurston metric, arc metric, stretch map, stretch path, partial stretch path, geodesic, Gromov hyperbolicity.
*AMS classification.—* 32G15, 30F60, 30F10, 53C23, 53C70.
address:
- 'Yi Huang, Jinchunyuan West Building 261, Yau Mathematical Sciences Center, Tsinghua University, Haidian District Beijing 100084, China'
- 'Athanase Papadopoulos, Universit[é]{} de Strasbourg and CNRS, 7 rue René Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France'
author:
- Yi Huang
- Athanase Papadopoulos
title: 'Optimal Lipschitz maps on one-holed tori and the Thurston metric theory of Teichmüller space'
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
Let $S=S_{g,n}$ be a finite-type topological surface of negative Euler characteristic with genus $g\geq0$ and $n\geq0$ (open) borders labeled from $1$ to $n$. We consider the following variants of Teichmüller space:
- $\mathcal{T}(S)$ is the space of homotopy classes of complete hyperbolic structures on $S$, where both cuspidal and hyperbolic boundary monodromy are admitted;
- $\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{b}=b_1,\ldots,b_n)$ is the subset of $\mathcal{T}(S)$ where the geodesic representative of the $k$-th boundary has length $b_k\in[0,\infty)$, here $b_k=0$ means a cusp;
- $\mathcal{T}:=\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{0})$ is the subset of $\mathcal{T}(S)$ consisting of homotopy classes of complete finite-area (cusps are admitted) hyperbolic structures on $S$.
We will, at times, need to consider the convex core of a complete hyperbolic surface $(S,h)$ and we denote its convex core by $(\bar{S},\bar{h})$, where $\bar{S}$ is a closed bordered surface in $S$ and $\bar{h}$ is obtained from $h$ by restricting to $\bar{S}$ a homotopy representative of $h$ which is geodesic on the boundary of $\bar{S}\subset S$. In this context, we adopt the notation $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S})$ and $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S},\vec{b})$ to refer to Teichmüller spaces of geodesic-bordered (finite-area) hyperbolic surfaces. Note that $\mathcal{T}(S)$ is naturally identified with $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S})$, and $\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{b})$ with $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S},\vec{b})$ via the map which takes a complete marked hyperbolic surface to its convex core.
Thurston’s asymmetric metric
----------------------------
Thurston defined in [@Thurston1986] two asymmetric metrics on the Teichmüller space $\mathcal{T}=\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{0})$ of $S$. We recall their definitions:
Let $h_0$ and $h_1$ be two hyperbolic structures on $S$ and let $\varphi:(S,h_0)\to (S,h_1)$ be a homeomorphism homotopic to the identity map on $S$. The *Lipschitz constant* $\hbox{Lip}(\varphi)$ of $\varphi$ is the quantity $$\label{Lip}
\hbox{Lip}(\varphi)
:=\sup_{x\neq y\in S}
\frac{d_{h_1}\big{(}\varphi(x),\varphi(y)\big{)}}
{d_{h_0}\big{(}x,y\big{)}}.$$ We denote by $L(h_0,h_1)$ the infimum of the Lipschitz constant over all homeomorphisms $\varphi: (S,h_0)\to (S,h_1)$ which are homotopic to the identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L}
L(h_0,h_1):=
\inf_{\varphi\sim\mathrm{id}_{S}}
\log\,\hbox{Lip}(\varphi).\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $L(h_0,h_1)$ depends only on the homotopy classes of $h_0$ and $h_1$, and therefore descends to a real function on $\mathcal{T} \times \mathcal{T}$. Thurston showed in [@Thurston1986 §2] that $L$ satisfies all (distance) metric axioms except for symmetry; that is, there exist hyperbolic structures $h_0$ and $h_1$ on $S$ such that $L(h_0,h_1)\neq L(h_1,h_0)$. In this paper, we refer to asymmetric metrics as metrics for simplicity and, as such, we refer to $L(\cdot,\cdot)$ as the *Lipschitz metric*.
Denote by $\mathcal{S}$ the set of homotopy classes of essential simple closed curves on $S$ (i.e. curves neither null-homotopic nor homotopic to a puncture). Consider the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{K}
K(h_0,h_1):=
\sup_{\gamma\in\mathcal{S}}
\log\,\frac{l_{h_1}(\gamma)}{l_{h_0}(\gamma)}.\end{aligned}$$ Thurston showed [@Thurston1986 §2] that $K$ also defines an asymmetric metric on $\mathcal{T}$. We refer to $K(\cdot,\cdot)$ as the *curve metric*.
In the same paper [@Thurston1986 Theorem 8.5], Thurston proved that $K\equiv L$ and that it gives a geodesic metric on the Teichmüller space $\mathcal{T}$ of complete finite-area metrics on $S$.
$k$-Lipschitz maps and Thurston geodesics
-----------------------------------------
Thurston constructed a class of distinguished geodesics for the metric $L$ (and $K$). His construction is based on certain Lipschitz maps between ideal triangles that we now define. Consider the most symmetric foliation by horocycles of the ideal triangle. This is a foliation of the three cusps of the triangle by horocycle segments perpendicularly interpolating between boundaries, with a central unfoliated region bounded by horocyclic segments which meet tangentially at their ends (see Figure \[fig:stretch\]). We refer to the three boundary points where two distinct horocycle leaves meet as *anchor points*.
\[def:stretch\] For any given $k\geq 1$, the $k$-expansion map between two ideal triangles is defined to be the identity on the central unfoliated region and defined to send each horocycle at distance $d\geq 0$ from this central region onto the horocycle (at the same cusp) at distance $kd$ from this region, where each horocycle is mapped linearly with respect to its parametrization by arclength.
![[]{data-label="fig:stretch"}](stretch.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Thurston utilized $k$-expansion maps to construct rays (that is, one-parameter families parametrized by $[0,\infty)$) of complete finite-area hyperbolic metrics on $S$ $$h_t:=\operatorname{stretch}(h_0,\lambda,t)\text{, for }t\geq0,$$ where an initial hyperbolic metric $h_0$ is stretched along a maximal geodesic lamination $\lambda$. In particular, the identity map $$\mathrm{id}_S:(S,h_0)\to(S,h_t)$$ is an $e^t$-Lipschitz map for every $t\geq0$. We refer to these maps as *stretch maps*.
Thurston’s stretch map construction produces hyperbolic metrics $h_t$ by expanding distances along the maximal lamination $\lambda$ by a factor of $e^t$ and replacing the metric on the complementary triangles with the pullback (hyperbolic) metric with respect to $e^t$-expansion maps on ideal triangles. It is not difficult to see that this gives a well-defined construction when $\lambda$ consists of finitely many leaves, but careful analysis is required when there are infinitely many. This is done by Thurston in [@Thurston1986 §4]. Stretch maps yield geodesics rays $(S,h_t)$ for the Thurston metric. We refer to geodesic segments of $(S,h_t)$ as *stretch paths*; they are at the heart of the results developed in [@Thurston1986].
Thurston metric for bordered surfaces
-------------------------------------
Neither the Lipschitz metric nor the curve metric, as respectively expressed by and , form (asymmetric) metrics on $\mathcal{T}(S)$ because they assume negative values (see [@GK Theorem 1.8] and [@2009h Theorem 2.4]). However, and *do* give positive (asymmetric) metrics when restricted to Teichmüller spaces $\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{b})$ with prescribed boundary monodromy [@HS Theorem 7.9]. Combined with the result [@GK Corollary 1.12] due to Guéritaud and Kassel that $L$ and $K$ are equal whenever either is positive, we see that these two metrics agree on $\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{b})$ and naturally generalize the Thurston metric. Guéritaud-Kassel did not investigate the positivity of the naïve curve ratio metric (or Lipschitz metric) on $\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{b})$, because they instead achieve positivity by adjusting the Thurston metric with critical exponent renormalization factors [@GK (1.6)]. The benefit of their approach is that they obtained a metric for a very general class of representations (or rather, characters) which in turn encode very different geometric objects. Guéritaud has communicated to us a succinct alternative argument for how to obtain the positivity of the naïve Thurston metric on $\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{L})$ via their work with Danciger [@DGK].
Guéritaud and Kassel prove that $L\equiv K$ by establishing an equivariant form of the Kirszbraun-Valentine theorem as a machine for producing Lipschitz maps. There is no guarantee that the maps so-produced are injective. It is tempting, therefore, to wonder if one might be able to reutilize Thurston’s stretch map construction to build optimal Lipschitz homeomorphisms and hence Thurston geodesics. Unfortunately, stretch maps with respect to maximal geodesic laminations (i.e. those whose complementary regions are ideal triangles) generally distort boundary monodromy and hence do not lie in $\mathcal{T}(S,\vec{b})$. There are, however, special cases where one is able to reuse Thurston’s construction in a clever way (see, for example, Lenzhen-Rafi-Tao’s [@LRT §6]).
The arc metric
--------------
The *arc metric* [@2009f], based on lengths of simple orthogeodesics is a way of defining a nonnegative asymmetric metric on $\mathcal{T}(S)$ in the guise of the Teichmüller space $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S})$ of geodesically bordered hyperbolic surfaces.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote the set of boundary-relative homotopy classes of arcs on $\bar{S}$ (i.e. essential simple paths with endpoints on the boundary $\partial\bar{S}$ of $\bar{S}$, “essential" meaning that the curve is not homotopic to a piece of a boundary component) and consider the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A}
A(h_0,h_1):=
\sup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}\cup\mathcal{S}}
\log\,\frac{l_{h_1}(\alpha)}{l_{h_0}(\alpha)}
=\sup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}
\log\,\frac{l_{h_1}(\alpha)}{l_{h_0}(\alpha)},\end{aligned}$$ where $l_{h}(\alpha)$ denotes the length of the unique orthogeodesic representative of $\alpha$ in its boundary-relative homotopy class. We refer to $A(\cdot,\cdot)$ as the *arc metric*.
The arc metric is more than superficially similar to the Thurston metric, it is in fact equal to the pullback of the Thurston metric with respect to the doubling embedding $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{T}(dS)$, where $dS$ is the closed surface obtained by doubling $\bar{S}$ along its boundary [@2009f Corollary 2.9].
\[AKcompare\] In (\[A\]), the fact that the supremum of length ratios over the collection of arcs and curve $\mathcal{A}\cup\mathcal{S}$ is equal to the supremum taken only over the collection of arcs. This is established in [@2009f Proposition 2.13], and comes from the fact that any sequence of arcs Dehn-twisted a high number of times about a curve $\gamma$ (roughly) detects the length ratio for $\gamma$. In any case, we see definitionally that $A\geq K$.
The hitherto study of geodesics for this metric has been based on explicit constructions of Lipschitz maps between right angled hexagons (see [@2009j] and its generalization in [@2015-Yamada1]).
The one-holed torus
-------------------
Our work in the present paper centers on the one-holed torus case. We set $S=S_{1,1}$ in notation such as $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$, where $b=b_1>0$, to denote the Teichmüller space of one-holed hyperbolic tori with prescribed boundary monodromy.
In §\[s:torus\], we construct natural generalizations of Thurston’s stretch maps for one-holed tori. Namely, we give an elementary construction of piece-wise smooth homeomorphisms between complete hyperbolic metrics in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ with optimal Lipschitz constant.
Using these stretch map generalizations, we show in
- §\[sec:K=L\] that $L\equiv K$ for $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ and that $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ is a geodesic space;
- §\[sec:KvsA\] that the equality $K\equiv A$ holds, when restricted to $\mathcal{T}(S_{1,1},b)$, if the boundary length $b\leq4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$. However, this fails when $b\gg0$;
- §\[sec:novel\] various constructions of Thurston geodesics on $\mathcal{T}(S_{g,n},\vec{b})$;
- §\[sec:nonhyp\] that for any closed surface of genus $g\geq 2$, $\mathcal{T}(S)$ cannot be Gromov hyperbolic with respect to the Thurston metric (or, more precisely, its sum-symmetrization).
We develop many of these ideas further in an upcoming paper [@HP] for surfaces of general (finite) topological type, as well as the claim that the arc metric on $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S})$ is in fact equal to the Lipschitz metric on $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S})$ defined by considering optimal Lipschitz constants for geodesic-bordered hyperbolic surfaces. This is not easily obtainable as a consequence of doubling arguments, and we use Guéritaud and Kassel’s equivariant Kirszbraun-Valentine theory.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank Kasra Rafi for correspondence and for his interest in our work. We also thank François Guéritaud for his very thoughtful and enlightening responses to our many questions.
Lipschitz maps on one-holed tori {#s:torus}
================================
Saccheri qudrilaterals
----------------------
Classically, a *Saccheri quadrilateral* in the hyperbolic plane is a geodesic quadrilateral with two opposite sides of equal length perpendicular to a third. See the quadrilateral $ABCD$ in the left hand side of Figure \[fig:saccheri\], where the two equal sides $AD$ and $BC$ are perpendicular to $AB$. The angles at $C$ and $D$ are then equal and necessarily acute. On the right hand side of this figure, we have represented an *ideal Saccheri quadriateral*, by which we mean that the vertices $C$ and $D$ are ideal points at infinity and (hence) the sides $AD$ and $BC$ have infinite length. In this case, the angles at $C$ and $D$ are $0$.
The isometry type of the ideal Saccheri quadrilateral $ABCD$ is determined by the length of $AB$. Note that an ideal triangle may be regarded as a limit of ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals where the length of the side $AB$ tends to $0$.
![[]{data-label="fig:saccheri"}](saccheri.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Partial horocyclic foliations
-----------------------------
An ideal Saccheri quadrilateral has two ideal vertices, and we foliate the neighborhood of each cusp with horocycles centered at these ideal vertices. We extend this foliation reflection-symmetrically until the two foliations meet tangentially in the middle (see Figure \[fig:horocyclic\]) and refer to this intersection point as an *anchor point*. This reflection-symmetric partial foliation of the quadrilateral is uniquely determined, and in the special case that the length of $AB$ is $0$, corresponds to “two out of three sectors” of the horocyclic foliation of the ideal triangle employed by Thurston. Figure \[fig:horocyclic\] (a), (b) and (c) illustrate each of the three (mutually disjoint) situations that may arise with regards to the partial horocyclic foliation:
- \(a) occurs when the length of $AB$ is smaller than $2\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$;
- \(b) occurs when equal to $2\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$, and
- \(c) occurs when greater than $2\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$.
![[]{data-label="fig:horocyclic"}](horocyclic.png){width="0.80\linewidth"}
In cases (a) and (b), we define *$k$-expansion maps* of an ideal Saccheri quadrilateral in much the same way as Thurston did for ideal triangles (see Definition \[def:stretch\]). Specifically, the map is equal to the identity map on the unfoliated region and sends any leaf of the horocyclic foliation situated at distance $d\geq 0$ from the unfoliated region to the one at distance $kd$ from that region, mapping linearly with respect to arclength on each horocyclic leaf (see Figure \[fig:Saccheri-stretch\]). For case (c), however, this construction is hampered by $AB$ excising some of the horocyclic segments. We resolve this issue by working instead with *extended ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals*: extend each ideal Saccheri quadrilateral (regarded as being embedded in the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}^2$) to the complete infinite-area convex domain bordered by $CD$ and the two bi-infinite geodesics respectively containing $AD$ and $BC$ (see dotted lines in Figure \[fig:horocyclic\]) and define the $k$-expansion map on the extended ideal Saccheri quadrilateral.
![[]{data-label="fig:Saccheri-stretch"}](saccheri-stretch.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The $k$-expansion map of the (extended) ideal Saccheri quadrilateral has Lipschitz constant precisely equal to $k$.
The proof is the same as Thurston’s proof for the $k$-expansion map on ideal triangles; proof details are omitted in [@2009j Proposition 2.2] but are easily recovered from (for example) [@2015-Yamada1 Lemma 5.2]. We may, in essence, ignore the unfoliated region. On the horocyclically foliated regions, the $k$-expansion map expands the orthogonal geodesic foliation by $k$ and contracts the horocyclic foliation. The orthogonality of the two invariant foliations ensures $k$-Lipschitz-ness.
Partial stretch maps on one-holed tori
--------------------------------------
We now construct $k$-Lipschitz maps between hyperbolic one-holed tori using $k$-expansion maps between ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals.
\[thm:chainrecurrent\] A one-holed torus admits in the interior of its convex core three types of geodesic laminations which are chain recurrent (that is, which are limits in the Hausdorff topology of simple closed geodesics); see Figure \[fig:chainrecurrence\]:
1. simple closed geodesics $\gamma$;
2. the union of a simple closed geodesic $\gamma$ and a bi-infinite geodesic $\ell$ which spirals to $\gamma$ from one side of $\gamma$ and to $\gamma^{-1}$ from the other side;
3. geodesic laminations $\mu$ with uncountably many leaves corresponding to the support of some measured laminations.
We first note that all three of these types of geodesic laminations are in fact chain recurrent. Conversely, let $\lambda$ be a chain recurrent geodesic lamination. We know that every (compactly supported) lamination contains a sublamination which supports a transverse measure. Any such sublamination of $\lambda$ falls either into cases $(1)$ or $(3)$, which respectively correspond to the support of rational and irrational measured laminations on $S$. Since the complement of an irrational measured lamination on a one-holed torus is an annulus homotopy equivalent to the boundary of the convex core of $S$ (one may see this by taking a train track approximating this lamination), case $(3)$ is already maximal among chain recurrent laminations. On the other hand, simple closed geodesics can be extended in precisely two ways, both of which fall into class $(2)$. This covers all possibilities for $\lambda$.
![, the rightmost figure depicts a train-track carrying an irrational lamination.[]{data-label="fig:chainrecurrence"}](chainrecurrence.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
\[thm:pstretch\] For any complete hyperbolic metric $h_0$ in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ and a chain recurrent lamination $\lambda$, there is a ray $$\begin{aligned}
h_t:=\operatorname{pstretch}(h_0,\lambda,t)\text{, for }t\geq0,\end{aligned}$$ of complete hyperbolic metrics in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ such that
- for $0\leq t$, the identity map $\mathrm{id}_S:(S,h_0)\rightarrow(S,h_t)$ is an $e^{t}$-Lipschitz homeomorphism which is an isometry outside of a compact set contained in the convex core of $S$;
- the identity map expands arclength along $\lambda$ by a factor of $e^{t}$.
In addition, the path $(S,h_t)$ in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ defines a geodesic ray for both the Lipschitz metric $L$ and the curve metric $K$, with $L\equiv K$ along $(S,h_t)$. We refer to subsegments of $(S,h_t)$ as *partial stretch paths*.
Note that we do not define partial stretch maps for arbitray maximal (compactly supported) laminations in this paper, and require the stretched lamination to be invariant under the hyperelliptic involution $\iota$ on $S$. This property is satisfied by all chain recurrent laminations as they are Hausdorff limits of simple closed geodesics, which are always invariant under $\iota$.
Lemma \[thm:chainrecurrent\] lets us deal with this construction on a case-by-case basis.
**When $\lambda$ is irrational.** This corresponds to case $(3)$ of Lemma \[thm:chainrecurrent\]. The irrational lamination $\lambda=\mu$ is fixed under the hyperelliptic involution on $S$ because it is the limit of simple closed geodesics, which we know are fixed under the hyperelliptic involution $\iota$ on $S$. There are precisely two (simple) orthogeodesic rays $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ on the convex core of $S$ which spiral toward $\mu$, and the set $\sigma_1\cup\sigma_2$ is therefore also fixed by $\iota$ — in fact, $\iota$ permutes $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. Cutting the convex core of $S$ along $\mu$, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ produces two ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals $Q_1,Q_2$. In particular, due to the $\iota$-invariance of $\sigma_1\cup\sigma_2$, the involution $\iota$ define an isometry between these two Saccheri quadrilaterals. This in turn means that the extended ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals $\widehat{Q}_i$, obtained by cutting $S-\mu$ along the bi-infinite geodesics extending $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$, are isometric via $\iota$. Hence, the endpoints of the partial horocyclic foliations (see Figure \[fig:horocyclic\]) on $\widehat{Q}_1$ and $\widehat{Q}_2$ completely match up on the crowned hyperbolic surface $S-\mu$ (see Figure \[fig:crown\]). The upshot is that the $k$-expansion maps on $\widehat{Q}_i$ glue together to give a $k$-expansion map on $S-\mu$ with Lipschitz constant $k$.
![[]{data-label="fig:crown"}](crown.png){width="0.8\linewidth"}
We now produce the family $h_t$ of complete metrics on $S$. First, we observe that we can employ [@Thurston1986 Proposition 4.1] essentially without alteration by doubling the convex core of $S$, noting that any sufficiently small neighborhood $N_\epsilon(\mu)$ of $\mu$ is also doubled as $\mu$ is compact and supported on the interior of the convex core. We use the previously constructed $k$-expansion map on $S-\mu$, with $k=e^t$, to redefine the metric outside of $\mu$. Since the $k$-expansion map takes points of distance $d$ from the unfoliated region to points of distance $e^td$ away, the new “sharpness functions” (see the proof of [@Thurston1986 Corollary 4.2]) are rescaled by $e^{-t}$ and we invoke Thurston’s Proposition 4.1 to extend the new metrics over $N_\epsilon(\mu)$ and hence produce a family $h_t$ of hyperbolic metrics on $S$. Since the $k$-expansion map is equal to the identity outside of a compact set, the metrics $h_t$ are all isometric outside of a compact set. The developing map then tells us that the boundary monodromy remains constant.
**When $\lambda$ is a simple closed geodesic.** This corresponds to case $(1)$ of Lemma \[thm:chainrecurrent\]. In this scenario, we extend $\lambda=\gamma$ to a chain recurrent lamination comprised of $\gamma$ and a bi-infinite simple closed geodesic spiraling to $\gamma$ from one side and $\gamma^{-1}$ from the other. Thus, we have reduced this case to:
**Remaining case.** This corresponds to case $(2)$ of Lemma \[thm:chainrecurrent\], where $\lambda$ is the union $\gamma\cup\ell$ comprised of a simple closed geodesic $\gamma$ and a bi-infinite geodesic $\ell$ spiraling to $\gamma$ on one side of $\gamma$ and to $\gamma^{-1}$ on the other side. We first observe that both $\gamma$ and $\ell$ are preserved under the hyperelliptic involution $\iota$ on $S$. And just as with the case when $\lambda$ is irrational, the crowned hyperbolic surface $C:=S-(\gamma\cup\ell)$ is obtained by gluing together two isometric extended ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals (see again Figure \[fig:crown\]) whose partial horocyclic foliations perfectly align. Again, the upshot is that we obtain a $k$-expansion map on $C$ which expands along its boundaries by a factor of $K$. As with the last step of the proof for the irrational $\lambda$ case, we define $h_t$ on $C$ by pullback with respect to the $e^t$-expansion map, and extend $h_t$ over $\lambda=\gamma\cup\ell$ either by invoking [@Thurston1986 Proposition 4.1] or more naïvely by observing that the pullback metric on $C$ glues continuously on the tangent spaces over $\gamma$ and $\ell$.
**Geodesic ray $(S,h_t)$.** To complete the proof, we show that $(S,h_t)$ defines a geodesic ray for both $L$ and $K$. By construction, the stretch map $\mathrm{id}_S: (S,h_0)\to (S,h_t)$, for $t\geq0$, is an $e^{t}$-Lipschitz map which stretches $\lambda$ by a factor of $e^{t}$. This means that (the measured lamination support in) $\lambda$ realizes the maximum curve ratio between $(S,h_0)$ and $(S,h_t)$ for all time and $K(h_0,h_t)=t$. Moreover, observe that the composition of the $e^s$-expansion map and the $e^t$-expansion map on the ideal Saccheri quadrilateral is precisely the $e^{s+t}$-expansion map, and the respective sharpness function rescalings by $e^{-s}$ and $e^{-t}$ for the first two maps gives the requisite rescaling by $e^{-s-t}$ needed for the third. This tells us that the stretch map $\mathrm{id}_S:(S,h_0)\to(S,h_s)$ composed with the stretch map $\mathrm{id}_S:(S,h_s)\to(S,h_{s+t})$ is precisely equal to the stretch map $\mathrm{id}_S:(S,h_0)\to(S,h_{s+t})$. Therefore, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
K(h_s,h_{s+t})=t\text{ for all }s,t\geq0,\end{aligned}$$ and hence $(S,h_t)$ defines a geodesic ray for the curve metric $K$. Finally, the Lipschitz metric is at least the curve metric. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
t\geq L(h_s,h_{s+t})\geq K(h_s,h_{s+t})=t,\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from the stretch map $\mathrm{id}_S:(S,h_s)\to(S,h_{s+t})$ being $e^t$-Lipschitz. This in turn tells us that $(S,h_t)$ is a geodesic ray for $L$.
The partial measured foliations on the two ideal Saccheri quadrilaterals, when they are glued together, define a measured foliation class $F$ on the torus with one boundary component. When the Teichmüller space of this surface with boundary is equipped with its Thurston boundary, we have the following:
The geodesic ray $(S,h_t)$ defined in Theorem \[thm:pstretch\] converges, as $t\to\infty$, to the projective class $[F]$ of $F$, considered as an element of Thurston’s boundary of the Teichmüller space of the torus with one boundary component.
The proof mimics the proof of Theorem 3.7 in [@Papa1988] which asserts a similar property in the case of the Thurston metric of a non-bordered surface. It is based on a double inequality [@Papa1988 Proposition 3.1] comparing hyperbolic length and intersection number.
Applications
============
The Lipschitz metric versus the curve metric on $\mathcal{T}(S=S_{1,1},b)$ {#sec:K=L}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now establish a generalization of Thurston’s [@Thurston1986 Corollary 8.5]. The following result can be obtained as a corollary of a combiantion of either [@DGK] or [[@HS Theorem 7.9] along with [@GK Corollary 1.12]]{}:
\[thm:L=K\] The Lipschitz metric $L$ and the curve metric $K$ on $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$, respectively defined by and , are equal.
We adapt Thurston’s proof, which relies fundamentally upon [@Thurston1986 Theorem 8.2] and [@Thurston1986 Theorem 8.4].
Given a pair of marked hyperbolic metrics $h_0,h_1$ in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$, we say that a geodesic lamination $\lambda$ is *ratio-maximizing* if there is a $k$-Lipschitz homeomorphism, where $k:=e^{K(h_0,h_1)}$, from a neighborhood of $\lambda$ in $(S,h_0)$ to a neighborhood of $\lambda$ in $(S,h_1)$, in the correct homotopy class.
We already know from [@Thurston1986 Proposition 4.1 or Theorem 8.1] that such a neighborhood map exists if $\lambda$ is contained in the support of the projective measured lamination maximizing $K$. Thurston’s insightful observation is that the notion of a “(length-)ratio-maximizing” lamination can be extended to (non-necessarily measured) geodesic laminations containing isolated bi-infinite geodesic leaves provided that one requires also that an immediate neighborhood of the lamination be mapped across so as to preserve the optimal Lipschitz constant. Fortunately, the proofs for [@Thurston1986 Theorems 8.2 and 8.4] hold true in our context.
\[thurstonthm\] There is a unique chain recurrent geodesic lamination which is ratio-maximizing and contains all other ratio-maximizing chain recurrent geodesic laminations for the pair $h_0,h_1$. We refer to it as the *maximal ratio-maximizing lamination* and denote it by $\mu(h_0,h_1)$. IThis lamination has the following property: if $\{h_0^{(i)}\}$ and $\{h_1^{(i)}\}$ are sequences of complete hyperbolic structures in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ which respectively converge to $h_0$ and $h_1$, then $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ contains any lamination in the limit set of $\mu(h_0^{(i)},h_1^{(i)})$ with respect to the Hausdorff topology on the set of geodesic laminations on $(S,h)$.
We first note that $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ cannot contain the boundary of the convex core as that geodesic is unstretched. Indeed, since the boundary monodromy is always fixed, every ratio-maximizing chain recurrent lamination we encounter during the course of this proof must lie within the interior of the convex core. Since $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ is chain recurrent and supported on the interior of the convex core, it lies in one of the three classes described in Lemma \[thm:chainrecurrent\]. If $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ is a maximal chain recurrent lamination (i.e. cases $(2)$ and $(3)$), there is a unique partial stretch path $$h_t:=\operatorname{pstretch}(h_0,\mu(h_0,h_1),tK(h_0,h_1))$$ which stretches along $\mu(h_0,h_1)$. We claim that this geodesic ray must reach $h_1$ at time $1$. If not, then there exists a first time $0<s<1$ such that the topology of the maximal ratio-maximizing lamination $\mu(h_t,h_1)$ changes. However, Theorem \[thurstonthm\] tells us that $\mu(h_t,h_1)$ necessarily contains $\mu(h_{t-\epsilon},h_1)=\mu(h_0,h_1)$, which is impossible due to the maximality of $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ among all chain recurrent laminations (supported on the interior of the convex core).
The only case that remains is when $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ is a simple closed geodesic, in which event there are precisely two maximal chain recurrent laminations $\mu_\pm$, supported on the convex core interior, containing $\mu(h_0,h_1)$. We stretch along $\mu_+$ without loss of generality. One of two things can happen: either we reach $h_1$ or the maximal ratio-maximizing lamination changes at some point to a new lamination $\mu'$. Theorem \[thurstonthm\] then tells us that $\mu'$ is either $\mu_+$ or $\mu_-$. However, it cannot be $\mu_+$ as then $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ would have been $\mu_+$ in the first place, and hence must be $\mu_-$. Since $\mu_-$ is maximal, we necessarily reach $h_1$. In particular, since $\mu(h_0,h_1)$ is a part of the maximally stretched locus all throughout, the path must end precisely at time $t=1$.
We have constructed geodesics to both $L$ and $K$ which join arbitrary points $(S,h_0)$ and $(S,h_1)$ in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$. Moreover, by construction, the Lipschitz constant for the partial stretch map at $t=1$ is $e^{K(h_0,h_1)}$. Therefore, the two metrics must therefore be equal, as desired.
The following corollary is immediate from the proof of Theorem \[thm:L=K\].
Any two points in $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ are joined by a Thurston geodesic which is the concatenation of at most two partial stretch paths.
The curve metric versus the arc metric on $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ {#sec:KvsA}
------------------------------------------------------------
The curve metric $K$ and the arc metric $A$ on $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ are equal if $b\leq 4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$.
When $b\leq 4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$, the partial horocyclic foliation is completely contained in the convex core of $S$ and hence any partial stretch map simply evaluates to being the identity map on the convex core boundary. In particular, this says that the Lipschitz constant for the optimal Lipschitz map $\mathrm{id}_S: (S,h_0)\to(S,h_1)$ is the same as the constant for the optimal Lischitz map $\mathrm{id}_{\bar{S}}: (\bar{S},\bar{h}_0)\to(\bar{S},\bar{h}_1)$, and hence we have the following chain of inequalities: $$\begin{aligned}
L(h_0,h_1)=K(h_0,h_1)\leq A(\bar{h}_0,\bar{h}_1)\leq L(\bar{h}_0,\bar{h}_1)=L(h_0,h_1),\notag\end{aligned}$$ where the first *in*equality is explained in Remark \[AKcompare\] and the second inequality is a general consequence of Lipschitz metrics being at least as great as length-ratio-type metrics.
In contrast:
The arc metric is strictly greater than the Thurston metric on $\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ for all sufficiently large $b$. That is to say, there exist $(S,h_0)$ and $(S,h_1)$ such that $$K(h_0,h_1)< A(h_0,h_1).$$
We sketch the construction required for this proof. Consider a right-angled hexagon $H_0$ with alternating sidelengths $$2\operatorname{arcosh}(x^4),\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^2)\text{ and }\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^2);$$ and consider another right-angled hexagon $H_1$ with alternating sidelengths $$2\operatorname{arcosh}(x^4),\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^3)\text{ and }\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^3),$$ where $x$ is understood to be a very large number (see Figure \[fig:hexagons\]).
![[]{data-label="fig:hexagons"}](hexagons.png){width="0.75\linewidth"}
We double the $H_i$ to obtain pairs of pants $P_i$ in such a way that the above listed sides remain unglued and form the boundaries of the $P_i$. We then glue the two $P_i$ boundaries of equal length with no twisting to form two geodesic-bordered one-holed tori $\bar{T}_0$ and $\bar{T}_1$ in $\mathcal{T}(\bar{S},4\operatorname{arcosh}(x^4))$. The two shortest interior simple closed geodesics $\alpha,\beta$ (see Figure \[fig:thintorus\]) on $\bar{T}_0$ are both of length $2\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^2)$, whereas on $\bar{T}_1$ they are respectively of lengths $2\operatorname{arcsinh}(x)$ and $2\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^3)$.
![[]{data-label="fig:thintorus"}](thintorus.png){width="0.5\linewidth"}
We regard $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as standard $\mathbb{Z}$-basis vectors $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ for $H_1(\bar{T}_i;\mathbb{Z})=\mathbb{Z}^2$. The primitive elements of $H_1(\bar{T}_i;\mathbb{Z})$ naturally biject with the collection of simple closed geodesics on $\bar{T}_i$. In particular, since these tori are so thin, the hyperbolic length of a geodesic $\gamma$ whose homology class is $(p,q)$ is approximately $$\begin{aligned}
2\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^2)\cdot|p|+2\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^2)|q|&\text{ on }\bar{T}_0\text{, and}\\
2\operatorname{arcsinh}(x)\cdot|p|+2\operatorname{arcsinh}(x^3)|q|&\text{ on }\bar{T}_1.\end{aligned}$$ Let $T_i$ denote the infinite area complete hyperbolic extension of $\bar{T}_i$. For large $x$, the inverse hyperbolic sine function is close to a logarithm, and one sees that $K(T_0,T_1)\approx\frac{3}{2}$. On the other hand, there is an arc on $\bar{S}$ whose lengths with respect to $\bar{T}_0$ and $\bar{T}_1$ are $$\operatorname{arcsinh}
\left(
\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{x^4-1}}
\right)
\approx
\tfrac{1}{x^2}
\text{ and }
\operatorname{arcsinh}
\left(
\tfrac{\sqrt{x^6+1}}{\sqrt{x^8-1}}
\right)
\approx
\tfrac{1}{x}.$$ This means that the arc metric $A(\bar{T}_0,\bar{T}_1)$ is at least (approximately) $\log(x)$, which far eclipses $\frac{3}{2}$ for large $x$.
Novel geodesics on $\mathcal{T}(S_{g,n},\vec{b})$ {#sec:novel}
-------------------------------------------------
There are strong and deep analogies between Teichmüller mappings and Thurston’s stretch maps. The former generate geodesics for the Teichmüller metric — a curve metric for extremal lengths, whilst the latter generate geodesics of the Thurston metric — a curve metric for hyperbolic lengths.
The analogy extends farther: Thurston’s stretch maps constitute specialized examples of optimal Lipschitz maps between hyperbolic surfaces $(S,h_1)$ and $(S,h_2)$, stretching the leaves of a geodesic lamination and contracting the leaves of a (singular) measured foliation which intersects orthogonally the leaves of the lamination, whereas Teichmüller mappings yields optimal Lipschitz maps between collections $\{(S,\hat{h}_1)\}$ and $\{(S,\hat{h}_2)\}$ of specialized singular Euclidean metrics, stretching the leaves of a measured foliation (whose leaves are geodesics for the underlying Euclidean structure) and contracting the leaves of a transverse measured foliation which intersects it orthogonally. The (a priori) flexibility in the domain for the singular Euclidean metric Lipschitz optimization problem contrasts with the uniqueness of its solution: there is a unique Teichmüller mapping which optimizes the Lipschitz constant between certain (unique) domain and codomain metrics among the $\{(S,\hat{h}_i)\}$. On the other hand, for the hyperbolic metric Lipschitz optimization problem, the domain and codomain are predetermined, but there is flexibility in the optimal map. This apparent difference is due to differences in the “minimal stretch locus” (as denoted by $E(j,\rho)$ in [@GK Theorem 1.3]): the minimal stretch locus for the Teichmüller map is all of $S$, and corresponds to the support of a measured foliation; the minimal stretch locus for Thurston’s stretch map is a measure $0$ subset of $S$, and corresponds to the support of a measured geodesic lamination.
In general, describing and establishing that a map is optimal Lipschitz even for simple examples is unexpectedly difficult. The partial stretch maps we describe in §\[s:torus\] resolve this in a concrete way for complete hyperbolic one-holed tori with fixed boundary monodromy. Moreover, the fact that they are isometric outside of a compact set easily enables additional gluing-map-based constructions, allowing for a rich family of novel Thurston geodesics. We give the following examples:
1. When the boundary geodesic representative satisfies $b\leq4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$, the stretch locus (i.e. the set of points on $S$ where there is *any* metric distortion) lies within the convex core of the surface and we may double this convex along its boundary to yield partial stretch maps on closed genus $2$ surfaces. Generally speaking, this is a new class of Thurston geodesics for $\mathcal{T}(S_2)$, as (classical) stretch maps (generically speaking[^1]) distort the length of the central separating geodesic.
2. Whenever the stretch locus may be isometrically embedded in another (not necessarily hyperbolic) surface $\Sigma$ of greater topological complexity, we obtain partial stretch maps on $\Sigma$ by setting the new Lipschitz map to be the identity on the complement of the embedded stretch locus. One simple, but potentially useful instance of this arises (again) when $b\leq4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$ and we extend $S$ to $\Sigma=S_{g,n}$ by gluing on a genus $g-1$ surface with ${n+1}$ holes. This construction produces new geodesics for the Thurston metric in $\mathcal{T}(S_{g,n},\vec{b})$.
3. We may adapt Example $(2)$ to work in far greater generality by performing small metric deformations with Lipschitz constant smaller than or equal to the Lipschitz constant on $S$ (such as small Fenchel-Nielsen twists or earthquakes) in such a way as to not disturb the metric expansion along the embedded stretch locus of $S\subset\Sigma$ . One example of this comes from adapting Example $(1)$ when $4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)<b\leq4\operatorname{arcosh}(\frac{3}{2})$, where we double the surface (including its extruding stretch locus) and reglue to a genus $2$ surface with a $\frac{b}{4}$ twist. This enables the extruding stretch loci to fit on top of (originally) unstretched domain. The $b=4\operatorname{arcosh}(\frac{3}{2})$ instance of this particular construction is used by Lenzhen-Rafi-Tao in their proof of [@LRT Theorem 1.1]. Another example of this is simultaneously performing stretching along $\lambda$ as well as small earthquakes along measured laminations which do not transversely intersect $\lambda$.
4. All of our stretch maps (in the present paper) on one-holed tori $S$ are invariant under the hyperelliptic involution $\iota$ and hence descend to $S/\iota$ — a hyperbolic sphere with three $\pi$-cone angles and one hole with geodesic representative of length $\frac{b}{2}$ (see Figure \[fig:foliations\]$(2)$). This is also the quotient, with respect to a $\mathbb{Z}_2\times\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry, of a four-holed sphere $S_{0,4}$ with boundary geodesic representatives of length $\frac{b}{2}$ (see Figure \[fig:foliations\]$(3)$). This new building block immediately affords new flexibility in gluing-map based constructions.
5. As a final example, we observe that in Example $(4)$, in instances where the stretching lamination contains a simple closed curve $\gamma$ (see Figure \[fig:foliations\]$(3)$), this $\gamma$ then descends to an interval $\gamma'$ of length $\frac{\ell_\gamma}{2}$ joining cone points in $S/\iota$ and lifts to a separating geodesic $\gamma''$ in $S_{0,4}$ of length $2l_\gamma$. Since $\gamma''$ lies on the stretching lamination, it remains geodesic under stretching, and so we may cut $S_{0,4}$ along $\gamma''$ to obtain two isometric pairs of pants $P$ of boundary lengths $2l_{\gamma},\frac{b}{2},\frac{b}{2}$. In particular, the partial stretching map on $P$ increases the length of just one of its boundaries. Moreover, we may glue the unstretched boundaries of $P$ to then yield a stretching map on a one-holed torus which increases the boundary length but preserves the length of (at least) one interior simple closed geodesic. For $b\leq4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$, some of these examples may be used to construct completely novel arc metric geodesics.
![[]{data-label="fig:foliations"}](foliations.png){width="1\linewidth"}
\[rmk:curious\] The construction for Example $(4)$ suffices to show that $$\left(\mathcal{T}(S_{1,1},2b),L\equiv K\right)
\text{ is isometric to }
\left(\mathcal{T}(S_{0,4},b,b,b,b),L\equiv K\right).$$ This positively answers a question posed by Walsh in [@W Paragraph after Theorem 7.9]. It is exceedingly unlikely for this isometry to extend to the other two cases posed: $\mathcal{T}(S_{1,2},\vec{0})$ versus $\mathcal{T}(S_{0,5},\vec{0})$ and $\mathcal{T}(S_2)$ versus $\mathcal{T}(S_{0,6},\vec{0})$.
The metric geometry of the Thurston metric. {#sec:nonhyp}
-------------------------------------------
We further illustrate the versatility of partial stretch maps by proving the following claim inspired by [@LRT Theorem 1.1].
\[thm:nonthin\] For every $g\geq 2$ and for every $D>0$, there are points $W,X,Y\in \mathcal{T}(S_g)$ joined by two-way Thurston geodesic segments $G_{WX}$, $G_{WY}$ and $G_{XY}$ such that there is a point $Z\in G_{XY}$ which is distance at least $D$ away from $G:=G_{WX}\cup G_{WY}$ (i.e.: the distances $K(Z,G)$ and $K(G,Z)$ are both greater than $D$). Moreover, $G$ is also a two-way Thurston geodesic between $X$ and $Y$.
A *two-way geodesic* is a geodesic which is also a geodesic when parameterized in the reverse direction. Note that every geodesic for a symmetric metric is two-way.
We first give the proof for $g=2$. For any metric $h\in\mathcal{T}(S,b<4\operatorname{arcsinh}(1))$, we consider the double $(dS,dh)$ of the convex hull of $(S,h)$ and denote by $\gamma$ the separating simple closed geodesic we glued along to get $dS$. Thanks to $b$ being small, there is a small collar neighborhood $C$ around $\gamma$ outside of the stretch locus and hence is unaffected by partial stretch maps on either of the components of $dS-\gamma$. Construct a smooth family of Lipschitz maps $\phi_t:C\rightarrow C_t$ where $C_t$ is the Fenchel-Nielsen twist of $C$ by $t$.
For sufficiently large $\tau$ (e.g. $\tau\gg2D\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)/b)$ we can ensure that any metric on $dS$ that comes from gluing (possibly with twisting) the convex cores of $(S,h_0)$ and $(S,h_1)$, when Fenchel-Nielsen twisted by $\phi_{\tau}$ on $C$, will give a map with Lipschitz constant $\operatorname{Lip}(\phi_\tau)\gg D$. We reparametrize and rescale such a family of Fenchel-Nielsen twist deformations $\phi_{t\in[0,\tau]}$ on $C$ so that the Lipschitz constant for $\phi_t$ increases linearly with respect to $t$ and finishes at $\tau=1$.
We construct $X,Y\in\mathcal{T}(S_2)$ as follows: choose arbitrary points $h_0,h_1\in\mathcal{T}(S,b)$ such that, without loss of generality, $$K(h_0,h_1)\geq K(h_1,h_0)> 2\operatorname{Lip}(\phi_\tau)\gg 2D,$$ and set $X$ to be the convex hull of $S$ with $h_0$ on the left of $\gamma$ and $h_1$ (with the opposite orientation) on the right. Set $Y$ to be $h_1$ on the left of $\gamma$ and $h_0$ (with the opposite orientation) on the right. Performing simultaneous partial stretch maps on the two sides of $\gamma$, we produce a Thurston geodesic $G$ (see, for example, Figure \[fig:geodesics\]). In fact, this is necessarily a geodesic in both directions: from $X$ to $Y$ the stretching on the left of $\gamma$ dominates all other behavior and from $Y$ to $X$, the stretching on the right of $\gamma$ dominates all other behavior. Set the midpoint of this geodesic as $W$ and define $G_{WX}$ as the two-way Thurston geodesic between $X$ and $W$ and $G_{WY}$ as the two-way Thurston geodesic between $W$ and $Y$.
![[]{data-label="fig:geodesics"}](geodesics.png){width="1\linewidth"}
Next, we produce another Thurston geodesic from $X$ to $Y$ by augmenting $G$ with $\phi_t$ on $C$ until half-way $t=\tfrac{1}{2}$ and then unwinding the Fenchel-Nielsen twist with $\phi_{-t}$ until $t=1$. Since $K(h_0,h_1)\gg 2L$ and both are geodesics are uniformly parametrized (and we’re producing actual Lipschitz maps for $t\in[0,1]$), the dominant behavior from $X$ to $Y$ is still dominated by the partial stretching on the left side of $\gamma$ and from $Y$ to $X$ by the right side of $\gamma$. Therefore, this is once again a two-way Thurston geodesic. We label it as $G_{XY}$ and denote the $t=\tfrac{1}{2}$ midpoint by $Z$. Since $Z$ has a lot of built in twisting, it is necessarily at least distance $D$ from every single point in $G$ (with distances measured in either direction).
For general $g$, the proof is essentially the same: one simply needs to glue in an additional “unstretched” $S_{g-1,2}$ in between the convex hulls of $(S,h_0),(S,h_1)$ which cap off the two ends.
Roughly speaking, the above result says that there is no naïve sense in which the Thurston metric can be Gromov hyperbolic. However, without wanting to clarify what $\delta$-hyperbolicity might mean for an asymmetric metric, we instead make the following concrete statement:
\[thm:nothyperbolic\] The sum-symmetrization $d_{\mathrm{sum}}(h_0,h_1):=K(h_0,h_1)+K(h_1,h_0)$ of the Thurston metric on $\mathcal{T}(S_g)$ is not Gromov hyperbolic:
We use the classical notion of Gromov hyperbolicity defined by the Gromov product, and make no assumptions about the metric being geodesic.
Two-way geodesics for the Thurston metric are geodesics for $d_{\mathrm{sum}}$. Hence, the edges $G_{WX},G_{WY},G_{XY}$ constitute the edges of a geodesic triangle $\triangle_{WXY}$ for $d_{\mathrm{sum}}$. It is evident that $d_{\mathrm{sum}}\geq K$, and hence $\triangle_{WXY}$ is not $D$-thin. By choosing $D>0$ to be arbitrarily large, this contradicts the condition that all geodesic triangles (if any exist) be $\delta$-thin for some $\delta>0$, which in turn is a necessary (but not necessarily sufficient, due to the potential sparsity of geodesic triangles in metric spaces which might not be geodesic) condition for Gromov’s $\delta$-hyperbolicity.
Our proofs for Theorem \[thm:nonthin\] and Corollary \[thm:nothyperbolic\] are fairly flexible, and one extends easily to $\mathcal{T}(S_{g,n},\vec{b})$ by gluing in undeformed surfaces or stretched $S_{0,4}$ (Example $(4)$ of §\[sec:novel\]). In particular, we can show (using this construction) that:
- $g\geq2$ with arbitrary $n\geq0$;
- $g=1$ and $n\geq2$, with the condition that at least $4-n$ of the boundaries must have geodesic representatives of the same length $b<2\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$;
- $g=0$ and $n\geq4$, with the condition that at least $8-n$ of the boundaries must have geodesic representatives of the same length $b<2\operatorname{arcsinh}(1)$.
We leave the construction of these cases to interested readers.
This (informal) non-hyperbolicity of the Thurston metric (Theorem \[thm:nonthin\]) juxtaposes with the fact that it shares an ideal boundary with an infinite dimensional “hyperbolic space” containing the Teichmüller space (endowed with the Weil-Petersson metric) as a subset [@B Proposition 15 and Corollary 16]. The crux of this paradox is that the “envelope" from $X$ to $Y$ [@DLRT], i.e. the union of all the geodesics from $X$ to $Y$, becomes very “fat” as the distance between $X$ and $Y$ increases. Indeed, the geodesics $G$ and $G_{XY}$ constructed in the proof of Theorem \[thm:nonthin\] fail to fellow-travel. Moreover, due to the generality of our construction, either:
1. there are no arbitrarily long arc metric geodesic segments in the thick part of Teichmüller space, or
2. it is impossible to have a quasi-“thin triangles”-type claim of the same form as [@R Theorem E], whereby if a side of a geodesic triangle is in the thick part of Teichmüller space, then it lies near to one of the other two sides.
Nonetheless, it seems plausible that one might recover a weaker notion of hyperbolicity such as: there exists some $\delta>0$ so that any three points $X,Y,Z$ form the vertices of some $\delta$-thin triangle. Or, perhaps the stronger statement that the envelope from $X$ to $Y$ lies within the union of the $\delta$-neighborhoods of the envelopes from $X$ to $Z$ and from $Z$ to $Y$.
[99]{}
F. Bonahon, *The geometry of Teichmüller space via geodesic currents*, Invent. Math. **92** (1988), no. 1, 139–162.
J. Danciger, F. Guéritaud, and F. Kassel, *Margulis spacetimes via the arc complex*, Invent. Math. **204** (2016), no. 1, 133–193.
D. Dumas, A. Lenzhen, K. Rafi, and J. Tao, *Coarse and fine geometry of the Thurston metric*, arXiv:1610.07409, 2016.
F. Guéritaud and F. Kassel, *Maximally stretched laminations on geometrically finite hyperbolic manifolds*, Geom. Topol. **21** (2017), no. 2, 693–840.
Y. Huang, and A. Papadopoulos, *Optimal Lipschitz maps on bordered hyperbolic surfaces and the Thurston metric theory of Teichmüller space*, in preparation.
Y. Huang and Z. Sun, *McShane identities for higher Teichmüller theory and the Goncharov-Shen potential*, arxiv:1901.02032, 2018.
A. Lenzhen, K. Rafi and J. Tao, *The shadow of a Thurston geodesic to the curve graph*, J. Topol. **8** (2015), 1085–1118.
A. Papadopoulos, *Sur le bord de Thurston de l’espace de Teichmüller d’une surface non compacte*, Math. Ann. **282** (1988), 353–359.
L. Liu, A. Papadopoulos, W. Su and G. Théret, *On length spectrum metrics and weak metrics on Teichmüller spaces of surfaces with boundary*, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. **35** (2010), no. 1, 255–274.
A. Papadopoulos and G. Théret, *Shortening all the simple closed geodesics on surfaces with boundary*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. **138** (2010), 1775–1784.
A. Papadopoulos and G. Théret, *Some Lipschitz maps between hyperbolic surfaces with applications to Teichmüller theory*, Geom. Dedicata **150** (2011), no. 1, 233–247.
A. Papadopoulos and S. Yamada, *Deforming Hexagons and the arc and the Thurston metric on Teichmüller space*, Monatsh. Math. **172** (2017), no. 1, 97–120.
K. Rafi, *Hyperbolicity in Teichmüller space*, Geom. Topol. **18** (2014), no. 5, 3025–3053.
W. Thurston, *Minimal stretch maps between hyperbolic surfaces*, arXiv:9801039 \[math.GT\], 1986.
C. Walsh, *The horoboundary and isometry group of Thurston’s Lipschitz metric*, Handbook of Teichmuller theory. Vol. IV, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys., 19, Eur. Math. Soc., Zurich, 2014.
[^1]: This is an intuitive statement, and we state it without proof.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ratio of (pseudo)rapidity density of transverse energy and the (pseudo)rapidity density of charged particles, which is a measure of the mean transverse energy per particle, is an important observable in high energy heavy-ion collisions, which reveals about the mechanism of particle production and the freeze-out criteria. Its collision energy and centrality dependence is exactly like the chemical freeze-out temperature till top RHIC energy. The LHC measurement at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV brings up new challenges to rule out the mechanisms of gluon saturation or non-equilibrium phenomena being prevalent at high energies, which could contribute to the above observable. The Statistical Hadron Gas Model (SHGM) with a static fireball approximation has been successful in describing both the centrality and energy dependence till top RHIC energies. However, the SHGM predictions for higher energies are highly underestimated by the LHC data. In order to understand this, we have incorporated radial flow effect in an excluded volume SHGM. The hard-core radius of baryons at lower collision energies plays an important role in the description of a hadronic system. In view of this, in order to make a complete energy dependence study from FAIR to LHC energies, we have considered an excluded volume SHGM. Our studies suggest that the collective flow plays an important role in describing $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ and it could be one of the possible parameters to explain the jump observed in $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ from RHIC to LHC energies. Predictions for the LHC measurements at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV are given.'
author:
- Swatantra Kumar Tiwari
- 'Raghunath Sahoo[^1]'
title: 'Transverse Energy per Charged Particle in Heavy-Ion Collisions: Role of Collective Flow'
---
Introduction
============
The transverse energy and charged particle multiplicity at midrapidity are one of the first measurements done in heavy-ion collision experiments at (ultra)relativistic energies, as global observables to characterize the system formed in these collisions. These two are very important observables, as they are directly associated with the collision geometry and collision energy. Heavy-ion collisions at AGS, SPS, RHIC and LHC energies aim to produce a partonic phase of matter and study the Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) deconfinement transition and explore/scan the QCD phase diagram for a possible location of the critical point (CP), by controlling the temperature and baryochemical potential by changing the collision species/centrality and collision energy. In these efforts the future facilities like CBM experiment at FAIR energies ($E_{lab}$ : 10 AGeV-40 AGeV) and the LHC and beyond (FCC, ILC) would play a pivotal role in exploring the QCD phase boundary, and establishing the nature of the QCD phase transition and the location of CP. The discovery of a strongly interacting partonic matter at RHIC, which behaves like a liquid with lowest $\eta/s$ ratio [@Arsene:2004fa; @Back:2004je; @Adams:2005dq; @Adcox:2004mh], and is comparable with the ADS/CFT calculations [@Policastro:2001yc], small systems (p+p collisions) at LHC showing collectivity [@Khachatryan:2016txc], which is a possible signature of Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) (initially expected to be formed only in top central heavy-ion collisions) and the energy loss patterns of heavy-quarks in the medium formed at the LHC are few very important aspects of the new states of matter formed at ultra-relativistic energies. The matter formed at LHC energies has seen to show properties very different from that is observed at RHIC in many aspects, [*i.e.*]{} suppression of $J/\psi$ [@Abelev:2012rv] and other quarkonia, $\frac{dE_T}{d\eta(y)}/\frac{dN_{ch}}{d\eta(y)} \equiv E_{T}/N_{ch}$ showing behaviour not expected by equilibrium Statistical Hadron Gas Model (SHGM) with a static fireball approximation [@Cleymans:2007uk; @Mishra:2013dwa; @Sahoo:2014aca], the collision energy dependence of $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ deviating from a logarithmic behaviour etc. There is a need to study the global observables like $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ in more details including the collectivity in the system to rule out any possible effect of non-equilibrium phenomena or the effect of gluon saturation, which is expected at higher collision energies, to play a role at LHC energies.
The pseudo(rapidity) density of transverse energy, $dE_T/d\eta(y)$ is an approximate Lorentz invariant measure of the energy distribution and is a measure of the explosiveness of the collision. This is an important observable, as it is the energy of the produced particles in the transverse phase space, which was completely empty before the collision. The energy of the incoming nuclei in the longitudinal direction is converted to the energy of the produced secondaries. The midrapidity measurement of $dE_T/dy$ is related to the initial energy density of the system. In longitudinal boost invariant Bjorken hydrodynamics, this helps in making a direct comparison with the lattice QCD prediction of energy density for a deconfinement transition and thereby giving a first hint of a possible partonic medium. The study of the centrality and collision energy dependence of $dE_T/dy(\eta)$ sheds light on possible freeze-out criteria in heavy-ion collisions [@Cleymans:2007uk].
Recently using an excluded-volume statistical hadron gas model (EV-SHGM) with the longitudinal flow, we have studied the limiting fragmentation (LF) phenomenon in the rapidity spectra of $\pi^{+}$ in heavy-ion collisions. Here, we found that the LF is violated at top RHIC and LHC energies [@Tiwari:2016ovw], which goes inline with the expectations for higher energies, where the inelastic cross-section is shown to increase with collision energy. In this paper, we study the variation of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ with respect to centrality and centre-of-mass energy ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$) over a broad energy range from 2.7 GeV to 5.02 TeV using EV-SHGM with radial flow. Experimentally, $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ increases at lower energies rapidly and then it saturates around SPS energies upto top RHIC energy. Till lower SPS energies, the increase in collision energy increases the mean energy or transverse mass ($m_T$) of each particle. From SPS to RHIC energies, the additional energy pumped into the system in terms of the increase in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$, goes for new particle production [@Cleymans:2007uk; @Mishra:2013dwa]. Recently, the experimental data at LHC energy of 2.76 TeV show a jump in this spectrum due to furthermore increase in mean energy or $m_T$ [@Mishra:2013dwa], and possible collective effects which does not follow a static fireball expectations. In order to understand this at LHC energies, we use our recently proposed model, where we incorporate the attractive interactions by including the resonances upto the mass of 2 GeV and repulsive interactions by assigning the geometrical hard-core size to each baryon. Mesons are treated as pointlike particles in our model. We also incorporate the collective flow in our model to explain the experimental data at various energies particularly at LHC energies. In ref. [@Prorok:2004af], the statistical model is also used to study the transverse energy per charged particle at midrapidity with longitudinal and transverse flows for the wide range of energies from AGS to RHIC. In our case, we do not take volume as a free parameter and extend our analysis upto LHC energies, where the role of collective flow is more pronounced than at lower energies. In addition, we study the centrality dependence of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at top RHIC and LHC energies, which is related to the chemical freeze-out of the system. We study the energy dependence of the associated observables like the participant pair normalized-$\frac{dE_T}{dy(\eta)}$, the Bjorken energy density ($\epsilon_{Bj}$) in order to study the created system at different energies and the possible different behaviour at LHC energies, which could serve the purpose of ruling out and/or establishing different production mechanisms. In our model calculation, we assume that the chemical and thermal freeze-outs occur simultaneously which infers the absence of the possible elastic scattering after chemical freeze-out [@Prorok:2004wi; @Prorok:2006ve].
The paper is organized as follows: in section-II, we give the formulation of the SHGM with an excluded volume correction and the method of inclusion of collective flow. In section-III, we show the results and in section-IV, we discuss the relation of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ with various freeze-out criteria. In section V, we give the summary with outlook and open problems.
Formulation of The Model
========================
The formula for the number density of the i-th baryon in the Maxwell-Boltzmann’s statistics can be written as [@Mishra:2008tc] : $$n_i^{ex} = (1-R)I_i\lambda_i-I_i\lambda_i^2\frac{\partial{R}}{\partial{\lambda_i}},$$ where $\displaystyle R=\sum_in_i^{ex}V_i^0$ is the fractional occupied volume by the baryons [@Tiwari:2013wga]. $\displaystyle V_i^0= (4\pi\;r'^3)/3$ is the eigen-volume of each baryon having a hard-core radius $r'$ and $\lambda_i$ is the fugacity of the i-th baryon. Here we take $r'$ = 0.8$fm$, which is the only free parameter in the discussed model. $I_i$ is the momentum integral for baryons in the Boltzmann’s statistics. Eq. (1) can be reduced in the following form [@Tiwari:2013pva; @Tiwari:2013] :
&=&.
Here $y$ is the rapidity variable and $m_T=\sqrt{{m}^2+{p_T}^2}$ is the transverse mass. $E_i$ is the energy of the i-th baryon, V is the total volume of the fireball formed at chemical freeze-out and $N_i$ is the total number of the i-th baryon. We assume that the volume of the fireball, V is the same for all types of hadrons at the time of the homogeneous emissions.
By using $E_i=m_T{\cosh}y$, eq. (2) can be written as [@Tiwari:2013]:
&=&.
Transverse Energy of Hadrons in a Thermal Model
-----------------------------------------------
The transverse energy, $E_T$ in an event is defined as: $$E_T = \sum_i E_i \sin \theta_i,$$ with $\theta_i$ as the polar angle made by the i-th particle in an event with the detector. The sum is taken over all the particles emitted into a fixed solid angle within the detector acceptance. Taking into account the calorimetry measurement of $E_T$, one redefines the energy of the individual secondaries as [@Adams:2004cb; @Adam:2016thv; @Adler:2004zn]
$$\label{Eq:ET_Cal}
E_{\mathrm i} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
E_{\mathrm {total}}-m & \mbox{for baryons} \\
E_{\mathrm {total}} + m & \mbox{for anti-baryons} \\
E_{\mathrm {total}} & \mbox{for all other particles.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
Considering the above experimental formulae, we proceed with the formulation of the transverse energy in our excluded-volume model. Using eq. (3), we write the energy of the i-th baryon per unit rapidity as :
&=&.
Similarly, the energy of the m-th meson per unit rapidity can be calculated as : $$\frac{dE_m}{dy}=\frac{g_mV\lambda_m}{(2{\pi}^2)}\;\int \frac{m_T^{3}\;{\cosh^2}y\;dm_{T}}{\displaystyle\Big[\exp\left(\frac{m_T\;{\cosh}y}{T}\right)\Big]}.$$ Here, $g_m$ and $\lambda_m$ are the degeneracy factor and fugacity of the m-th meson. The above equations give the transverse energy of the particles in a stationary thermal source.
Transverse Energy of Hadrons in a Thermal Model with Flow
---------------------------------------------------------
The invariant yield with the inclusions of collective flow can be written as [@Schnedermann:1993] :
=(-)r drd.
Here, $\rho$ is the parameter given by $\rho={\tanh}^{-1}\beta_r$, with the profile chosen as $\beta_r=\displaystyle\beta_s\;\Big(\xi\Big)^n$ [@Schnedermann:1993; @Braun:1996]. $\beta_s$, the maximum surface velocity appears as a free parameter in our model calculation and $\xi=\displaystyle\Big(r/R_0\Big)$, $R_0$ is the maximum radial position of the fireball at freeze-out. The average of the radial flow can be calculated by the following formula [@Adcox:2004] : $$\begin{aligned}
<\beta_r> =\frac{\int \beta_s\xi^n\xi\;d\xi}{\int \xi\;d\xi}=\Big(\frac{2}{2+n}\Big)\beta_s.\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of simplicity, we take n=1 in our model calculation. After incorporating the collective flow in our thermal model, we get the expressions for energy of baryons per unit rapidity as follows :
=(-)m\_[T]{}\^[3]{}yrdrdddm\_[T]{},
where $r$ lies between $0$ and $R_0$ i.e. the radius of the fireball at freeze-out, the azimuthal angle $\phi$ lies between $0$ and $2\pi$, and the longitudinal space-time rapidity variable $\zeta$ varies between $-\eta_{max}$ and $\eta_{max}$. In a similar fashion, we can calculate the energy of the m-th meson by using the following formula :
=(-)m\_[T]{}\^[3]{}yrdrdddm\_[T]{}.
Here, $E_{m}$, $g_m$, and $\lambda_m$ represent the energy, degeneracy factor and fugacity of the m-th meson. Now, eq. (4) can be reduced in the following form : $$\langle E_{T} \rangle=\langle \sum_i E_i \sin \theta_i \rangle.$$ The average of $\sin\theta$ can be calculated as follows : $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \sin\theta \rangle=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int\; \sin\theta d\Omega \nonumber
&=&\frac{1}{4\pi}\int\; \sin^2\theta\; d\theta d\phi,\end{aligned}$$ where $d\Omega$ ($=\sin\theta d\theta d\phi$) is the solid angle. Now, integrating above equation we get : $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\sin\theta\rangle=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_0^\pi\; \sin^2\theta\; d\theta \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi \nonumber
&=&\frac{\pi}{4}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, we can write the expression of the transverse energy of hadrons as follows [@Cleymans:2007uk] : $$\langle E_{T} \rangle=\frac{\pi}{4}\Big[\langle E \rangle - m_{N}\langle N_{B} - N_{\bar{B}} \rangle\Big].$$ $\langle E \rangle$ is the total energy of hadrons. $N_{B} - N_{\bar{B}}$ is the net-baryon which can be calculated by using eq. (1). After obtaining the transverse energy, we calculate the Bjorken energy density by using the following formula: $$\epsilon_{Bj}=\frac{dE_{T}}{dy}\frac{1}{\tau\;\pi\;R^{2}},$$ where $\tau$ is the formation time and $\pi\;R^{2}$ is the transverse overlap area of the colliding nuclei. There are various ways to quantify the overlap area. Here, R is the radius of the colliding nuclei given by $R=R_{0}\;A^{1/3}$. Replacing $A$ by $N_{part}/2$, where $N_{part}$ is the number of nucleon participants [@Kharzeev:2000ph], $\epsilon_{Bj}$ becomes $$\epsilon_{Bj}=\frac{dE_{T}}{dy}\frac{1}{\tau\;\pi\;R_{0}^{2}\;\Big(N_{part}/2\Big)^{2/3}}.$$
Results and Discussions
=======================
In order to calculate the ratio $E_{T}/N_{ch}$, we estimate $N_{ch}$ in our model in terms of the number of primarily produced particles, N. We follow the same procedure as done in ref. [@Cleymans:2007uk]. We first estimate the ratio of the total number of hadrons in final state, $N_{decays}$ to the total number of primordial hadrons, N with respect to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ over a broad energy range from AGS to LHC energies using EV-SHGM as shown in the upper panel of figure 1. Now, we study the ratio of the number of charged hadrons, $N_{ch}$ to $N_{decays}$ with $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ from AGS to LHC energies as shown in the lower panel of the figure 1. In order to calculate these ratios, we use the chemical freeze-out temperature (T), and baryon chemical potential ($\mu_{B}$) at each $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ as mentioned in ref. [@Tiwari:2012]. We find that the ratio $N_{decays}/N$ initially increases rapidly with $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$, because the production of resonances increases with energy and become saturated at SPS energies around a value of 1.7, where chemical freeze-out temperature becomes independent of collision energy. Similarly, the ratio $N_{ch}/N_{decays}$ also increase with $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ and gets saturated at SPS energies around 0.6. Although, these findings are the same as observed in [@Cleymans:2007uk] but the difference occurs at lower energies where the excluded-volume correction is more effective.
{height="25em"}
In this paper, we want to study the variations of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ with respect to centrality for various $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$. For this purpose, we connect centrality in terms of number of participants ($N_{part}$) with T and $\mu_{B}$ by studying the centrality dependence of particle ratios in our model. Figure 2 represents the variations of various hadron ratios such as $K^{+}/\pi^{+}$, $K^{-}/\pi^{-}$, $K^{-}/K^{+}$, and $\bar{p}/p$ with respect to number of participants, $N_{part}$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. In order to calculate $N_{part}$ dependence of ratios, we relate the freeze-out parameters T and $\mu_{B}$ with $N_{part}$ at this energy. We select three centrality bins with participant numbers 328$\pm$6 (most-central), 140$\pm$11 (mid-central), and 62$\pm$10 (peripheral) while calculating the particle ratios. We find that the freeze-out parameters T and $\mu_{B}$ do not vary much with $N_{part}$. Having done these, we compare our model predictions with the experimental data [@Arsene:2005mr]. We find that our model explains the data very well over all the centralities. For the sake of convenience, we take the strangeness saturation factor ($\gamma_{s}$) equals 1 over all the centrality at this energy. In ref. [@Cleymans:2004pp], the detailed analysis of variations of particle ratios with centrality is done using the variation of $\gamma_{s}$ with $N_{part}$.
![The variations of particle ratios for Au-Au collisions with respect to number of participants at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Symbols show the experimental data [@Arsene:2005mr] and lines are our model calculations.](all_200.pdf){height="25em"}
![Transverse energy per charged particle vs number of participants for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. Symbols are the experimental data [@Adams:2004cb]. Solid line is the result obtained in our model with flow while dotted line is the result of our model calculations.](et_nch_200.pdf){height="25em"}
In figure 3, we show the variations of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ with $N_{part}$ for Au-Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 200 GeV. We take the same value of T and $\mu_{B}$ as used in the calculation of the hadron ratios with respect to $N_{part}$ at this energy while studying the $N_{part}$ dependence of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$. We also compare our results with the experimental data [@Adams:2004cb] and find a very good agreement between these two. In our calculation, we take the same centrality bins as used in the calculation of particle ratios at this energy. $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ is almost independent of centrality except at lower centrality bins with the participant number less than 100. The present model explains the data well except at a lower $N_{part}$. We also show the obtained results with collective flow which explains the data within the experimental errors.
![The variations of hadron ratios for Pb-Pb collisions with respect to $N_{part}$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV. Symbols show the experimental data [@Abelev:2013vea] and lines are our model results.](all_2760.pdf){height="25em"}
Figure 4 represents the centrality dependence of various hadrons ratios for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV. To calculate the particle ratios with respect to $N_{part}$, we relate T and $\mu_{B}$ with $N_{part}$ at this energy. Once we get the variations of freeze-out parameters with $N_{part}$, we calculate various particle ratios. While calculating ratios with respect to $N_{part}$, we select three centrality bins in our model with participant numbers 382$\pm$17 (most-central), 128$\pm$16 (mid-central), and 7$\pm$4 (peripheral). Again, we take $\gamma_{s}$ equal to one over all the centrality for the sake of simplicity. We compare our results with the experimental data [@Abelev:2013vea] and again, find that our model explains the data very well over all the centralities.
![The variations of freeze-out volume for $\pi^{-}$. Solid symbols are HBT data points [@Adamova:2003; @Braun-Munzinger:2014lba] and open symbols are those obtained in our model calculations.](freeze-out_volume.pdf){height="25em"}
Now, we need to know $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ dependence of chemical freeze-out volume in unit slice of rapidity to calculate transverse momentum spectra, transverse energy at midrapidity etc. Figure 5 describes the chemical freeze-out volume (dV/dy) for $\pi^{-}$ for the most central collisions at various $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ starting from 2.7 GeV to 5.02 TeV calculated in our model with Boltzmann approximation. To calculate the dV/dy for $\pi^{-}$, we use the experimental midrapidity yield of $\pi^{-}$ [@Chatterjee:2015fua] and divide it by the corresponding number density calculated in our model. At $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=5.02 TeV, we use the AMPT data for the midrapidity yield for $\pi^{+}$ [@Ma:2016fve] in the absence of the experimental data. We compare our model results with the HBT data [@Adamova:2003; @Braun-Munzinger:2014lba], which represents the kinetic freeze-out volume, and find that our model results follow the same trend as observed in the HBT data. While HBT data correspond to the kinetic freeze-out volume, our calculations refer to the volume of the fireball at chemical freeze-out. A lower value from our estimation is thus expected. Figure 6 demonstrates the transverse mass spectra of positive pions for the most central collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.7 GeV. We compare our calculations with flow, represented by the solid line, with the experimental data [@Ivanov:2013yla]. We notice a good agreement between experimental data and model calculations. After comparison, we get the value of the surface velocity, $\beta_{s}$ which gives the value of the radial flow at this energy.
![The transverse mass spectra of $\pi^{+}$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.7 GeV. Symbols are experimental data [@Ivanov:2013yla] while line is our result.](mT_spectra_pi.pdf){height="18em"}
{height="18em"}
In figure 7, we show the $p_{T}$ spectra of $\pi^{-}$ for the most central collisions at various $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ from 7.7 GeV to 62.4 GeV. We use our model with the effect of flow to calculate $p_{T}$-spectra at all energies where we take only the surface velocity, $\beta_{s}$ as a free parameter. We compare our results with the experimental data [@Kumar:2014tca; @Abelev:2008ab; @Afanasiev:2002mx; @Alt:2006dk] and find that our model with flow explains the data satisfactorily. After comparison with the experimental data, we get the value of the $\beta_s$, from which we calculate the average radial flow velocity. Here, our model with flow explains the experimental data successfully except at lower $p_{T}$, where the contribution of resonance decay plays an important role [@Chatterjee:2015fua]. In this paper, we do not take the contributions of resonance decays while calculating $p_T$ spectra and we reserve this for a future work.
{height="25em"}
Figure 8 shows the variations of average radial flow velocity, $\langle\beta_r\rangle$ extracted in the framework of EV-SHGM with respect to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ from lower AGS energies to LHC energies. We notice that it increases monotonically with the collision energy with it’s lowest value at AGS to the highest value at LHC. This shows significant collectivity in high energy heavy-ion collisions. We fit a phenomenologically motivated power-law function, [*i. e.*]{} $\displaystyle a + b(\sqrt{s_{NN}})^{c}$ to the energy dependence of $\langle\beta_r\rangle$. Here, a, b and c are the fit parameters. For the best fit we get, a = 0.072 $\pm$ 0.057, b = 0.141 $\pm$ 0.049, and c = 0.148 $\pm$ 0.029. The predicted value of $\langle \beta_r \rangle$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV is 0.569 for the top central Pb+Pb collisions.
![Transverse energy per charged particle vs $N_{part}$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV. Symbols are the experimental data [@Adam:2016thv]. The solid line is the result of our model calculations with flow and dotted line is that obtained in our model calculation without flow.](et_nch_2760.pdf){height="25em"}
![The variation of $dE_T/dy$ per number of participant with respect to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for the most central collisions. Solid line represents our model calculation with flow and dashed line is the result obtained in our model without flow. Dotted line presents the results of EKRT model. Symbols are the experimental data points [@Adam:2016thv].](et_np_snn.pdf){height="25em"}
Figure 9 demonstrates the centrality dependence of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ for Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=2.76 TeV. We calculate $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ vs $N_{part}$ using the same value of T and $\mu_{B}$ as used in fitting the hadron ratios with respect to $N_{part}$ at this energy. We compare EV-SHGM predictions with the experimental data [@Adam:2016thv] and find that it could not explain the data over all the number of participants. These findings suggest that we need to incorporate collective flow in EV-SHGM to explain the centrality dependence of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at LHC energies. After comparison with data, we find that our model with flow explains the data very well over all the centrality bins within the experimental uncertainties. In ref. [@Heinz:2007in], it is argued that in a kinetic freeze-out scenario, the temperature should depend on centrality because during the kinetic freeze-out process there is a competition between local scattering and global expansion. Thus, the kinetic temperature is sensitive to the freeze-out process and hence centrality dependent. In the case of chemical freeze-out, the temperature is observed to be centrality independent [@Adams:2003xp]. This is because during this process, the chemical reactions decrease abruptly leaving behind the chemically frozen state at the freeze-out and thus the chemical freeze-out temperature is insensitive to the collective dynamics but depends on thermodynamical variables. The observation of a centrality independence of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at RHIC and LHC thus indicates to the chemical freeze-out scenario. This argument could be strengthened further in the subsequent section, when we make a direct comparison of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ values with the universal freeze-out criteria.
![The variation of $\epsilon_{Bj}\tau$ with respect to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ for the most central collisions. Solid line represents our model calculation with flow and dashed line is the result obtained in our stationary thermal model. The dotted line represents the result of the logarithmic fitting function as described in the text. Symbols are the experimental data points [@Sahoo:2014aca; @Adam:2016thv; @Adler:2004zn].](ebj_snn.pdf){height="25em"}
In figure 10, we present the variations of $((dE_T/dy)/0.5N_{part})$ with respect to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ over a broad energy range from AGS to LHC energies. We compare our model predictions with the experimental data [@Adam:2016thv]. The open symbol in the figure at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV represents the ALICE data while solid symbol is the measurement by the CMS experiment. Here, we take care of conversion of the $dE_T/d\eta$ to $dE_T/dy$ by using the Jacobian factor J($\eta$,y), which is 1.09 at LHC [@Chatrchyan:2012mb]. We notice that our model results agree well with the data upto RHIC energies while it is unsuccessful in explaining the LHC data. Now, we show the results obtained after incorporating the collective flow in our model and find that it explains the ALICE data [@Adam:2016thv] within experimental error but lies below to CMS data [@Chatrchyan:2012mb] at LHC. We also show the results obtained in the EKRT model [@Eskola:1999fc] which is based on the calculation of perturbative QCD with gluon saturation mechanism and hydrodynamics. We observe that the EKRT model underestimates the experimental data upto top RHIC energy but seems to explain the data at LHC energies.
Figure 11 represents the variations of the product of Bjorken energy density ($\epsilon_{Bj}$) and formation time ($\tau$) with respect to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ from AGS to LHC energies. Furthermore, our model explains the experimental data [@Sahoo:2014aca; @Adam:2016thv; @Adler:2004zn] very well upto RHIC energies while it fails to explain the data at LHC energies. We also show the results obtained after incorporating collective flow in our model and found a very good agreement with experimental data including that at LHC. We also fit the experimental data using the logarithmic function $\displaystyle A + B\;ln(\sqrt{s_{NN}})$, where A = - 2.32 $\pm$ 0.51 and B=1.46 $\pm$ 0.12 are fit parameters. We notice that this function fits the data only upto RHIC energies and fails at LHC energies which suggests that logarithmic behaviour is not valid at LHC energies in this case. This could be an indication of a different particle production mechanism playing a role at LHC energies, which needs further investigations.
{height="25em"}
In figure 12, we demonstrate the ratio $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ for the most central collisions with respect to $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ starting from lower AGS energies to LHC energies. We confront EV-SHGM calculations with the experimental data [@Sahoo:2014aca; @Adler:2004zn; @Adam:2016thv; @Chatrchyan:2012mb]. Here, the solid symbol at LHC is the CMS data while open symbol is the ALICE data. The model seems to explain the data at SPS and RHIC energies but fails at LHC energies. These findings may hint for possible non-equilibrium phenomena playing an important role at LHC. We also show the results obtained in our thermal model with the effect of flow. We notice that our model with flow explains the ALICE data [@Adam:2016thv] within the experimental errors while it could not explain the CMS data [@Chatrchyan:2012mb] at LHC energies, which indicates a more precise estimation of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at the LHC.
{height="22em"}
We have studied the average transverse momentum ($\langle p_{T} \rangle$) of hadrons in EV-SHGM with and without the effect of flow to understand the increase in $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ from RHIC to LHC. Figure 13 demonstrates the $N_{part}$ dependence of average transverse momentum ($\langle p_{T} \rangle$) of charged hadrons at top RHIC and LHC $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV energies. The lines are model calculations and symbols are the experimental data [@Adams:2004cb; @Abelev:2013bla]. We find that, there is an almost 63% increase in $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ from top RHIC to LHC at 2.76 TeV energy in EV-SHGM model with collective flow. We also get an almost 57% increase in $\langle \beta_{r} \rangle$ from top RHIC to LHC at 2.76 TeV, which could be the reason for increase in $\langle p_{T} \rangle$. Further, no change in $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ is observed in a static SHGM model from RHIC to LHC. This is because a static SHGM uses T and $\mu_{B}$ as the inputs for the estimation of various thermodynamical observables. From top RHIC to LHC energies T and $\mu_{B}$ are found to be constant within systematics [@Abelev:2012wca]. This reveals that the increase in $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at LHC could be explained by the increase in $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ and the collective flow. Here, we take all the hadrons in our model while calculating the $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ and take assumption of centrality independent $\langle \beta_{r} \rangle$.
$E_{T}/N_{ch}$ and Freeze-out
=============================
{height="25em"}
In this section, we discuss the comparison of the experimental data on the ratio $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ with that calculated in EV-SHGM using the various universal freeze-out criteria. Various observables such as the energy per hadrons (E/N)$\approx$1.0 [@Cleymans:1998fq; @Cleymans:2005xv], the sum of baryons and antibaryons ($n_{B}+n_{\bar{B}}$)$\approx0.12/fm^3$ [@BraunMunzinger:2001mh], the normalized entropy density, $s/T^3\approx7.0$ [@Tawfik:2004vv], and the entropy per hadron (S/N)$\approx$7.0 [@Tiwari:2012] are proposed as universal freeze-out criteria in heavy-ion collisions. These observables are almost independent of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ except at lower energies. In figure 14, we show the variations of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ with $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ from AGS to LHC energies. Here, the symbols are the experimental data while the lines are those calculated using various freeze-out criteria in our excluded-volume model. In our model, the values of these criteria are different than that mentioned above in the text, which are shown in the figure. We find a similar behaviour between the experimental data and those calculated using freeze-out criteria [@Cleymans:2008it] in our model upto top RHIC energy, while at LHC energies our calculations could not explain the experimental data. This points to further investigation(s) to understand the possible reason(s) for the deviation of LHC data from the universal freeze-out criteria.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
In summary, we have performed the calculation of global observables like transverse energy of hadrons, charged particle multiplicity and their ratios at midrapidity using our statistical-thermal model. We study the centrality dependence of various hadron ratios using our model and extract T and $\mu_{B}$ at RHIC and LHC energies. We use the same value of T and $\mu_{B}$ to study the centrality dependence of the ratio $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at those energies. Then we calculate the transverse mass spectra of $\pi^-$ at various $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$, except at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.7 GeV where the transverse mass spectra of $\pi^+$ is calculated by using EVSHGM. We get the average radial flow velocity at various energies by comparing our calculations with the experimental data. Once, we get the radial flow velocity we study the transverse energy per unit rapidity. We also calculate the Bjorken energy density using our model at various $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$. Finally, we calculate the ratio $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at various energies using our excluded-volume SHGM with and without flow. Further we study various freeze-out criteria in the framework of EV-SHGM using $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ as the observable.
In conclusion, we successfully describe the $N_{part}$ dependence of various hadron ratios using our excluded-volume model. We observe that although the model describes the RHIC centrality data for the ratio, $E_{T}/N_{ch}$, it fails to explain the LHC data at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=$ 2.76 TeV. The inclusion of the collective flow in our model, however qualitatively explains the centrality data at the LHC successfully, with some degree of deviations for higher centrality. While studying the energy dependence of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$, we observe that the excluded-volume hadron gas model with radial flow does not explain the CMS data at the LHC, whereas the ALICE data at the same energy is well-explained. This necessitates for precision measurement of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ at LHC energies to see if mechanisms other than the collective flow play a role. The energy dependence of Bjorken energy density, pseudorapidity densities of charged particles and transverse energy and total charged particle multiplicity showing deviations from a logarithmic behaviour [@Mishra:2013dwa; @Mishra:2014dta; @Sarkisyan:2016dzo; @Sarkisyan:2015gca; @Abbas:2013bpa; @Chatrchyan:2011pb; @ATLAS:2011ag; @Aamodt:2010pb] at LHC may indicate different multiparticle production mechanism at LHC, compared to that at RHIC and lower collision energies. The observed increase in $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ from RHIC to LHC is attributed due to an increase in $\langle p_{T} \rangle$ and the onset of higher collective flow at the LHC. Our comparison of energy dependence of $E_{T}/N_{ch}$ with various universal freeze-out criteria reveals that further investigations are necessary in order to have a proper understanding of the LHC data and its connection with freeze-out.
Acknowledgement
===============
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Aditya Nath Mishra and Dr. Deepika Jena for careful reading of the manuscript and providing useful comments.
[99]{}
I. Arsene [*et al.*]{} \[BRAHMS Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A [**757**]{}, 1 (2005).
B. B. Back [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A [**757**]{}, 28 (2005).
J. Adams [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A [**757**]{}, 102 (2005).
K. Adcox [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A [**757**]{}, 184 (2005).
G. Policastro, D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 081601 (2001).
V. Khachatryan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**765**]{}, 193 (2017).
B. Abelev [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 072301 (2012).
J. Cleymans, R. Sahoo, D. P. Mahapatra, D. K. Srivastava and S. Wheaton, Phys. Lett. B [**660**]{}, 172 (2008).
R. Sahoo, and A. N. Mishra, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**23**]{}, 1450024 (2014).
R. Sahoo, A. N. Mishra, N. K. Behera and B. K. Nandi, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2015**]{}, 612390 (2015).
S. K. Tiwari and R. Sahoo, Eur. Phys. J. A [**52**]{}, no. 12, 365 (2016).
D. Prorok, Eur. Phys. J. A [**24**]{}, 93 (2005).
D. Prorok, Eur. Phys. J. A [**26**]{}, 277 (2005).
D. Prorok, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 014903 (2007).
M. Mishra and C. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. C [**78**]{}, 024910 (2008).
S. K. Tiwari and C. P. Singh, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2013**]{}, 805413 (2013).
S. K. Tiwari and C. P. Singh, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**509**]{}, 012097 (2014).
S. K. Tiwari, P. K. Srivastava and C. P. Singh, J. Phys. G [**40**]{}, 045102 (2013).
J. Adams [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**70**]{}, 054907 (2004).
J. Adam [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**94**]{}, 034903 (2016).
S. S. Adler [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 034908 (2005) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 049901 (2005)\].
E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C [**48**]{}, 2462 (1993).
P. Braun-Munzinger $et\; al.$, Phys. Lett. B [**344**]{}, 43 (1995).
K. Adcox $et\; al.$, (PHENIX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 024904 (2004).
D. Kharzeev and M. Nardi, Phys. Lett. B [**507**]{}, 121 (2001).
S. K. Tiwari, P. K. Srivastava and C. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. C [**85**]{}, 014908 (2012).
I. Arsene [*et al.*]{} \[BRAHMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 014908 (2005).
J. Cleymans, B. Kampfer, M. Kaneta, S. Wheaton and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 054901 (2005).
B. Abelev [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**88**]{}, 044910 (2013).
S. Chatterjee, S. Das, L. Kumar, D. Mishra, B. Mohanty, R. Sahoo and N. Sharma, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2015**]{}, 349013 (2015) and references therein.
G. L. Ma and Z. W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C [**93**]{}, 054911 (2016).
D. Adamova $ \it et\; al.$, (CERES Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 022301 (2003).
P. Braun-Munzinger, A. Kalweit, K. Redlich and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B [**747**]{}, 292 (2015).
Y. B. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. C [**89**]{}, no. 2, 024903 (2014).
L. Kumar \[STAR Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A [**931**]{}, 1114 (2014).
B. I. Abelev [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 034909 (2009).
S. V. Afanasiev [*et al.*]{} \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{}, 054902 (2002).
C. Alt [*et al.*]{} \[NA49 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 044910 (2006).
U. W. Heinz and G. Kestin, Eur. Phys. J. ST [**155**]{}, 75 (2008).
J. Adams [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 112301 (2004).
S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 152303 (2012).
K. J. Eskola, K. Kajantie, P. V. Ruuskanen and K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys. B [**570**]{}, 379 (2000).
B. B. Abelev [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**727**]{}, 371 (2013).
B. Abelev [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 252301 (2012)
J. Cleymans and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5284 (1998).
J. Cleymans, H. Oeschler, K. Redlich and S. Wheaton, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 034905 (2006).
P. Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, J. Phys. G [**28**]{}, 1971 (2002).
A. Tawfik, J. Phys. G [**31**]{}, S1105 (2005).
J. Cleymans, R. Sahoo, D. P. Mahapatra, D. K. Srivastava and S. Wheaton, J. Phys. G [**35**]{}, 104147 (2008).
A. N. Mishra, R. Sahoo, E. K. G. Sarkisyan and A. S. Sakharov, Eur. Phys. J. C [**74**]{}, 3147 (2014) Erratum: \[Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, 70 (2015)\].
E. K. G. Sarkisyan, A. N. Mishra, R. Sahoo and A. S. Sakharov, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, 011501 (2016).
E. K. G. Sarkisyan, A. N. Mishra, R. Sahoo and A. S. Sakharov, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 054046 (2016); Addendum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 7, 079904 (2016)\].
E. Abbas [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**726**]{}, 610 (2013).
S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], JHEP [**1108**]{}, 141 (2011).
G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{}, 363 (2012).
K. Aamodt [*et al.*]{} \[ALICE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 252301 (2010).
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
A probability distribution over the Boolean cube is **monotone** if flipping the value of a coordinate from zero to one can only increase the probability of an element. Given samples of an unknown monotone distribution over the Boolean cube, we give (to our knowledge) the first algorithm that learns an approximation of the distribution in statistical distance using a number of samples that is sublinear in the domain.
To do this, we develop a structural lemma describing monotone probability distributions. The structural lemma has further implications to the sample complexity of basic testing tasks for analyzing monotone probability distributions over the Boolean cube: We use it to give nontrivial upper bounds on the tasks of estimating the distance of a monotone distribution to uniform and of estimating the support size of a monotone distribution. In the setting of monotone probability distributions over the Boolean cube, our algorithms are the first to have sample complexity lower than known lower bounds for the same testing tasks on arbitrary (not necessarily monotone) probability distributions.
One further consequence of our learning algorithm is an improved sample complexity for the task of testing whether a distribution on the Boolean cube is monotone.
author:
- 'Ronitt Rubinfeld [^1]'
- 'Arsen Vasilyan[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: Monotone probability distributions over the Boolean cube can be learned with sublinear samples
---
Introduction
============
Learning Monotone Distributions
-------------------------------
Data generated from probability distributions is ubiquitous, and algorithms for understanding such data are of fundamental importance. In particular, a fundamental task is to [*learn*]{} an approximation to the probability distribution underlying the data. For probability distributions over huge discrete domains, the sample complexity and run-time bounds for the learning task can be prohibitive. In particular, learning an arbitrary probability distribution on a universe of $N_{\text{universe}}$ elements up to sufficiently small constant total variation distance requires $\Omega(N_{\text{universe}})$ samples. However, when the probability distribution is known to belong to a more structured class of distributions, much better results are possible (cf. [@DaskalakisKT15; @diakonikolas2016efficient; @diakonikolas2018fast; @diakonikolas2016properly; @diakonikolas2016optimal; @indyk2012approximating; @DaskalakisDS15; @DaskalakisDS14; @birge1987estimating; @chan2013learning; @KalaiMV10; @GeHK15; @DaskalakisK14; @0001V17]) – for example, learning an unknown Poisson binomial distribution up to variation distance $\epsilon$ can be achieved with only $\tilde{O}(1/\epsilon^3)$ samples and $\tilde{O}(\log (N_{\text{universe}}) /\epsilon^3)$ run-time [@DaskalakisDS15].
A fundamental class of probability distributions is the class of multidimensional monotone probability distributions, which broadly satisfy the following properties:
- The elements of the probability distribution have $n$ different features.
- For every element, an increase in the value of one of the features can only increase its probability.
This basic class of distributions is of great interest because many commonly studied distributions are either monotone or can be approximated by a combination of monotone distributions. Furthermore, often the tools developed for monotone distributions are useful for other classes of distributions: for example, in the one dimensional setting, [@DaskalakisDS14] use tools developed for testing monotone distributions in order to learn $k$-modal distributions. In [@canonne2018testing], tools developed for testing properties of monotone distributions by [@batu2004sublinear] are used to develop testers for many other classes of distributions.
For the case of only one feature, or equivalently for monotone probability distributions over the totally ordered set $[k]$, a sample-efficient algorithm is known for learning the unknown distribution up total variation distance $\epsilon$ with $O(\log(k)/\epsilon^3)$ samples [@birge1987estimating; @DaskalakisDS14]. In [@AcharyaDK15] it was also shown that an unknown probability distribution over $[k]^n$ can be learned up to $\chi^2$ distance $\epsilon^2$ with $O((n \log k /\epsilon^2)^n/\epsilon^2)$ samples (note that for constant $\epsilon$, this sample complexity is non-trivial only when $k$ is sufficiently large). Overall, the cases considered in the literature specialize on the regime when all the dimensions have a wide range that grows with $n$. Here we focus on a contrasting case, where each feature has only two possible values, $0$ and $1$, thus specializing on the Boolean cube:
A probability distribution $\rho$ over $\{0,1\}^n$ is **monotone** if whenever for $x,y \in \{0,1\}^n$ we have that $x \preceq y$ (which means that for all $i$: $x_i \leq y_i$), then we have that $\rho(x) \leq \rho(y)$.
When studying multi-dimensional objects, focusing on the specific case of the Boolean cube is a common research theme, because the ideas and techniques developed for the Boolean cube are often applicable in the general case. A lower bound of $\Omega(2^{0.15 n})$ for learning monotone probability distributions over the Boolean cube (up to sufficiently small constant variation distance) can be inferred from an entropy testing lower bound in [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing page 39] and an argument in [@valiant2011testing] (see Claim \[claim: learning lower bound\] in Preliminaries). Though the dramatic exponential improvement as in [@birge1987estimating; @DaskalakisDS14] for the totally ordered set is thereby impossible, this still leaves open the possibility of a sublinear sample algorithm for the Boolean cube.
We give, to the best of our knowledge, the first sublinear sample algorithm for learning a monotone probability distribution over the Boolean cube:
[theorem]{}[theoremLearningUpperBound]{} \[theorem: learning upper bound\] For every positive $\epsilon$, such that $0<\epsilon \leq 1$ and for all sufficiently large $n$, there exists an algorithm, which given $\frac{2^{n}}{2^{\Theta_\epsilon(n^{1/5})}}$ samples from an unknown monotone probability distribution $\rho$ over $\{0,1\}^n$, can reliably return a description of an estimate probability distribution $\hat{\rho}$, such that $
d_{\text{TV}}(\rho, \hat{\rho}) \leq \epsilon
$. The algorithm runs in time $O \left(2^{n+O_{\epsilon}(n^{1/5} \log n)} \right)$.
Our algorithm relies on a new structural lemma describing monotone probability distributions on the Boolean cube, as described in Section \[subsection: technical overview\]. These structural insights also allow us to get improved sample complexity for certain testing tasks on monotone distributions – namely, estimating the closeness of a distribution to uniformity and the support size of the distribution, as presented in Section \[section: testingpropertiesresults\].
Theorem \[theorem: learning upper bound\], together with the $L_1$ distance tester in [@valiant2011power], can be applied to give the best known sample complexity for testing whether a distribution is monotone. Specifically, one can test whether an unknown distribution $\rho$ over the Boolean cube is monotone or $\epsilon$-far from monotone with $O(\frac{2^n}{ n\epsilon^2})$ samples as shown in Claim \[claim: monotonicity testing\] in Preliminaries. Note that this does not follow from [@valiant2011testing] directly, because monotonicity is not a symmetric property. The best previously known algorithm for testing monotonicity over the Boolean cube was presented in [@bhattacharyya2011testing], requiring $\tilde{O}\left(\frac{2^n}{(n/\log n)^{1/4}} {{\rm poly}}(1/\epsilon)\right)$ samples. The best sample complexity lower bound for testing monotonicity over $\{0,1\}^n$ is $\Omega(2^{(1-\Theta(\sqrt{\epsilon})+o(1)) \cdot n})$, as presented in [@AliakbarpourGPR19]. For the domain $[k]^n$, a monotonicity testing algorithm that requires $O\left(k^{n/2}/\epsilon^2+\left(\frac{n \log k}{\epsilon^2} \right)^n \cdot \frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\right)$ samples is given and shown to be optimal in [@AcharyaDK15] (note that this is inapplicable to the Boolean setting, because this sample bound is non-trivial only for sufficiently large $k$).
Testing properties of monotone distributions {#section: testingpropertiesresults}
--------------------------------------------
In addition to learning a distribution, several other basic tasks aimed at understanding distributions have received attention. These include estimating the entropy of a distribution, the size of the support and whether the distribution has certain “shape” properties (monotonicity, convexity, monotone hazard rate, etc.). For arbitrary probability distributions over huge domains, the sample complexity and run-time bounds for the above tasks can be prohibitive, provably requiring $\Omega \left(\frac{N_{\text{universe}}}{\log(N_{\text{universe}})} \right)$ samples. This is true in particular for the properties of support size, entropy and the distance to the uniform distribution [@raskhodnikova2009strong; @valiant2011testing; @valiant2011estimating; @wu2016minimax; @wu2019chebyshev].
This state of affairs motivates going beyond worst-case analysis and considering common classes of structured probability distributions, a direction that has been considered by many and with a large variety of results (cf. [@batu2004sublinear; @CanonneDKS17; @indyk2012approximating; @rubinfeldservedio2009testing; @DaskalakisDSVV13; @diakonikolas2015testing]). Some specific examples include: In [@batu2004sublinear] it is shown that testing whether a monotone distribution is uniform requires only $\Theta(\log^3(N_{\text{universe}})/\epsilon^{3})$ samples, in contrast to the $\Theta(\sqrt{N_{\text{universe}}}/\epsilon^2)$ samples required for testing arbitrary distributions for uniformity [@paninski2008coincidence; @ChanDVV14; @DiakonikolasGPP19]. The situation is analogous for the tasks of testing whether two distributions given by samples are either the same or far, and testing whether a constant dimensional distribution is independent, which require only polylogarithmic samples if the unknown distributions are promised to be monotone on a total order [@batu2004sublinear].
Algorithms for testing properties of monotone probability distributions over the Boolean cube were studied in [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing; @AdamaszekCS10]. It was shown that, given samples from a probability distribution over $\{0,1\}^n$ that is promised to be monotone, distinguishing the uniform distribution over $\{0,1\}^n$ from one that is $\epsilon$-far from uniform can be done using only $O\left(\frac{n}{\epsilon^2} \right)$ samples, which is nearly optimal. In contrast, a number of other testing problems cannot have such dramatic improvements when the distribution is known to be monotone: for example in [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing] it was shown that for sufficiently small constant $\epsilon$ the estimation of entropy up to an additive error of $\epsilon n$ requires $2^{\Omega(n)}$ samples. However, no nontrivial[^3] upper bounds on the sample complexity of any other computational tasks for monotone probability distributions over the Boolean cube are known.
### Estimating support size
We consider the task of additively estimating the support size of an unknown monotone probability distribution over the Boolean cube. The following assumption is standard in support size estimation:
A probability distribution over a universe of size $N_{\text{universe}}$ is called **well-behaved** (in context of support size estimation) if for every $x$ in the set, the probability of $x$ is either zero or at least $1/N_\text{universe}$.
The purpose of this definition is to rule out pathological cases in which there are items that are in the support, yet have probability very close to zero. We henceforth adapt this definition to probability distributions over $\{0,1\}^n$, where we have $N_\text{universe}=2^n$. We prove the following theorem:
[theorem]{}[theoremSupportUpperBound]{} \[theorem: support size upper bound\] For every positive $\epsilon$, the following is true: for all sufficiently large $n$, there exists an algorithm, which given $\frac{2^{n}}{2^{\Theta_\epsilon(\sqrt{n})}}$ samples from an unknown well-behaved monotone probability distribution $\rho$ over $\{0,1\}^n$, can reliably[^4] approximate the support size of $\rho$ with an additive error of up to $\epsilon$. The algorithm runs in time $O_{\epsilon}\left(\frac{2^{n}}{2^{\Theta_\epsilon(\sqrt{n})}}\right)$
We contrast this result to the results of [@raskhodnikova2009strong; @valiant2011estimating; @valiant2011power; @valiant2011testing; @wu2019chebyshev] that show that one needs $\Omega(N_{\text{universe}}/\log (N_{\text{universe}}))$ samples to estimate the support size of an arbitrary distribution up to a sufficiently small constant, which equals to $\Omega(2^n/n)$ for a universe of size $2^n$, such as the Boolean cube.
### Estimating distance to uniformity
We now consider the task of additively estimating the distance from an unknown monotone probability distribution over the Boolean cube to the uniform distribution. We prove the following theorem:
[theorem]{}[theoremDistanceToUniformUpperBound]{} \[theorem: distance to uniform upper bound\] For every positive $\epsilon$, the following is true: for all sufficiently large $n$, there exists an algorithm, which given $\frac{2^{n}}{2^{\Theta_\epsilon(\sqrt{n})}}$ samples from an unknown monotone probability distribution $\rho$ over $\{0,1\}^n$, can reliably approximate the distance between $\rho$ and the uniform distribution over $\{0,1\}^n$ with an additive error of up to $\epsilon$. The algorithm runs in time $O \left(2^{n+O_{\epsilon}(\sqrt{n}\log n)} \right)$.
We, again, contrast this result to the results of [@valiant2011estimating; @valiant2011power; @valiant2011testing] that show that one needs $\Omega(N_{\text{universe}}/\log (N_{\text{universe}}))$ samples to estimate the distance of an arbitrary distribution to the uniform distribution, which equals to $\Omega(2^n/n)$ for a universe of size $2^n$, such as the Boolean cube.
We also have the following sample complexity lower bound on this task, which we prove using the sub-cube decomposition technique of [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing]:
[theorem]{}[theoremDistanceToUniformLowerBound]{} \[theorem: tolerant testing lower bound\] For infinitely many positive integers $n$, there exist two probability distributions $\Delta_{\text{Close}}$ and $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$ over monotone distributions over $\{0,1\}^n$, satisfying:
1. Every distribution in $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$ is $1/2$-far from the uniform distribution.
2. Any algorithm that takes only $o\left(2^{\frac{n^{0.5-0.01}}{2}}\right)$ samples from a probability distribution, fails to reliably distinguish between $\Delta_{\text{Close}}$ and $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$.
3. Every distribution in $\Delta_{\text{Close}}$ is $o(1)$-close to the uniform distribution.
In our construction, the distribution $\Delta_{\text{Close}}$ consists of only one probability distribution. Additionally, the constant $0.01$ can be made arbitrarily small.
Recall that in [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing; @AdamaszekCS10] it was shown that, given samples from a probability distribution over the Boolean cube that is promised to be monotone, distinguishing the uniform distribution from one that is $\epsilon$-far from uniform can be done using only $O\left(\frac{n}{\epsilon^2} \right)$ samples. Yet, as the theorem above shows, the **tolerant** version of this problem, which requires one to distinguish a distribution that is $o(1)$-close to the uniform from a distribution that is $1/2$-far from uniform, requires $\Omega\left(2^{\frac{n^{0.5-0.01}}{2}}\right)$ samples, which is dramatically greater.
Technical overview {#subsection: technical overview}
------------------
### Structural results
Our analysis applies and builds upon the main structural lemma in [@blais2014dnf]. To state it, recall that a **DNF** is a Boolean function that is formed as an OR of ANDs, and it is monotone if there are no negations. Each AND is referred to as a **clause**, with the number of variables in the AND is referred to as the **width** of the clause. Their structural lemma shows that each monotone function can be approximated by a DNF with only a constant number of distinct clause widths. Specifically:
\[lemma BHST\] For every positive $\epsilon$, for all sufficiently large $n$, let $f$ be a monotone Boolean function over the domain $\{0,1\}^n$. There is a function $g=g_1 \lor ... \lor g_t$ with the following properties: (i) $t\leq 2/\epsilon$ (ii) each $g_i$ is a monotone DNF with terms of width exactly $k_i$ (iii) $g$ disagrees with $f$ at no more than $\epsilon \cdot 2^n$ elements of $\{0,1\}^n$ (iv) $g(x) \leq f(x)$ for all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$.
For Theorem \[theorem: support size upper bound\], we use the lemma above on the indicator function of the support of the probability distribution, which allows us to prove the correctness of our algorithm. For the problems of learning and estimating the distance to uniform, we go a step further and prove an analogous structural lemma for [*monotone probability distributions*]{}.
There are some crucial differences between monotone Boolean functions in the setting of Boolean function approximation and monotone probability distributions in our setting. First of all, the basic properties of the two objects are different: a Boolean function always has one of the two values (zero or one), which is usually not the case for a probability distribution, but a probability distribution, summed over $\{0,1\}^n$, has to equal one. Secondly, the relevant notions of a function $f_2$ being well-approximated by a function $f_1$ are different: for Boolean functions we bound the fraction of points on which $f_1$ and $f_2$ disagree, whereas for monotone probability distributions we would like to bound the $L_1$ distance between $f_1$ and $f_2$.
To overcome these differences, we generalize to the setting of non-Boolean functions the main concept used in the proof of Lemma \[lemma BHST\]: the concept of a **minterm** of a monotone Boolean function. In [@blais2014dnf] the minterm of a monotone Boolean function $f$ is defined as follows: $$\text{minterm}_f(x) {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\begin{cases}
1 &\text{ if $f(x)=1$ and for all $y \prec x$, $f(y)=0$} \\
0 &\text{otherwise}\\
\end{cases}$$ Using this language, the function $g$ in Lemma \[lemma BHST\] can be characterized as a function, for which: $$\label{equation: in intro counting with indicators}
\sum_{h=0}^n \mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{minterm}_g(x) \neq 0}
\leq \frac{2}{\epsilon}$$
We introduce the notion of monotone **slack** that generalizes the notion of a minterm to non-Boolean functions:
$$\text{slack}_f(x)
{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}f(x)-\max_{y \prec x} f(y)
=
f(x)-\max_{y \preceq x \text{ and } ||y||=||x||-1} f(y)$$ With such a definition at hand, one could hope to prove that every monotone probability distribution $\rho$ is well-approximated in the $L_1$ norm by a monotone function $f$, for which $\sum_{h=0}^n \mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}$ is bounded by a constant independent of $n$. We were not able to prove such a theorem, and instead we bound a related quantity that can be thought of as the weighted analogue of the expression in Equation \[equation: in intro counting with indicators\]: $\sum_{h=0}^n R_h \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}$, where the $R_h$ are positive weights that can be chosen arbitrarily, as long as they satisfy a certain technical condition that ensures that not too many of these weights are too large. Precisely, our main lemma is:
[lemma]{}[ourMainLemma]{} \[lemma: slack regret\] For all positive $\zeta$, for all sufficiently large $n$, the following is true: Let $\rho$ be a monotone probability distribution over $\{0,1\}^n$. Suppose, for each $h$ between $0$ and $n$ we are given a positive value $R_h$, and it is the case that: $\;\;
\sum_{h=0}^n R_h \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq \zeta
$
Then, there exists a positive monotone function $f$, mapping $\{0,1\}^n$ to positive real numbers, satisfying:
1. For all $x$, it is the case that $\rho(x) \geq f(x)$.
2. It is the case that: $\;\;
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \rho(x)-f(x) \leq \zeta
$
3. It is the case that: $
\;\;
\sum_{h=0}^n R_h \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}
\leq 1
$
Now, as a corollary, we present a simple special case (proven to be so in Subsection \[section: slackness regret\]) that not only illustrates the power of Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\], but also is sufficient for our proof of Theorem \[theorem: distance to uniform upper bound\]:
[corollary]{}[corollaryOfOurMainLemma]{} \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\] Let $\rho$ be a monotone probability distribution over $\{0,1\}^n$ and let $h_0$ be an integer for which: $$\frac{\epsilon}{4}
\leq
\Pr_{x \sim \{0,1\}^n}
[||x|| \geq h_0]
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{2}$$ Then, there exists a positive monotone function $f:\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow R$ satisfying:
1. For all $x$, it is the case that $\rho(x) \geq f(x)$.
2. It is the case that: $\;\;
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \rho(x)-f(x) \leq \frac{\epsilon}{4}
$.
3. There exists a set of values $\{k_1,...,k_t\}$ (ordered in an increasing order) with $t \leq \frac{16}{\epsilon^2}$, satisfying that if for some $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$ we have $||x|| < h_0$ and $\text{slack}_{f}(x) \neq 0$, then $||x||=k_i$ for some $i$.
For Theorem \[theorem: learning upper bound\], however, we use the full power of Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\].
### Algorithmic ideas
Here we present an informal overview of the ideas involved in the design and analysis of our algorithms. Throughout we omit details and technicalities. As already mentioned, our algorithms for Theorems \[theorem: support size upper bound\], \[theorem: distance to uniform upper bound\] and \[theorem: learning upper bound\] use respectively Lemma \[lemma BHST\], Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\] and Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\] as their structural core. Here we present the algorithmic ideas in the order of increasing technical sophistication.
#### Support size estimation (Theorem \[theorem: support size upper bound\])
The idea behind our support size estimation algorithm is as follows: if we received $x$ as a sample, then not only $x$ has to be in the support of $\rho$, but every $y$, satisfying $x \preceq y$ is in the support of $\rho$. For all such $y$, we say that $y$ is **covered** by $x$. Our algorithms estimates the support size of $\rho$ through estimating the number of all such $y$ that are covered by at least one of the samples.
This algorithm can be made computationally efficient by standard methods in randomized algorithms, and the only non-trivial step is to show that $\frac{2^n}{2^{\Theta_{\epsilon}(\sqrt{n})}}$ samples suffice. To show this, we first apply Lemma \[lemma BHST\] to the indicator function of the support of $\rho$ (which we from now on call the support function of $\rho$). This gives us a Boolean function $g$ that approximates well the support function of $\rho$ and has zero slack everywhere, except for a small number of levels[^5] of $\{0,1\}^n$. For simplicity, assume that the support function of $\rho$ itself has this property, and there are only a small number of levels of the Boolean cube on which the support function of $\rho$ can have non-zero slack, which we call the **slacky** levels.
Now, we divide the elements of $\{0,1\}^n$ (which we also call **points**) into **good**[^6] points and **bad** points, with the former defined as all the points sufficiently close to a slacky level, and the latter defined as all the other points. Clearly, a given level of $\{0,1\}^n$ consists either fully from good points or fully from bad points, so we also refer to levels as good or bad.
We argue that if a point $y$ in the support of $\rho$ is a good point, then it is likely to be covered by one of the samples, because there is a large number of values $x$ in the support of $\rho$, for which $y \preceq x$.
We conclude by bounding the number of elements in the support of $\rho$ that are bad, by using the fact that there cannot be too many slacky levels.
#### Estimation of distance to uniform (Theorem \[theorem: distance to uniform upper bound\])
To estimate the distance of a monotone distribution to uniform, we pick a value $h_0$ as in Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\] and break down the value of the total variation distance from $\rho$ to uniform into contributions from two disjoint components: (i) $\{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| \geq h_0\}$ and (ii) all the other points of $\{0,1\}^n$. In other words, we use $h_0$ as the cutoff value for the Hamming weight, to separate $\{0,1\}^n$ into components (i) and (ii). The first contribution is straightforward to estimate simply through estimating how likely a random sample $x$ from $\rho$ is to have $||x|| \geq h_0$, because it is straightforward to prove that if one redistributes the probability mass of $\rho$ in $\{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| \geq h_0\}$, while keeping the total amount of probability mass in this set fixed, the total variation distance between $\rho$ and the uniform distribution cannot change by more than $O_{\epsilon}(1)$.
For any element $x$ of the component (ii), we prepare an estimate of $\rho(x)$, which we call $\hat{\phi}(x)$. Our approach here is somewhat similar to the one for our support size estimation algorithm. In the case of support size estimation, we only registered whether $x$ was covered by a sample from $\rho$ or not. In this case, we actually need an estimate on $\rho(x)$ (as opposed to $\mathbf{1}_{\rho(x)\neq 0}$) which we obtain by studying the pattern of all the samples covering $x$. More precisely, suppose we draw $N_2$ samples from the distribution, which form a multiset $S_2$. We extract the estimate $\hat{\phi}(x)$ from the pattern of samples as follows: $$\hat{\phi}(x)
:=
\frac{1}{2^L} \cdot \frac{\max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L}
\bigg \lvert \bigg \{z \in S_2: y \preceq z \preceq x \bigg\} \bigg \rvert}{N_2}$$ Here $L$ is a parameter equal to $\Theta_{\epsilon}(\sqrt{n})$. We then estimate the contribution of set (ii) as $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x|| \geq h_0} \left\lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-1/2^n \right\rvert$.
We show the correctness of our algorithm as follows. We use a tail bound to show that $\hat{\phi}(x)$ concentrates sufficiently closely to the value: . $$\begin{gathered}
\phi(x)
{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\frac{1}{2^L} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L} \text{ }
\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]
=\\
\frac{1}{2^L} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L} \text{ }
\sum_{z \text{ s.t. } y \preceq z \preceq x} \rho(z)\end{gathered}$$ Then, we apply Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\], which implies that $\rho$ is approximated well by a function $f$ and a certain set of constraints on the slack of $f$ holds.
Now for the sake of simplicity (analogously to the case of support size estimation), assume that $\rho$ itself satisfies the condition that below the threshold $h_0$ there are at most $O_{\epsilon}(1)$ levels of $\{0,1\}^n$ on which there are points $x$ with non-zero $\text{slack}_{\rho}(x)$ (in reality it is merely well-approximated by such a function). We now can (analogously to the case of support size estimation) introduce the concepts of **slacky** levels as levels on which $\rho$ has non-zero slack, and **good** levels, which are below $h_0$ and farther than $L$ from all **slacky** levels of $\rho$. Now, one can prove that for $x$ on a good level the value of $\phi(x)$ equals precisely to $\rho(x)$, for the following reasons: First of all the inequality: $$\max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L} \rho(y) \leq \phi(x) \leq \rho(x)$$ follows immediately from the monotonicity of $\rho$ and the definition of $\phi$. Secondly, if $\rho$ has no slack on the levels between $||x||$ and $||x||-L$ (inclusive), then from the definition of slack it follows immediately using induction on $L$ that: $$\max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L} \rho(y)=\rho(x)$$ Therefore, it has to be the case that $\rho(x)=\phi(x)$. Finally, we bound the contribution to the $L_1$ distance between $\hat{\phi}$ and $\rho$ of all the levels below $h_0$ that are not good (which we again call the **bad** levels). We do this by upper-bounding the number of bad levels, and then upper bounding the total probability mass on a single level below $h_0$.
#### Learning a monotone probability distribution (Theorem \[theorem: learning upper bound\])
As we saw, our algorithm for the estimation of the distance to the uniform distribution contained a component that learned in $L_1$ distance the restriction of $\rho$ on the levels below the cutoff $h_0$. The main challenge here is to extend these ideas to levels above $h_0$. To this, we make the following changes to our setup:
- Instead of having one fixed constant $L$ defining whether a point is close to a slacky level, we make this value level-dependent. In other words, for every $h$ we define $L_h$, and then after drawing $N$ samples, which form a multiset $S$, we compute: $$\hat{\phi}(x)
:=
\frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}} \cdot \frac{\max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = \left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}
\bigg \lvert \bigg \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \bigg\} \bigg \rvert}{N}$$
- Instead of using Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\], we use the the full power of Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\]. This, again gives us a function $f$ that approximates $\rho$ closely and has a restriction on its slacky levels.
Finally, we pick values of $L_h$ in the algorithm and $R_h$ in the analysis so we balance (i) The random error from the deviation of $\hat{\phi}(x)$ from its expectation and (ii) The systematic error introduced by the slacky levels of $f$ and the levels close to them. As a result, we find that $\frac{2^n}{2^{\Theta(n^{1/5})}}$ samples suffice.
Preliminaries
=============
We use the following basic definitions and notation:
For $x \in \{0,1\}^n$, its **Hamming weight** is denoted as $\lvert \lvert x \rvert \rvert$ and is equal to $\sum_i x_i$.
\[definition: average value of a function on a level\] For a function $f: \{0,1\}^n \rightarrow R$, we define the **average value on level $k$** (with $0\leq k \leq n$) as: $
\mu_{f}(k)=\frac{1}{\binom{n}{k}}\sum_{x\in \{0,1\}^n: ||x||=k}{f(x)}
$. We also refer to average value on level $k$ for a probability distribution $\rho$, which we denote $\mu_{\rho}(k)$. By this we mean the average value on level $k$ of the density function of $\rho$.
\[definition: monotone slack\] For a monotone function $f: \{0,1\}^n \rightarrow R$, we define the **monotone slack** $\text{slack}_f(x)$ at point $x \in \{0,1\}^n$ as follows: $
\text{slack}_f(x)
{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}f(x)-\max_{y \prec x} f(y)
=
f(x)-\max_{y \preceq x \text{ and } ||y||=||x||-1} f(y)
$. We also stipulate that $\text{slack}_f(0^n)=f(0^n)$.
The **total variation distance** between two probability distributions $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ is defined as:
$
d_{\text{TV}}(\rho_1, \rho_2)
{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\frac{1}{2} \sum_{x} \lvert \rho_1(x) - \rho_2(x)\rvert
$.
The following are well-known facts, which were also used in [@blais2014dnf]:
\[fact: average density increases\] For a monotone function $f: \{0,1\}^n \rightarrow R$, for all $k_1, k_2$ satisfying $0\leq k_1 \leq k_2 \leq n$, it is the case that $\mu_f(k_1) \leq \mu_f(k_2)$.
\[fact: boolean cube anti-concentration\] For all $k$, it is the case that $
\binom{n}{k}
\leq
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}} \cdot 2^n
$.
Now, we justify two claims we made in the introduction:
\[claim: learning lower bound\] For sufficiently small $\epsilon_0$, for all sufficiently large $n$, any algorithm that learns an unknown monotone probability distribution over $\{0,1\}^n$ requires at least $\Omega(2^{0.15 n})$ samples from the distribution.
From the argument in [@valiant2011testing pages 1937-1938] it follows that if two probability distributions are $\epsilon$-close in total variation distance, then their entropy values are within $2 \log(N_{\text{universe}}) \epsilon=2\epsilon n$. Therefore, the task of estimating the entropy of an unknown monotone probability up to an additive error $2 \epsilon n$ is not harder than learning it to withing total variation distance $\epsilon$. But in [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing page 39] it is shown that at least $\sqrt{T}/10$ samples are required for the task of distinguishing whether the unknown monotone probability distribution has entropy at least $0.81n$ or at most $n/2+\log T$. Picking $T=2^{0.3n}$ gives us the desired learning lower bound.
\[claim: monotonicity testing\] Given Theorem \[theorem: learning upper bound\], one can test whether an unknown distribution $\rho$ over the Boolean cube is monotone or $\epsilon$-far from monotone with $O(\frac{2^n}{ n\epsilon^2})$ samples.
This can be done in the following way: (1) Use our learning algorithm with an error parameter $\epsilon/4$. This gives us a description of a distribution $\hat{\rho}$, which is $\epsilon/4$-close to $\rho$ if $\rho$ is monotone. (2) Estimate, using the estimator of [@valiant2011power], the total variation distance between $\rho$ and $\hat{\rho}$ up to $\epsilon/4$. If the result is closer to $\epsilon$ than to zero, output NO. (3) Compute the total variation distance between $\hat{\rho}$ and the closest monotone probability distribution. If this distance estimate is closer to $\epsilon$ than to zero, output NO, otherwise output YES. For constant $\epsilon$, the sample complexity is dominated by step (3), which is $O(\frac{2^n}{\epsilon^2 n})$. It is easy to see that a monotone probability distribution will pass this test, whereas a distribution that is $\epsilon$-far from monotone will fail either step (2) or step (3).
Learning monotone probability distributions
===========================================
**Algorithm for learning a monotone probability distribution over the Boolean cube** (given sample access from a distribution $\rho$, which is monotone over $\{0,1\}^n$).
1. Set $A:=\frac{1}{2n} \cdot e^{\frac{1}{2000} \cdot n^{1/5}}$. For all $h \geq n/2$, set $L_h:=\max\left(\log\left(2 n A \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{2^n} \right
),0\right)$
Similarly, for all $h$, satisfying $n/2 > h \geq 0$, set: $L_h:= L_{n/2}=\log\left(2 n A \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{n/2}}{2^n} \right)$.
2. Set $N:= \frac{2^n}{A} \cdot \frac{192}{\epsilon^2} \cdot (n+9 \sqrt{n}+4)
$
Draw $N$ samples from the probability distribution $\rho$ and denote the multiset of these samples as $S$.
3. For all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$, if $||x|| < 9 \sqrt{n}$, then set $\hat{\phi}(x)=0$, otherwise compute: $$\hat{\phi}(x)
:=
\frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}} \cdot \frac{\max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = \left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}
\bigg \lvert \bigg \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \bigg\} \bigg \rvert}{N}$$ Do this by first making a look-up table, which given arbitrary $z \in \{0,1\}^n$ returns the number of times $z$ was encountered in $S$. Then, use this look-up table to compute the necessary values of $\lvert \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert$ by querying all these values of $z$ in the lookup table and summing the results up.
4. For all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$, compute the following: $
\hat{\rho}(x)
=\hat{\phi}(x)+\frac{1}{2^n}\left(1-\sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^n} \hat{\phi}(y) \right)
$
5. Output the value table of $\hat{\rho}$.
In this section we prove our upper-bound on the sample complexity of learning an unknown monotone probability distribution over the Boolean cube. We restate the theorem:
We present the algorithm in Figure \[algorithm: learning\]. The number of samples drawn from $\rho$ is $N=\frac{2^{n}}{2^{\Theta_{\epsilon}(n^{1/5})}}$. The run-time, in turn, is dominated by computing the values of $\hat{\phi}$ in step (3), in which the construction of the lookup table takes $O(n \cdot 2^n)$ time, and the time spent computing each $\hat{\phi}(x)$ can be upper bounded by the product of: (i) the number of pairs $(y,z)$ that simultaneously satisfy $y \preceq z \preceq x$ and $||y||-||x|| =L_{||x||}$, which can be upper-bounded by $O(n^{L_{||x||}} \cdot 2^{L_{||x||}})$ and (ii) the time it takes to look up a given $z$ in the lookup table, which can be upper-bounded by $O(n)$. Overall, this gives us a run-time upper bound of $O(2^{n+O_{\epsilon}(n^{1/5} \log n
)})$.
Now, the only thing to prove is correctness. Here is our main claim:
\[claim: learning main claim\] If the following conditions are the case:
- As a function of $h$, $L_h$ is non-increasing.
- For all $h$, we have that $L_h \leq 9 \sqrt{n}$.
- $$\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{L_{h}}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$$
- $$\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n L_h \cdot \left(\begin{cases}
\frac{400}{n^{2.5}} &\text{ if $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$}
\\ \frac{40000}{n} &\text{ if $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}< h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 &\text{ if $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)\leq \frac{\epsilon^2}{20000}$$
Then, with probability at least $2/3$, it is the case that $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}$.
We verify in Appendix A, subsection \[appendix subsection: verifying the conditions on L\_h\], that $L_h$ indeed satisfy the conditions above. In fact, the values of $L_h$ and $A$ were chosen specifically to satisfy the constraints above. We prove Claim \[claim: learning main claim\] in Section \[section: proof lerning main claim\], after we develop our main structural lemma in Section \[section: slackness regret\].
We now bound the contribution to the $L_1$ distance between $\hat{\phi}$ to $\rho$ that comes from points of Hamming weight less than $9 \sqrt{n}$. Since $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \rho(x)=1$ and $\rho$ is monotone, then whenever $||x|| \leq n/2$ we have $\rho(x) \leq 1/2^{n/2}$. Therefore, for sufficiently large $n$ we have: $$\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| < 9 \sqrt{n} }
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
=\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| < 9 \sqrt{n} }
\rho(x)
\leq
\frac{n^{9 \sqrt{n}}}{2^{n/2}}
\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}$$ Combining this with the bound in Claim \[claim: learning main claim\] we get: $$\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq \epsilon$$ Overall, we have: $$\begin{gathered}
2 \cdot d_{\text{TV}}(\rho, \hat{\rho})
=
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\rho}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
=\\
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) + \frac{1}{2^n}\left(1-\sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^n} \hat{\phi}(y) \right) \bigg \rvert
\leq\\
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
+\left \lvert 1-\sum_{y \in \{0,1\}^n} \hat{\phi}(y) \right \rvert
=\\
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
+
\left \lvert
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\rho(x)-\hat{\phi}(x)
\right \rvert
\leq
2 \cdot \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq 2 \cdot \epsilon
\end{gathered}$$ Thus, with probability at least $2/3$, we have $d_{\text{TV}}(\rho, \hat{\rho}) \leq \epsilon$.
Main lemma {#section: slackness regret}
----------
Here we prove the following structural lemma. The lemma, as well as its proof are inspired by the main structural lemma of [@blais2014dnf] (i.e. Lemma \[lemma BHST\]). Recall that the slack of a monotone function was given in Definition \[definition: monotone slack\].
We use the following process to obtain $f$:
1. Set $f^*=\rho$.
2. For $h=0$ to $n$:
- If it is the case that: $$\label{equation: process condition}
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{h}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=h} \text{slack}_{f^*}(x)
<
R_h \cdot \frac{1}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{h}}$$ Then, for all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$, satisfying $||x||=h$ set: $
f^{*}(x) :=
f^{*}(x)-
\text{slack}_{f^*}(x)
$.
3. Set $f=f^*$ and output $f$.
By inspection, $f^*$ remains monotone and positive at every iteration of the process. Therefore, $f$ is also monotone and positive.
Property (1) in the Lemma is true, because at every step of the process, values of $f^*$ only decrease.
To see why Property (2) is the case, note that the value $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\rho(x)-f(x)$ is zero in the beginning of the process, and at a step $h$ it either stays the same or decreases by at most $R_h \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{j}}$. Therefore we can upper-bound: $$\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\rho(x)-f(x)
\leq
\sum_{h=0}^n
R_h \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq \zeta$$
Now, the only thing left to prove is that property (3) holds.
From the definition of monotone slack, it follows that modifying the value of a function on points of Hamming weight $j$ does not affect the slack on any point with Hamming weight lower than $j$. Therefore, the value $\frac{1}{\binom{n}{j}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=j} \text{slack}_{f^*}(x)
$ will not change as $f^*$ changes after the $j$th iteration. Therefore, this value will be equal to $\frac{1}{\binom{n}{j}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=j} \text{slack}_{f}(x)
$. Thus, the value of $\frac{1}{\binom{n}{j}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=j} \text{slack}_{f}(x)
$ is either zero or at least $R_h \cdot \frac{1}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{h}}$.
Now, we need the following generalization of Fact \[fact: average density increases\]:
\[observation: generalized basic fact\] Let $f$ be an arbitrary monotone function $\{0,1\}^n \rightarrow R$. Then, for any $k$ in $[0,n-1]$ it is the case that: $$\mu_f(k+1)
\geq
\mu_f(k)
+\frac{1}{\binom{n}{k+1}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=k+1}
\text{slack}_f(x)$$
For all $x$ with $||x||=k+1$ we have that: $$f(x)
=
\text{slack}_f(x)
+
\max_{y \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||y||=k \text{ and } y \preceq x} f(y)$$ We have that: $$\max_{y \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||y||=k \text{ and } y \preceq x} f(y)
\geq
\mathbb{E}_{y \sim \{0,1\}^n \text{ conditioned on } ||y||=k \text{ and } y \preceq x}[f(y)]$$ Therefore: $$f(x)
\geq
\text{slack}_f(x)
+
\mathbb{E}_{y \sim \{0,1\}^n \text{ conditioned on } ||y||=k \text{ and } y \preceq x}[f(y)]$$ Averaging the both sides, we get: $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_f(k+1)
\geq
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{k+1}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=k+1}
\text{slack}_f(x)
+\\
\mathbb{E}_{x \sim \{0,1\}^n \text{ conditioned on } ||x||=k+1}
\mathbb{E}_{y \sim \{0,1\}^n \text{ conditioned on } ||y||=k \text{ and } y\preceq x}[f(y)]=\\
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{k+1}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=k+1}
\text{slack}_f(x)
+
\mathbb{E}_{y \sim \{0,1\}^n \text{ conditioned on } ||y||=k}[f(y)]=\\
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{k+1}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=k+1}
\text{slack}_f(x)
+
\mu_f(k)
\end{gathered}$$ Above, the penultimate equality followed from a simple probabilistic fact: if one picks a random $n$-bit string of Hamming weight $k+1$ and then sets to zero a random bit that equals to one, this is equivalent to picking a random $n$-bit string of weight $k$.
Using the Observation \[observation: generalized basic fact\] repeatedly and recalling that in Definition \[definition: monotone slack\] we defined $\text{slack}_f(0^n)=f(0^n)$, we get that for all $h$: $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_{f}(h)
\geq
\mu_f(0)+
\sum_{k=1}^h \frac{1}{\binom{n}{k}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=k}
\text{slack}_f(x)
=\\
\sum_{k=0}^h \frac{1}{\binom{n}{k}}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x||=k}
\text{slack}_f(x)
\geq
\sum_{k=0}^h
R_k \cdot \frac{1}{\sum_{j=k}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=k \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}
\end{gathered}$$ Summing this up over all $h$ and changing the order of summations, we get: $$\begin{gathered}
1=\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \rho(x)
\geq \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} f(x)
= \sum_{h=0}^n \binom{n}{h} \mu_{f}(h)
\geq\\
\sum_{h=0}^n \binom{n}{h}
\sum_{k=0}^h
R_k \cdot \frac{1}{\sum_{j=k}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=k \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}=\\
\sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{h=k}^n \binom{n}{h}
R_k \cdot \frac{1}{\sum_{j=k}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=k \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}
=\\
\sum_{k=0}^n
R_k \cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=k \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}
\end{gathered}$$ This finishes the proof of the lemma.
Now, we prove the following corollary:
We use Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\], setting $\zeta=\epsilon/4$ and $$R_h=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\epsilon^2}{16} &\text{ if $h \leq h_0$} \\
0 &\text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ We verify the precondition to Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\], by using that $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \rho(x)-f(x) \leq \frac{\epsilon}{4}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{h=0}^n R_h \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
=
\sum_{h=0}^{h_0} \frac{\epsilon^2}{16} \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq
\sum_{h=0}^{h_0} \frac{\epsilon^2}{16} \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j=h_0}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq\\
\sum_{h=0}^{h_0} \frac{\epsilon^2}{16} \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{2^n \cdot \epsilon/4}
=\frac{\epsilon}{4} \cdot
\sum_{h=0}^{h_0} \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{2^n}
\leq \frac{\epsilon}{4}
\end{gathered}$$ Now, we simply check that properties (1), (2) and (3) of the Lemma directly imply the properties (1), (2) and (3) of the Corollary respectively. This completes the proof.
To use Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\], we need an upper bound on the value of $\frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}$. The following claim provides such an upper bound:
\[claim: bound on sum of binomials divided by binomial\] For all sufficiently large $n$, for all $h$, satisfying $0 \leq h \leq n$, it is the case that: $$\frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq
\left(\begin{cases}
\frac{2}{n^2} &\text{ if $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$}
\\ \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}< h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\
200 \cdot \frac{h-n/2}{n} &\text{ if $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)$$
See Appendix A, subsection \[appendix subsection: proof of claim bound on sum of binomials divided by binomial\]
Proof of claim \[claim: learning main claim\] {#section: proof lerning main claim}
---------------------------------------------
For all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$, satisfying $9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||$, we define the following quantity: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation definition of phi learning}
\phi(x)
{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor}} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = {\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor}} \text{ }
\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]
=\\
\frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor}} \: \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = {\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor }} \text{ }
\sum_{z \text{ s.t. } y \preceq z \preceq x} \rho(z)\end{gathered}$$
Observe that since for every such $x$ and $y$ there are $2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}$ values of $z$ satisfying $y \preceq z \preceq x $, and $\rho$ is a monotone probability distribution, it has to be the case that $\phi(x) \leq \rho(x)$ for all $x$ on which $\phi(x)$ is defined.
More interestingly, we will be claiming that $\phi$ is (in terms of $L_1$ distance) a good approximation to $\rho$, but first we will show that $\hat{\phi}$ is a good approximation to $\phi$, assuming that the values $L_h$ are not too small:
\[claim: phi hat is close to phi\] If it is the case that $\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{L_{h}}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$, then, with probability at least $7/8$, it is the case that: $$\label{equation big union bound for phi learning}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}$$
See Appendix A, subsection \[appendix subsection: phi hat is close to phi\], for the proof, which follows using tail bounds.
Now, we apply Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\] to $\rho$, with value $\zeta:=\epsilon/100$. For now, we postpone setting the values of $R_h$, which we will do later in our derivation (of course, we will then check that the required constraint is indeed satisfied by these values).
This gives a positive monotone function $f$ that satisfies the three conditions of Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\]. We separate all the values of $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$ for which $9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x|| $ into two kinds: **good** and **bad**. We say that $x$ is **bad** if there is some $y$ for which $0 \leq ||x||-||y|| <\left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor$ and $\text{slack}_f(y)$ is non-zero. Otherwise, $x$ if **good**. Clearly, for a given Hamming weight value, wither every point with this Hamming weight is good, or every such point is bad.
We can write: $$\label{equation: decomposition to good and bad learning}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
=
\sum_{\text{good } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
+
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert$$
Now, we bound the two terms above separately. If $x$ is good, then it is the case that for all $y$ satisfying $||x||-\lfloor L_{||x||} \rfloor < ||y|| \leq ||x||$ we have $\text{slack}_{f}(x)=0$, and therefore $f(y)=\max_{y' \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s. t. } y' \preceq y \text{ and } ||y||-||y'||=1} f(y')$. Using this relation recursively, we obtain that: $$f(x)=\max_{y \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s. t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y||=\lfloor L_{||x||} \rfloor} f(y)$$ Therefore, since $f$ is monotone, we obtain that: $$f(x)=
\frac{1}{2^{\lfloor L_{||x||} \rfloor}} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = \lfloor L_{||x||} \rfloor} \text{ }
\sum_{z \text{ s.t. } y \preceq z \preceq x} f(z)$$ By Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\], it is the case $\rho(x) \geq f(x)$. This, together with the equation above and Equation \[equation definition of phi learning\] implies: $$\phi(x) \geq f(x)$$ But we also know that $\rho(x) \geq \phi(x)$. Therefore: $$\label{equation bound on good points learning}
\sum_{\text{good } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{\text{good } x}
\lvert \rho(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}$$ Where the last inequality follows from Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\].
Now, we bound the contribution of bad points. Since $\phi(x) \leq \rho(x)$, $f(x) \leq \rho(x)$ and recalling the definition of a bad point, we get: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation: bounding bad one learning}
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\max(\phi(x),f(x))
\leq
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\rho(x)
\leq\\
\sum_{h_2=9 \sqrt{n} }^n \mu_\rho(h_2) \cdot \binom{n}{h_2} \cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; \left(h_2-\left \lfloor L_{h_2} \right \rfloor < ||x|| \leq h_2\right) \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}\end{gathered}$$ Since Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\] gives us a bound on a weighed sum of indicator variables of the form $ \mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}$, we would like to upper-bound the expression above by such a weighted sum. To do this, to every Hamming weight value $h$ that has a point $x$ with non-zero $\text{slack}_f(x)$ (we call such Hamming weight value $h$ **slacky**) we “charge” every value $h_2$, for which points of Hamming weight $h_2$ are rendered bad because $h$ is slacky. This will happen only if $h_2 \geq h$ and $h_2-\left \lfloor L_{h_2} \right \rfloor < h$ . But since $\left \lfloor L_{h_2} \right \rfloor$ can only decrease as $h_2$ increases, the latter can happen only if $h_2 - \left \lfloor L_h \right \rfloor < h$. Therefore:
$$\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{h=0}^n \left(\sum_{h_2=h}^{h+\left \lfloor L_{h} \right \rfloor-1} \mu_\rho(h_2) \cdot \binom{n}{h_2} \right)
\cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}$$
Now, to upper-bound $\mu_{\rho}(h_2)$, we need the following claim:
\[claim: upper bound on level density\] For any monotone probability distribution $\rho$ it is the case that for all $h$: $$\mu_{\rho}(h)
\leq
\frac{1}{\sum_{j=h}^n \binom{n}{j}}$$
This follows immediately from Fact \[fact: average density increases\] and that $\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n} \rho(x)=1$.
Claim \[claim: upper bound on level density\], Equation \[equation: bounding bad one learning\] and Claim \[claim: bound on sum of binomials divided by binomial\] together imply: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation: bounding bad 2 learning}
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{h=0}^n \left(\sum_{h_2=h}^{h+\left \lfloor L_{h} \right \rfloor-1} \frac{\binom{n}{h_2}}{\sum_{j=h_2}^n \binom{n}{j}} \right)
\mathbf{1}_{\left(\substack{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n:\\ \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}\right)}
\; \leq\\
\sum_{h=0}^n \left(\sum_{h_2=h}^{h+\left \lfloor L_{h} \right \rfloor-1} \left(\begin{cases} \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $h_2 < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 200 \cdot \frac{h_2-n/2}{n} &\text{ if $h_2 \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \end{cases} \right) \right)
\mathbf{1}_{\left(\substack{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n:\\ \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}\right)}
\; \leq \\
\sum_{h=0}^n L_h \cdot \left(\begin{cases} \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $h+L_h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 200 \cdot \frac{h+L_h-n/2}{n} &\text{ if $h+L_h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)
\mathbf{1}_{\left(\substack{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n:\\ \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}\right)}\end{gathered}$$
Now, we claim that: $$\label{equation: two cases adding L_h does not increase by more than 10}
\left(\begin{cases} \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $h+L_h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 200 \cdot \frac{h+L_h-n/2}{n} &\text{ if $h+L_h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)
\leq
10 \cdot
\left(\begin{cases} \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 200 \cdot \frac{h-n/2}{n} &\text{ if $h\geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)$$ This follows by considering three cases (i) $h+L_h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$, in which case this is equivalent to $\frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} \leq \frac{2000}{\sqrt{n}}$, which is trivially true. (ii) $h \geq n/2 + \sqrt{n}$, in which case since $L_h \leq 9 \sqrt{n}$, we have that $\frac{h+L_h-n/2}{n}\leq 10 \cdot \frac{h-n/2}{n}$ (iii) $h+L_h \geq n/2 +\sqrt{n}$, but $h < n/2 +\sqrt{n}$, in which case since $L_h \leq 9 \sqrt{n}$, we have that $\frac{h+L_h-n/2}{n}\leq \frac{\sqrt{n}+L_h}{n}\leq{10}{\sqrt{n}}$.
Combining Equations \[equation: bounding bad 2 learning\] and \[equation: two cases adding L\_h does not increase by more than 10\], we get: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation: bounding bad 3 learning}
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq\\
\sum_{h=0}^n L_h \cdot 10 \cdot \left(\begin{cases} \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 200 \cdot \frac{h-n/2}{n} &\text{ otherwise} \end{cases} \right) \cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}\end{gathered}$$ Recall that we postponed setting the values of $R_h$. The equation above motivates us to set: $$R_h:=\frac{200}{\epsilon} \cdot L_h \cdot \left(\begin{cases} \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 200 \cdot \frac{h-n/2}{n} &\text{ otherwise} \end{cases} \right)$$ Now, we check the constraint on $R_h$ in Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\]. Using Claim \[claim: bound on sum of binomials divided by binomial\] and the premise of Claim \[claim: learning main claim\]:
$$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{h=0}^n R_h \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq
\sum_{h=0}^n R_h \cdot \left(\begin{cases}
\frac{2}{n^2} &\text{ if $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$}
\\ \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}< h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\
200 \cdot \frac{h-n/2}{n} &\text{ if $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)
= \\
\frac{200}{\epsilon}
\cdot
\sum_{h=0}^n L_h \cdot \left(\begin{cases}
\frac{400}{n^{2.5}} &\text{ if $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$}
\\ \frac{40000}{n} &\text{ if $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}< h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\
40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n} \right)^2 &\text{ if $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)
\leq \frac{\epsilon}{100} =\zeta\end{gathered}$$
Therefore, Lemma \[lemma: slack regret\], together with Equation \[equation: bounding bad 3 learning\] implies that:
$$\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{h=0}^n \frac{\epsilon}{20} \cdot R_h \cdot
\mathbf{1}_{\exists \: x \in \{0,1\}^n: \; ||x||=h \: \land \: \text{slack}_f(x) \neq 0}
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{20}$$
Now, using triangle inequality and then combining the inequality above with Equations \[equation: chernoff plus hoeffding learning\], \[equation: decomposition to good and bad learning\] and \[equation bound on good points learning\] we get:
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{bound on everything except super low learning}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq\\
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x) \bigg \rvert
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\bigg \lvert \phi(x)-\rho(x) \bigg \rvert \leq \\
\frac{\epsilon}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{100}+\frac{\epsilon}{20} \leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}\end{gathered}$$
Estimating the distance to uniform
==================================
**Algorithm for the estimation of distance to uniform efficiently** (given sample access from a distribution $\rho$, which is monotone over $\{0,1\}^n$.)
1. Pick set $h_0$ to be an integer for which it is the case that: $$\label{equation: h_0 is good}
\frac{\epsilon}{4}
\leq
\Pr_{x \sim \{0,1\}^n}
[||x|| \geq h_0]
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{2}$$ Do this by going through every integer candidate $h_{\text{candidate}}$ in the interval and computing the fraction of points $x$ in $\{0,1\}$ for which $||x|| \geq h_{\text{candidate}}$. Finally, pick $h_0$ to be one of $h_{\text{candidate}}$ for which the relation above holds.
2. Set $N_1:=\frac{32 \ln 2}{\epsilon^2}$. Draw $N_1$ samples from the probability distribution $\rho$ and denote the multiset of these samples as $S_1$.
3. Set: $$\hat{d}_1 :=\frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{
\bigg \lvert \bigg \{z \in S_1: ||z|| \geq h_0 \bigg\} \bigg \rvert}{N_1}$$
4. Set $L:= \left \lfloor \frac{\sqrt{n} \epsilon^4}{512} \right \rfloor$.
5. Set $$N_2:=\frac{2^n}{2^L} \cdot \frac{192}{\epsilon^2}
\cdot
\bigg(
n \ln 2+L \ln n +4 \ln 2
\bigg)$$ Draw $N_2$ samples from the probability distribution $\rho$ and denote the multiset of these samples as $S_2$.
6. For all $x$, satisfying $L \leq ||x|| < h_0$, compute: $$\hat{\phi}(x)
:=
\frac{1}{2^L} \cdot \frac{\max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L}
\bigg \lvert \bigg \{z \in S_2: y \preceq z \preceq x \bigg\} \bigg \rvert}{N_2}$$ Do this by first making a look-up table, which given arbitrary $z \in \{0,1\}^n$ returns the number of times $z$ was encountered in $S_2$. Then, use this look-up table to compute the necessary values of $\lvert \{z \in S_2: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert$ by querying all these values of $z$ in the lookup table and summing the results up.
7. Compute the following: $$\hat{d}_2
:=
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\sum_{x \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\bigg \lvert
\hat{\phi}(x)-\frac{1}{2^n}
\bigg \rvert$$
8. Output $\hat{d}_1+\hat{d}_2$.
In this section we prove our upper-bound on the sample complexity of estimating the distance from uniform of an unknown monotone probability distribution over the Boolean cube. We restate the theorem:
We present the algorithm in Figure \[algorithm: estimating the distance to uniform efficiently\]. The number of samples drawn from $\rho$ is $N_1+N_2=\frac{2^{n}}{2^{\Theta_{\epsilon}(\sqrt{n})}}$. The run-time, in turn, is dominated[^7] by computing the values of $\hat{\phi}$ in step (6), in which the construction of the lookup table takes $O(n \cdot 2^n)$ time and the time spent computing each $\hat{\phi}(x)$ can be upper bounded by the product of: (i) the number of pairs $(y,z)$ that simultaneously satisfy $y \preceq z \preceq x$ and $||x||-||y|| =L$, which can be upper-bounded by $O(n^L \cdot 2^L)$ and (ii) the time it takes to look up a given $z$ in the lookup table, which can be upper-bounded by $O(n)$. Overall, this gives us a run-time upper bound of $O(2^{n+O_{\epsilon}(\sqrt{n} \log n
)})$.
Now, the only thing left to prove is correctness. First of all, it is not a priori clear that there exists a value of $h_0$ satisfying Equation \[equation: h\_0 is good\] (on Figure \[algorithm: estimating the distance to uniform efficiently\]). This is true for the following reason: imagine changing $h_{\text{candidate}}$ from $n$ to $0$ by decrementing it in steps of one. Then $\Pr_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}[||x|| \geq h_{\text{candidate}}]$ will increase from $\frac{1}{2^n}$ to $1$ and by Fact \[fact: boolean cube anti-concentration\] it will not increase by more than $\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}$ at any given step. For sufficiently large $n$ we have $\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}<\frac{\epsilon}{4}$. Then it is impossible to skip over the interval between $\frac{\epsilon}{4}$ and $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$ in just one step of length at most $\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}$, and therefore Equation \[equation: h\_0 is good\] (on Figure \[algorithm: estimating the distance to uniform efficiently\]) will be the case for some value of $h_{\text{candidate}}$.
We decompose the total variation distance between $\rho$ and the uniform distribution into three terms: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation: grand scheme for distance to uniform}
\frac{1}{2} \cdot \sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
=\\
\frac{1}{2} \cdot \sum_{\substack{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. }\\ ||x|| \geq h_0}}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
+
\frac{1}{2} \cdot \sum_{\substack{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. }\\ L \leq ||x|| < h_0}}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
+
\frac{1}{2} \cdot \sum_{\substack{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. }\\ ||x|| < L}}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\end{gathered}$$ We argue that the first term is well approximated by $\hat{d_1}$, the second term is well approximated by $\hat{d_2}$, and the third term is negligible. As the reader will see, out of these three terms, the middle term is the least trivial to prove guarantees for.
We will first handle the first term: From the triangle inequality, Hoeffding’s bound and Equation \[equation: h\_0 is good\] (on Figure \[algorithm: estimating the distance to uniform efficiently\]) it follows immediately that with probability at least $7/8$ it is the case that: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation: bound on d 1}
\bigg \lvert
\hat{d}_1
-
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| \geq h_0}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\bigg \rvert
\leq \\
\bigg \lvert
\hat{d}_1
-
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| \geq h_0}
\rho(x)
\bigg \rvert
+
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| \geq h_0}
\frac{1}{2^n}
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{8}
+
\frac{\epsilon}{4}
=
\frac{3\epsilon}{8}
\end{gathered}$$
Now, we use the two following facts: (i) Since $\sum_x \rho(x)=1$ and $\rho$ is monotone, for every $x$ with $||x|| \leq L$ it should be the case that $\rho(x) \leq \frac{1}{2^{n-L}}$. (ii) The number of different values of $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$ for which $||x|| \leq L$ can be upper bounded by $n^{L}$. We get for sufficiently large $n$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation: bound on TV contribution of the very low points}
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| < L}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } ||x|| < L}
\left( \frac{1}{2^n}+ \rho(x) \right)
\leq\\
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
n^L \cdot \left(\frac{1}{2^n}+\frac{1}{2^{n-L}} \right)
=
o(1)
\leq \frac{\epsilon}{8}
\end{gathered}$$
The rest of this section will be dedicated to proving the following claim:
\[claim: main technical claim\] With probability at least $7/8$ it is the case that: $$\label{equation: bound on d 2}
\bigg \lvert
\hat{d}_2
-
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\bigg \rvert
\leq \frac{\epsilon}{2}$$
Once this is proven, it follows by a union bound that with probability at least $3/4$ both Equations \[equation: bound on d 1\] and \[equation: bound on d 2\] will be the case. This, together with Equation \[equation: bound on TV contribution of the very low points\], when substituted into Equation \[equation: grand scheme for distance to uniform\] will imply that: $$\bigg \lvert
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)- \frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert-(\hat{d}_1+\hat{d}_2)
\bigg \rvert
\leq \epsilon$$ This will imply the correctness of our algorithm.
Proof of Claim \[claim: main technical claim\]
----------------------------------------------
For all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$, satisfying $L \leq ||x|| < h_0$, we define the following quantity: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation definition of phi}
\phi(x)
{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\frac{1}{2^L} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L} \text{ }
\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]
=\\
\frac{1}{2^L} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L} \text{ }
\sum_{z \text{ s.t. } y \preceq z \preceq x} \rho(z)\end{gathered}$$
Observe that since for every such $x$ and $y$ there are $2^L$ values of $z$ satisfying $y \preceq z \preceq x $, and $\rho$ is a monotone probability distribution, it has to be the case that $\phi(x) \leq \rho(x)$ for all $x$ on which $\phi(x)$ is defined.
We will be claiming that $\phi(x)$ is (in terms of $L_1$ distance) a good approximation to $\rho(x)$, but first we will show that $\hat{\phi}(x)$ is a good approximation to $\phi(x)$:
With probability at least $7/8$, it is the case that: $$\label{equation big union bound for phi}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}$$
We claim that for any pair $(x,y)$, such that $\phi$ is defined on $x$ and $||x||-||y|| = L$, with probability at least $1-\frac{1}{8\cdot 2^n \cdot n^L}$ the following holds: $$\label{equation: chernoff plus hoeffding}
\frac{1}{2^L}
\bigg \lvert
\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]
-
\frac{
\lvert \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert}{N_2}
\bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot \max \left(\frac{1}{2^n}
,\frac{1}{2^L} \Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ] \right)$$ We use Chernoff’s bound to prove this as follows. Denote by $q$ the value $\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]$. If $q \geq \frac{2^L}{2^n}$ then by Chernoff’s bound we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\Pr \left[
\bigg \lvert
\lvert \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert
-qN_2
\bigg \rvert \geq \frac{\epsilon}{8} qN_2
\right]
\leq
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \right)^2 qN_2 \right)
\leq\\
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \right)^2 \frac{2^L}{2^n} \cdot N_2 \right)
=
\frac{1}{8\cdot 2^n \cdot n^L}
\end{gathered}$$ Otherwise, if we have $q < \frac{2^L}{2^n}$, then by Chernoff’s bound: $$\begin{gathered}
\Pr \left[
\bigg \lvert
\lvert \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert
-qN_2
\bigg \rvert \geq \frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot \frac{2^L}{2^n} \cdot N_2
\right]
\leq
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot \frac{2^L}{2^n} \cdot \frac{1}{q} \right)^2 q N_2 \right)
\leq\\
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \right)^2 \frac{2^L}{2^n} \cdot N_2 \right)
=
\frac{1}{8\cdot 2^n \cdot n^L}
\end{gathered}$$
Now, by taking a union bound, it follows that with probability $7/8$ for all such pairs $(x,y)$ Equation \[equation: chernoff plus hoeffding\] will be the case. For all $x$ on which $\phi$ is defined it then will be the case that: $$\bigg \lvert
\hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x)
\bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot \max \left(\frac{1}{2^n}
,\phi(x) \right)$$ Summing this for all $x$ in the domain of $\phi$ we get: $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{8}
\cdot
\left(
2^n \cdot \frac{1}{2^n}
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0} \phi(x)
\right)
\leq\\
\frac{\epsilon}{8}
\cdot
\left(
1
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0} \rho(x)
\right)
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}
\end{gathered}$$
Now, we apply Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\] to $\rho$. This gives a positive monotone function $f$ that satisfies the three conditions of Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\]. We separate all the values of $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$ for which $L \leq ||x|| < h_0 $ into two kinds: **good** and **bad**. Recall that by Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\] an element $x$ of $\{0,1\}^n$ for which $L \leq ||x|| < h_0 $ can have $\text{slack}_{f}(x)\neq 0$ only if $||x||=k_i$ for some $i$ between $1$ and $t$. We say that $x$ is **bad** if there is some $k_i$ for which $0 \leq ||x||-k_i \leq L$. Otherwise, $x$ if **good**.
We can write: $$\label{equation: decomposition to good and bad}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
=
\sum_{\text{good } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
+
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert$$
Now, we bound the two terms above separately. If $x$ is good, then it is the case that for all $z$ satisfying $||x||-L \leq ||z||\leq ||x||$ we have $\text{slack}_{f}(x)=0$, and therefore $f(z)=\max_{z' \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s. t. } z' \preceq z \text{ and } ||z||-||z'||=1} f(z')$. Using this relation recursively, we obtain that: $$f(x)=\max_{z \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s. t. } z \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||z||=L} f(z)$$ Therefore, since $f$ is monotone, we obtain that: $$f(x)=
\frac{1}{2^L} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = L} \text{ }
\sum_{z \text{ s.t. } y \preceq z \preceq x} f(z)$$ By Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\], it is the case $\rho(x) \geq f(x)$. This, together with the equation above and Equation \[equation definition of phi\] implies: $$\phi(x) \geq f(x)$$ But we also know that $\rho(x) \geq \phi(x)$. Therefore: $$\label{equation bound on good points}
\sum_{\text{good } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{\text{good } x}
\lvert \rho(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}$$ Where the last inequality follows from Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\].
Now, we bound the contribution of bad points.
$$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\max(\phi(x),f(x))
\leq
\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\rho(x)
=\\
\sum_{k \in [L, h_0] \text{ s.t. for some $k_i$: $\lvert k-k_i\rvert \leq L$} } \mu_\rho(k) \cdot \binom{n}{k}\end{gathered}$$
Now, by Claim \[claim: upper bound on level density\] we have $\mu_\rho(k) \leq \frac{1}{2^n} \cdot \frac{4}{\epsilon}$ and by Fact \[fact: boolean cube anti-concentration\] we have that $\binom{n}{k} \leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}} \cdot 2^n$. Combining these two facts with the inequality above we get:
$$\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\left(
\frac{1}{2^n} \cdot \frac{4}{\epsilon}
\right) \cdot
\left(
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}} \cdot 2^n
\right)
\cdot
\left(
L \cdot t
\right)
=
\frac{4}{\epsilon} \cdot
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}
\cdot
L \cdot t$$ Substituting the value of $L$ and the upper bound on $t$ from Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\] we get: $$\sum_{\text{bad } x}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\frac{4}{\epsilon} \cdot
\frac{2}{\sqrt{n}}
\cdot
\frac{\epsilon^4 \sqrt{n}}{512}
\cdot \frac{16}{\epsilon^2}
=
\frac{\epsilon}{4}$$ Combining this with Equations \[equation: decomposition to good and bad\] and \[equation bound on good points\] we get: $$\label{equation: phi and f are close to each other}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{2}$$
Overall, we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg \lvert
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \rho(x)-1/2^n \rvert
-
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-1/2^n \rvert
\bigg \rvert
\leq\\
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \hat{\phi}(x)- \rho(x) \rvert
\leq
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \hat{\phi}(x) - \phi(x) \rvert
+\\
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \phi(x)-f(x) \rvert
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert f(x) - \rho(x) \rvert\end{gathered}$$ This three terms can be bound using respectively Equation \[equation big union bound for phi\], Corollary \[corollary: slack regularity old lemma\] and Equation \[equation: phi and f are close to each other\]. This gives us: $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg \lvert
2 \cdot
\hat{d}_2
-
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\bigg \lvert \rho(x)-\frac{1}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\bigg \rvert
=\\
\bigg \lvert
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \rho(x)-1/2^n \rvert
-
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } L \leq ||x|| < h_0}
\lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-1/2^n \rvert
\bigg \rvert
\leq
\epsilon\end{gathered}$$
Therefore, with probability at least $7/8$ Equation \[equation: bound on d 2\] holds, which proves Claim \[claim: main technical claim\] and completes the proof of correctness.
Estimating the support size
===========================
In this section we prove our upper-bound on the sample complexity of estimating the support size of an unknown monotone probability distribution over the Boolean cube. Recall that a probability distribution $\rho$ is **well-behaved** if for every $x$ either $\rho(x)=0$ or $\rho(x) \geq 1/2^n$. We restate the theorem:
The algorithm we use is listed in Figure \[algorithm: estimating the support size\].
**Algorithm for the estimation of support size.** (given sample access from the distribution.)
1. Set $$M_1= \frac{2^n}{2^{\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64}\sqrt{n}}} \left(\ln{\frac{32}{\epsilon}}+1 \right)$$
2. Take $M_1$ samples from the probability distributions. Call the set of these samples $S_1$.
3. Set $$M_2=\frac{32 \ln 2}{\epsilon^2}$$
4. Pick $M_2$ elements of $\{0,1\}^n$ uniformly at random. Call these samples $S_2$.
5. We say that a point $y$ is **covered** if in $S_1$ there exists at least one $z$, so that $z \preceq y$. One can check if a point $y$ is covered by going through all the $M_1$ elements in $S_1$. Using this checking procedure, compute the fraction $\hat{\eta}$ of the elements in $S_2$ that are covered.
6. Output $\hat{\eta}$.
Clearly, the sample complexity is: $$O\left(\frac{2^n}{2^{\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64}\sqrt{n}}} \left(\ln{\frac{32}{\epsilon}}+1 \right)\right)=\frac{2^n}{2^{\Theta_{\epsilon}(\sqrt{n})}}$$ In turn, the run-time is: $$O\left(\frac{2^n}{2^{\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64}\sqrt{n}}} \left(\ln{\frac{32}{\epsilon}}+1 \right)\cdot \frac{32 \ln 2}{\epsilon^2}\right)=\frac{2^n}{2^{\Theta_{\epsilon}(\sqrt{n})}}$$
Now, all is left to prove is correctness.
Let $\eta$ denote the fraction of elements in $\{0,1\}^n$ that are covered by our samples in $S_1$. Then, a random element of $\{0,1\}^n$ is covered with probability $\eta$. Therefore, by the Hoeffding bound it follows that: $$\label{equation algorithm for support size 1}
\Pr_{S_2}\left[|\hat{\eta}-\eta|>\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right]
\leq
2 \exp\left(-2\left(\frac{\epsilon}{4}\right)^2 M_2\right) = \frac{1}{
8}$$ The last equality follows by substituting the value of $M_2$.
Since $\rho$ is monotone, it has to be the case that every point that is covered is in the support of $\rho$. Hence, the support size of $\rho$ is at least $\eta \cdot 2^n$.
Now, all we need to show is that $\eta \cdot 2^n$ is not likely to be much smaller than the support size of $\rho$. We call a point $x$ in the support of $\rho$ **good** if there are at least $2^{\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}}$ points $y$ each of which satisfying: (i) $y$ belongs to the support of $\rho$. (ii) $x \preceq y$. If a point in the support of $\rho$ is not good, then it is **bad**. We will show that the bad points are few, while a lot of the good points are likely to be covered.
Let $f_{\text{support}}$ be defined as follows: $$f_{\text{support}} {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\begin{cases} 1 \text{ if } \rho(x) \neq 0 \\ 0 \text{ otherwise}\end{cases}$$ In other words, $f_{\text{support}}$ is the indicator function of the support of $\rho$. Since $\rho$ is a monotone probability distribution, $f_{\text{support}}$ is a monotone function. Therefore, applying Lemma \[lemma BHST\], there exists a function $g=g_1 \lor ... \lor g_t$ that $\epsilon/4$-approximates $f_{\text{support}}$, where $t \leq 8/\epsilon$ and each $g_i$ is a monotone DNF with terms of width exactly $k_i$. Additionally, $g(x) \leq f(x)$ for all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$
For all $i$, $g_i$ contains at most $\frac{\epsilon^2}{32} \cdot 2^n$ bad points.
Recall that $g_i$ is $k_i$-regular, and therefore every point $x$ on which $g_i(x)=1$ needs to have Hamming weight $\lvert \lvert x \rvert \rvert \geq k_i$.
If $x$ satisfies $g_i(x)=1$ and $\lvert \lvert x \rvert \rvert \geq k_i+\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}$, then $x$ has to be good
Since $g_i$ is a DNF and $g_i(x)=1$ then $x$ satisfies at least one of the terms of $g_i$. If there are more than one, arbitrarily pick one of them. Let this term be $$t(y)=\bigwedge_{j \in H_1} y_j$$ The width of this AND has to be $k_i$, therefore $|H|=k_i$. Since $\lvert \lvert x \rvert \rvert \geq k_i+\frac{\epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}$, there must be $\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}$ values of $j$ for which $x_j =1$ but $j$ is not in $H_1$. Denote the set of these values of $j$ as $H_2$.
Now, consider an element $y \in\{0,1\}^n$ satisfying the criteria:
- For all $j$ in $H_1$, $y_j=1$.
- For all $j$ neither in $H_1$ nor in $H_2$, $y_j=0$.
Clearly, $t(y)=1$, which implies $g_i(y)=1$, $g(y)=1$, and $f_{\text{support}}(y)=1$. Also, for all $j$, we have $y_j \leq x_j$, and therefore $y \preceq x$. Finally, for all $j$ in $H_2$ the value of $y_j$ can be set arbitrarily to zero or one, and therefore there are $2^{|H_2|}$ such points, which is at least $2^{\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}}$. Therefore, $x$ is a good point.
Thus, we can upper-bound the number of bad points $x$ on which $g_i(x)=1$ by: $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg \lvert \bigg\{x \in \{0,1\}^n: g(x)=1 \text{ and }k_i+\frac{\epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n} > \sum_j x_j \geq k_i \bigg\} \bigg \rvert
\leq\\
\bigg \lvert \bigg\{x \in \{0,1\}^n: k_i+\frac{\epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n} > \sum_j x_j \geq k_i \bigg\} \bigg \rvert
=\sum_{j=k_i}^{k_i+\frac{\epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}-1} \binom{n}{j} \leq
\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n} \binom{n}{n/2}
\end{gathered}$$
By Fact \[fact: boolean cube anti-concentration\], for sufficiently large $n$, it is the case that $\binom{n}{n/2} \leq 2 \cdot \frac{2^n}{\sqrt{ n}}$. This implies that the expression above is upper-bounded by $\frac{\epsilon^2}{32} \cdot 2^n$, which completes the proof of this claim.
Since $g=g_1 \lor ... \lor g_t(x)$, our claim implies the following:
$$\begin{gathered}
\bigg \lvert \bigg\{ x: g(x)=1 \text{ and $x$ is bad}
\bigg\} \bigg \rvert
\leq
\sum_{i=1}^t \bigg \lvert \bigg\{ x: g_i(x)=1 \text{ and $x$ is bad}
\bigg\} \bigg \rvert
\leq\\ t \cdot \frac{\epsilon^2}{32} \cdot 2^n
\leq \frac{8}{\epsilon} \cdot \frac{\epsilon^2}{32} \cdot 2^n=
\frac{\epsilon}{4} \cdot 2^n
\end{gathered}$$
In addition, there could be at most $\frac{\epsilon}{4} \cdot 2^n$ bad points among the points on which $f_\text{support}$ and $g$ disagree. Thus, in total, there are at most $\frac{\epsilon}{2} \cdot 2^n$ bad points.
Finally, we need to argue that it is likely that many of the good points get covered:
Suppose there are $G$ good points. Then, with probability at least $7/8$ it will be the case that at least $1-\epsilon/4$ fraction of these good points are covered.
For every good point $x$ there exist least $2^{\frac{\epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}}$ values of $y$ for which i) $x \preceq y$ and ii) $y$ is in the support of $\rho$. Since $x \preceq y$, if $y$ is ever picked from the distribution, then $x$ will be covered. Since $y$ is in the support of $\rho$, and $\rho$ is well-behaved, we have $\rho(y) \geq \frac{1}{2^n}$. Together, these imply that the probability that a random sample from $\rho$ covers $x$ is at least $\frac{2^{\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}}}{2^n}$. Hence, the probability that any of the $M_1$ i.i.d. samples taken from $\rho$ does not cover $x$ is at most: $$\left(1- \frac{2^{\frac{\epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}}}{2^n}\right)^{M_1}
=\left(1- \frac{2^{\frac{\epsilon^2}{64} \sqrt{n}}}{2^n}\right)^{\frac{2^n}{2^{\frac{ \epsilon^2}{64}\sqrt{n}}} \left(\ln{\frac{32}{\epsilon}}+1 \right)}
\leq
\frac{1}{e^{\ln \frac{32}{\epsilon}}}=\frac{\epsilon}{
32}$$
Let $C$ denote a random variable, whose value equals to the number of the good points (out of total $G$) covered after taking $M_1$ i.i.d. samples from $\rho$.
The value of $C$ has to satisfy these two constraints: (i) It has to be between $0$ and $G$ (ii) By linearity of expectation, $E[C]\geq (1-\frac{\epsilon}{32})G$. Thus, to finish the proof of the Lemma, it is sufficient to show the following claim:
If, for some fixed $G$, a random variable $C$ is supported on $[0,G]$ and $E[C] \geq (1-\frac{\epsilon}{32})G$, then $\Pr[C\geq( 1- \epsilon/4)G] \geq 7/8$.
This is immediate from Markov’s inequality for the random variable $G-C$.
Now, we put it all together. Suppose that the bad events we previously identified do not happen. In particular, we know that with probability at least $7/8$ we have: $$\bigg\lvert \hat{\eta} - \eta \bigg \rvert \leq \frac{\epsilon}{4}$$ Additionally, we also know that with probability at least $7/8$ it is the case that: $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg\lvert \frac{\big \lvert \left\{x: \substack{f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and}\\ \text{$x$ is good and covered} }
\right\} \big \rvert}{2^n} - \frac{ \big\lvert \left\{ x: \substack{f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and }\\\text{$x$ is good}}
\right\} \big\rvert}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\leq\\
\frac{\epsilon}{4} \cdot \frac{\lvert \{ x:f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and $x$ is good}
\} \rvert}{2^n}
\end{gathered}$$ By union bound, the probability that none of this bad events happens is at least $3/4$, which we will henceforth assume. Using the inequalities above together with the fact that the fraction of bad points is at most $\epsilon/2$ we get: $$\begin{gathered}
\bigg\lvert \hat{\eta}-\frac{\lvert \{ x: f_{\text{support}}(x)=1
\} \rvert}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\leq
\bigg\lvert \hat{\eta} - \eta \bigg \rvert
+
\bigg\lvert \eta - \frac{\lvert \{ x: f_{\text{support}}(x)=1
\} \rvert}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
=\\
\bigg\lvert \hat{\eta} - \eta \bigg \rvert
+
\bigg\lvert \frac{\lvert \{ x: f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and $x$ is covered}
\} \rvert}{2^n} - \frac{\lvert \{ x: f_{\text{support}}(x)=1
\} \rvert}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
\leq
\bigg\lvert \hat{\eta} - \eta \bigg \rvert
+\\
\bigg\lvert \frac{\big\lvert \left\{ x: \substack{f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and}\\ \text{$x$ is good and covered}}
\right\} \big\rvert}{2^n} - \frac{\big\lvert \left\{ x: \substack{ f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and }\\ \text{$x$ is good}}
\right\} \big\rvert}{2^n} \bigg \rvert
+\\
\frac{\lvert \{ x: f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and $x$ is bad}
\} \rvert}{2^n}
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{4} \cdot \frac{\lvert \{ x: f_{\text{support}}(x)=1 \text{ and $x$ is good}
\} \rvert}{2^n} + \frac{\epsilon}{2}
\leq\\
\frac{\epsilon}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{4}+\frac{\epsilon}{2}=\epsilon
\end{gathered}$$ This completes the proof of correctness.
A lower bound on tolerant testing of uniformity
===============================================
In this section we prove a sample complexity lower bound on the problem of tolerantly testing the uniformity of an unknown monotone probability distribution over $\{0,1\}^n$: the task of distinguishing a distribution that is $o(1)$-close to uniform from a distribution that is sufficiently far from uniform. Recall the theorem:
A basic building block of our construction is the following:
For a member of the Boolean cube $x$, the **subcube distribution** $S_x$ is the probability distribution that picks $y$ uniformly, subject to $y \succeq x$.
All our distributions will be mixtures of such subcube distributions. For all the mixtures we will use, each subcube in the mixture is given the same weight. This method involving subcube distributions was used in [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing] to prove property testing lower bounds for monotone probability distributions.
We construct $\Delta_{\text{Close}}$ to have only one member, which is equal to the uniform mixture of $S_x$ for all $\binom{n}{n^{0.5-0.01}}$ values of $x$ with Hamming weight $n^{0.5-0.01}$.
We define a random member of $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$ to be the uniform mixture of $\frac{1}{2} 2^{n^{0.5-0.01}}$ subcube distributions $S_{x_j}$, where each of the $x_j$ is picked randomly among all the members of the Boolean cube with Hamming weight $n^{0.5-0.01}$.
We show that any member of $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$ is sufficiently far from uniform by upper-bounding the size of its support (i.e. the number of elements that have non-zero probability). Each of the subcube distributions has a support size of $2^{n-n^{0.5-0.01}}$. The support size of a mixture of distributions is at most the sum of the supports sizes of the respective distributions. Therefore, the support size of a member of $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$ is at most: $$2^{n-n^{0.5-0.01}} \cdot \frac{1}{2} 2^{n^{0.5-0.01}}=\frac{1}{2} 2^{n}$$ This is sufficient to conclude that any member of $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$ is $1/2$-far from uniform.
A random member $D_1$ of $\Delta_{\text{Far}}$ and the sole member $D_2$ of $\Delta_{\text{Close}}$ cannot be reliably distinguished using only $o\left(2^{\frac{n^{0.5-0.01}}{2}}\right)$ samples. This follows by the argument used in [@rubinfeldservedio2009testing]: Because of the number of samples, with probability at least $0.99$, the samples drawn from a random distribution from $D_1$ will all be from different subcube distributions. Also with probability at least $0.99$, this will also be true for the sole distribution of $D_2$. If both of these things happen (which is the case with probability at least $0.98$), the samples will be statistically indistinguishable. Thus, no tester can distinguish between $D_1$ and $D_2$ with an advantage greater than $0.02$.
Finally, we need to prove that $D_2$ is $o(1)$-close to the uniform distribution. Here, the proof goes as follows. Both $D_2$ and the uniform distribution are symmetric with respect to a change of indices. This implies that the distance between these probability distributions equals to the distance between random variables $R_2$ and $R_1$, where $R_1$ is distributed as the Hamming weight of a random sample from $D_2$, whereas $R_2$ is distributed as the Hamming weight of uniformly random element of the Boolean cube. It is not hard to see that $R_1$ and $R_2$ are distributed according to binomial distributions with slightly different parameters. Now, the problem is equivalent to proving that the two following probability distributions are $o(1)$-close in total variation distance:
- A sum of $n$ i.i.d. uniform random variables from $\{0,1\}$.
- A sum of $n-n^{0.5-0.01}$ i.i.d. uniform random variables from $\{0,1\}$.
It is convenient to first bound the variation distance between 1) the sum of $k$ i.i.d. uniform random variables from $\{0,1\}$ and 2) $k+1$ i.i.d. uniform random variables from $\{0,1\}$, where $k$. We write the total variation distance as: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2^k}
+
\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \bigg \lvert \frac{1}{2^k}\binom{k}{i} - \frac{1}{2^{k-1}} \binom{k-1}{i} \bigg\rvert
=
\frac{1}{2^k}
\left(1+\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \bigg \lvert \binom{k-1}{i} - \binom{k-1}{i-1} \bigg\rvert
=
\right)=\\
\frac{1}{2^k}
\left(1+\sum_{i=1}^{(k-1)/2}\left( \binom{k-1}{i} - \binom{k-1}{i-1}\right)
+
\sum_{i=(k-1)/2}^{k-1}\left( \binom{k-1}{i-1} - \binom{k-1}{i} \right)
\right)
= \\
\frac{1}{2^k}
\left(
1+\binom{k-1}{(k-1)/2}-1
+\binom{k-1}{(k-1)/2}-1
\right)
=O \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right)
\end{gathered}$$ We telescoped the sums, and used the inequality that for all $k$, we have that $\binom{k}{k/2} \leq O\left(\frac{2^k}{\sqrt{k}} \right)$. For simplicity, we assumed above that $k-1$ is even, the odd case can be handled analogously. Thus, we have an upper bound of $O(1/\sqrt{k})$ on the total variation distance.
Using this, together with the triangle inequality for total variation distance, we bound the variation distance between 1) the sum of $n$ i.i.d. uniform random variables from $\{0,1\}$ and 2) the sum of $n-n^{0.5-0.01}$ i.i.d. uniform random variables from $\{0,1\}$ by $$O\left(\frac{n^{0.5-0.01}}{{n}^{0.5}}\right)=o(1)$$.
This finishes the proof.
Appendix A
==========
Verifying the conditions on $L_h$. {#appendix subsection: verifying the conditions on L_h}
----------------------------------
Recall that we defined $A$ and $L_h$ as follows:
- $A:=\frac{1}{2n} \cdot e^{\frac{1}{2000} \cdot n^{1/5}}$
- For all $h \geq n/2$, we set $L_h:=\max\left(\log\left(2 n A \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{2^n} \right
),0\right)$
- For all $h$, satisfying $n/2 > h \geq 9 \sqrt{n}$, we set: $L_h:= L_{n/2}=\log\left(2 n A \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{n/2}}{2^n} \right)$.
Here we prove that these values of $A$ and $L_h$ satisfy the following four conditions:
- As a function of $h$, $L_h$ is non-increasing.
- For all $h$, we have that $L_h \leq 9 \sqrt{n}$.
- $$\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{L_{h}}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$$
- $$\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n L_h \cdot \left(\begin{cases}
\frac{400}{n^{2.5}} &\text{ if $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$}
\\ \frac{40000}{n} &\text{ if $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}< h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 &\text{ if $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)\leq \frac{\epsilon^2}{20000}$$
We will need the following standard fact can be proven, for example, by comparing $\sum_{i=0}^N i^k$ and $\int_{i=0}^N i^k \: di$:
\[fact: sum of kth powers\] For any positive constant $k$ and for sufficiently large $n$, it is the case that: $
\sum_{i=0}^n i^k=(1+o(1))\:\frac{n^{k+1}}{k+1}
$.
The truth of conditions (a) and (b) follows immediately by inspection. In fact a statement stronger than (b) is the case: for sufficiently large $n$ we have $L_h\leq \log(n \cdot A) \leq 2 \cdot n^{1/5} $. Regarding condition (c), we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{L_{h}}}
=\\
\frac{A}{2^n}
\left(
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^{n/2}
\binom{n}{h}
\frac{1}{2nA} \cdot \frac{2^n}{\binom{n}{n/2}}
+
\sum_{h=n/2}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\min \left(\frac{1}{2nA} \cdot \frac{2^n}{\binom{n}{h}} ,1\right)
\right)
\leq
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n \frac{1}{2n} \leq \frac{1}{2}\end{gathered}$$ Finally, recall that for all $h$, we have $L_h \leq 2 \cdot n^{1/5}$. For sufficiently large $n$, we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{equation verifying condition d 1}
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n L_h \cdot \left(\begin{cases}
\frac{400}{n^{2.5}} &\text{ if $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$}
\\ \frac{40000}{n} &\text{ if $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}< h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\ 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 &\text{ if $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)\
\leq \\
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^{n/2-\sqrt{n \ln n}} 2 \cdot n^{1/5} \cdot \frac{400}{n^{2.5}}
+
\sum_{h=n/2-\sqrt{n \ln n}}^{n+\sqrt{n}} 2 \cdot n^{1/5} \cdot \frac{40000}{n}
+
\sum_{h=n/2+\sqrt{n}}^n 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 \cdot L_h
\leq \\
\frac{\epsilon^2}{40000}+\sum_{h=n/2+\sqrt{n}}^n 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 \cdot L_h\end{gathered}$$ We now bound the last term using Hoeffding’s inequality to bound the value of $\binom{n}{h}$, making a change of variables with $i:=\frac{n-h}{2}$ and then using Fact \[fact: sum of kth powers\] to bound the resulting summation. Precisely, we have the following chain of inequalities (some of which are only true for sufficiently large $n$): $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{h=n/2+\sqrt{n}}^n 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 \cdot L_h
\leq\\
\sum_{h=n/2}^n 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 \cdot \: \max\left(\log\left(2n A \cdot \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{2^n} \right
),0\right)
\leq \\
\sum_{h=n/2}^n 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 \cdot \; \max\left(\log\left(2n A \cdot \exp \left(-2\frac{(h-n/2)^2}{n} \right) \right
),0\right)
=\\\sum_{i=0}^{\sqrt{\frac{n}{2} \ln(2nA)}}
\frac{40000}{\ln 2} \cdot \left( \frac{i}{n} \right)^2
\left(
\ln (2nA) - 2 \cdot \frac{i^2}{n}
\right)
=\\
\frac{40000}{\ln 2} \cdot
\left((1+o(1)) \: \frac{\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{2} \ln(2nA)}\right)^3}{3n^2} \:
\ln (2nA) - (1+o(1)) \:2 \cdot \frac{\left(\sqrt{\frac{n}{2} \ln(2nA)}\right)^5}{5n^3}
\right)\end{gathered}$$
Finally, simplifying and substituting the value of $A$ we get: $$\sum_{h=n/2+\sqrt{n}}^n 40000 \cdot \left(\frac{h-n/2}{n}\right)^2 \cdot L_h
\leq
(1+o(1)) \cdot
\frac{40000}{\ln 2} \cdot \frac{\sqrt{2}}{30 \sqrt{n}}
\left( \ln(2nA) \right)^{5/2}
\leq\frac{\epsilon^2}{40000}$$ Condition (d) is verified by combining Equation \[equation verifying condition d 1\] with the equation above.
Proof of Claim \[claim: bound on sum of binomials divided by binomial\] {#appendix subsection: proof of claim bound on sum of binomials divided by binomial}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we prove that for all sufficiently large $n$, for all $h$, satisfying $0 \leq h \leq n$, it is the case that: $$\frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq
\left(\begin{cases}
\frac{2}{n^2} &\text{ if $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$}
\\ \frac{200}{\sqrt{n}} &\text{ if $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}< h < n/2+\sqrt{n}$} \\
200 \cdot \frac{h-n/2}{n} &\text{ if $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$}\end{cases} \right)$$
We first handle the case when $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$. If, furthermore, $h > 11n/20$, then it is sufficient to prove that $\frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}} \leq 10$, which is trivially true. Thus, we now assume that $h \leq 11n/20$
It is the case that: $$\label{equation: ratio of consequtive binomials.} \frac{\binom{n}{k}}{\binom{n}{k-1}}=\frac{1-\frac{k-n/2-1}{n/2}}{1+\frac{k-n/2}{n/2}}$$ Therefore, we can write: $$\frac{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}{\binom{n}{h}}
=
\sum_{j=h}^n \prod_{k=h+1}^j
\frac{1-\frac{k-n/2-1}{n/2}}{1+\frac{k-n/2}{n/2}}$$ Since $n/2 +\sqrt{n} \leq h \leq 11n/20$, for sufficiently large $n$ we have that $h+\frac{1}{4} \cdot \frac{n}{h-n/2}\leq n$. Using this, we can truncate the sum above, and then lower-bound the result by the product of the smallest summand with the total number of summands, getting: $$\frac{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}{\binom{n}{h}}
\geq
\sum_{j=h}^{h+\frac{1}{4} \cdot \frac{n}{h-n/2}} \prod_{k=h+1}^j
\frac{1-\frac{k-n/2-1}{n/2}}{1+\frac{k-n/2}{n/2}}
\geq
\frac{1}{4} \cdot
\frac{n}{h-n/2} \cdot \prod_{k=h+1}^{h+\frac{1}{4} \cdot\frac{n}{h-n/2}}
\frac{1-\frac{k-n/2-1}{n/2}}{1+\frac{k-n/2}{n/2}}$$ Now, we analogously lower-bound the product by lower-bounding each of the factors, and then use the fact that since $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$, it is the case that $ \frac{n}{h-n/2} \leq h-n/2$. We get: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}{\binom{n}{h}} \geq
\frac{1}{4} \cdot
\frac{n}{h-n/2} \cdot \left(
\frac{1-\frac{h+\frac{1}{4} \cdot\frac{n}{h-n/2}-n/2-1}{n/2}}{1+\frac{h+\frac{1}{4} \cdot \frac{n}{h-n/2}-n/2}{n/2}}\right)^{
\frac{1}{4} \cdot \frac{n}{h-n/2}}
\geq\\ \frac{1}{4} \cdot
\frac{n}{h-n/2} \cdot \left(
\frac{1-1.25\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}}{1+1.25\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4} \cdot \frac{n}{h-n/2}}\end{gathered}$$ Finally, we use the fact that for all $w$ between zero and one we have that $\frac{1}{1+w}=1-w+w^2-...\geq 1-w$. We get: $$\frac{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}{\binom{n}{h}} \geq
\frac{1}{4} \cdot
\frac{n}{h-n/2} \cdot \left(
1-1.25\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{2n}{h-n/2}}$$
Now, recall that for any value $w$ between zero and one, we have that $\ln(1-w)=-\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \frac{w^i}{i} \geq -\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} w^i=-\frac{w}{1-w}$. Using this, and recalling that $h\leq 11n/20$, we get that: $$\ln
\left(
1-1.25\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}\right)
\geq
-\frac{1.25\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}}{1-1.25\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}}
\geq
-\frac{1.25\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}}{1-1.25\frac{11n/20-n/2}{n/2}}
=-\frac{20}{7} \frac{h-n/2}{n}$$ Combining the two previous equations together we get: $$\frac{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}{\binom{n}{h}} \geq
\frac{1}{4} \cdot \frac{n}{h-n/2} \cdot \exp
\left(
-\frac{20}{7} \frac{h-n/2}{n}
\cdot
\frac{1}{2} \cdot
\frac{n}{h-n/2}
\right)
\geq
\frac{1}{200} \cdot \frac{n}{h-n/2}$$ This completes the proof in the case $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$.
Given our bound in the range $h \geq n/2+\sqrt{n}$, to show the desired bound in the range $n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)} < h < n/2 + \sqrt{n}$ it is sufficient to show that $\frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}$ is non-decreasing, as a function of $h$. If $h < n/2$, this follows immediately, because, as a function of $h$, the numerator is non-decreasing, whereas the denominator is decreasing. If $h \geq n/2$, then using Equation \[equation: ratio of consequtive binomials.\], we get: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\sum_{j \geq h+1}^n \binom{n}{j}}{\binom{n}{h+1}}
=
\frac{1+\frac{h+1-n/2}{n/2}}{1-\frac{h-n/2}{n/2}}
\cdot
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{h}}
\cdot
\sum_{j \geq h+1}^n \frac{1-\frac{j-n/2-1}{n/2}}{1+\frac{j-n/2}{n/2}} \binom{n}{j-1}
\leq\\
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{h}}
\cdot
\sum_{j \geq h+1}^n \binom{n}{j-1}
\leq
\frac{1}{\binom{n}{h}}
\cdot
\sum_{j \geq h+1}^{n+1} \binom{n}{j-1}
=
\frac{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}{\binom{n}{h}}\end{gathered}$$
Which implies that $\frac{\binom{n}{h+1}}{\sum_{j \geq h+1}^n \binom{n}{j}} \geq \frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}$
Finally, for the range $h \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}$ we can use Hoeffding’s bound: $$\frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\sum_{j \geq h}^n \binom{n}{j}}
\leq
\frac{\binom{n}{h}}{\frac{1}{2} \cdot 2^n}
\leq
2 \cdot \Pr_{x \sim \{0,1\}^n}\left[x \leq n/2-\sqrt{n \ln(n)}\right]
\leq
2
\cdot \exp \left(-2\ln n \right)
=
\frac{2}{n^2}$$
Proof fo Claim \[claim: phi hat is close to phi\] {#appendix subsection: phi hat is close to phi}
-------------------------------------------------
Recall that: $$N {\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\frac{2^n}{A} \cdot \frac{192}{\epsilon^2} \cdot (n+9 \sqrt{n}+4)$$ Our algorithm for learning a monotone probability distribution drew $N$ samples from the probability distribution $\rho$ and the resulting multiset of samples was denoted as $S$. For all $x$ in $\{0,1\}^n$, if $||x|| < 9 \sqrt{n}$, we set $\hat{\phi}(x)=0$, otherwise we set: $$\hat{\phi}(x)
:=
\frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}} \cdot \frac{\max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||y||-||x|| = \left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}
\bigg \lvert \bigg \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \bigg\} \bigg \rvert}{N}$$ Where $L_h$ is a specific value associated to each value of $h$. We also defined for all $x$ with $x \geq 9 \sqrt{n}$ the value: $$\begin{gathered}
\phi(x)
{\mathrel{\overset{\makebox[0pt]{\mbox{\normalfont\tiny\sffamily def}}}{=}}}\frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor}} \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = {\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor}} \text{ }
\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]
=\\
\frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor}} \: \cdot \max_{y \text{ s.t. } y \preceq x \text{ and } ||x||-||y|| = {\left \lfloor L_{||x||}\right \rfloor }} \text{ }
\sum_{z \text{ s.t. } y \preceq z \preceq x} \rho(z)\end{gathered}$$
Here we prove that if it is the case that $\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{L_{h}}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$, then, with probability at least $7/8$, it is the case that: $$\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}$$
We claim that for any pair $(x,y)$, such that $\phi$ is defined on $x$ and $||x||-||y|| = \left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor$, with probability at least $1-\frac{1}{8\cdot 2^n \cdot n^{9 \sqrt{n}}}$ the following holds: $$\label{equation: chernoff plus hoeffding learning}
\bigg \lvert
\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]
-
\frac{
\lvert \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert}{N}
\bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot \max \left(\frac{A}{2^n}
, \Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ] \right)$$ We use Chernoff’s bound to prove this as follows. Denote by $q$ the value $\Pr_{z \sim \rho}[ y \preceq z \preceq x ]$. If $q \geq \frac{A}{2^n}$ then by Chernoff’s bound we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\Pr \left[
\bigg \lvert
\lvert \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert
-qN
\bigg \rvert \geq \frac{\epsilon}{8} qN
\right]
\leq\\
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \right)^2 qN \right)
\leq
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \right)^2 \frac{A}{2^n} \cdot N \right)
=
\frac{1}{8\cdot 2^n \cdot n^{9 \sqrt{n}}}\end{gathered}$$ Otherwise, if we have $q < \frac{A}{2^n}$, then by Chernoff’s bound: $$\begin{gathered}
\Pr \left[
\bigg \lvert
\lvert \{z \in S: y \preceq z \preceq x \} \rvert
-qN
\bigg \rvert \geq \frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot \frac{A}{2^n} \cdot N
\right]
\leq
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot \frac{A}{2^n} \cdot \frac{1}{q} \right)^2 q N \right)
\leq\\
2\exp\left(-\frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\epsilon}{8} \right)^2 \frac{A}{2^n} \cdot N \right)
=
\frac{1}{8\cdot 2^n \cdot n^{9 \sqrt{n}}}\end{gathered}$$
Now, by taking a union bound, it follows that with probability $7/8$ for all such pairs $(x,y)$ Equation \[equation: chernoff plus hoeffding learning\] will be the case. Recalling the definition of $\phi$, for all $x$ on which $\phi$ is defined it then will be the case that: $$\bigg \lvert
\hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x)
\bigg \rvert
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{8} \cdot
\max \left( \frac{1}{2^{\left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}} \frac{A}{2^n}
, \phi(x) \right)$$ Now, we sum this for all $x$ in the domain of $\phi$ and use the fact that $\lfloor L_h \rfloor \geq L_h+1$, and then use that $\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{L_{h}}} \leq \frac{1}{2}$. We get: $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\bigg \lvert \hat{\phi}(x)-\phi(x) \bigg \rvert
\leq\\
\frac{\epsilon}{8}
\cdot
\left(
\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||}
\frac{A}{2^{ \left \lfloor L_{||x||} \right \rfloor}}
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||} \phi(x)
\right)
=\\
\frac{\epsilon}{8}
\cdot
\left(
\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{ \lfloor L_{h} \rfloor}}
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||} \phi(x)
\right)
\leq\\
\frac{\epsilon}{8}
\cdot
\left(
2 \cdot
\frac{1}{2^n}
\cdot
\sum_{h=9 \sqrt{n}}^n
\binom{n}{h}
\cdot
\frac{A}{2^{L_{h}}}
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||} \phi(x)
\right)
\leq\\
\frac{\epsilon}{8}
\cdot
\left(
1
+
\sum_{x \in \{0,1\}^n \text{ s.t. } 9 \sqrt{n} \leq ||x||} \rho(x)
\right)
\leq
\frac{\epsilon}{4}\end{gathered}$$
[^1]: CSAIL at MIT, and the Blavatnik School of Computer Science at Tel Aviv University, [[email protected]]{}. Ronitt Rubinfeld’s research was supported by FinTech@CSAIL, MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and Research Collaboration Agreement No. W1771646, and NSF grants: CCF-1650733, CCF-1740751, CCF-1733808, and IIS-1741137.
[^2]: CSAIL at MIT, [[email protected]]{}. Arsen Vasilyan’s research was supported by the NSF grant IIS-1741137 and EECS SuperUROP program.
[^3]: i.e. using monotonicity in an essential way and going beyond the bounds known for arbitrary probability distributions.
[^4]: By **reliably** we henceforth mean that the probability of success is at least $2/3$.
[^5]: i.e. subsets of $\{0,1\}^n$ that have the same Hamming weight.
[^6]: We later re-define these notions in order to adapt them for the technical details we ignore in the introduction.
[^7]: Step 1 requires only $2^n{{\rm poly}}(n)$ time, which is less than what step (6) requires. By inspection, other steps require even less run-time. Incidentally, the task in step 1 can be done much faster by randomized sampling, but since this is not the run-time bottleneck, we use this direct approach for the sake of simplicity.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A time-dependent gravitational constant or mass would correctly describe the suspected increasing of both: the Astronomical unit and the eccentricity of the Lunar orbit around the Earth'
author:
- 'Ll. Bel[^1]'
title: |
Earth and Moon orbital anomalies\
[*Si non è vero, è ben trovato* ]{}
---
[*1.- The model*]{}
The gravitational model below, although it was initially motivated by a desire to show the potentiality of time dependent solutions of Einstein’s equations, is essentially a pure Newtonian-like one, and differs from the classical model by the very simple substitution:
$$\label{G}
\mu\rightarrow (1-p\,t)\mu, \ \ \ \mu=Gm$$
where[^2] $p$ is a constant whose tentative value I assume to be $1.5\times 10^{-20} s^{-1}$, and where $p\,t$ is supposed to be small enough so that $(p\,t)^2$ is negligible during the whole duration of the processes to be considered below.
Using obvious assumptions and notation, the equations of motion of a point body of unit mass moving in the gravitational field created by a point source of mass $m$ may thus be derived from the time dependent Hamiltonian:
$$\label{H}
H=\frac12(\dot r^2+r^2\dot\varphi^2)-(1-p\,t)\frac{\mu}{r}, \ \ \ \mu=Gm$$
that leads to the following equations:
$$\label{Equ1}
\ddot{r}-r\dot{\varphi}^2=-\frac{\mu}{r^2}(1-p\,t)$$
$$\label{Equ2}
\dot J=2\dot{r}\dot{\varphi}+r\ddot{\varphi}=0 \ \ \hbox{with} \ \ J=r^2\dot\varphi$$
as well as:
$$\label{dH}
\dot H=\frac{p\mu}{r}$$
[*2.- Increasing of the astronomical unit and the Moon to Earth distance*]{}
The following example assumes that both the Earth and the Sun can be dealt with as two point bodies and that the Earth deviates from a circle of radius $r=a$, the astronomical unit, at time $t$ by a small constant amount $\delta r$ after a short interval of time $\delta t$. More precisely, we assume that at the present epoch we have:
$$\label{r1}
r=a \quad \ddot r=0$$
Using the second assumption above and the definition of $J$ we get:
$$\label{r2}
r=\frac{J^2}{\mu}(1+p\,t) \ \ \hbox{and so:} \ \ \dot r=p\frac{J^2}{\mu}=p\,a$$
that leads to the following result:
$$\label{dota}
\dot a=p\,a =0.07\, m\,yr^{-1}$$
[*Mutating mutandis*]{} the Sun by the Earth , the Earth by the Moon and the astronomical unit [**a**]{} by the mean distance b of the Moon from the Earth I get:
$$\label{bu}
\dot b=p\,b =0.000182\, m\,yr^{-1}$$
[*3.-Increasing of the Earth around the Sun and the Moon around the Earth orbits eccentricities*]{}
Using the classical formula satisfied by the eccentricity $e$ :
$$\label{ecc}
e=\sqrt{1+\frac{2HL^2}{\mu^2}}$$
where the kinetic moment $J$ is constant and the energy $H$ given by (\[H\]) is time dependent, we obtain:
$$\label{dotecc}
\dot e=\frac{J^2}{e\mu^2}\dot H \ \ \hbox{ or using (\ref{dH})} \ \ \dot e=\frac{J^2}{e\mu}\frac{p}{a}$$
With $m$ being the mass of the Sun, [**a**]{} the astronomical unit and $e$ the present eccentricity of the orbit of the Earth, the result is:
$$\label{dteE}
\dot e=2.81\times 10^{-11}\,yr^{-1}$$
[*Mutating mutandis*]{} the corresponding result giving the increasing of the eccentricity of the Lunar orbit is:
$$\label{dteM}
\dot e=8.73\times 10^{-12}\,yr^{-1}$$
[*Conclusion*]{}
From the four results here mentioned, $\dot{\bf a}$, [**e**]{}, ${\dot b}$, and $\dot{\bf e}$, only the first and the fourth have been well documented, and surprisingly both can be derived using the same parameter $p$. At this moment this can be considered as a coincidence or as an eventual new paradigm[^3].
Noteworthy is the fact that because the Hamiltonian is time dependent this model may have something to say about the anomalies of flybys. And last but not least it is also worthy to say that after so many theoretical physics models dedicated to explain the Pioneer’s anomaly, now unnecessary [@Slava], this one predicts a negligible contribution to this effect.
Let us consider the following spherically symmetric space-time model whose line-element is:
$$\label{1.12.2}
ds^2=-A^2dt^2+A^{-2}d\bar s^2, \quad d\bar s^2=M^2 dr^2+N^2r^2d\Omega^2$$
where to start with we assume that:
$$\label{1.13}
A^{-1}=\left(\frac{r-m}{r+m}\right)^{-1/2}+(1+2p\,t)^{1/2}-1, \ \ G=c=1$$
$$\label{1.14}
M=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+p^2r^2}},\ \ \ N=\sqrt{1-\frac{m^2}{r^2}}$$
If $p=0$ then (\[1.12.2\]) is the Schwarzschild model, $r$ being the radial Fock coordinate (x,y,z:harmonic):
$$\label{Sch}
A^2=\frac{r-m}{r+m}, \ \ M^2=1, \ \ N^2=1-\frac{m^2}{r^2}$$
If $m=0$ then (\[1.12.2\]) is Milne’s flat space-time model:
$$\label{Milne}
A^2=1+2p\,t, \ \ M^2=\frac{1}{1+p^2r^2}, \ \ N^2=1$$
But $t$ is not the global proper time that the model allows to use. It is the time that in both cases leads to a space model geometry:
$$\label{dsb2}
d\bar s^2=\frac{dr^2}{1+p^2r^2}+r^2d\Omega^2$$
that is time independent and has constant curvature, thus fulfilling Helmholtz’s free motion postulate.
The line-element (\[1.12.2\]) can be considered in general as an approximate vacuum solution of Einstein’s equations where the quality of the approximation depends on the relevant domains of $r$ and $t$ and the values of $m$ and $p$.
On the other hand, formal linear developments with respect to both $p$ and $m$, of (\[1.13\]) and (\[1.14\]) yield:
$$\label{Linear}
A^2=1-\frac{2m}{r}-2\left(1-3\frac{m}{r}\right)p\,t, \ \ M=N=1$$
so that the central force per unit mass is:
$$\label{force}
f=-\frac{d\ln A}{dr}=-\frac{m}{r^2}(1-p\,t)$$
At this formal approximation one has:
$$\label{Eins}
R^\alpha_\beta-\frac12\delta^\alpha_\beta=0$$
and the non zero strict components of the Riemann tensor are:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Riem}
R^1_{.212}=-\frac{m}{r}(1+p\,t), \ \ R^1_{.313}=R^1_{.212}\sin^2\theta \\
R^4_{.242}=-\frac{m}{r}(1-3p\,t), \ \ R^4_{.343}=R^4_{.343}\sin^2\theta \\
R^1_{.414}=-\frac{2m}{r^3}(1-3p\,t), \ \ R^3_{.232}=2\frac{m}{r}(1+p\,t)\end{aligned}$$
[*Acknowledgements*]{}
I wish to thank L. Acedo whose apt questions and comments helped me to write a better manuscript.
[9]{}
Ll. Bel, arXiv:/1003.1360v1 \[gr-qc\] J. D. Anderson and M. M. Nieto, in Relativity in Fundamental Astronomy, Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 261, 2009 S. A. Klioner, P. K. Seidelman & M. H. Soffel, eds. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6911168 Slava G. Turyshef et al. arXiv:1204.2507v1 C. Duval, G. Gibbons and P. Horv$\acute{a}$thy, Phys. Rev. D, [**43**]{}, 12, (1991) pp. 3907-3922 L. Acedo Phys. Essays 26, 4 (2013) pp. 567-573. J. Bootello, Journ. Modern Physics,[**4**]{}, (2013) pp. 207-212
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: $p$ in this paper corresponds to the product $3p$ of [@Bel]. Similar substitutions have been considered before: they are reminded in the introduction of [@Duval].
[^3]: See also references[@Duval], [@Acedo], [@Bootello]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Functional data analysis is typically conducted within the $L^2$-Hilbert space framework. There is by now a fully developed statistical toolbox allowing for the principled application of the functional data machinery to real-world problems, often based on dimension reduction techniques such as functional principal component analysis. At the same time, there have recently been a number of publications that sidestep dimension reduction steps and focus on a fully functional $L^2$-methodology. This paper goes one step further and develops data analysis methodology for functional time series in the space of all continuous functions. The work is motivated by the fact that objects with rather different shapes may still have a small $L^2$-distance and are therefore identified as similar when using an $L^2$-metric. However, in applications it is often desirable to use metrics reflecting the visualization of the curves in the statistical analysis. The methodological contributions are focused on developing two-sample and change-point tests as well as confidence bands, as these procedures appear do be conducive to the proposed setting. Particular interest is put on relevant differences; that is, on not trying to test for exact equality, but rather for pre-specified deviations under the null hypothesis.
The procedures are justified through large-sample theory. To ensure practicability, non-standard bootstrap procedures are developed and investigated addressing particular features that arise in the problem of testing relevant hypotheses. The finite sample properties are explored through a simulation study and an application to annual temperature profiles.\
[**Keywords:**]{} Banach spaces; Functional data analysis; Time series; Relevant hypotheses; Two-sample tests; Change-point tests; Bootstrap
[**MSC 2010:**]{} 62G10, 62G15, 62M10,
author:
- 'Holger Dette[^1]'
- 'Kevin Kokot$^\dagger$'
- 'Alexander Aue[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'adk-banach-13112017.bib'
title: 'Functional data analysis in the Banach space of continuous functions[^3]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
This paper proposes new methodology for the analysis of functional data, in particular for the two-sample and change-point settings. The basic set-up considers a sequence of Banach space-valued time series satisfying mixing conditions. The proposed methodology therefore advances functional data analysis beyond the predominant Hilbert space-based methodology. For the latter case, there exists by now a fully fledged theory. The interested reader is referred to the various monographs Ferraty and Vieu [@FerratyVieu2010], Horváth and Kokoszka [@HorvathKokoskza2012], and Ramsay and Silverman [@RamsaySilverman2005] for up-to-date accounts. Most of the available statistical procedures discussed in these monographs are based on dimension reduction techniques such as functional principal component analysis. However, the integral role of smoothness has been discussed at length in Ramsay and Silverman [@RamsaySilverman2005] and virtually all functions fit in practice are at least continuous. In such cases dimension reduction techniques can incur a loss of information and fully functional methods can prove advantageous. More recently, Aue et al. [@AueRiceSonmez2015], Bucchia and Wendler [@BucchiaWendler2015] and Horváth et al. [@HorvathKokoszkaRice2014] discussed fully functional methodology in a Hilbert space framework.
Since all functions utilized for practical purposes are at least continuous, and often smoother than that, it might be more natural to develop methodology for functional data in the space of continuous functions. This is the approach pursued in the present paper. While it might thus be reasonable to build statistical analysis adopting this point of view, there are certain difficulties associated with it. Giving up on the theoretically convenient Hilbert space setting means that substantially more effort has to be put into the derivation of theoretical results, especially if one is interested in the incorporation of dependent functional observations. Section \[sec:banach\_methods\] of the main part of this paper gives an introduction to Banach space methodology and states some basic results, in particular an invariance principle for a sequential process in the space of continuous functions.
The theoretical contributions will be utilized for the development of relevant two-sample and change-point tests in Sections \[sec:two-sample\] and \[sec:change-point\], respectively. Here the usefulness of the proposed approach becomes more apparent as differences between two smooth curves are hard to detect in practice. Additionally, small discrepancies might perhaps not even be of importance in many applied situations. Therefore the “relevant” setting is adopted that is not trying to test for exact equality under the null hypothesis, but allows for pre-specified deviations from an assumed null function. For example, if $C(T)$, the space of continuous functions on the compact interval $T$, is equipped with the sup-norm $\|f\|=\sup_{t\in T} | f(t) | $, and $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are the mean functions corresponding to two samples, interest is in hypotheses of the form $$\label{relevant}
H_0\colon \| \mu_1 - \mu_2 \| \leq \Delta
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
H_1\colon \| \mu_1 - \mu_2 \| > \Delta,$$ where $\Delta \geq 0$ denotes a pre-specified constant. The classical case of testing perfect equality, obtained by the choice $\Delta =0$, is therefore a special case of . However, in applications it might be reasonable to think about this choice carefully and to define precisely the size of change which one is really interested in. In particular, testing relevant hypotheses avoids the consistency problem as mentioned in Berkson [@berkson1938], that is: any consistent test will detect any arbitrary small change in the mean functions if the sample size is sufficiently large. One may also view this perspective as a particular form of a bias-variance trade-off. The problem of testing for a relevant difference between two (one-dimensional) means and other (finite-dimensional) parameters has been discussed by numerous authors in biostatistics (see Wellek [@wellek2010] for a recent review), but to the best of our knowledge these testing problems have not been considered in the context of functional data. It turns out that from a mathematical point of view the problem of testing relevant (i.e., $\Delta >0$) hypotheses is substantially more difficult than the classical problem (i.e., $\Delta =0$). In particular, it is not possible to work with stationarity under the null hypothesis, making the derivation of a limit distribution of a corresponding test statistic or the construction of a bootstrap procedure substantially more difficult.
Section \[sec:two-sample\] develops corresponding two-sample tests for the Banach space $C(T)$. Section \[sec:change-point\] extends these results to the change-point setting (see Aue and Horváth [@aueHorvath2013] for a recent review of change-point methodology for time series). Here, one has to deal with the additional complexity of locating the unknown time of change. Several new results for change-point analysis of functional data in $C(T)$ are put forward. A specific challenge here is the fact that the asymptotic null distribution of test statistics for hypotheses of the type depends on the set of extremal points of the unknown difference $\mu_1 - \mu_2 $, and is therefore not distribution free. Most notable for both the two-sample and the change-point problem is the construction of non-standard bootstrap tests for relevant hypotheses to solve this problem. The bootstrap is theoretically validated and then used to determine cut-off values for the proposed procedures.
Another area of application that lends itself naturally to Banach space methodology is that of constructing confidence bands for the mean function of a collection of potentially temporally dependent, continuous functions. There has been recent work by Choi and Reimherr [@choiReimherr2016] on this topic in a Hilbert space framework for functional parameters of independent functions based on geometric considerations. Here, results for confidence bands for the mean difference in a two-sample framework are added in Section \[sec:conf\_bands\]. Natural modifications allow for the inclusion of the one-sample case. One of the main differences between the two approaches is that the proposed bands hold pointwise, while those constructed from Hilbert space theory are valid only in an $L^2$-sense. This property is appealing for practitioners, because two mean curves can have a rather different shape, yet the $L^2$-norm of their difference might be very small.
The finite-sample properties of the relevant two-sample and change-point tests and, in particular, the performance of the bootstrap procedures are evaluated with the help of a Monte Carlo simulation study in Section \[sec5\]. A number of scenarios are investigated, with the outcomes showing that the proposed methodology performs reasonably well. Furthermore, an application to a prototypical data example is given, namely two-sample and cange-point tests for annual temperature profiles recorded at measuring stations in Australia.
The outline of the rest of this paper is as follows. Section \[sec:banach\_methods\] introduces the basic notions of the proposed Banach space methodology and gives some preliminary results. Section \[sec:two-sample\] discusses the two-sample problem and Section \[sec:change-point\] is concerned with change-point analysis. Empirical aspects are highlighted in Section \[sec5\]. Proofs of the main results can be found in an online supplement to this paper.
$C(T)$-valued random variables {#sec:banach_methods}
==============================
In this section some basic facts are provided about central limit theorems and invariance principles for $C(T)$-valued random variables, where $C(T)$ is the set of continuous functions from $T$ into the real line $\mathbb{R}$. In what follows, unless otherwise mentioned, $C(T)$ will be equipped with the sup norm $\|\cdot\|$, defined by $\|f\|=\sup_{t\in T}|f(t)|$, thus making $(C(T),\|\cdot\|)$ a Banach space. The natural Borel $\sigma$-field $\mathcal{B}(T)$ over $C(T)$ is then generated by the open sets relative to the sup norm $\|\cdot\|$. Measurability of random variables on $(\Omega,\mathcal{A},P)$ taking values in $C(T)$ is understood to be with respect to $\mathcal{B}(T)$. The underlying probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{A},\mathbb{P})$ is assumed complete. It is further assumed that there is a metric $\rho$ on $T$ such that $(T,\rho)$ is totally bounded. The fact that $T$ is metrizable implies that $C(T)$ is separable and measurability issues are avoided (see Theorem 7.7 in Janson and Kaijser [@jankai2015]). Moreover, any random variable $X$ in $C(T)$ is tight (see Theorem 1.3 in Billingsley [@billingsley1968]).
Let $X$ be a random variable on $(\Omega,\mathcal{A},P)$ taking values in $C(T)$. There are different ways to formally introduce expectations and higher-order moments of Banach space-valued random variables (see Janson and Kaijser [@jankai2015]). The expectation $\mathbb{E}[X]$ of a random variable $X$ in $C(T)$ exists as an element of $C(T)$ whenever $\mathbb{E}[\| X\|] < \infty$. The $k$th moment exists whenever $\mathbb{E}[\| X \|^k] = \mathbb{E}[ \sup_{t \in T} |X(t)|^k] < \infty $. As pointed out in Chapter 11 of Janson and Kaijser [@jankai2015], $k$th order moments may be computed through pointwise evaluation as $\mathbb{E} [X (t_1) \cdots X(t_k)]$. The case $k=2$ is important as it allows for the computation of covariance kernels in a pointwise fashion.
A sequence of random variables $(X_n\colon n \in \mathbb{N})$ converges in distribution or weakly to a random variable $X$ in $C(T)$, whenever it is asymptotically tight and its finite-dimensional distributions converge weakly to the finite-dimensional distributions of $X$, that is, $$(X_n(t_1), \dots, X_n(t_k)) \Rightarrow (X(t_1), \dots, X(t_k))$$ for any $t_1,\dots,t_k \in T$ and any $k \in \mathbb{N}$, where the symbol “$\Rightarrow$” indicates convergence in distribution in $\mathbb{R}^k$.
A centered random variable $X$ in $C(T)$ is said to be Gaussian if its finite-dimensional distributions are multivariate normal, that is, for any $t_1,\dots,t_k$, $(X(t_1),\dots,X(t_k)) \sim \mathcal{N}_k(0,\Sigma)$, where the $(i,j)$th entry of the covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is given by $\mathbb{E}[X(t_i)X(t_j)]$, $i,j=1,\ldots,k$. The distribution of $X$ is hence completely characterized by its covariance function $k(t,t^\prime) = \mathbb{E}[X(t)X(t^\prime)]$; see Chapter 2 of Billingsley [@billingsley1968].
In general Banach spaces, deriving conditions under which the central limit theorem (CLT) holds is a difficult task, significantly more complex than the counterpart for real-valued random variables. In Banach spaces, finiteness of second moments of the underlying random variables does not provide a necessary and sufficient condition. Elaborate theory has been developed to resolve the issue, resulting in notions of Banach spaces of type 2 and cotype 2 (see the book Ledoux and Talagrand [@leTa1991] for an overview). However, the Banach space of continuous functions on a compact interval does not possess the requisite type and cotype properties and further assumptions are needed in order to obtain the CLT, especially to incorporate time series of continuous functions into the framework. To model the dependence of the observations, the notion of $\varphi$-mixing triangular arrays $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N},~ j=1,\dots,n)$ of $C(T)$-valued random variables is introduced; see Bradley [@bradley2005] and Samur [@samur1987]. First, for any two $\sigma$-fields $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$, define $$\phi(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})
= \sup \big\{ |\mathbb{P}(G|F) - \mathbb{P}(G)| \colon F\in \mathcal{F}, ~G\in\mathcal{G}, ~\mathbb{P}(F)>0 \big\},$$ where $\mathbb{P}(G|F)$ denotes the conditional probability of $G$ given $F$. Next, denote by $\mathcal{F}^n_{k,k^\prime}$ the $\sigma$-field generated by $(X_{n,j}\colon k\leq j \leq k^\prime)$. Then, define the $\varphi$*-mixing coefficient* as $$\varphi (k)
= \sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}, n>k} \max_{k^\prime= 1,\dots,n-k} \phi (\mathcal{F}_{1,k^\prime}^n ,\mathcal{F}_{k^\prime+k,n}^n)$$ and call the triangular array $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N}, j=1,\dots,n)$ $\varphi$*-mixing* whenever $\lim_{k\to\infty} \varphi(k) = 0$. The $\varphi$-mixing property is defined in a similar fashion for a sequence of random variables.
In order to obtain a CLT as well as an invariance principle for triangular arrays of $\varphi$-mixing random elements in $C(T)$, the following conditions are imposed.
\[as:ts\] Throughout this paper the following conditions are assumed to hold:
1. There is a constant $K$ such that, for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $j=1,\dots,n$, $\mathbb{E}[\|X_{n,j}\|^{2+\nu}] \leq K$ for some $\nu>0$.
2. Let $\mathbb{E}[X_{n,j}] = \mu^{(j)}$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $j=1,\dots,n$. The distributions of the observations in each row only differ in their means, that is, the centered array $( X_{n,j}-\mu^{(j)} \colon n\in\mathbb{N},~ j=1,\dots,n)$ is rowwise stationary. Additionally, the covariance structure is the same in each row, that is $$\mathrm{Cov}(X_{n,j}(t),X_{n,j^\prime}(t^\prime)) = \gamma(j-j^\prime,t,t^\prime)$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $j,j^\prime=1,\dots,n$. Note that $\gamma(-j,t,t^\prime) = \gamma(j,t^\prime,t)$.
3. $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N},~ j=1,\dots,n)$ is uniformly Lipschitz, that is, there is a real-valued random variable $M$ with $\mathbb{E}[M^2] < \infty$ such that, for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $j=1,\dots,n$, the inequality $$|X_{n,j}(t)-X_{n,j}(t^\prime)|\leq M \rho(t,t^\prime)$$ holds almost surely for all $t,t^\prime\in T$.
4. $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N},~ j=1,\dots,n)$ is $\varphi$-mixing with exponentially decreasing mixing coefficients, that is, there is a constant $a\in [0,1)$ such that $\varphi (k)\leq a^k$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$.
5. For any sequence $(r_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $r_n\leq n$, ${r_n}/{n} \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{r_n} (X_{n,j}-\mu^{(j)}) = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) .\end{aligned}$$
Note that these assumptions can be formulated for sequences of random variables $(X_n\colon n\in\mathbb{N})$ in $C(T)$ in a similar way. Condition (A5) is satisfied if the distribution of the sums $\sum_{j=1}^k (X_{n,j} - \mu^{(j)})$ is symmetric for any $k=1,\dots,n$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ (see the remark after Proposition 3.1 in Samur [@samur1984]). Assumptions (A1)–(A4) imply the following CLT which is proved in Section \[proofssec2\] of the online supplement. [Throughout this paper the symbol $\rightsquigarrow $ denotes weak convergence in $(C([0,1]))^k $ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$.]{}
\[mixingCLT\] Let $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N},~ j=1,\dots,n)$ denote a triangular array of random variables in $C(T)$ with expectations $E[X_{n,j}] = \mu^{(j)}$ such that conditions (A1) – (A4) of Assumption \[as:ts\] are satisfied. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
G_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^n (X_{n,j} - \mu^{(j)} ) \rightsquigarrow Z\end{aligned}$$ in $C(T)$, where $Z$ is a centered Gaussian random variable with covariance function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lVar}
C(s,t) = \mathrm{Cov}(Z(s),Z(t)) = \sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty} \gamma(i,s,t).\end{aligned}$$
Assumption (A5) will be used to verify a weak invariance principle for the process $(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n\colon n\in\mathbb{N})$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{39}
\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n(s) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum^{\lfloor sn \rfloor}_{j=1}
(X_{n,j} - \mu^{(j)})
+ \sqrt{n} \Big (s- \frac {\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big )
\big(X_{\lfloor sn \rfloor+1} - \mu^{(\lfloor sn \rfloor+1)} \big),\end{aligned}$$ useful for the change-point analysis proposed in Section \[sec:change-point\]. Note that the process $(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n(s)\colon s \in [0,1])$ is an element of the Banach space $C([0,1], C(T)) = \{ \phi \colon [0,1] \rightarrow C(T) ~|~ \phi \mbox { is continuous} \}$, where the norm on this space is given by $$\label{311}
\sup_{s \in [0,1]} \sup_{t \in T} | \phi(s,t)|
=\|\phi\|_{C([0,1] \times T )}$$ (note that each element of $C \big ([0,1], C(T) \big)$ can equivalently be regarded as an element of $C([0,1] \times T)$). Here and throughout this paper the notation $\|\cdot\|$ is used to denote any of the arising $\sup$-norms as the corresponding space can be identified from the context. The proof of the following result is postponed to Section \[proofssec2\] of the online supplement.
\[WIP\] Let $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N}, j=1,\dots,n)$ denote an array of $C([0,1])$-valued random variables such that Assumption \[as:ts\] is satisfied. Then, the weak invariance principle holds, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{312}
\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n \rightsquigarrow \mathbb{V}\end{aligned}$$ in $C([0,1] \times T)$, where $\mathbb{V}$ is a centered Gaussian measure on $C([0,1] \times T)$ characterized by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{312a}
\mathrm{Cov} \big (\mathbb{V}(s,t), \mathbb{V}(s^\prime,t^\prime) \big)
= (s \wedge s^\prime) C(t,t^\prime),\end{aligned}$$ and the long-run covariance function $C$ is given in .
The two-sample problem {#sec:two-sample}
======================
From now on, consider the case $T=[0,1]$, as this is the canonical choice for functional data analysis. Two-sample problems have a long history in statistics and the corresponding tests are among the most applied statistical procedures. For the functional setting, there have been a number of contributions as well. Two are worth mentioning in the present context. Hall and Van Keilegom [@hallVanKeilegom2007] studied the effect of smoothing when converting discrete observations into functional data. Horváth et al. [@horvathKokoszkaReeder2013] introduced two-sample tests for $L^p$-$m$ approximable functional time series based on Hilbert-space theory. In the following, a two-sample test is proposed in the Banach-space framework of Section \[sec:banach\_methods\]. To this end, consider two independent samples $X_1, \ldots, X_m$ and $Y_1, \ldots, Y_n$ of $C([0,1])$-valued random variables. Under (A2) in Assumption \[as:ts\] expectation functions and covariance kernels exist and are denoted by $\mu_1=\mathbb{E} [X_1]$ and $\mu_2=\mathbb{E} [Y_1]$, and $k_1(t,t^\prime)=\mbox{Cov} (X_1(t), X_1(t^\prime))$ and $k_2(t,t^\prime)=\mbox{Cov} (Y_1(t), Y_1(t^\prime))$, respectively. Interest is then in the size of the maximal deviation $$d_\infty=\|\mu_1-\mu_2\| = \sup_{t \in [0,1] } | \mu_1 (t)-\mu_2 (t) |$$ between the two mean curves, that is, in testing the hypotheses of a relevant difference $$\label{H0}
H_0\colon d_\infty
\leq \Delta
\qquad \mbox{versus} \qquad
H_1\colon d_\infty > \Delta,$$ where $\Delta \geq 0$ is a pre-specified constant determined by the user of the test. Note again that the “classical” two-sample problem $H_0\colon \mu_1=\mu_2$ versus $H_0\colon \mu_1\not=\mu_2$ – which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been investigated for $C([0,1])$-valued data yet – is contained in this setup as the special case $\Delta=0$. Observe also that tests for relevant differences between two finite-dimensional parameters corresponding to different populations have been considered mainly in the biostatistical literature, for example in Wellek [@wellek2010]. It is assumed throughout this section that the samples are balanced in the sense that $$\label{32}
\frac {m}{n+m} \longrightarrow \lambda \in (0,1)$$ as $m,n \to \infty$. Additionally, let $X_1\ldots,X_m$ and $Y_1,\ldots,Y_n$ be sampled from independent time series $(X_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ and $(Y_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ that satisfy conditions (A1)–(A4) of Assumption \[as:ts\]. Under these conditions both functional time series satisfy the CLT and it then follows from Theorem \[mixingCLT\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2convergence1}
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m (X_j - \mu_1)
\rightsquigarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} ~ Z_1
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n (Y_j - \mu_2)
\rightsquigarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\lambda}} ~ Z_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are independent, centered Gaussian processes possessing covariance functions $$C_1(t,t^\prime) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^\infty \gamma_1(j,t,t^\prime)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
C_2(t,t^\prime) = \sum_{j=-\infty}^\infty \gamma_2(j,t,t^\prime),$$ respectively. Here $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, correspond to the respective sequences $(X_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ and $(Y_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ and are defined in Assumption \[as:ts\]. Now, the weak convergence in and the independence of the samples imply immediately that $$\label{33}
Z_{m,n} = \sqrt{n+m} \Big( \frac{1}{m} \sum^m_{j=1} X_j - \frac {1}{n} \sum^n_{j=1} Y_j - (\mu_1 - \mu_2) \Big)
\rightsquigarrow Z$$ in $C([0,1])$ as $m,n\to\infty$, where $Z=Z_1/\sqrt{\lambda}+Z_2/\sqrt{1-\lambda}$ is a centered Gaussian process with covariance function $$\label{34}
C(t,t^\prime)=\mathrm{Cov}(Z(t),Z(t^\prime))=\frac{1}{\lambda}C_1(t,t^\prime)+\frac{1}{1-\lambda}C_2(t,t^\prime).$$ Under the convergence in the statistic $$\label{2statistic}
\hat d_\infty = \Big\| \frac {1}{m} \sum^m_{j=1} X_j - \frac {1}{n} \sum^n_{j=1} Y_j \Big\|$$ is a reasonable estimator of the maximal deviation $d_\infty = \| \mu_1 - \mu_2\| $, and the null hypothesis in is rejected for large values of $\hat d_\infty$. In order to develop a test with a pre-specified asymptotic level, the limit distribution of $\hat d_\infty$ is determined in the following. For this purpose, let $$\label{35}
\mathcal{E}^{\pm}= \big \{ t \in [0,1] \colon \mu_1(t) - \mu_2(t) = {\pm} d_\infty \big \}$$ if $d_\infty >0$, and define $\mathcal{E}^{+} = \mathcal{E}^{-}=[0,1]$ if $d_\infty =0$. Finally, denote by $\mathcal{E}= \mathcal{E}^+ \cup \mathcal{E}^-$ the set of extremal points of the difference $\mu_1 - \mu_2$ of the two mean functions. The first main result establishes the asymptotic distribution of the statistic $\hat d_\infty$.
\[thm1\] If $X_1,\ldots,X_m$ and $Y_1,\ldots,Y_n$ are sampled from independent time series $(X_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ and $(Y_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ in $C([0,1])$, each satisfying conditions (A1)–(A4) of Assumption \[as:ts\], then $$\label{teps}
T_{m,n}=\sqrt{n+m} (\hat d_\infty - d_\infty)
\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow}
T({ \cal E})
=\max \Big\{ \sup_{t \in { \cal E}^+} Z(t), \sup_{t \in { \cal E}^-} - Z(t) \Big\},$$ where the centered Gaussian process $Z$ is given by and the sets $\mathcal{E}^{+}$ and $ \mathcal{E}^{-}$ are defined in .
It should be emphasized that the limit distribution depends in a complicated way on the set $\cal E$ of extremal points of the difference $\mu_1 -\mu_2$ and is therefore not distribution free, even in the case of i.i.d. data. In particular, there can be two sets of processes with corresponding mean functions $\mu_1,\mu_2$ and $\tilde \mu_1,\tilde \mu_2$ such that $\|\mu_1 - \mu_2 \| = \| \tilde \mu_1 - \tilde \mu_2\|$. However, the respective limit distributions in Theorem \[thm1\] will be entirely different if the corresponding sets of extremal points ${\cal E} $ and $\tilde {\cal E}$ do not coincide. The proof of Theorem \[thm1\] is given in Section \[subsec:proof:two-sample\] of the online supplement. In the case $d_\infty =0$, ${\cal E}^+ ={ \cal E}^- =[0,1]$ and it follows for the random variable $T({ [0,1]})$ in Theorem \[thm1\] that $$\label{310a}
T = \max_{t \in [0,1] }| Z(t) |.$$ Here the result is a simple consequence of the weak convergence of the process $Z_{m,n}$ (see Theorem \[mixingCLT\]) and the continuous mapping theorem.
However, Theorem \[thm1\] provides also the distributional properties of the statistic $\hat d_\infty$ in the case $d_\infty>0$. This is required for testing the hypotheses of a relevant difference between the two mean functions (that is, the hypotheses in with $\Delta >0$) of primary interest here. In this case the weak convergence of an appropriately standardized version of $\hat d_\infty$ does [*not*]{} follow from the weak convergence , as the process inside the supremum in is not centered. In fact, additional complexity enters in the proofs because even under the null hypothesis observations cannot be easily centered. For details, refer to Section \[subsec:proof:two-sample\] of the online supplement.
Asymptotic inference {#asyminf}
--------------------
### Testing the classical hypothesis $H_0\colon\mu_1\equiv \mu_2$ {#testdiff}
Theorem \[thm1\] also provides the asymptotic distributions of the test statistic $\hat d_\infty$ in the case of two identical mean functions, that is, if $\mu_1 \equiv \mu_2$. This is the situation investigated in Hall and Van Keilegom [@hallVanKeilegom2007] and Horváth et al. [@horvathKokoszkaReeder2013] in Hilbert-space settings. Here it corresponds to the special case $\Delta=0$ and thus $d_\infty=0, \mathcal{E}^\pm=[0,1]$. Consequently, $$T_{m,n} \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow} T
\qquad(m,n\to\infty),$$ where the random variable $T$ is defined in . An asymptotic level $\alpha$ test for the classical hypotheses $$\label{hypclass}
H_0\colon \mu_1 = \mu_2 \qquad \mbox{versus} \qquad H_1\colon \mu_1 \neq \mu_2$$ may hence be obtained by rejecting $H_0$ whenever $$\label{testclass}
\hat d_\infty > \frac {u_{1- \alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m}},$$ where $u_{1- \alpha}$ is the $(1- \alpha)$-quantile of the distribution of the random variable $T$ defined in . Using Theorem \[thm1\] it is easy to see that the test defined by is consistent and has asymptotic level $\alpha$.
### Confidence bands {#sec:conf_bands}
The methodology developed so far can easily be applied to the construction of simultaneous asymptotic confidence bands for the difference of the mean functions. There is a rich literature on confidence bands for functional data in Hilbert spaces. The available work includes Degras [@degras2011], who dealt with confidence bands for nonparametric regression with functional data; Cao et al. [@caoYangTodem2012], who studied simultaneous confidence bands for the mean of dense functional data based on polynomial spline estimators; Cao [@cao2014], who developed simultaneous confidence bands for derivatives of functional data when multiple realizations are at hand for each function, exploiting within-curve correlation; and Zheng et al. [@zhengYangHardle2014] who treated the sparse case. Most recently Choi and Reimherr [@choiReimherr2016] extracted geometric features akin to Mahalanobis distances to build confidence bands for functional parameters.
The results presented here are the first of their kind relating to Banach space-valued functional data. The first theorem uses the limit distribution obtained in Theorem \[thm1\] to construct asymptotic simultaneous confidence bands for the two-sample case. A corresponding bootstrap analog will be developed in the next section. Confidence bands for the one-sample case can be constructed in a similar fashion using standard arguments and the corresponding results are consequently omitted.
\[th:cb-1\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[thm1\] be satisfied and, for $\alpha\in(0,1)$, denote by $u_{1- \alpha}$ the $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of the random variable $T$ defined in and define the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^\pm_{m,n} (t) =\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m X_j - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n Y_j
\pm \frac{u_{1-\alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the set $C_{\alpha,{m,n}} = \big \{ \mu \in C( [0,1])~\colon~\mu^-_{m,n}(t) \leq \mu (t) \leq \mu^+_{m,n}(t) ~\mbox{ for all } t \in [0,1] \big\}$ defines a simultaneous asymptotic $(1-\alpha)$ confidence band for $\mu_1-\mu_2$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{m,n \to\infty} \mathbb{P} ( \mu_1-\mu_2 \in C_{\alpha,{m,n}} )
= 1-\alpha.\end{aligned}$$
Note that, unlike their Hilbert-space counterparts, the simultaneous confidence bands given in Theorem \[th:cb-1\] (and their bootstrap analogs in Section \[sec:conf\_bands\]) hold for all $t\in[0,1]$ and not only almost everywhere, making the proposed bands more easily interpretable and perhaps more useful for applications.
### Testing for a relevant difference {#testdiffrel}
Recall the definition of the random variable $T({\cal E})$ in Theorem \[thm1\], then the null hypothesis of no relevant difference in is rejected at level $\alpha$, whenever the inequality $$\label{221}
\hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1 - \alpha, { \cal E}}}{\sqrt{n+m}}$$ holds, where $u_{\alpha, { \cal E}}$ denotes the $\alpha$-quantile of the distribution of $T({ \cal E})$ $(\alpha\in(0,1) )$. A conservative test avoiding the use of quantiles depending on the set of extremal points $ { \cal E}$ can be obtained observing the inequality $$\label{21}
T({ \cal E}) \leq T,$$ where the random variable $T$ is defined in . If $u_\alpha$ denotes the $\alpha$-quantile of the distribution of $T$, then implies $u_{\alpha, { \cal E}} \leq u_\alpha$ and a conservative asymptotic level $\alpha$ test is given by rejecting the null hypothesis in , whenever the inequality $$\label{22}
\hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1 - \alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m}}$$ holds. The properties of the tests and depend on the size of the distance $d_\infty$ and will be explained below. In particular, observe the following properties for the test :
- [If $d_\infty < \Delta$, Slutsky’s theorem yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{P} \Big(
& \hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1 - \alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Big) \nonumber
=\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\big(\sqrt{n+m}(\hat d_\infty-d_\infty)>\sqrt{n+m}(\Delta-d_\infty)+u_{1-\alpha}\big)
=0.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
- [If $d_\infty = \Delta$, we have]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{n,m \to \infty}
\mathbb{P} \Big( \hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1 - \alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Big)
&=\limsup_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{P} \big(\sqrt{n+m} (\hat d_ \infty - d_\infty) > \sqrt{n+m} (\Delta - d_\infty) + u_{1 - \alpha} \big) \nonumber \\
&\leq \lim_{n,m \to \infty}\mathbb{P} \big(\sqrt{n+m} \ ( \hat d_\infty - d_\infty) > u_{1-\alpha, { \cal E}}\big) = \alpha
\label{2levelAlpha}.\end{aligned}$$
- [If $d_\infty > \Delta$, the same calculation as in (a) implies ]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{P} \Big(
& \hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1 - \alpha}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Big) \nonumber
=1,\end{aligned}$$ proving that the test defined in is consistent.
- If the mean functions $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ define a boundary point of the hypotheses, that is, $d_\infty = \Delta$ and either $\mathcal{E}^+= [0,1]$ or $\mathcal{E}^-= [0,1]$, then $T(\mathcal{E}) = \max_{t\in[0,1]} Z(t)$ or $T(\mathcal{E}) = \max_{t\in[0,1]} - Z(t)$, and consequently $$\lim_{n,m \to \infty} \mathbb{P} \Big ( \hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1- \alpha}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \Big ) = \frac{\alpha}{2}.$$
Using similar arguments it can be shown that the test satisfies $$\lim_{n,m \to \infty}
\mathbb{P} \Big( \hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1 - \alpha,{\cal E}}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \Big) =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if } d_\infty < \Delta. \\
\alpha & \text{ if } d_\infty = \Delta. \\
1 & \text{ if } d_\infty \geq \Delta.
\end{cases}$$ Summarizing, the tests for the hypothesis of no relevant difference between the two mean functions defined in and have asymptotic level $\alpha$ and are consistent. However, the discussion given above also shows that the test is conservative, even when $\mathcal{E} = [0,1]$.
Bootstrap {#subsec:two-sample:bootstrap}
---------
In order to use the tests , and for classical and relevant hypotheses, the quantiles of the distribution of the random variables $T(\mathcal{E}) $ and $T$ defined in and need to be estimated, which depend on certain features of the data generating process. The law $T(\mathcal{E}) $ involves the unknown set of extremal points $\mathcal{E}$ of the differences of the mean functions. Moreover, the distributions of $T(\mathcal{E}) $ and $T$ depend on the long-run covariance function . There are methods available in the literature to consistently estimate the covariance function (see, for example, Horváth et al. [@horvathKokoszkaReeder2013]). In practice, however, it is difficult to reliably approximate the infinite sums in and therefore an easily implementable bootstrap procedure is proposed in the following.
It turns out that a different and non-standard bootstrap procedure will be required for testing relevant hypotheses than for classical hypotheses (and the construction of confidence bands) as in this case the null distribution depends on the set of extremal points $\mathcal{E}$. The corresponding resampling procedure requires a substantially more sophisticated analysis. Therefore the analysis of bootstrap tests for the classical hypothesis and bootstrap confidence intervals is given first and discussion of bootstrap tests for relevant hypotheses is deferred to Section \[bootrel\].
### Bootstrap confidence intervals and tests for the classical hypothesis $H_0: \mu_1=\mu_2$ {#sec:conf_bands}
Following Bücher and Kojadinovic [@buecher2016] the use of a muliplier block bootstrap is proposed. To be precise, let $(\xi_k^{(1)}\colon k\in\mathbb{N}), \ldots , (\xi_k^{(R)}\colon k\in\mathbb{N})$ and $(\zeta_k^{(1)}\colon k\in\mathbb{N}), \ldots ,(\zeta_k^{(R)}\colon k\in\mathbb{N})$ denote independent sequences of independent standard normally distributed random variables and define the $C([0,1])$-valued processes $\hat B_{m,n}^{(1)}, \ldots , \hat B_{m,n}^{(R)}$ through $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2bProcess}
\begin{split}
\hat B_{m,n}^{(r)}(t) = \sqrt{n+m} \Big\{&
\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^{m-l_1+1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l_1}}\Big( \sum_{j=k}^{k+l_1-1} X_{j}(t)
-\frac{l_1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^m X_{j}(t) \Big) \xi_k^{(r)} \\
&+ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n-l_2+1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l_2}}\Big( \sum_{j=k}^{k+l_2-1} Y_{j}(t)
-\frac{l_2}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n Y_{j}(t) \Big) \zeta_k^{(r)} \Big\} ~~~~(r=1, \ldots , R)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for $t\in[0,1]$, where $l_1,l_2\in\mathbb{N}$ denote window sizes such that $l_1/m\to 0$ and $l_2/n\to 0$ as $l_1,l_2,m,n\to\infty$. The following result is a fundamental tool for the theoretical investigations of all bootstrap procedures proposed in this paper and is proved in Section \[subsec:proof:two-sample\] of the online supplement.
\[2bTheorem\] Suppose that $(X_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ and $(Y_j\colon j\in\mathbb{N})$ satisfy conditions (A1)–(A4) of Assumption \[as:ts\] and let $\hat B_{m,n}^{(1)}, \ldots , \hat B_{m,n}^{(R)}$ denote the bootstrap processes defined by such that $l_1 = m^{\beta_1}$, $l_2 = n^{\beta_2}$ with $0<\beta_i<\nu_i/(2+\nu_i)$ and $\nu_i$ given in Assumption \[as:ts\], $i=1,2$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
(Z_{m,n},\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(R)})
\rightsquigarrow (Z, Z^{(1)},\dots,Z^{(R)})\end{aligned}$$ in $C([0,1])^{R+1}$ as $m,n\to\infty$, where $Z_{m,n}$ is defined in and $Z^{(1)},\dots,Z^{(R)}$ are independent copies of the centered Gaussian process $Z$ defined by .
Note that Theorem \[2bTheorem\] holds under the null hypothesis and alternative. It leads to the following results regarding confidence bands and tests for the classical hypothesis based on the the multiplier bootstrap. To this end, note that for the statistics $$T_{m,n}^{(r)} = \|\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(r)} \|,
\qquad r=1 \ldots , R ,$$ the continuous mapping theorem yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{classicH0:convergence}
\big( \sqrt{n+m} ~ \hat{d}_\infty ,~ T_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,T_{m,n}^{(R)}\big)
\Rightarrow (T,~ T^{(1)},\dots,T^{(R)}),\end{aligned}$$ where the random variables $T^{(1)},\dots,T^{(R)}$ are independent copies of the statistic $T$ defined in . Now, if $T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}$ is the empirical $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of the bootstrap sample $T_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,T_{m,n}^{(R)}$, the following results are obtained.
\[th:cb-2\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[2bTheorem\] be satisfied and define the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{R,\pm }_{m,n} (t) =\frac{1}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m X_j - \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n Y_j
\pm \frac{T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, $\hat{C}_{\alpha,m.n} ^R = \{ \mu \in C( [0,1])\colon\mu^{R,-}_{m,n} (t) \leq \mu (t) \leq \mu^{R,+}_{m,n} (t)~\mbox{for all}~t \in [0,1]\}$ defines a simultaneous asymptotic $(1-\alpha)$ confidence band for $\mu_1-\mu_2$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{R \to \infty }
\liminf_{m,n \to\infty} \mathbb{P} ( \mu_1-\mu_2 \in\hat{C}_{\alpha,m.n} ^R )
\geq 1-\alpha.\end{aligned}$$
This section is concluded with a corresponding statement regarding the bootstrap test for the classical hypotheses in , which rejects the null hypothesis whenever $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootclasstest}
\hat{d}_{\infty} > \frac{T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}},\end{aligned}$$ where the statistic $\hat{d}_{\infty}$ is defined in .
\[bootstrap:classic\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[2bTheorem\] be satisfied, then the test has asymptotic level $\alpha$ and is consistent for the hypotheses . More precisely, under the null hypothesis of no difference in the mean functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootclasstestLVL}
\lim_{R\to\infty} \limsup_{m,n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\bigg( \hat{d}_{\infty}
> \ \frac{T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \bigg)
= \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ and, under the alternative, for any $R \in \mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootclasstestCons}
\liminf_{m,n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\bigg( \hat{d}_{\infty}
> \frac{T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \bigg)
=1.\end{aligned}$$
### Testing for relevant differences in the mean functions {#bootrel}
The problem of constructing an appropriate bootstrap test for the hypotheses of no relevant difference in the mean functions is substantially more complicated. The reason for these difficulties consists in the fact that in the case of relevant hypotheses the limit distribution of the corresponding test statistic is complicated. In contrast to the problem of testing the classical hypotheses , where it is sufficient to mimic the distribution of the statistic $T$ in (corresponding to the case $\mu_1\equiv \mu_2$) one requires the distribution of the statistic $T(\mathcal{E} )$, which depends in a sophisticated way on the set of extreme points of the (unknown) difference $\mu_1 - \mu_2$. Under the null hypothesis $\| \mu_1 - \mu_2 \| \leq \Delta $ these sets can be very different, ranging from a singleton to the full interval $[0,1]$. As a consequence the construction of a valid bootstrap procedure requires appropriate consistent estimates of the sets $\mathcal{E}^+$ and $\mathcal{E}^-$ introduced in Theorem \[thm1\].
For this purpose, recall the definition of the Haussdorff distance between two sets $A,B \subset \mathbb{R} $, given by $$d_H(A,B) = \max \Big \{ \sup_{x \in A} \inf_{y \in B} |x-y| , \sup_{y \in B} \inf_{x \in A} |x-y| \Big\}$$ and denote by $K([0,1])$ the set of all compact subsets of the interval $[0,1]$. First, define estimates of the extremal sets $\mathcal{E}^+$ and $\mathcal{E}^-$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estimatedSets}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^\pm &= \Big\{ t\in[0,1] \colon \pm (\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t) )
\geq \hat{d}_\infty - \frac{c_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \ \Big\},
$$ where $c_{m,n} \sim \log (m+n) $. Our first result shows that the estimated sets $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^+$ and $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^-$ are consistent for $\mathcal{E}^+$ and $\mathcal{E}^-$, respectively.
\[setConvergence\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[2bTheorem\] be satisfied, then $$\begin{aligned}
d_H( \hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^\pm , \mathcal{E}^\pm) \xrightarrow{{\mathbb{P}}} 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ where the sets $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^\pm$ are defined by .
The main implication of Theorem \[setConvergence\] consists in the fact that the random variable $$\max_{t\in \hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^+}
\hat{B}_{m,n}(t)$$ converges weakly to the random variable $\max_{t \in \mathcal{E}^+} Z(t) $. Note that $\hat{B}_{m,n} \rightsquigarrow Z $ by Theorem \[2bTheorem\] and that $d_H ( \hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^+ , \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+) \to 0 $ in probability by the previous theorem, but the combination of both statements is more delicate and requires a continuity argument which is given in Section \[subsec:proof:two-sample\] of the online supplement, where the following result is proved.
\[2jointConvergence\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[2bTheorem\] be satisfied and define, for $r=1,\dots,R$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootstat}
K^{(r)}_{m,n}
= \max\Big\{ \max_{t\in \hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^+}
\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(r)}(t), \ \max_{t\in \hat{\mathcal{E}}_{m,n}^-}
\big(- \hat{B}_{m,n}^{(r)}(t) \big) \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boottestrelweak}
\big(\sqrt{n+m} \;(\hat d_\infty - d_\infty),~ K_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,K_{m,n}^{(R)}\big)
\Rightarrow (T(\mathcal{E}),~ T^{(1)}(\mathcal{E}),\dots,T^{(R)}(\mathcal{E})),\end{aligned}$$ in $\mathbb{R}^{R+1}$, where $d_\infty = \| \mu_1 - \mu_2 \|$, the statistic $\hat d_\infty$ is defined in and the variables $T^{(1)}(\mathcal{E}),\dots,T^{(R)}(\mathcal{E})$ are independent copies of $T(\mathcal{E})$ defined in Theorem \[thm1\].
Theorem \[2jointConvergence\] leads to a simple bootstrap test for the hypothesis of no relevant change. To be precise, let $K_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}$ denote the empirical $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of the bootstrap sample $K_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,K_{m,n}^{(R)}$, then the null hypothesis of no relevant change is rejected at level $\alpha$, whenever $$\begin{aligned}
\label{boottestrel}
\hat{d}_{\infty} > \Delta + \frac{K_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}}.\end{aligned}$$ The final result of this section shows that the test is consistent and has asymptotic level $\alpha$. The proof is obtained by similar arguments as given in the proof of Theorem \[bootstrap:classic\], which are omitted for the sake of brevity.
\[two-sample:bootstrap:asymptotic\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[2bTheorem\] be satisfied. Then, under the null hypothesis of no relevant difference in the mean functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{R\to\infty} \limsup_{m,n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\bigg ( \hat{d}_{\infty}
> \Delta + \frac{K_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \bigg)
= \alpha,\end{aligned}$$ and, under the alternative of a relevant difference in the mean functions, for any $R \in \mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{m,n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}\bigg( \hat{d}_{\infty}
> \Delta + \frac{K_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \bigg)
=1.\end{aligned}$$
Change-point analysis {#sec:change-point}
=====================
Change-point problems arise naturally in a number of applications (for example, in quality control, economics and finance; see Aue and Horváth [@aueHorvath2013] for a recent review). In the functional framework, applications have centered around environmental and climate observations (see Aue et al. [@aueDubartNorinhoHormann2015; @AueRiceSonmez2015]) and intra-day finance data (see Horváth et al. [@HorvathKokoskza2012]). One of the first contributions in the area are Berkes et al. [@berkesGabrysHorvathKokoszka2009] and Aue et al. [@aueGabrysHorvathKokoszka2009] who developed change-point analysis in a Hilbert space setting for independent data. Generalizations to time series of functional data in Hilbert spaces are due to Aston and Kirch [@astonKirch2012a; @astonKirch2012b]. For Banach-spaces, to the best of our knowledge, the only contributions to change-point analysis available in the literature are due to Račkauskas and Suquet [@rackauskasSuquet2004; @rackauskasSuquet2006], who have provided theoretical work analyzing epidemic alternatives for independent functions based on Hölder norms and dyadic interval decompositions. This section details new results on change-point analysis for $C([0,1])$-valued functional data. The work is the first to systematically exploit a time series structure of the functions as laid out in Section \[sec:banach\_methods\].
Asymptotic inference {#sec41}
--------------------
More specifically, the problem of testing for a (potentially relevant) change-point is considered for triangular arrays $(X_{n.j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N}, j=1,\ldots,n)$ of $C([0,1])$-valued random variables satisfying Assumption \[as:ts\]. Denote by $\mu^{(j)}=\mathbb{E}[X_{n,j}] \in C([0,1])$ the expectation of $X_{n,j}$ and assume as in part (A2) of Assumption \[as:ts\] that $\gamma(j-j^\prime,t,t^\prime)=\mathrm{Cov}(X_{n,j}(t), X_{n,j^\prime}(t^\prime))$ is the covariance kernel common to all random functions in the sample. Parametrize with $s^* \in (\vartheta,1-\vartheta)$, where $\vartheta\in(0,1)$ is a constant, the location of the change-point, so that the sequence $(\mu^{(j} )_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$ of mean functions satisfies $$\label{36a}
\mu_1 = \mu^{(1)} = \cdots = \mu^{(\lfloor ns^* \rfloor)}
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\mu_2 = \mu^{(\lfloor ns^* \rfloor + 1)} = \cdots = \mu^{(n)}.$$ Then, for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, both $X_{n,1},\ldots, X_{n,\lfloor ns^* \rfloor}$ and $X_{n,\lfloor ns^* \rfloor+1}, \ldots, X_{n,n}$ consist of (asymptotically) identically distributed but potentially dependent random functions. Let again $d_\infty=\|\mu_1-\mu_2\|$ denote the maximal deviation between the mean functions before and after the change-point. Interest is then in testing the hypotheses of a relevant change, that is, $$\label{37}
H_0\colon d_\infty \leq \Delta \qquad \mbox{versus} \qquad H_1\colon d_\infty > \Delta,$$ where $\Delta \geq 0 $ is a pre-specified constant. The relevant change-point test setting may be viewed in the context of a bias-variance trade-off. In the time series setting, one is often interested in accurate predictions of future realizations. However, if the stretch of observed functions suffers from a structural break, then only those functions sampled after the change-point should be included in the prediction algorithm because these typically require stationarity. This reduction of observations, however, inevitably leads to an increased variability that may be partially offset with a bias incurred through the relevant approach: if the maximal discrepancy $d_\infty$ in the mean functions remains below a suitably chosen threshold $\Delta$, then the mean-squared prediction error obtained from predicting with the whole sample might be smaller than the one obtained from using only the non-contaminated post-change sample. In applications to financial data, the size of the allowable bias could also be dictated by regulations imposed on, say, investment strategies (Dette and Wied [@detteWied2015] specifically mention Value at Risk as one such example).
Recall the definition of the sequential empirical process in , where the argument $s\in[0,1]$ of this process is used to search over all potential change locations. Note that $(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n(s,t)\colon (s,t)\in [0,1]^2) $ can be regarded as an element of the Banach space $ C([0,1]^2)$ (see the discussion before Theorem \[WIP\]). Define the $C([0,1]^2)$-valued process $$\label{313}
\hat{\mathbb{W}}_n(s,t) = \hat {\mathbb{V}}_n(s,t) - s \hat{\mathbb{V}}_n(1,t),
\qquad s,t \in [0,1],$$ then, under Assumption \[as:ts\], Theorem \[WIP\] and the continuous mapping theorem show that $$\label{315}
\hat {\mathbb{W}}_n \rightsquigarrow \mathbb{W}$$ in $C([0,1]^2)$, where $\mathbb{W}(s,t)= \mathbb{V}(s,t) - s \mathbb{V}(1,t)$. In particular, $\mathbb{W}$ is a centered Gaussian measure on $C([0,1]^2)$ defined by $$\label{316}
\mathrm{Cov} (\mathbb{W}(s, t), \mathbb{W}(s^\prime,t^\prime))
= (s \wedge s^\prime - s s^\prime)C(t,t^\prime).$$ In order to define a test for the hypothesis of a relevant change-point defined by consider the sequential empirical process $(\hat{\mathbb{U}}_{n}\colon n\in\mathbb{N})$ on $C([0,1]^2)$ given by $$\label{318}
\hat {\mathbb{U}}_n(s,t) = \frac {1}{n} \Big( \sum^{\lfloor sn \rfloor}_{j=1}
X_{n,j}(t) + n\Big(s- \frac {\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n}\Big)X_{n, \lfloor sn \rfloor+1}(t)
- s \sum^n_{j=1} X_{n,j}(t) \Big).$$ Evaluating its expected value shows that, in contrast to $\hat {\mathbb{W}}_n$, the process $\hat {\mathbb{U}}_n$ is typically not centered and the equality $\sqrt{n} ~ \hat {\mathbb{U}}_n = \hat {\mathbb{W}}_n$ holds only in the case $\mu_1=\mu_2$. A straightforward calculation shows that $$\mathbb{E} \big[ \hat {\mathbb{U}}_n (s,t) \big]
= \big( s \wedge s^* - s s^* \big) \big (\mu_1 (t) - \mu_2(t) \big) + o_\mathbb{P}(1)$$ uniformly in $(s,t) \in [0,1]^2$. As the function $s \mapsto s \wedge s^* - ss^*$ attains its maximum in the interval $[0,1]$ at the point $s^*$, the statistic $$\label{teststat}
\mathbb{\hat M}_n = \sup_{s \in [0,1]} \sup_{t \in [0,1]} | \hat {\mathbb{U}}_n (s,t) |$$ is a reasonable estimate of $s^*(1-s^*) ~ d_\infty = s^*(1-s^*) \|\mu_1-\mu_2\|$. It is therefore proposed to reject the null hypothesis in for large values of the statistic $\mathbb{\hat M}_n$. The following result specifies the asymptotic distribution of $\mathbb{\hat M}_n$.
\[thm2\] Assume $d_\infty >0$, $s^* \in (0,1)$ and let $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N}, j=1,\dots,n)$ be an array of $C([0,1])$-valued random variables satisfying Assumption \[as:ts\]. Then $$\label{deps}
\mathbb{D}_n = \sqrt{n} \big( \mathbb{\hat M}_n - s^*(1-s^*) d_\infty \big)
\stackrel{\cal D}{\longrightarrow}
D (\mathcal{E})= \max \Big \{ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E} ^+} \mathbb{W}(s^*,t),
\sup_{t \in \mathcal{E} ^-} - \mathbb{W}(s^*,t) \Big \},$$ where the statistic $\mathbb{\hat M}_n $ is defined in , $\mathbb{W}$ is the centered Gaussian measure on $C([0,1]^2)$ characterized by , $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E} ^+\cup\mathcal{E}^-$ and the sets $\mathcal{E}^+$ and $\mathcal{E} ^-$ are defined in .
The proof of Theorem \[thm2\] is given in Section \[sec:proofs:change-point\] of the online supplement. The limit distribution of $\mathbb{D}_n$ is rather complicated and depends on the set $\mathcal{E}$ which might be different for functions $\mu_1 - \mu_2$ with the same sup-norm $d_\infty$ but different corresponding set $\mathcal{E}$. It is also worthwhile to mention that the condition $d_\infty >0$ is essential in Theorem \[thm2\]. In the remaining case $d_\infty =0$ the weak convergence of $\hat {\mathbb{M}}_n$ simply follows from $\sqrt{n} \hat{\mathbb{U}}_n = \hat{\mathbb{W}}_n$, and the continuous mapping theorem, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{42}
\sqrt{n} \ \mathbb{\hat M}_n
\stackrel{\cal D}{\longrightarrow}
\check {T} = \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} |\mathbb{W}(s,t)|
$$ whenever $d_\infty =0$.
If $d_\infty >0$, the true location of the change-point $s^*$ is unknown and therefore has to be estimated from the available data. The next theorem, which is proved in Section \[sec:proofs:change-point\] of the online supplement, proposes one such estimator and specifies its large-sample behavior in form of a rate of convergence.
\[rate\] Assume $d_\infty >0$, $s^* \in (0,1)$ and let $(X_{n,j}\colon n\in\mathbb{N}, j=1,\dots,n)$ be an array of $C([0,1])$-valued random variables satisfying Assumption \[as:ts\], where the random variable $M$ in Assumption (A3) is bounded. Then the estimator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cpEstimator0}
\tilde{s} = \arg\max_{1\leq k <n} \big\| \hat {\mathbb{U}}_n (\frac kn,\cdot ) \big\|\end{aligned}$$ satsifies $|\tilde{s}-s^*| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1}).$
Recall that the possible range of change locations is restricted to the open interval $(\vartheta,1-\vartheta)$ and define the modified change-point estimator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cpEstimator}
\hat s = \max \big \{ \vartheta, \min \{ \tilde s, 1- \vartheta\} \big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{s}$ is given by . Since $|\hat{s}-s^*|\leq |\tilde{s}-s^*|$, it follows that $|\hat{s}-s^*| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1})$ if $d_\infty >0$, and, if $d_\infty =0$ suppose that $\hat{s}$ converges weakly to a $[\vartheta,1-\vartheta]$-valued random variable $s_{\max}$.
\[setT\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[rate\] be satisfied and define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{statistic}
\hat{d}_\infty = \frac{ \mathbb{\hat M}_n}{\hat{s}(1-\hat{s})}\end{aligned}$$ as an estimator of $d_\infty$. Then, $
\sqrt{n}\big( \hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty \big) \Rightarrow
T (\mathcal{E})=
{D (\mathcal{E}) }/[{s^*(1-s^*)}]
$, where $D (\mathcal{E})$ is defined in .
\[testcp\]
A consistent level $\alpha$ test for the hypotheses is constructed along the lines of the two-sample case discussed in Section \[sec:two-sample\].
- Consider first the case $\Delta >0 $, that is, a relevant hypothesis. If $d_\infty>0$, implying the existence of a change-point $s^*\in(0,1)$, then the inequality $$\label{variableT}
T({ \cal E})\leq T = \frac{1}{s^*(1-s^*)} \sup_{t \in [0,1]} |\mathbb{W}(s^*,t)|$$ holds. If $u_{\alpha , \mathcal{E}}$ denotes the quantile of $T({ \cal E})$, then $
u_{\alpha , \mathcal{E}} \leq u_\alpha
$ for all $\alpha \in (0,1)$. Consequently, similar arguments as given in Section \[testdiffrel\] show that the test which rejects the null hypothesis of no relevant change if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{41}
\hat d_\infty > \Delta + \frac {u_{1 - \alpha}}{\sqrt{n}}\end{aligned}$$ is consistent and has asymptotic level $\alpha$. Note that an estimator of the long-run covariance function is needed in order to obtain the $\alpha$-quantile $u_\alpha$ of the distribution of $T$. Moreover, the test is conservative, even when the set $\mathcal{E}$ of extremal points of the unknown difference $\mu_1 - \mu_2$ is the whole interval $ [0,1]$ (in this case the level is in fact $\alpha/2$ instead of $\alpha$ - see the discussion at the end of Section \[testdiffrel\]).
- In the case of testing the classical hypotheses $H_0 \colon \mu_1 = \mu_2$ versus $H_1\colon \mu_1 \neq \mu_2$, that is $\Delta=0$, the test described in needs to be slightly altered. The asymptotic distribution of $\mathbb{\hat M}_n $ under $H_0$ can be obtained from and now it can be seen that rejecting $H_0$ whenever $$\hat d_\infty > \frac {\check {u}_{1- \alpha}}{\sqrt{n}} ,$$ where $\check{u}_{1- \alpha} $ denotes the $ (1-\alpha)$-quantile of the distribution of the random variable $\check T$ defined by , yields a consistent asymptotic level $\alpha$ test.
Bootstrap {#sec42}
---------
In order to avoid the difficulties mentioned in the previous remark, a bootstrap procedure is developed and its consistency is shown. To be precise, denote by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mu}_1 = \frac{1}{\lfloor \hat{s} n\rfloor}
\sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor} X_{n,j}
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
\hat{\mu}_2 = \frac{1}{\lfloor (1-\hat{s}) n\rfloor}
\sum_{j=\lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor +1}^{n} X_{n,j}\end{aligned}$$ estimators for the expectation before and after the change-point. Let $(\xi_k^{(1)}\colon k\in\mathbb{N}),\ldots,(\xi_k^{(R)}\colon k\in\mathbb{N})$ denote $R$ independent sequences of independent standard normally distributed random variables and consider the $C([0,1]^2)$-valued processes $\hat B_n^{(1)},\ldots , \hat B_n^{(R)}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bProcess}
\begin{split}
\hat{B}_n^{(r)}(s,t) =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=k}^{k+l-1} \hat{Y}_{n,j}(t)
- \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \hat{Y}_{n,j}(t) \Big) \xi_k^{(r)} \\
&+ \sqrt{n}\Big(s - \frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big)\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor+l} \hat{Y}_{n,j}(t)
- \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \hat{Y}_{n,j}(t) \Big) \xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(r)},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $l\in\mathbb{N}$ is a bandwidth parameter satisfying $l/n\to 0$ as $l,n\to\infty$ and $$\hat{Y}_{n,j} = X_{n,j} - (\hat{\mu}_2 - \hat{\mu}_1)
\mathds{1}\{j > \lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor \}$$ for $j=1,\dots,n$ ($n\in\mathbb{N}$). Note that it is implicitly assumed that $\hat{B}_n^{(r)}((n-l+1)/n,t) = \hat{B}_n^{(r)}(s,t)$ for any $t\in[0,1]$ and any $s\in[0,1]$ such that $\lfloor sn \rfloor > n-l+1$. Next, define $$\hat{\mathbb{W}}_n^{(r)}(s,t) = \hat{B}_n^{(r)}(s,t)-s\hat{B}_n^{(r)}(1,t) ~~; ~r = 1,\dots,R.$$
\[bTheorem\] Let $\hat{B}_n^{(1)},\ldots,\hat{B}_n^{(R)}$ denote the bootstrap processes defined by , where $l = n^\beta$ for some $\beta \in (0,1/3)$. Further assume that the underlying array $(X_{n,j}\colon j=1,\dots,n; n\in\mathbb{N})$ satisfies Assumption \[as:ts\] with the additional requirement that $\nu\geq 2$ in (A1), and suppose that, for any sequence $(r_n\colon n\in\mathbb{N})\subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $r_n\leq n$, ${r_n}/{n} \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bWIP}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{r_n}\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} (X_{n,j} - \mu^{(j)})\Big) \xi_i^{(r)} = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1).\end{aligned}$$ Then, $
(\hat{\mathbb{W}}_n,\hat{\mathbb{W}}_n^{(1)},\dots,\hat{\mathbb{W}}_n^{(R)})
\rightsquigarrow (\mathbb{W}, \mathbb{W}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbb{W}^{(R)})
$ in $C([0,1]^2)^{R+1}$, where $\hat{\mathbb{W}}_n$ and $\mathbb{W}$ are defined in and , respectively, and $\mathbb{W}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbb{W}^{(R)}$ are independent copies of $\mathbb{W}$.
The proof of Theorem \[bTheorem\] is provided in Section \[sec:proofs:change-point\] of the online supplement. Note that condition is similar to Assumption (A5) and ensures that the weak invariance principle holds for the bootstrap processes.
We now consider a resampling procedure for the classical hypotheses, that is $\Delta=0$ in . For that purpose, define, for $r=1,\dots,R$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bstatClassic}
\check T_n^{(r) }
= \max \Big \{ \big | \hat{\mathbb{W}}_n^{(r)}(s,t) \big |~ \colon ~s,t \in [0,1] \Big \}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, by the continuous mapping theorem, $$\begin{aligned}
(\sqrt{n} ~ \hat{\mathbb{M}}_n ,~ \check T_n^{(1)},\dots,\check T_n^{(R)})
\Rightarrow ( \check T,~ \check T^{(1)},\dots, \check T^{(R)})\end{aligned}$$ in $\mathbb{R}^{R+1}$, where $\check T^{(1)},\dots, \check T^{(R)}$ are independent copies of the random variable $\check T$ defined in . If $\check T_n^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}$ is the empirical $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of the bootstrap sample $\check T_n^{(1)},\check T_n^{(2)} , \dots ,\check T_n^{(R)}$, the classical null hypothesis $H_0: \mu_1 = \mu_2 $ of no change point is rejected, whenever $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cptestclass}
\hat{\mathbb{M}}_n > \frac{\check T_n^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha) \rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n}} ~.\end{aligned}$$ It follows by similar arguments as given in Section \[subsec:proof:two-sample\] of the online supplement that this test is consistent and has asymptotic level $\alpha$ in the sense of Theorem \[bootstrap:classic\], that is $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{R\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}_{H_0}\bigg(\hat{\mathbb{M}}_n > \frac{\check T_n^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha) \rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg) = \alpha~,~~~
\liminf_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}_{H_1}\bigg( \hat{\mathbb{M}}_n > \frac{\check T_n^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha) \rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg)
=1,\end{aligned}$$ for any $R \in \mathbb{N}$. The details are omitted for the sake of brevity.
We now continue developing bootstrap methodology for the problem of testing for a relevant change point, that is $\Delta >0$ in . It turns out that the theoretical analysis is substantially more complicated as the null hypothesis defines a set in in $C([0,1])$. Similar as in the estimates of the extremal sets $\mathcal{E}^+$ and $\mathcal{E}^-$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estimatedSetsCP}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_{n}^\pm &= \Big\{ t\in[0,1] \colon \pm ( \hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t) )
\geq \hat{d}_\infty - \frac{c_{n}}{\sqrt{n}} \ \Big\}
~,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_n \sim \log(n)$ and $\hat d_\infty$ is given in . Consider bootstrap analogs $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootana}
T^{(r)}_{n} = \frac{1}{\hat{s}(1-\hat{s})}\max\big\{ \max_{t\in \hat{\mathcal{E}}_{n}^+}
\hat{W}_{n}^{(r)}(\hat{s},t), \ \max_{t\in \hat{\mathcal{E}}_{n}^-}
\big(- \hat{W}_{n}^{(r)}(\hat{s},t) \big) \big\} ,
\qquad r=1,\dots,R,\end{aligned}$$ of the statistic $ \sqrt{n}\big( \hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty \big) $ in Corollary \[setT\], where $d_\infty = \| \mu_1 - \mu_2 \|$.
\[jointConvergence\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[bTheorem\] be satisfied, then, if $d_\infty > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
(\sqrt{n}(\hat d_\infty - d_\infty),~ T_n^{(1)},\dots,T_n^{(R)})
\Rightarrow (T(\mathcal{E)},~ T^{(1)},\dots,T^{(R)})\end{aligned}$$ in $\mathbb{R}^{R+1}$, where $T^{(1)},\dots,T^{(R)}$ are independent copies of the random variable $T(\mathcal{E})$ defined in Corollary \[setT\].
A test for the hypothesis of a relevant change-point in time series of continuous functions is now obtained by rejecting the null hypothesis in , whenever $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootcptest}
\hat{d}_{\infty} > \Delta + \frac{T_n^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n}},\end{aligned}$$ where $T_n^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}$ is the empirical $(1-\alpha)$-quantile of the bootstrap sample $T_n^{(1)},T_n^{(2)} , \dots ,T_n^{(R)}$. It follows by similar arguments as given in Section \[subsec:proof:two-sample\] of the online supplement that this test is consistent and has asymptotic level $\alpha$ in the sense of Theorem \[two-sample:bootstrap:asymptotic\], that is $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{R\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}_{H_0}\bigg( \hat{d}_{\infty}
> \Delta + \frac{T_{n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg) = \alpha
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}_{H_1}\bigg( \hat{d}_{\infty}
> \Delta + \frac{T_{n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg)
=1,\end{aligned}$$ for any $R \in \mathbb{N}$. The details are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Empirical aspects {#sec5}
=================
In this section, the finite sample properties of the proposed methodology are investigated by means of a small simulation study (see Section \[sec51\] and \[sec52\]) and its applicability illustrated in a small data example (see Section \[sec53\]). All simulation results presented here are based on $1{,}000$ runs, the length of the blocks in the bootstrap procedure is $l=2,l_1=2,l_2=2$, and the number of bootstrap replications is chosen as $R=200$ throughout.
Two sample problems {#sec51}
-------------------
### Classical hypotheses {#sec511}
First, a brief discussion of the bootstrap test for the “classical” hypotheses is given. For this problem, Horvath et al. [@HorvathKokoszkaRice2014] proposed a test in a Hilbert-space framework, and therefore a similar scenario as in this paper is considered. Specifically, the sample sizes are chosen as $m=100$, $n=200$ and the error processes are given by fAR(1) time series (see Horvath et al. [@HorvathKokoszkaRice2014]). The left panel of Table \[tab1\] displays the rejection probabilities of the new test for the mean functions $$\label{meanclass1}
\mu_1 \equiv 0 ~~,~~~\mu_2(t) = a t (1-t)$$ for various values of the parameter $a$, while the right panel shows results for the functions $$\label{meanclass2}
\mu_1 \equiv 0 ~~,~~~\mu_2(t) = 0.1 \dfrac{(1-t(1-t))^k}{\int_0^1 (1-t(1-t))^k dt}$$ for different values of $k$. Note that only the model in with $a=0$ corresponds to the null hypothesis. A similar approximation of the nominal level as for the test of Horvath et al. [@HorvathKokoszkaRice2014] is observed as well as reasonable rejection probabilities under the alternative. For the sake of a comparison the results of the test proposed by Horvath et al. [@HorvathKokoszkaRice2014] are also displayed, using their statistics $U^{(1)}_{100,200}$ and $U^{(2)}_{100,200}$ on page $109$ of their paper (these are the two numbers in brackets). For the models the new test is in most cases more powerful than the test proposed by these authors. This superiority is also observed for the models if $k=4,5$. On the other hand, if $k=2,3$, the test of Horvath et al. [@HorvathKokoszkaRice2014] based on the statistic $U^{(2)}_{100,200}$ yields the best performance, but the new test is always more powerful than the test based on their statistic $U^{(1)}_{100,200}$.
--------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --- -------------- -------------- --------------
a 1% 5% 10% k 1% 5% 10%
2.7 7.4 13.7 27.8 56.4 79
(1.8, 1.9) (6.6, 7.2) (12.2, 13.5) (27.6, 57.8) (52.6, 77.4) (63.6, 84.9)
\[4pt\] 21 37.7 46.7 31.3 76.4 94.9
(19.4, 12.3) (35.9, 26.5) (46.7, 36.3) (27.5, 64.3) (49.4, 82.1) (61.2, 88.7)
\[4pt\] 49.4 67.6 76.9 61.2 96.8 1
(42.1, 29.6) (62.2, 51.8) (73.1, 62.5) (28.2, 71.6) (52.5, 88.7) (66.7, 93.8)
\[4pt\] 74.3 87.1 91 90.3 1 1
(68.6, 53.8) (85.7, 74.6) (91.5, 83.1) (27.8, 78) (51.6, 91.7) (64.3, 95.5)
--------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --- -------------- -------------- --------------
: *Simulated rejection probabilities of the bootstrap test for the hypotheses \[tab1\] (in percent). The mean functions are given by (left part) and by (right part), the sample sizes are $m=100$ and $n=200$ and the case $a=0$ corresponds to the null hypotheses. The numbers in brackets represent the results of the two tests proposed by Horvath et al. [@HorvathKokoszkaRice2014] taken from Table 1 in this reference.*
### Confidence bands {#sec512}
In order to investigate the finite sample properties of the confidence bands proposed in Section \[sec:conf\_bands\] we investigate a similar scenario as in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of Aue et al. [@aueDubartNorinhoHormann2015]. To be precise let $D \in \mathbb{N} $, consider $B$-spline basis functions $\nu_1,\dots , \nu_D$ (here $D=21$) and the linear space $\mathbb{H}=\mathrm{span}\{ \nu_1,\dots , \nu_D \} $. Now define independent processes $\varepsilon_1, \dots, \varepsilon_n \in \mathbb{H} \subset C([0,1])$ by $$\varepsilon_j = \sum_{i=1}^D N_{i,j} \nu_i,
\qquad j=1,\dots , n,$$ where $N_{1,j},N_{2,j}, \dots, N_{D,j} $ are independent, normally distributed random variables with expectation zero and variance Var$(N_{i,j})=\sigma_i^2=1/i^2$ ($i=1,\ldots , D$; $j=1,\ldots , n$). The fMA(1) process is finally given by $ \eta_i = \varepsilon_i + \Theta \varepsilon_{i-1}$, where the operator $\Theta\colon \mathbb{H} \to \mathbb{H} $ (acting on a finite dimensional space) is defined by $\kappa \Psi$ (here $\kappa = 0.5$). The matrix $\Psi$ is chosen randomly, that is, a matrix consisting of normally distributed entries with mean zero and standard deviation $ \sigma_i \sigma_j $ is generated and then scaled such that the resulting matrix $\Psi$ has induced norm equal to $1$. Finally the two samples are given by $$X_i = \mu_1 + \eta_i^X~~(i=1,\ldots ,m )
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
Y_i = \mu_2 + \eta_i^Y~~(i=1,\ldots ,n ),$$ where $(\eta_i^X\colon i\in {\mathbb{Z}})$ and $(\eta_i^Y\colon i\in {\mathbb{Z}})$ are independent fMA(1) processes distributed as $(\eta_i\colon i\in {\mathbb{Z}})$. In Table \[tab3\] we display the simulated coverage percentage and the half width of the confidence band defined in Theorem \[th:cb-2\], that is $$\frac{T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha) \rfloor \}}}{\sqrt{m+n}} .$$ The two mean functions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relex1}
\mu_1 (t) = 0,\qquad\mu_2(t) =
\begin{cases}
0.5 t, & t\in[0,\frac{1}{5}] \\
0.1 , & t\in(\frac{1}{5}, \frac{3}{10}] \\
-0.5t+0.25, & t\in(\frac{3}{10}, \frac{7}{10}] \\
-0.1, & t\in(\frac{7}{10}, \frac{4}{5}] \\
0.5t-0.5 & t\in(\frac{4}{5}, 1]
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ (left panel) and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{relex2}
\mu_1 (t) = 0,\qquad\mu_2(t) =
\begin{cases}
0.4 t, & t\in[0,\frac{1}{4}] \\
0.1, & t\in(\frac{1}{4}, \frac{3}{4}] \\
-0.4t+0.4, & t\in(\frac{3}{4}, 1]
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ (right panel). Note that $d_\infty = 0.1$ in both cases. For example, for sample sizes $m=50$ and $n=100$ the coverage probability of the $95\%$ uniform confidence band for the difference of the mean functions in model is $94.1,\%$ and the width is $2\cdot 0.34 = 0.68$. We observe a reasonable approximation of the nominal level in all cases under consideration.
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
$(m, n)$ 1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10%
$(50, 100)$ (97.5, 0.44) (92.9, 0.34) (88, 0.29) (98.2, 0.44) (94.1, 0.34) (88.1, 0.29)
$(100, 100)$ (98.3, 0.36) (94.7, 0.28) (89.3, 0.24) (98.9, 0.36) (95.5, 0.28) (91.2, 0.24)
$(100, 200)$ (98.2, 0.31) (94.5, 0.24) (90.4, 0.21) (98.5, 0.31) (94.2, 0.24) (89.7, 0.21)
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
: **Simulated coverage probabilities (first number) and half width (second number) of the confidence band for the difference of the two mean functions. The error processes are given by $fMA(1)$ processes. Left part: model ; right part: model .** []{data-label="tab3"}
### Testing for a non relevant difference {#sec513}
In this paragraph the finite sample properties of the test for the relevant hypotheses of the form are investigated, using the same scenario as in Section \[sec512\], that is $fMA(1)$ time series with mean functions defined by and are used. The constant $c_{m,n}$ in is chosen as $0.1\log(m+n)$.
![*Simulated rejection probabilities of the test for a relevant difference in the maximal distance between mean functions of size $\Delta =0.1$. The error processes are given by fMA(1) processes. Left panel: model ; right panel: model .* []{data-label="fig1"}](powercurveSinuslike.png "fig:") ![*Simulated rejection probabilities of the test for a relevant difference in the maximal distance between mean functions of size $\Delta =0.1$. The error processes are given by fMA(1) processes. Left panel: model ; right panel: model .* []{data-label="fig1"}](powercurveSubinterval.png "fig:")
Figure \[fig1\] shows the rejection probabilities of the test for a relevant difference in the maximal distance between mean functions of size $\Delta=0.1$, where the mean functions are given by (left panel) and (right panel). The results correspond to the theoretical properties described in Theorem \[two-sample:bootstrap:asymptotic\]. More precisely, if $d_\infty =|a| < \Delta$ (interior of the null hypothesis) the probability of rejection is substantially smaller than $\alpha$ and decreases with increasing sample size. At the boundary of the hypotheses, that is $d_\infty= \Delta$, we observe from Table \[tab2\] that the simulated level is close to the nominal level $\alpha$. On the other hand, the power of the test is strictly increasing with $d_\infty > \Delta$ (see Figure \[fig1\]).
-------------- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ------
$(n, m)$ 1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10%
$(50, 100)$ 2.4 7 13.7 2.5 7.2 13.8
$(100, 100)$ 1.7 6.7 11.1 1.7 5.9 11.5
$(100, 200)$ 1.2 3.8 9.7 1.2 4.2 10.2
-------------- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ------
: **Simulated nominal level of the test for a relevant difference in the mean functions at the boundary of the null hypothesis, that is $d_\infty= \Delta =0.1$. The error processes are given by fMA(1) processes. Left part: model ; right part: model .** []{data-label="tab2"}
Change-point inference {#sec52}
----------------------
In this section we investigate the finite sample performance of the change-point tests based on the maximal deviation $d_\infty$ proposed in Section \[sec:change-point\]. Throughout this section consider a time series of the form $$\label{cpmodel}
X_i = \mu_i + \eta_i^X~~(i=1,\ldots ,n )$$ where $( \eta_i^X) _{i \in \mathbb{Z}} $ is the fMA(1) process defined in Section \[sec512\] and the sequence of mean functions satisfies . We investigate the problem of testing for a relevant change of size $\Delta=0.4$ in the mean functions. The corresponding results are depicted in Table \[tab4\], where we consider again the model with mean functions before and after the change point $s^*=0.5$ given by and . The parameter $c_n$ in is chosen as $0.1 \log(n)$. The case $a=0.4$ corresponds to the boundary of the hypotheses and here a rather accurate approximation of the nominal level is observed. In the interior of the null hypothesis (that is $a <0.4$) the rejection probability, for $n=200, 500$, is strictly smaller than the nominal level and decreasing with an increasing sample size as described at the end of Section \[testdiffrel\] (note that the same arguments also hold for the change point problem). Similarly, under the alternative (i.e. $a>0.4$) the test shows reasonable rejection probabilities which are increasing with sample size and $a$.
n
-- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
$a$ 1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10%
0.37 1.9 4.7 8.4 0.3 0.5 1.1 0 0 0.1
0.38 2.2 5.2 7.2 0.2 0.6 1.2 0 0 0.1
0.39 1.8 5 9 0.4 1.1 3.4 0.2 0.5 1.2
0.4 2.8 9.3 17.7 1.3 5.1 10.4 0.9 4.2 8.6
0.41 6.1 14.0 24.7 5 15 26.2 12.1 29.8 44.4
0.42 09.3 25.3 40.4 14.8 36.9 58.1 45.9 84.2 95.4
0.43 19.3 42.2 62.9 42.2 76.4 91.0 91.8 99.4 99.7
0.37 1.9 4.6 8.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 0 0 0
0.38 2.1 4.6 7.2 0.1 0.6 1.2 0 0 0.1
0.39 2.0 5.2 8.7 0.3 1.1 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.8
0.4 2.3 7.8 16.3 1.5 5.4 11.6 0.7 4.2 9.7
0.41 6.7 17.4 32.6 7.9 21.3 37.3 18.0 43.8 64.9
0.42 14.6 35.8 54.9 27.7 62.1 81.9 76.1 96.0 99.5
0.43 32.7 63.9 78.3 68.1 91.8 96.5 98.1 99.7 99.8
: **Simulated nominal level (in percent) of the test for the hypotheses of a relevant change in the maximal deviation of the mean functions in model , where $\Delta=0.4$. The case $a=0.4$ corresponds to the boundary of the hypotheses, $a < 0.4 $ to the null hypothesis and $a>0.4$ to the alternative. The error processes are given by fMA(1) processes. Upper part: model ; lower part: model .** []{data-label="tab4"}
Data example {#sec53}
------------
To illustrate the proposed methodology, two applications to annual temperature profiles are reported in this section. Data of this kind were recently used in Aue and van Delft [@aueVandelft] and van Delft et al. [@vanDelftEtAl] in the context of stationarity tests for functional time series and earlier in Fremdt et al. [@fremdtEtAl] in support of methodology designed to choose the dimension of the projection space obtained with fPCA. For all examples, functions were generated from daily values through representation in a Fourier basis consisting of 49 basis functions, where reasonable deviations from this preset do not qualitatively change the outcome of the analyses to follow.
### Two-sample tests {#sec531}
For the two-sample testing problem, annual temperature profiles were obtained from daily temperatures recorded at measuring stations in Cape Otway, a location close to the southernmost point of Australia, and Sydney, a city on the eastern coast of Australia. This led to $m=147$ respectively $n=153$ functions for the two samples. Differences in the temperature profiles are expected due to different climate conditions, so the focus of the relevant tests is on working out how big the discrepancy might be. The data considered here is part of the larger data set considered, for example, in Aue and van Delft [@aueVandelft] and van Delft et al. [@vanDelftEtAl].
To set up the test for the hypotheses , the statistic in was computed, resulting in the value $$\hat d_\infty=5.73.$$ To see whether this is significant, the proposed bootstrap methodology was applied. To estimate the extremal sets in , the estimators in were utilized with $c_{m,n}=0.1\log(m+n)=0.570$. The resulting bootstrap quantiles are reported in the second row of Table \[tab:ts-temp\]. Also reported in this table are the results of the bootstrap procedure in for various levels $\alpha$ and relevance $\Delta$. Note that the maximum difference in mean the functions is achieved at $t=0.99$, towards the end of December and consequently during the Australian summer. The results show that there is strong evidence in the data to support the hypothesis that the maximal difference is at least $\Delta=5.4$, but that there is no evidence that the maximal difference is even larger than $\Delta=5.6$. Several intermediate values of $\Delta$ led to weaker support of the alternative. The left panel of Figure \[fig:cp-before-after\] displays the difference in mean functions graphically.
$\Delta$ 99% 97.5% 95% 90%
---------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$q$ 5.138 4.201 3.757 3.009
5.4 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
5.45 FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE
5.5 FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE
5.55 FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE
5.6 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
: *Summary of the bootstrap two sample procedure for relevant hypotheses with varying $\Delta$ for the annual temperature curves. The label TRUE refers to a rejection of the null, the label FALSE to a failure to reject the null.*[]{data-label="tab:ts-temp"}
### Change-point tests {#sec532}
Following Fremdt et al. [@fremdtEtAl], annual temperature curves were obtained from daily minimum temperatures recorded in Melbourne, Australia. This led to 156 annual temperature profiles ranging from 1856 to 2011 to which the change-point test for the relevant hypotheses in was applied based on the rejection decision in . To compute the test statistic $\hat d_\infty$ in , note that the estimated change-point in was $\hat s=0.62$ (corresponding to the year 1962). This gives $$\hat d_\infty = 1.765.$$ To see whether this value leads to a rejection of the null, the multiplier bootstrap procedure was utilized with bandwidth parameter $l=1$, leading to the rejection rule in . In order to apply this procedure, first the extremal sets $\hat{\mathcal{E}}^+$ and $\hat{\mathcal{E}}^-$ in were selected, choosing $c_n=0.1\log n=0.504$. This yielded the bootstrap quantiles reported in the second row of Table \[tab:cp-temp\].
Several values for $\Delta$, determining which deviations are to be considered relevant, were then examined. The results of the bootstrap testing procedure are summarized in Table \[tab:cp-temp\]. It can be seen that the null hypothesis of no relevant change was rejected at all considered levels for the smaller choice $\Delta=1.2$. On the other extreme, for $\Delta=1.4$, the test never rejected. For the intermediate values $\Delta=1.25,1.3,1.35$, the null was rejected at the 2.5%, 5% and 20% level, at the 5% and 10% level, and at the 10% level, respectively. Estimating the mean functions before and after $\hat s$ (1962) shows that the maximum difference of the mean functions is approximately $1.765$, lending further credibility to the conducted analyses. The right panel of Figure \[fig:cp-before-after\] displays both mean functions for illustration. It can be seen that the mean difference is maximal during the Australian summer (in February), indicating that the mean functions of minimum temperature profiles have been most drastically changed during the hottest part of the year. The results here are in agreement with the findings put forward in Hughes et al. [@hughesEtAl], who reported that average temperatures in Antarctica have risen due to increases in minimum temperatures.
In summary, the results in this section highlight that there is strong evidence in the data for an increase in the mean function of Melbourne annual temperature profiles, with the maximum difference between “before” and “after” mean functions being at least 1.25 degrees centigrade. There is weak evidence that this difference is at least 1.35 degrees centigrade, but there is no support for the relevant hypothesis that it is even larger than that.
![*Mean functions for the Australian temperature data. Left panel: Estimated mean functions of the Cape Otway and Sydney series for the two-sample case. Right panel: Estimated mean functions before and after the estimated change-point for the Melbourne temperature series.* []{data-label="fig:cp-before-after"}](meanCurvesTSP.png "fig:") ![*Mean functions for the Australian temperature data. Left panel: Estimated mean functions of the Cape Otway and Sydney series for the two-sample case. Right panel: Estimated mean functions before and after the estimated change-point for the Melbourne temperature series.* []{data-label="fig:cp-before-after"}](meanCurvesCPP.png "fig:")
$\Delta$ 99% 97.5% 95% 90%
---------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$q$ 6.632 6.278 5.603 4.697
1.2 TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
1.25 FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE
1.3 FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE
1.35 FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE
1.4 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
: *Summary of the bootstrap change-point procedure for relevant hypotheses with varying $\Delta$ for the annual temperature curves. The label TRUE refers to a rejection of the null, the label FALSE to a failure to reject the null.*[]{data-label="tab:cp-temp"}
[**Acknowledgements** ]{} The authors thank Martina Stein, who typed parts of this manuscript with considerable technical expertise, Stanislav Volgushev for helpful discussions about the proof of Theorem \[setConvergence\] and Josua Gösmann and Daniel Mei[ß]{}ner for helpful discussions about the proof of Lemma \[maxSetConvergence\].
Online supplement: Proofs {#sec:proofs}
=========================
Convergence of suprema of non-centered processes {#subsec:banach_methods:main}
-------------------------------------------------
This section collects some preliminary results useful in the proofs of the main results. Van der Vaart and Wellner [@wellner1996] formulate the concept of weak convergence in a slightly more general way, not restricting to sequences of random variables. They state their theory for *nets* of random variables $(X_\alpha\colon \alpha \in A)$, where $A$ is a *directed set*, that is, a non-empty set equipped with a partial order $\leq$ with the additional property that, for any pair $a,b\in A$, there is $c\in A$ such that $a\leq c$ and $b\leq c$. This is a natural extension of the case considered in this paper and it will sometimes be used in the proofs to follow. The weak convergence result presented next is central to establishing limit results for the two-sample and change-point tests.
\[thm0\] Let $(X_{\alpha}\colon\alpha\in A)$ denote a net of random variables taking values in $C(T)$ and let $\mu \in C(T)$. If $r\colon A \to \mathbb{R}_+$ is defined such that $a_{\alpha} = log(r_{\alpha})/ \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} = o(1)$ and if $Z_\alpha=\sqrt{r_{\alpha}}(X_{\alpha} - \mu)$ converges weakly to a Gaussian random variable $Z$ in $C(T) $, then $$D_\alpha
= \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \big(\|X_\alpha\| - \|\mu\|\big)
\Rightarrow D({\mathcal{E}})
= \max\Big\{ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^+} Z(t), \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^-} -Z(t) \Big\}$$ in $\mathbb{R}$, where $\Rightarrow$ denotes convergence in distribution, $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}^+\cup\mathcal{E}^-$ the set of extremal points of $\mu$, divided into $\mathcal{E}^{\pm} = \{ t \in T \colon \mu(t) = \pm \|\mu\| \}$, tacitly adopting the convention $\mathcal{E}^{\pm} =T$ if $\mu \equiv 0$.
[**Proof of Theorem \[thm0\].**]{} First notice that, if $\mu$ is the zero function, the result is implied by the continuous mapping theorem. Hence, only the case $\|\mu\|>0$ is considered in the following for which some arguments from Raghavachari [@raghavachari1973] are applied. To show that $D_\alpha\stackrel{\cal D}{\longrightarrow}D(\mathcal{E})$, introduce $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E}) &= \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \left(\sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| - \|\mu\|\right)\end{aligned}$$ and note that the assertion of Theorem \[thm0\] directly follows from the following lemmas.
\[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:1\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm0\], it holds that $
D_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E})\Rightarrow D({\mathcal{E}}).
$
\[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:2\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm0\], it holds that $
R_{\alpha} = D_{\alpha} - D_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E}) = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1).
$
[**Proof of Lemma \[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:1\].**]{} Define the random variable $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{D}_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E})
= \max \Big\{ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^+} Z_{\alpha}(t), \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^-} -Z_{\alpha}(t) \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ From the continuous mapping theorem it follows that $\tilde{D}_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E}){\Rightarrow} D({\mathcal{E}})$. Recall that $d_\infty=\|\mu\|$ and rewrite $D_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E})
&= \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \left(\sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| - d_{\infty} \right) = \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \max \left \{ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^+} |X_{\alpha}(t)|-d_{\infty}, \ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^-} |X_{\alpha}(t)|-d_{\infty}\right\} \\
&= \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \max \left \{ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^+} X_{\alpha}(t) - d_{\infty}, \ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^-} -X_{\alpha}(t)-d_{\infty} \right\}
+ o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) \\
&= \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \max \left\{ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^+} (X_{\alpha}(t) - \mu(t)), \ \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^-} (-X_{\alpha}(t) + \mu(t)) \right\} + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) \\
&= \tilde{D}_{\alpha}(\mathcal{E}) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1).\end{aligned}$$ The assertion follows.
[**Proof of Lemma \[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:2\].**]{} First observe that the assumed weak convergence of $Z_\alpha=\sqrt{r_\alpha}(X_\alpha-\mu)$ to $Z$ and the continuous mapping theorem imply that $\|Z_\alpha\|{\Rightarrow}\|Z\|$. Consequently, Slutsky’s lemma yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{firstCondition}
\lim_{{\alpha} \to \infty}
\mathbb{P}\left(\|X_{\alpha}-\mu\|
> \frac{a_{\alpha}}{2} \right) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ noting that $a_\alpha=\log(r_\alpha)/\sqrt{r_\alpha}=o(1)$ by assumption. The proof of the lemma is now given in two steps.\
[*Step 1:*]{} First, define the sets $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^{\pm} &= \{ t \in T \colon |\pm d_{\infty} - \mu(t)| \leq a_{\alpha} \} = \{ t \in T \colon \pm \mu(t) \geq d_{\infty} - a_{\alpha} \}\end{aligned}$$ on which the function $\pm\mu$ is within $a_\alpha$ from its extremal value $d_\infty$, and let $\mathcal{E}_{\alpha} = \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^+ \cup \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^-$. It will be shown in the following that $D_\alpha$ can be replaced with $D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}_\alpha)$ in the definition of $R_\alpha$ without changing its asymptotic behavior. Here, $D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}_\alpha)$ is defined as $D_\alpha(\mathcal{E})$, using $\mathcal{E}_\alpha$ in place of $\mathcal{E}$. A corresponding definition is used for $D_\alpha(T\!\setminus\!\mathcal{E}_\alpha)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{calEn}
0 \leq R_{\alpha}
&= D_\alpha - D_\alpha(\mathcal{E})
=\max\big\{D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}_\alpha)- D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}),D_\alpha(T\!\setminus\!\mathcal{E}_\alpha)- D_\alpha(\mathcal{E})\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ The second term in the maximum on the right-hand side of is negligible as the following considerations show. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
D_\alpha(T\!\setminus\!\mathcal{E}_\alpha)- D_\alpha(\mathcal{E})
=& \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \Big( \sup_{t \in T\setminus \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}}
|X_{\alpha}(t) - \mu(t) +\mu(t)|
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| \Big) \\
\leq & \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \Big( \sup_{t \in T\setminus \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}}
\left( |Y_{\alpha}(t)| + |\mu(t)| \right)
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)|\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_\alpha=X_\alpha-\mu$ is the centered version of $X_\alpha$. The definition of $\mathcal{E}_\alpha$ yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big( \sup_{t \in T\setminus \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}}
\left( |Y_{\alpha}(t)| + |\mu(t)| \right)
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| \Big )
& < \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \Big ( \sup_{t \in T\setminus \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}}
|Y_{\alpha}(t)| + d_{\infty} - a_{\alpha}
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| \Big) \\
&\leq \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \sup_{t \in T} |Y_{\alpha}(t)| - \log(r_{\alpha})
- \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \Big( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| - d_{\infty} \Big).\end{aligned}$$ Observe next that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\alpha \to \infty} &\mathbb{P} \Big(
\sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \sup_{t \in T} |Y_{\alpha}(t)| - \log(r_{\alpha})
- \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \Big( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| - d_{\infty} \Big ) > 0
\Big ) \\
\leq & \lim_{\alpha \to \infty} \mathbb{P} \Big(
\Big | \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \sup_{t \in T} |Y_{\alpha}(t)| - \sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big ( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| - d_{\infty} \Big ) \Big |
> \log(r_{\alpha}) \Big) \\
\leq & \lim_{\alpha \to \infty} \left\{ \mathbb{P} \Big(
\sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \sup_{t \in T} |Y_{\alpha}(t)|
> \frac{\log(r_{\alpha})}{2} \Big)
+ \mathbb{P} \Big(
\sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \Big | \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| - d_{\infty} \Big |
> \frac{\log(r_{\alpha})}{2} \Big) \right\} ~=~ 0.\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the right-hand side converges to $0$ because of and, recalling the weak convergence shown in Lemma \[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:1\], it follows by similar arguments that the second term converges to $0$. On the other hand, the first term in is always nonnegative as $\mathcal{E}$ is a subset of $\mathcal{E}_{\alpha}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
0 \leq R_{\alpha} = D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}_\alpha)-D_\alpha(\mathcal{E})+o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)
= \sqrt{r_{\alpha}}\Big( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}} |X_{\alpha}(t)|
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| \Big ) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)\end{aligned}$$ holds and it suffices to evaluate $D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}_\alpha)-D_\alpha(\mathcal{E})$.\
[*Step 2:*]{} Define $R_\alpha^\pm=D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}_\alpha^\pm)-D_\alpha(\mathcal{E}^\pm)$ and observe that then $0 \leq R_{\alpha} \leq \max \big \{R_{\alpha}^+, R_{\alpha}^- \big \} + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$. For the completion of the proof it is necessary to show that $R_{\alpha}^{\pm} = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$. To this end, write $$\begin{aligned}
0 \leq R_{\alpha}^+ &= \sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big ( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^{+}} |X_{\alpha}(t)|
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^{+}} |X_{\alpha}(t)| \Big ) =\sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big ( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^{+}} X_{\alpha}(t)
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^{+}} X_{\alpha}(t) \Big ) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) \\
& = \sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^{+}} \big ( X_{\alpha}(t) - d_{\infty}\big)
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^{+}} \big( X_{\alpha}(t) - d_{\infty} \big)\Big)
+ o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) \\
& \leq \sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^{+}} \big ( X_{\alpha}(t) - \mu(t) \big )
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^{+}}\big ( X_{\alpha}(t) - \mu(t) \big ) \Big)
+ o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) \\
& = \sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^{+}} Y_{\alpha}(t)
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^{+}} Y_{\alpha}(t) \Big)
+ o_{\mathbb{P}}(1).\end{aligned}$$ Define $\mathcal{E}^+(\gamma) = \{s \in T \colon
\exists \ t \in \mathcal{E}^+ \text{ with } \rho(t,s) < \gamma \}$ and $\delta_{\alpha} = 2 \inf\{\gamma > 0 \colon
\mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^+ \subset \mathcal{E}^+ (\gamma) \}$. Since $\mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^+ \subset \mathcal{E}^+(\delta_{\alpha})$ the above expression can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^{+}} Y_{\alpha}(t)
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^{+}} Y_{\alpha}(t)\Big)
+ o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) & \leq \sqrt{r_{\alpha}}
\Big ( \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^+(\delta_{\alpha})} Y_{\alpha}(t)
- \sup_{t \in \mathcal{E}^{+}} Y_{\alpha}(t) \Big )
+ o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) \\
&\leq \sqrt{r_{\alpha}} \sup_{\rho(s,t)< \delta_{\alpha}} |Y_{\alpha}(s) - Y_{\alpha}(t)|
+ o_{\mathbb{P}}(1).\end{aligned}$$ Because of equicontinuity, it remains to show that $\lim_{\alpha \to \infty} \delta_{\alpha} = 0$. Now, the sequence $(\delta_{\alpha}\colon\alpha \in A)$ decreases in $\alpha$ and $\delta_{\alpha} > 0$ so that $\lim_{\alpha \to \infty} \delta_{\alpha}$ exists. By construction, $\mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^+ \subset \mathcal{E}^+(\delta_{\alpha})$ but $\mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^+ \not \subset \mathcal{E}^+(\delta_{\alpha}/4)$. There is hence a subsequence $(s_{\alpha}\colon\alpha \in A) \subset \mathcal{E}_{\alpha}^+$ such that $\rho(s_{\alpha}, t) \geq \delta_{\alpha}/4$ for all $t \in \mathcal{E}^+$ and all $\alpha \in A$. The compactness of $T$ implies that $(s_{\alpha}\colon\alpha \in A)$ contains a convergent subsequence $(s_{\alpha_{\beta}}\colon\beta \in A)$. It follows thus that $\lim_{\beta \to \infty} s_{\alpha_\beta} = s \in T$ and $d_{\infty} = \lim_{\beta \to \infty} \mu(s_{\alpha_\beta}) = \mu(s)$ because $\mu$ is continuous. Consequently $s \in \mathcal{E}^+$ but on the other hand $\rho(s_{\alpha_\beta},s) \geq \delta_{\alpha}/4$ so that $\lim_{\alpha \to \infty}\delta_{\alpha}$ has to be $0$. The lemma is now proven because similar arguments imply that $R_{\alpha}^- = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$.
Proofs of the results in Section \[sec:banach\_methods\] {#proofssec2}
--------------------------------------------------------
Note that the results of Section 1.5 in Van der Vaart and Wellner [@wellner1996] also hold, if the space $\ell^\infty$ is replaced by $C(T)$. Consequently, the assertion follows from the convergence of the finite dimensional distributions of $(G_n\colon n\in\mathbb{N})$ and the existence of a metric $\rho$ such that $(G_n\colon n\in\mathbb{N})$ is uniformly $\rho$-equicontinuous in probability.
In a first step, convergence of finite-dimensional distributions is verified. Let $q\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t_1,\dots,t_q \in T$. By the Cram[é]{}r-Wold device, the convergence of the finite-dimensional distributions follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{barZdef}
Z_n = \sum_{j=1}^q c_j G_n(t_j)
&= \sum_{j=1}^q c_j \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^n \big(X_{n,i}(t_j) - \mu^{(i)}(t_j) \big)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^n Z_{i,n} \Rightarrow \bar{Z}=\sum_{j=1}^q c_j Z(t_j)~,
$$ where $Z_{i,n} = \sum_{j=1}^q c_j (X_{n,i}(t_j) - \mu^{(i)}(t_j) ) $ and $c_1,\dots,c_q\in\mathbb{R}$ denote arbitrary constants.
In order to show the weak convergence of $Z_n$ to $\bar Z$, a blocking technique similar to Lemma A.1 in Bücher and Kojadinovic [@buecher2016] is utilized. Each block consists of a big subblock followed by a small subblock. For $1/(2+2\nu)<\eta_b < \eta_s <1/2$, where $\nu>0$ is the same as in Assumption (A1), define the length of the small and the big subblocks as $s_n = \lfloor n^{1/2-\eta_s} \rfloor$ and $b_n = \lfloor n^{1/2-\eta_b} \rfloor$, respectively. In total there are therefore $k_n = \lfloor n/(b_n+s_n) \rfloor$ blocks. Now consider the random variables $$\begin{aligned}
B_{j,n} = \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n} Z_{i,n} \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
S_{j,n} = \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j(b_n+s_n)} Z_{i,n},\qquad j=1,\dots,k_n,\end{aligned}$$ corresponding to the sums of the $j$-th big and small subblock, respectively. It directly follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{reprZN}
Z_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} S_{j,n}
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} R_n ~,\end{aligned}$$ where $R_n = \sum_{i=k_n(b_n+s_n)+1}^n Z_{i,n} $ denotes the sum of the remaining terms $Z_{i,n}$ after the last small subblock. Now the variance of $Z_n$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{varZnCLT}
\begin{split}
\text{Var}(Z_n) = & ~ \text{Var}\Big (\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}\Big )
+ \frac{2}{n} \sum_{j,j'=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[B_{j,n} S_{j',n}]
+ \frac{2}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[B_{j,n} R_n] \\
& +\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j,j'=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[S_{j,n} S_{j',n}]
+ \frac{2}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[S_{j,n} R_n]
+ \frac{1}{n}\mathbb{E}[R_n^2].
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ It will be shown that each term except the first on the right-hand side of converges to zero. As a consequence, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h1a}
|Z_n - 1/\sqrt{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}| &= |1/\sqrt{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} S_{j,n}+1/\sqrt{n} R_n| = o_\mathbb{P}(1) , \\
\mbox{Var}(Z_n) & =\text{Var}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}\bigg) + o(1).
\label{h2a}\end{aligned}$$ First show that the second term on the right side of converges to zero. To this end, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[B_{j,n} S_{j',n}] =
\sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n} \sum_{i'=(j'-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j'(b_n+s_n)}
\mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n} Z_{i',n}] ~.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\sigma(X(t))\subset \sigma(X)$ for any random variable $X$ in $C([0,1])$ and $t\in[0,1]$, where $\sigma(X)$ denotes the $\sigma$-field generated by $X$ (see Problem 1.7.1 in Van der Vaart and Wellner [@wellner1996]). Hence, $\phi(\sigma(X(t)),\sigma(Y(s))) \leq \phi(\sigma(X),\sigma(Y))$ for any $C([0,1])$-valued random variables $X,Y$ and any $s,t\in[0,1]$. Using this fact and formula (3.17) in Dehling and Philipp [@dehling2002] leads to the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound1CLT}
|\mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n} Z_{i',n}]|
& \leq \sum_{l,l'=1}^q |c_l c_{l'}| |\text{Cov}(X_i (t_l), X_{i'}(t_{l'}))| \\
& \leq 2 \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2} \sum_{l,l'=1}^q |c_l c_{l'}| ~
\mathbb{E}[X_i(t_l)^2]^{1/2} \mathbb{E}[X_{i'}(t_{l'})^2]^{1/2} \nonumber
\lesssim \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from Assumption (A1) and the symbol $\lesssim $ means less or equal up to a constant independent of $n$. This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{blockIneq}
|\mathbb{E}[B_{j,n} S_{j,n}]|
&\lesssim \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n}
\sum_{i'=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j(b_n+s_n)} \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2}
\lesssim \sum_{i=1}^{b_n +s_n -1} i \varphi(i)^{1/2} < \infty .\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality holds, since Assumption (A4) yields $ \sum_{i=1}^\infty i \varphi(i)^{1/2} \leq \sum_{i=1}^\infty i a^{i/2} < \infty $. Similarly it can be shown that $|\mathbb{E}[B_{j,n} S_{j-1,n}]| < \infty$. For $j'>j+1$ and $j>j'+1$ there is at least one big subblock between the observations and since $\varphi(\cdot)$ is monotonically decreasing, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \mathbb{E} [B_{j,n} S_{j',n} ] \vert
\lesssim \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n}
\sum_{i'=(j'-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j'(b_n+s_n)} \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2}
= O(b_n s_n \varphi(b_n)^{1/2} ) ~.\end{aligned}$$ Overall, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{n} \sum_{j,j'=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[B_{j,n} S_{j',n}]
= O(n^{-1} k_n) + O(n^{-1} k_n^2 b_n s_n \varphi(b_n)^{1/2}) = O(b_n^{-1}) + O(n b_n^{-1} s_n a^{b_n /2}) =o(1),\end{aligned}$$ using that $n^{-1}k_n = (b_n + s_n)^{-1} = O(b_n^{-1})$ and that $s_n/b_n \to 0$ and $na^{b_n/2}\to 0$.
For the third term in , proceed in a similar way as in to get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[B_{k_n,n} R_n]
& \lesssim \sum_{i=(k_n-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(k_n-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n}
\sum_{i'= k_n(b_n+s_n)+1}^n \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2}
\lesssim \sum_{i=1}^{b_n + (n-k_n(s_n+b_n)) -1} i \varphi(i)^{1/2} < \infty .\end{aligned}$$ In the case of $j<k_n$, there is again at least one big subblock between the observations in $\mathbb{E}[B_{j,n}R_n]$ and therefore it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\vert \mathbb{E} [B_{j,n} R_{n} ] \vert
& \lesssim \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n}
\sum_{i'= k_n(b_n+s_n)+1}^n \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2} = O(b_n^2 \varphi(b_n)^{1/2}),\end{aligned}$$ since $n-k_n(s_n+b_n) \leq s_n +b_n = O(b_n)$. Altogether, the calculations above yield $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[B_{j,n} R_n]
=O(n^{-1} k_n b_n^2 \varphi(b_n)^{1/2})
+ O(n^{-1})
= O(b_n a^{b_n /2}) + O(n^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ which converges to zero.
Now consider the fourth term in and use to conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{smallIneq}
\mathbb{E}[S_{j,n} S_{j',n}]
&\lesssim \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j(b_n+s_n)}
\sum_{i'=(j'-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j'(b_n+s_n)} \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
For $j=j'$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound2.1CLT}
\mathbb{E}[S_{j,n}^2]
\lesssim \sum_{i,i'=1}^{s_n} \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2}
\lesssim \sum_{i=0}^{s_n-1} (s_n -i) \varphi(i)^{1/2}
\lesssim s_n \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a^{i/2}\lesssim s_n\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $\mathbb{E}[S_{j,n}^2] = O(s_n)$. Since there is always at least one big subblock between two small subblocks, it follows that $\mathbb{E}[S_{j,n}S_{j',n}] = O(s_n^2 \varphi(b_n)^{1/2})$ for $j\neq j'$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j,j'=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[S_{j,n}S_{j',n}]
= O(n^{-1} k_n s_n ) + O(n^{-1} k_n^2 s_n^2 \varphi(b_n)^{1/2})
= O(b_n^{-1} s_n) + O(n b_n^{-2} s_n^2 a^{b_n / 2}),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ which converges to zero, since $b_n^{-1} s_n \to 0$ and $n a^{b_n / 2} \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
For the fifth term in , use similar arguments as for the third term and for the last term, use the same arguments as in to get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \mathbb{E}[R_n^2] = O(n^{-1} (n-k_n(b_n + s_n)) ) = O(n^{-1}b_n) \to 0.\end{aligned}$$ From it follows that it suffices to show the convergence $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n} \Rightarrow \bar Z$ in order to establish . For that purpose let $\psi_{j,n}(t) = \exp (itn^{-1/2} B_{j,n})$ and define $ \mathbb{E} \big[ \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \psi_{j,n}(t)\big]$ as the characteristic function of $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}$. Let $B'_{1,n},\dots,B'_{k_n,n}$ denote independent random variables such that $B_{j,n}$ and $B'_{j,n}$ are equally distributed $(j=1,\ldots , k_n)$ and define $ \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E} [\psi_{j,n}(t)]$ as the characteristic function of $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\Big | \mathbb{E} \Big [ \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \psi_{j,n}(t) \Big ]
- \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E} \Big [\psi_{j,n}(t) \Big ] \Big | & \leq \sum_{i=1}^{k_n}
\Big | \prod_{j=1}^{i-1} \mathbb{E} \big [\psi_{j,n}(t) \big ] \Big |
~ \Big | \mathbb{E} \Big [ \prod_{j=i}^{k_n} \psi_{j,n}(t) \Big ]
- \mathbb{E} \big [\psi_{i,n}(t)\big ]
\mathbb{E} \Big [ \prod_{j=i+1}^{k_n} \psi_{j,n}(t) \Big ] \Big | \\
& \lesssim k_n \max_{1\leq i\leq k_n-1}
\phi \Big ( \sigma\left( \psi_{i,n}(t) \right),
\sigma \Big ( \prod_{j=i+1}^{k_n} \psi_{j,n}(t) \Big ) \Big )\lesssim k_n \varphi(s_n) = o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where Lemma 3.9 of Dehling and Philipp [@dehling2002] was used for the the second inequality, while the third inequality follows, since there are always $s_n$ observations between two big subblocks. Hence, it suffices to show that $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n}$ converges in distribution to $\bar Z$ in order to establish . For that purpose, utilize the Lindeberg–Feller central limit theorem for triangular arrays. It is first shown that Var$(n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n})$ converges to the variance of $\bar Z$.
Recall that the random variables $B'_{1,n}, \dots, B'_{k_n,n}$ are independent and have the same distributions as $B_{1,n},\dots,B_{k_n,n}$, respectively. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{varasy}
\text{Var}\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n} \Big )
&= \frac 1n \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \text{Var}(B'_{j,n})
= \text{Var} \Big (\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n} \Big)
- \frac{1}{n} \sum_{\substack{j,j'=1 \\ j\neq j'}}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[B_{j,n}B_{j',n}].\end{aligned}$$ It is already known that Var$(n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n})=$ Var$(Z_n) + o(1)$. Recall the calculations in and the subsequent discussion to note that it can be shown in a similar way that $\mathbb{E}[B_{j,n}B_{j',n}] = O(b_n^2 \varphi(s_n)^{1/2})$, for $j\neq j'$. Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{\substack{j,j'=1 \\ j\neq j'}}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[B_{j,n}B_{j',n}]
= O(n^{-1} k_n^2 b_n^2 \varphi(s_n)^{1/2}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $ n^{-1}k_n = O((b_n +s_n)^{-1}) = O(b_n^{-1}) $, $O(n^{-1} k_n^2 b_n^2 \varphi(s_n)^{1/2}) = O(n a^{s_n/2}) \to 0$, this means that Var$(n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n})=$Var$(Z_n) + o(1)$.
Now consider the variance of $\bar Z$. Recall the definition of $\bar Z$ in and note that its variance satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{varBarZ}
\mathrm{Var}(\bar Z)
= \mathrm{Var} \Big (\sum_{l=1}^q c_l Z(t_l)\Big )
= \sum_{l,l'=1}^q c_l c_{l'} \mathrm{Cov}(Z(t_l),Z(t_{l'}))
= \sum_{l,l'=1}^q c_l c_{l'} C(t_l,t_{l'}).\end{aligned}$$ The variance of $Z_n$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Var}(Z_n)
&= \mathrm{Var} \Big (\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^n Z_{i,n} \Big )
= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i,i'=1}^n \mathrm{Cov}(Z_{i,n},Z_{i',n})
= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{l,l'=1}^q c_l c_{l'} \sum_{i,i'=1}^n \mathrm{Cov}(X_{n,i}(t_l),X_{n,i'}(t_{l'})) \\
&= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{l,l'=1}^q c_l c_{l'} \sum_{i,i'=1}^n \gamma(i-i',t_l,t_{l'})
= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{l,l'=1}^q c_l c_{l'} \sum_{i=-n}^n (n-|i|) \gamma(i,t_l,t_{l'}) = \mathrm{Var}(\bar Z) + o(1)\end{aligned}$$ by the dominated convergence theorem. Consequently, $\mathrm{Var}(n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n})=\mathrm{Var}(\bar Z) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$ follows from the previous discussion.
Finally, verify the Lindeberg condition for the random variables $B_{j,n}'$. Using Hölder’s inequality with $p=1+\nu /2$ and $q=(2+\nu)/\nu$ (here $\nu$ is the same as in Assumption (A1)) and Markov’s inequality yields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\big[(B_{j,n}')^2
\mathds{1} \{|B_{j,n}'| > \sqrt{n}\delta\} \big] &=
\mathbb{E}\big[B_{j,n}^2
\mathds{1} \{|B_{j,n}| > \sqrt{n}\delta\} \big] \leq \mathbb{E} \big[ |B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{2/(2+\nu)}
\mathbb{P}\big(|B_{j,n}| > \sqrt{n}\delta\big)^{\nu/(2+\nu)} \\
&\leq \mathbb{E} \big[ |B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{2/(2+\nu)}
\mathbb{E}\big[|B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{\nu/(2+\nu)} (n^{1/2}\delta)^{-\nu} = \mathbb{E} \big[ |B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big] (n^{1/2}\delta)^{-\nu} .\end{aligned}$$ Minkowski’s inequality gives $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} \big[ |B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{1/(2+\nu)}
\leq \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n}
\mathbb{E}\big[|Z_{i,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{1/(2+\nu)} = O(b_n),\end{aligned}$$ where the last estimate follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{1\leq i\leq n} \mathbb{E}\big[|Z_{i,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{1/(2+\nu)}
&\leq \max_{1\leq i\leq n} \sum_{l=1}^q |c_l|
\mathbb{E}\big[|X_{n,i}(t_l)-\mu^{(i)}(t_l)|^{2+\nu}\big]^{1/(2+\nu)} < \infty\end{aligned}$$ by Assumption (A1). Combining these estimates gives the Lindeberg condition, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} & \mathbb{E}\big[(B_{j,n}')^2
\mathds{1} \{|B_{j,n}'| > \sqrt{n}\delta\} \big]
= O(n^{-1} k_n b_n^{2+\nu} n^{-\nu/2}) = O(b_n^{1+\nu} n^{-\nu/2})
= O(n^{1/2-\eta_b(1+\nu)}) =o(1),\end{aligned}$$ since by assumption $\eta_b > 1/(2+2\nu)$.
The proof is completed showing that the process $(G_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset C([0,1])$ is uniformly $\rho$-equicontinuous in probability with respect to the metric $\rho (s,t) =|s-t|$. With the notation $Y_{n,j} := X_{n,j} -\mu^{(j)}$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Vert G_n (s) - G_n (t)\Vert_2^2
=& \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j,j'=1}^n \mathbb{E} \bigg[
\big(Y_{n,j}(s) - Y_{n,j}(t) \big)
\big(Y_{n,j'}(s) - Y_{n,j'}(t) \big) \bigg] \\
\leq &\frac{2}{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}
(n-j) \mathbb{E}\big[ \big(Y_{n,1}(s) - Y_{n,1}(t) \big)
\big(Y_{n,1+j}(s) - Y_{n,1+j}(t) \big) \big] ~
\label{tight0CLT}\end{aligned}$$ (note that each row of the array $\{Y_{n,j} ~\colon~ n\in\mathbb{N},~ j=1,\dots,n \}$ is stationary). Using Assumption (A3), straightforward calculations yield, for any $i=1,\dots, n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} \big[ | Y_{n,i}(s) - Y_{n,i}(t)|^2 \big]^{1/2}
\lesssim | s-t | ~.\end{aligned}$$ The inequality above and (3.17) in Dehling and Philipp [@dehling2002] together with Assumption (A4) imply, for any $j=1,\dots,n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} & \big[ (Y_{n,1}(s) - Y_{n,1}(t) )
(Y_{n,1+j}(s) - Y_{n,1+j}(t) ) \big] \lesssim |s-t|^2 ~ \varphi(j)^{1/2}
\lesssim |s-t|^2 ~ a^{j/2} ~.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert G_n (s) - G_n (t)\Vert_2^2
\lesssim |s-t|^2 \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} a^{j/2}
\lesssim |s-t|^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ and we obtain from Theorem 2.2.4 in Van der Vaart and Wellner [@wellner1996] $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\Vert \sup_{\rho(s,t)\leq \delta} \vert G_n (s)
- G_n (t) \vert \Big\Vert_2
&\lesssim \int_0^\eta \sqrt{D(\nu,\rho)}~d\nu + \delta D(\eta,\rho) \\
&\lesssim \int_0^\eta \frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}} ~d\nu
+ \frac{\delta}{\eta}
= 2 \sqrt{\eta} + \frac{\delta}{\eta} ~.\end{aligned}$$ where $D(\eta,\rho) = \text{c}
\lceil \frac{1}{\eta} \rceil $ is the packing number with respect to the metric $\rho(s,t) = |s-t|$. Markov’s inequality now yields, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\bigg( \sup_{\rho(s,t)\leq \delta} \big\vert G_n (s)
- G_n (t) \big\vert > \varepsilon \bigg)
\leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2} \Big\Vert \sup_{\rho(s,t)\leq \delta} \vert G_n (s)
- G_n (t) \vert \Big\Vert_2^2
\lesssim \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}
\bigg[ 2 \sqrt{\eta} + \frac{\delta}{\eta} \bigg]\end{aligned}$$ and, since $\eta >0$ is arbitrary, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\delta\searrow 0} ~ \limsup_{n\to\infty} ~ {\mathbb{P}}\bigg(
\sup_{\rho(s,t)\leq \delta} \big\vert G_n (s)
- G_n (t) \big\vert > \varepsilon \bigg) = 0~.\end{aligned}$$ This means that $(G_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is asymptotically uniformly $\rho$-equicontinuous in probability and the assertion in Theorem \[mixingCLT\] follows.
Theorem \[mixingCLT\] implies that $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^n (X_{n,j}-\mu^{(j)})\rightsquigarrow Z$ in $C([0,1])$, where $Z$ is centered Gaussian with covariance function $\mathrm{Cov}(Z(s),Z(t)) = C(s,t)$ for $s,t\in[0,1]$. Moreover, Assumption (A4) together with Remark 3.6.4 in Samur [@samur1987] yield, for any $\varepsilon >0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{samurCondition1}
\lim_{n\to\infty} n \mathbb{P} \bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \Vert X_{n,1}-\mu^{(1)} \Vert > \varepsilon\bigg) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The assertion now follows from Corollary 3.5 in Samur [@samur1987].
Proofs of the results of Section \[sec:two-sample\] {#subsec:proof:two-sample}
---------------------------------------------------
Note that $\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}$ is a directed set and $[0,1]$ is compact. Now by the weak convergence in , the claim follows directly from Theorem \[thm0\].
Note that $$\{ \mu_1 - \mu_2 \in C_{\alpha,m,n} \} = \Big \{ \sup_{t \in [0,1]} \sqrt{n+m} \ \Big | \ \frac {1}{m} \sum^m_{j=1} \widetilde{X_j}(t) - \frac {1}{n} \sum^n_{j=1} \widetilde{Y_j}(t) \ \Big | \ \leq u_{1- \alpha} \Big \},$$ where $\widetilde{X_j} = X_j - \mu_1$ and $\widetilde {Y_j} = Y_j - \mu_2$. Therefore, it follows from the discussion in Section \[testdiff\] (applied to the random variables $\widetilde{X_j}$ and $\widetilde{Y_j}$) that $$\lim_{m,n \to \infty} \mathbb{P} (\mu_1 - \mu_2 \in C_{\alpha,m,n}) = \lim_{m,n \to \infty} \mathbb{P} (T_{m,n} \leq u_{1- \alpha}) = 1 - \alpha.$$ This is the assertion.
Using the notations $$\begin{aligned}
V_m = \frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m (X_j - \mu_1)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
W_n = \frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n (Y_j - \mu_2)\end{aligned}$$ write $Z_{m,n} = V_m + W_n$. Next define $$\begin{aligned}
U_m^{(r)} &= \frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{m} \sum_{i=1}^{m-l_1+1}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{l_1}}\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l_1-1} X_{j}(t)
-\frac{l_1}{m}\sum_{j=1}^m X_{j}(t) \Big) \xi_i^{(r)} , \\
G_n^{(r)} &= \frac{\sqrt{n+m}}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{n-l_2+1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l_2}}\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l_2-1}
Y_{j}(t) -\frac{l_2}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n Y_{j}(t) \Big) \zeta_i^{(r)} ~,\end{aligned}$$ then $(Z_{m,n},\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(R)})
= (V_m, U_m^{(1)}, \dots, U_m^{(R)}) + (W_n, G_n^{(1)}, \dots, G_n^{(R)}),
$ and with similar but easier arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[bTheorem\], it can be shown that $$\begin{aligned}
(V_m, U_m^{(1)}, \dots, U_m^{(R)})
&\rightsquigarrow \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}} (Z_1, Z_1^{(1)},\dots,Z_1^{(R)}), \\
(W_n, G_n^{(1)}, \dots, G_n^{(R)})
&\rightsquigarrow \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{1-\lambda}} (Z_2, Z_2^{(1)},\dots,Z_2^{(R)})\end{aligned}$$ in $C([0,1])^{R+1}$. Since the two vectors are independent, it directly follows that $
(Z_{m,n},\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,\hat{B}_{m,n}^{(R)})
\rightsquigarrow (Z, Z^{(1)},\dots,Z^{(R)})
$ in $C([0,1])^{R+1}$.
The statement of Theorem \[bootstrap:classic\] is a direct consequence of Proposition F.1 in the online supplement of Bücher and Kojadinovic [@buecher2016] (note that the continuity of the random variable $T$ is implied by the results in Gaenssler et al. [@Gaenssler2007]).
Now Theorem \[th:cb-2\] follows from the well-known relation between confidence sets and tests for simple hypotheses (see for example Lehmann [@lehmann1986], p. 214), observing that $$C_{\alpha,m,n} = \bigg\{ f \in C([0,1])\colon \big\| \hat \mu_1 - \hat \mu_2 - f \big\| \leq \frac{T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}} \bigg \}$$ is defined by the acceptance region of an asymptotic level $\alpha$ test for the hypotheses $H_{0,f}\colon \mu_1-\mu_2 \equiv f$ versus $H_{0,f}\colon \mu_1-\mu_2 \not \equiv f$, which rejects the null hypothesis, whenever $$\big\| \hat \mu_1 - \hat \mu_2 - f \big\| > \frac{T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}}}{\sqrt{n+m}}.$$ The remaining statement regarding consistency follows from similar arguments as given in Bücher et al. [@buecher2017]. Under the alternative, Theorem \[thm1\] yields, for any $K \in \mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootclasstestCons1}
\lim_{m,n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}(\sqrt{n+m} ~ \hat{d}_\infty \geq K )
= \lim_{m,n \to \infty} \mathbb{P}(\sqrt{n+m}(\hat{d}_\infty-d_\infty)
+ \sqrt{n+m} ~ d_\infty \geq K ) = 1.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, under the alternative, Theorem \[2bTheorem\] together with the continuous mapping theorem yield, for any $R \in \mathbb{N}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bootclasstestCons2}
\lim_{K\to\infty} \lim_{m,n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(T_{m,n}^{\{\lfloor R(1-\alpha)\rfloor\}} > K)
\leq \lim_{K\to\infty} \lim_{m,n\to\infty} \mathbb{P} (\max_{r=1, \dots , R} T_{m,n}^{(r)} > K) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The assertion in now follows from and .
Straightforward calculations show that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{D}}_{m,n} &=
\big |\hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty \big | +
\sup_{t\in [0,1]} \big | \hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t) - (\mu_1(t) - \mu_2(t)) \big | \\
& \geq \big |\hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty \big |
+ \sup_{t\in \mathcal{E}^+} \big | \hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t) - d_\infty \big | \\
&= \sup_{t\in \mathcal{E}^+} \big( \big |\hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty\big |
+\big | d_\infty -(\hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t)) \big | \big) \\
&
\geq \sup_{t\in \mathcal{E}^+} \big |\hat{d}_\infty -(\hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t)) \big | \\
& \geq \hat{d}_\infty - \inf_{t\in \mathcal{E}^+} \big (\hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t) \big ),\end{aligned}$$ and and Theorem \[thm1\] yield (observing the order of the sequence $c_{m,n}$) that $
{\mathbb{P}}\big( \frac{c_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \geq {\mathbf{D}}_{m,n} \big)
\to 1
$ as $m,n \to \infty$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\big( \mathcal{E}^+ \subset \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n} \big) =
{\mathbb{P}}\Big( \inf_{t\in \mathcal{E}^+} (\hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t))
\geq \hat{d}_\infty - \frac{c_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \Big) \geq {\mathbb{P}}\Big( \frac{c_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \geq {\mathbf{D}}_{m,n} \Big)
\to 1\end{aligned}$$ as $m,n \to \infty$. This means that, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{haus1}
{\mathbb{P}}\big( \sup_{x\in\mathcal{E}^+} \inf_{y\in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} |x-y|
> \varepsilon \big) \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $m,n \to \infty$. On the other hand, the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{x_{m,n} \in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} |\mu_1(x_{m,n}) - \mu_2(x_{m,n})
- d_\infty| \leq
\sup_{x_{m,n} \in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} |\mu_1(x_{m,n}) - \mu_2(x_{m,n})
- \hat{d}_\infty| + |\hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty| \\
&\leq \sup_{x_{m,n} \in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} \Big(
|\mu_1(x_{m,n}) - \mu_2(x_{m,n})
- (\hat{\mu}_1(x_{m,n}) - \hat{\mu}_2(x_{m,n}))|
+ |\hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty| + \frac{c_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \Big) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ shows that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbb{P}}\Big( \sup_{x_{m,n} \in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} |\mu_1(x_{m,n}) - \mu_2(x_{m,n})
- d_\infty| \leq 2 \frac{c_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \Big) \nonumber \\
&\geq {\mathbb{P}}\Big( \sup_{t \in [0,1]} |\mu_1(t) - \mu_2(t)
- (\hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t))|
+ |\hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty|
\leq \frac{c_{m,n}}{\sqrt{m+n}} \Big) \to 1\end{aligned}$$ as $m,n \to \infty$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{probBound}
\sup_{x_{m,n} \in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} |\mu_1(x_{m,n}) - \mu_2(x_{m,n})
- d_\infty| \to 0\end{aligned}$$ (outer) almost surely, which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{haus2}
\sup_{x_{m,n}\in\hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} \inf_{y\in \mathcal{E}^+} |x_{m,n}-y| \to 0\end{aligned}$$ (outer) almost surely as $m,n \to \infty$. To see this, assume the contrary. Then there would exist a sequence $(x_{m,n})$ in $\hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}$ with $\inf_{y\in \mathcal{E}^+} |x_{m,n}-y| \geq \varepsilon$. Now consider the closed set $\mathcal{U}_\varepsilon = \{ t \in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n} \ \colon \ |t-s| \geq \varepsilon,
~\forall s \in \mathcal{E}^+ \} $. Then $x_{m,n} \in \mathcal{U}_\varepsilon $ and $$\max \{ \mu_1(t) - \mu_2(t) \ \colon \ t \in \mathcal{U}_\varepsilon \} < d_\infty,$$ which contradicts and proves . Combining and , for any $\varepsilon > 0 $, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\big( d_H (\hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n} , \mathcal{E}^+) > \varepsilon \big)
= {\mathbb{P}}\Big( \max \big\{ \sup_{x\in\hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} \inf_{y\in \mathcal{E}^+}
|x-y|, \sup_{x\in\mathcal{E}^+} \inf_{y\in \hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_{m,n}} |x-y| \Big\}
> \varepsilon \big) \to 0\end{aligned}$$ as $m,n \to \infty$. In the same way it can be shown that $
{\mathbb{P}}\big( d_H (\hat{\mathcal{E}}^-_{m,n} , \mathcal{E}^-) > \varepsilon \big) \to 0
$ as $m,n \to \infty$, and the assertion of of Lemma \[setConvergence\] follows.
The proof is a direct consequence of the following lemma, which might be of own interest and will be proved at the end of this section.
\[maxSetConvergence\] Let $((X_\alpha, X^{(1)}_\alpha, \dots X^{(R)}_\alpha)\colon\alpha \in A)$ be a net of random variables in $C([0,1])^{R+1}$ and $((M^{(1)}_\alpha, M^{(2)}_\alpha) \colon$ $ \alpha \in A)$ a net of random elements in the set $K([0,1])$ of all compact subsets of the interval $[0,1]$. Furthermore, let $((X_\alpha, X^{(1)}_\alpha, \dots X^{(R)}_\alpha)\colon\alpha \in A)$ converge weakly to $(X, X^{(1)},\dots, X^{(R+1)}) $ in $C([0,1])^{R+1}$, where $X^{(1)},\dots, X^{(R+1)}$ are independent copies of $X$, and $((M^{(1)}_\alpha,M^{(2)}_\alpha) \colon\alpha \in A)$ converge in probability to the non random sets $(M^{(1)},M^{(2)})$ in $K([0,1])^2$, that is $${\mathbb{P}}\big (
\max \big \{ d_H (M^{(1)}_\alpha,M^{(1)}), d_H (M^{(2)}_\alpha,M^{(2)}) \big\} > \varepsilon \big ) \to 0$$ for all $\varepsilon >0$. Then the random variables $$\begin{aligned}
Y_\alpha &= \max\Big\{\max_{t\in M^{(1)}} X_\alpha(t),
\max_{t\in M^{(2)}} (-X_\alpha(t))\Big\} \quad\mbox{and}\quad
Y^{(r)}_\alpha = \max\Big\{\max_{t\in M^{(1)}_\alpha} X^{(r)}_\alpha(t),
\max_{t\in M^{(2)}_\alpha} (-X^{(r)}_\alpha(t))\Big\} ,\end{aligned}$$ ($r = 1,\dots,R$) satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
(Y_\alpha, Y^{(1)}_\alpha, \dots, Y^{(R+1)}_\alpha)
\Rightarrow (Y, Y^{(1)}, \dots, Y^{(R)})\end{aligned}$$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{R+1}$ where $Y = \max\big\{\max_{t\in M^{(1)}} X(t),
\max_{t\in M^{(2)}} (-X(t))\big\} $ and $Y^{(1)},\dots,Y^{(R)}$ are independent copies of $Y$.
Theorem \[2bTheorem\], Lemma \[setConvergence\] and Lemma \[maxSetConvergence\] show that $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\tilde{D}_{m,n}(\mathcal{E}),~ K_{m,n}^{(1)},\dots,K_{m,n}^{(R)}\big)
\Rightarrow (T(\mathcal{E}),~ T^{(1)}(\mathcal{E}),\dots,T^{(R)}(\mathcal{E})),\end{aligned}$$ in $\mathbb{R}^{R+1}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{D}_{m,n}(\mathcal{E}) = \sqrt{n+m} ~
\max \Big\{\sup_{t\in\mathcal{E}^+} Z_{m,n},
\sup_{t \in\mathcal{E}^-} (-Z_{m,n})\Big\}\end{aligned}$$ and the random variable $Z_{m,n}$ is defined by . The proofs of Lemmas \[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:1\] and \[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:2\] yield that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n+m} (\hat d_\infty - d_\infty)
= \tilde{D}_{m,n}(\mathcal{E}) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1),\end{aligned}$$ thus completing the proof of Theorem \[2jointConvergence\].
Only the convergence $Y^{(1)}_\alpha \Rightarrow Y^{(1)}$ is shown, since the general case follows from very similar albeit notationally more complex arguments.
Let $\mathcal{S}$ denote the space $C([0,1]) \times K([0,1])^2 $ equipped with the metric $d$ defined by $$d((f,A,B), (g,A',B')) = \max \big\{ \|f-g\|_\infty , d_H(A,A'), d_H(B,B') \big\}$$ for any $(f,A,A'), (g,B,B') \in S$. Slutsky’s theorem then yields $(X^{(1)}_\alpha , M^{(1)}_\alpha, M^{(2)}_\alpha ) \rightsquigarrow (X, M^{(1)}, M^{(2)})$ in $\mathcal{S}$. Now consider the function $$\mathcal{H}\colon
\mathcal{S} \to {\mathbb{R}}, \;\, (f,A,A') \mapsto \max \{ \max_{t\in A} f(t), \max_{t\in A'} (-f(t)) \}$$ and show that it is continuous. For this purpose it is sufficient to prove that the maps $$h\colon \mathcal{S} \to {\mathbb{R}}, \;\, (f,A,A') \mapsto \max_{t\in A} f(t)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
h^-\colon \mathcal{S} \to {\mathbb{R}}\;\, (f,A,A') \mapsto \max_{t\in A'} (-f(t))$$ are continuous (since the maximum of two continuous functions is continuous). Exemplarily, focus on the map $h$ (the corresponding statement for $h^-$ follows from closely analogous arguments). Let $\varepsilon >0 $ be arbitrary and $(f,A,A'),(g,B,B') \in \mathcal{S}$ such that $$d((f,A,A'), (g,B,B')) < \min\{\delta , \varepsilon/2\},$$ where $\delta >0$ is chosen such that, for any $t,s \in T$ with $|t-s| < \delta$, the inequality $|g(t)-g(s)| < \varepsilon/2$ holds (note that $g$ is uniformly continuous on $[0,1]$). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
|h(f,A,A') - h(g,B,B')| = |\max_{t\in A} f(t) - \max_{t\in B} g(t)|
\leq |\max_{t\in A} f(t) - \max_{t\in A} g(t)| + |\max_{t\in A} g(t) - \max_{t\in B} g(t)|,\end{aligned}$$ where the first term can be bounded by $\max_{t\in A} |f(t)-g(t)|\leq \|f-g\|_\infty < \varepsilon/2$. For the second term, first consider the case where $\max_{t\in A} g(t) \geq \max_{t\in B} g(t)$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|\max_{t\in A} g(t) - \max_{t\in B} g(t)| = \max_{t\in A} g(t) - \max_{t\in B} g(t)
= g(t_1) - \max_{t\in B} g(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $t_1 \in {\arg \max}_{t\in A} g(t)$. Since $d_H(A,B) < \delta$, there is a $t_2 \in B$ such that $|t_1-t_2| < \delta$. Thus, $$g(t_1) - \max_{t\in B} g(t) \leq g(t_1) - g(t_2) < \varepsilon/2 ~.$$ For the second case, use the same arguments to show that $|\max_{t\in A} g(t) - \max_{t\in B} g(t)| < \varepsilon/2$. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
|h(f,A,A') - h(g,B,B')| < \varepsilon/2 + \varepsilon/2 = \varepsilon,\end{aligned}$$ verifying that $h$ is continuous.
The discussion at the beginning of this proof shows that $$Y^{(1)}_\alpha = \max\big\{\max_{t\in M^{(1)}_\alpha} X^{(1)}_\alpha(t),
\max_{t\in M^{(2)}_\alpha} (-X^{(1)}_\alpha(t))\big\}
\Rightarrow Y^{(1)} .$$ The proof is complete.
Proofs of the results in Section \[sec:change-point\] {#sec:proofs:change-point}
-----------------------------------------------------
Recall the notations , and to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\sqrt{n} \left(\hat {\mathbb{U}}_n (s,t) - \big( s \wedge s^* - s s^* \big) \big (\mu_1 (t) - \mu_2(t) \big) \right) \\
& ~~= \ \hat {\mathbb{W}}_n (s,t)
+ \sqrt{n} \left(E[\hat {\mathbb{U}}_n (s,t)]
- \big( s \wedge s^* - s s^* \big) \big (\mu_1 (t) - \mu_2(t) \big) \right) \\
& ~~= \ \hat {\mathbb{W}}_n (s,t) + o_\mathbb{P}(1)\end{aligned}$$ uniformly with respect to $(s,t) \in [0,1]^2$. An application of shows that the weak convergence $$\sqrt{n} \Big(\hat {\mathbb{U}}_n (s,t) - \big( s \wedge s^* - s s^* \big) \big (\mu_1 (t) - \mu_2(t) \big) \colon (s,t) \in [0,1]^2\Big)
\rightsquigarrow
\big( {\mathbb{W}}(s,t) \colon (s,t) \in [0,1]^2\big)$$ follows. Now the representation $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{D}_n
&= \sqrt{n} \Big ( \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \big| \hat {\mathbb{U}}_n (s,t) \big|
- \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \left| \big( s \wedge s^* - s s^* \big) \big (\mu_1 (t) - \mu_2(t) \big) \right| \Big)\end{aligned}$$ and Theorem \[thm0\] yield the assertion of Theorem \[thm2\].
In order to prove the assertion, use Corollary 2 in Hariz et al. [@hariz2007]. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the space of all signed finite measures on $C([0,1])$, define $\pi_t$ as the canonical projection $ C([0,1]) \ni x \to x(t)$ and consider the class $\mathcal{F}= \{\pi_t\colon t\in [0,1]\}$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
N(\nu) = \sup_{t\in[0,1]} \Big| \int_{C([0,1])} \pi_t(x) ~ \nu(dx) \Big|\end{aligned}$$ defines a semi-norm on $\mathcal{M}$. In particular, if $P= {\mathbb{P}}^{X_1}$ and $Q={\mathbb{P}}^{X_n}$ are the distributions on $C([0,1])$ before and after the change-point, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{C([0,1])} \pi_t(x) (P-Q)(dx)
&= \int_{C([0,1])} \pi_t(x) ({\mathbb{P}}^{X_1}-{\mathbb{P}}^{X_n})(dx)
= \int_\Omega \pi_t(X_1) d{\mathbb{P}}- \int_\Omega \pi_t(X_n) d{\mathbb{P}}\\
&= \int_\Omega X_1(t) d{\mathbb{P}}- \int_\Omega X_n(t) d{\mathbb{P}}= {\mathbb{E}}[X_1(t)] - {\mathbb{E}}[X_n(t)]
= \mu_1(t) - \mu_2(t),\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $N(P-Q) = \|\mu_1 - \mu_2\| > 0$. The estimator of the change-point can now be rewritten as $
\tilde{s} = {n}^{-1} \min \big( \arg \max_{1\leq k <n} \{ N(D_k) \} \big),
$ where $$\begin{aligned}
D_k = \frac{k}{n} \Big(1-\frac{k}{n}\Big)
\bigg( \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i=1}^k \delta_{X_{n,i}} - \frac{1}{n-k} \sum_{i=k+1}^n
\delta_{X_{n,i}}
\bigg)\end{aligned}$$ and $\delta_x$ denotes the Dirac measure at the point $x \in C([0,1])$. The assertion of Theorem \[rate\] follows from Corollary 2 and Remark 2 in Hariz et al. [@hariz2007] if the following conditions can be verified.
There exist constants $C>0$ and $\xi >0$ such that, for any $p$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rateCond1}
\sup_{t\in [0,1]} \sup_{k+p \leq n} {\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\Big( \sum_{i=k}^{k+p}
\big(\pi_t(X_{n,i}) - {\mathbb{E}}[\pi_t(X_{n,i})]\big)\Big)^2\bigg] \leq Cp^{2-\xi} .\end{aligned}$$ For any $\varepsilon >0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rateCond2}
N_{[~]}(\varepsilon,\mathcal{F}, \|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{G}}) < \infty ~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{G}}$ is a norm on a space $\mathcal{G}$ (containing $\mathcal{F}$), which satisfies $(|P(|\pi_t|)| + |Q(|\pi_t|)|) \leq \|\pi_t\|_{\mathcal{G}}$ for any $t\in [0,1]$ and $N_{[~]}(\varepsilon,\mathcal{F}, \|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{G}})$ denotes the *bracketing number*. Moreover, for any $\nu\in\mathcal{M}$ and $f:C([0,1]) \to \mathbb{R}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(f) = \int_{C([0,1])} f(x) \,\nu(dx) .\end{aligned}$$ Since Assumption (A3) is satisfied with a bounded random variable $M$, only consider the subspace of $C([0,1])$ that consists of all functions that are Lipschitz continuous with a uniform constant $c$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
|\pi_s(x)-\pi_t(x)| = |x(s)-x(t)| \leq c |s-t|\end{aligned}$$ for any $s,t\in[0,1]$. It follows from Theorem 2.7.11 in Van der Vaart and Wellner [@wellner1996] that $$\begin{aligned}
N_{[~]} (2 \tilde{\varepsilon} \|c\|_{\mathcal{G}}, \mathcal{F}, \|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{G}})
\leq N(\tilde{\varepsilon}, [0,1], |\cdot|) .\end{aligned}$$ In the equation above $N(\tilde{\varepsilon}, [0,1], |\cdot|)$ denotes the covering number, that is the minimal number of balls of radius $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ needed to cover the unit interval $[0,1]$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
N(\tilde{\varepsilon}, [0,1], |\cdot|) = \Big\lceil \frac{1}{2 \tilde{\varepsilon}} \Big\rceil
< \infty\end{aligned}$$ and therefore is satisfied.
Using Assumptions (A1), (A4) and (3.17) in Dehling and Philipp [@dehling2002], leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in [0,1]} & \sup_{k+p \leq n} \mathbb{E} \bigg[
\Big( \sum_{i=k}^{k+p}
\big(\pi_t(X_{n,i}) - \mathbb{E}[\pi_t(X_{n,i})]\big)\Big)^2\bigg]
= \sup_{t\in [0,1]} \sup_{k+p \leq n} \mathbb{E} \bigg[\Big(\sum_{i=k}^{k+p}
\big(X_{n,i}(t) - \mathbb{E}[X_{n,i}(t)]\big)\Big)^2\bigg] \\
&= \sup_{t\in [0,1]} \sup_{k+p \leq n} \sum_{i,j=k}^{k+p} \mathrm{Cov}(X_{n,i}(t), X_{n,j}(t))
\lesssim \sup_{k+p \leq n} \sum_{i,j=k}^{k+p} \varphi(|i-j|)^{1/2} \\
&\lesssim \sum_{i=0}^{p} (p+1-i) \varphi(i)^{1/2}
\lesssim (p+1) \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} a^{i/2}
\lesssim p\end{aligned}$$ which means that is satisfied for $\xi =1$.
The weak convergence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{61}
(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n,\hat{B}_n^{(1)},\dots,\hat{B}_n^{(R)})
\rightsquigarrow (\mathbb{V}, \mathbb{V}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbb{V}^{(R)})\end{aligned}$$ in $C([0,1]^2)^{R+1}$ will be verified, where $\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n$ is defined in and $\mathbb{V}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbb{V}^{(R)}$ are independent copies of $\mathbb{V}$ defined in . The assertion then follows from the continuous mapping theorem. We only consider the case $d_\infty > 0$ since, for $d_\infty = 0$, the assertion follows by similar arguments. The proof of is complicated and consists of a series of steps, which are described first.
- Replace the estimates $\hat \mu_1$ and $\hat \mu_2$ in by the true functions $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ and consider the process $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t) =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big ( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} \big(Y_{n,j}(t) - \mu_1(t)\big) \Big ) \xi_i^{(k)} \\
&+ \sqrt{n}\Big (s - \frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big )\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big ( \sum_{j=\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor+l}
\big(Y_{n,j}(t) - \mu_1(t)\big) \Big ) \xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(k)} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_{n,j} = X_{n,j} - (\mu_2 - \mu_1) \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}$. For this process, show the weak convergence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bLemma1}
(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n,\tilde{B}_n^{(1)},\dots,\tilde{B}_n^{(R)})
\rightsquigarrow (\mathbb{V}, \mathbb{V}^{(1)},\dots,\mathbb{V}^{(R)}) .\end{aligned}$$
- Next show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bLemma2}
\sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} |\tilde {B}_n^{(k)} (s,t) - \bar{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t)| = o_{\mathbb{P}} (1)~,\end{aligned}$$ where the process $\bar{B}_n^{(k)}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Bbar}
\begin{split}
\bar{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t) =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} Y_{n,j}(t) - \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n Y_{n,j}(t) \Big) \xi_i^{(k)} \\
&+ \sqrt{n}\Big(s - \frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big)\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor+l} Y_{n,j}(t)
- \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n Y_{n,j}(t) \Big) \xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(k)}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
- Finally establish the assertion , proving for $k=1,\dots,R$, that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bLemma3}
\sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} |\hat{B}_n^{(k)} (s,t) - \bar{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t)| = o_{\mathbb{P}} (1)~.\end{aligned}$$
Combining (1)–(3) completes the proof.
The weak convergence of the process will be shown through proving the weak convergence of its finite-dimensional distributions and asymptotic tightness.
[*(A) Convergence of the finite-dimensional distributions*]{}. This part uses similar arguments as given in the proof of Theorem \[mixingCLT\] and detailed arguments are only given when substantial differences occur. For the sake of brevity and simpler notations, consider the case $R=1$ and prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Zn'toZ}
\hat Z_n =
\sum_{j=1}^q c_j \hat{\mathbb{V}}_n (s_j,u_j)
+ \sum_{j=1}^q d_j \tilde{B}_n^{(1)}(t_j,v_j)
\Rightarrow Z = \sum_{j=1}^q c_j \mathbb{V} (s_j,u_j)
+ \sum_{j=1}^q d_j \mathbb{V}^{(1)}(t_j,v_j)\end{aligned}$$ for any $q\in\mathbb{N}$, $(u_1,s_1,v_1,t_1),\dots,(u_q,s_q,v_q,t_q)\in[0,1]^4$ and arbitrary constants $c_1,d_1,\dots,c_q,d_q \in\mathbb{R}$. The convergence of the finite-dimensional distributions of the process $(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n ,
\tilde{B}_n^{(1)}) $ then follows from an application of the Cram[é]{}r–Wold device. For this purpose define $$\begin{aligned}
Z_n = \sum_{j=1}^q c_j \check{\mathbb{V}}_n (s_j,u_j)
+ \sum_{j=1}^q d_j \check{B}_n^{(1)}(t_j,v_j),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\check{\mathbb{V}}_n(s,t)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} (X_{n,j} - \mu^{(j)}) ~~,~~
\check{B}^{(1)}_n(s,t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big ( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} \big(X_{n,j}(t) - \mu^{(j)}(t) \big)\Big ) \xi_i^{(1)} .\end{aligned}$$ Using Assumption (A2) and the fact that $(\xi_i^{(1)})_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ is independent of $(X_{n,j} \colon n\in\mathbb{N}, j=1,\dots,n)$, it can be seen that $\Vert \hat Z_n - Z_n \Vert_2 \lesssim ~ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\sqrt{l}}{\sqrt{n}}
\to 0 $. Therefore follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Zn'toZa}
Z_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^n \Big (Z_{i,n} + Z_{i,n}^{(1)} \Big ) \Rightarrow Z,\end{aligned}$$ where (note that $X_{n,j}-\mu^{(j)} = Y_{n,j} - \mu_1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{zin}
Z_{i,n}
&=\sum_{j=1}^q c_j (Y_{n,i}(u_j)-\mu_1(u_j)) \mathds{1}\{i\leq \lfloor s_j n \rfloor \} , \\
Z_{i,n}^{(1)} &= \xi_i^{(1)} \sum_{j=1}^q d_j \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{k=i}^{i+l-1} (Y_{n,k}(v_j)-\mu_1(v_j)) \Big)
\mathds{1}\{i\leq\lfloor t_j n \rfloor \}~. \label{zin1}\end{aligned}$$ A blocking technique will again be utilized to investigate the weak convergence of this sum (see the proof of Theorem \[mixingCLT\]). To this end, let $ \eta_b$ and $ \eta_s$ denote two constants such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{etaass}
\frac{\beta(2+\nu)+1}{2+2\nu}<\eta_b < \eta_s <\frac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ and define the length of the small and the big subblocks as $s_n = \lfloor n^{1/2-\eta_s} \rfloor$ and $b_n = \lfloor n^{1/2-\eta_b} \rfloor$, respectively. Note that $(\beta(2+\nu)+1)/(2+2\nu) < 1/2$ (since we assumed that $\beta < 1/3$) and that we have $k_n = \lfloor n/(b_n+s_n) \rfloor$ blocks in total. Now introducing the sums $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bnj}
B_{j,n} = \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+1}^{(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n} (Z_{i,n}+Z_{i,n}^{(1)})
\quad \text{and} \quad
S_{j,n} = \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j(b_n+s_n)} (Z_{i,n}+Z_{i,n}^{(1)}) ~,\end{aligned}$$ of the terms in the $j$-th big and small subblock, respectively ($j=1,\dots,k_n$), the representations and in the proof of Theorem \[mixingCLT\] are obtained, adopting appropriate redefinitions of the quantities $B_{j,n} $, $S_{j,n} $ and $R_n$ involved in this representation. It can be shown that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h1}
|Z_n - 1/\sqrt{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}| & = |1/\sqrt{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} S_{j,n}
+1/\sqrt{n} R_n| = o_\mathbb{P}(1) \\
\mbox{Var}(Z_n) &= \text{Var}(\sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}) + o(1) \label{h2},\end{aligned}$$ proving that each term on the right-hand side of , with the exception of the first, converges to zero in probability. Exemplarily, consider the fourth term to indicate the differences to the proof of Theorem \[mixingCLT\]. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[S_{j,n} S_{j',n}]
= \sum_{i=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j(b_n+s_n)} \sum_{i'=(j'-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j'(b_n+s_n)}
\mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n} Z_{i',n}] + \mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n}^{(1)} Z_{i',n}^{(1)}]\end{aligned}$$ and it follows from (3.17) in Dehling and Philipp [@dehling2002] together with Assumption (A1) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound1}
|\mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n} Z_{i',n}]|
& \leq \sum_{j,j'=1}^q |c_j c_{j'}| |\text{Cov}(Y_i (u_j), Y_{i'}(u_{j'}))|
\lesssim \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ as the $\sigma$-field generated by a $C([0,1])$-valued random variable $X$ always contains the $\sigma$-field generated by $X(t)$ for a fixed $t\in[0,1]$. Moreover, $\mathbb{E} [(Z_{i,n}^{(1)})^2] \leq $ const $ < \infty$, which follows from the representation $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E} [(Z_{i,n}^{(1)})^2 ]
= \frac{1}{l} \sum_{j,j' = 1}^q & d_j d_{j'} \sum_{i',i''=i}^{i+l-1} \text{Cov}(Y_{n,i'}(v_j), Y_{n,i''}(v_{j'}))
\mathds{1}\{ i\leq \lfloor t_j n \rfloor \} \mathds{1}\{ i\leq \lfloor t_{j'} n \rfloor \}\end{aligned}$$ and the fact that the covariance in the last expression can be estimated by (here $C$ denotes a constant) $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{l} \sum_{i',i''=i}^{i+l-1} | \text{Cov}(Y_{n,i'}(v_j), Y_{n,i''}(v_{j'})) | & \leq C
+ \frac{2}{l} \sum_{i'=i}^{i+l-2} \sum_{i''=i'+1}^{i+l-1}
| \text{Cov}(Y_{n,i'}(v_j), Y_{n,i''}(v_{j'})) | \\
\lesssim C + & \frac{2}{l} \sum_{i'=i}^{i+l-2} \sum_{i''=i'+1}^{i+l-1}
\varphi(|i'-i''|)^{1/2} \leq C + \frac{2}{l} \sum_{i'=1}^{l-1} (l-i') a^{i'/2} < \infty,\end{aligned}$$ using Assumptions (A1), (A4) and (3.17) in Dehling and Philipp [@dehling2002]). Combining this result with leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound2.1}
\mathbb{E}[S_{j,n}^2]
\lesssim \sum_{i,i'=(j-1)(b_n+s_n)+b_n+1}^{j(b_n+s_n)} \varphi(|i-i'|)^{1/2} + s_n
\leq 2 \sum_{i=0}^{s_n-1} (s_n -i) \varphi(i)^{1/2} + s_n
= O(s_n) ~.
$$ With similar arguments it follows that $\mathbb{E}[S_{j,n}S_{j',n}] = O(s_n^2 \varphi(b_n)^{1/2})$ for $j\neq j'$ since there is at least one big subblock between the observations. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j,j'=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}[S_{j,n}S_{j',n}]
= O(n^{-1} k_n s_n ) + O(n^{-1} k_n^2 s_n^2 \varphi(b_n)^{1/2})
= O(b_n^{-1} s_n) + O(n b_n^{-2} s_n^2 a^{b_n / 2}) =o(1)\end{aligned}$$ as $b_n^{-1} s_n \to 0$ and $n a^{b_n / 2} \to 0$. It can be shown by similar arguments that the second, third, fifth and sixth term in are of order $o(1)$ and and therefore follow.
Equation implies that it suffices to show that $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}$ converges in distribution to $Z$ to prove . Using similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[mixingCLT\], it can be shown that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big| \mathbb{E} \Big[~ \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \psi_{j,n}(t) \Big]
- \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E} \left[\psi_{j,n}(t)\right] \Big|
\lesssim k_n \varphi(s_n) = O(k_n a^{s_n}) = o(1) ~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{E} [~ \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \psi_{j,n}(t)]$ is the characteristic function of $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}$, $ \prod_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E} \left[\psi_{j,n}(t)\right]$ is the characteristic function of $n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n}$ and $B'_{1,n},\dots,B'_{k_n,n}$ are independent random variables such that $B_{j,n}$ and $B'_{j,n}$ have the same distribution for any $j=1,\ldots k_n$. Therefore follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h3}
n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n} \Rightarrow
Z,\end{aligned}$$ which can be established by the Lindeberg–Feller central limit theorem for triangular arrays. Similar arguments as given in the discussion following give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h3a}
\mbox{Var} \bigg (\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n} \bigg )
= \mbox{Var}\bigg (\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B_{j,n}\bigg ) + o(1) = \mbox{Var}(Z_n) + o(1).\end{aligned}$$ We now show that Var$(Z_n)$ converges to the variance of the random variable $Z$ defined in , which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{varZ}
\begin{split}
\text{Var}(Z)
&= \text{Var}\Big(\sum_{j=1}^q c_j \mathbb{V}(s_j,u_j)\Big)
+ \text{Var}\Big(\sum_{j=1}^q d_j \mathbb{V}^{(1)}(t_j,v_j)\Big) \\
&= \sum_{j,j'=1}^q c_j c_{j'} (s_j\wedge s_{j'}) C(u_j,u_{j'})
+ \sum_{j,j'=1}^q d_j d_{j'} (t_j\wedge t_{j'}) C(v_j,v_{j'}) ~.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand (observing that $\mathrm{Cov}(Z_{i,n},Z^{(1)}_{i',n}) = 0$), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h4}
\text{Var}(Z_n)
&= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i,i'=1}^n \Big(\mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n} Z_{i',n}]
+ \mathbb{E}[Z^{(1)}_{i,n} Z^{(1)}_{i',n}]\Big) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i,i'=1}^n \mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n} Z_{i',n}]
+ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[(Z^{(1)}_{i,n})^2]
~.\end{aligned}$$ The second term in this expression satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[(Z^{(1)}_{i,n})^2]
=& \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{j,j'=1}^q d_j d_{j'}
\frac{1}{l} \sum_{i'_1,i'_2=i}^{i+l-1} \mathrm{Cov}(Y_{i'_1}(v_j),Y_{i'_2}(v_{j'}))
\mathds{1}\big\{i \leq \lfloor (t_j \wedge t_{j'})n \rfloor \big\} \\
=& \sum_{j,j'=1}^q d_j d_{j'}
\frac{\lfloor (t_j \wedge t_{j'})n \rfloor}{n} ~
\sum_{i'=-(l-1)}^{l-1} \frac{l-|i'|}{l} ~ \gamma(i',v_j,v_{j'}) ~ \\
&\to \sum_{j,j'=1}^q d_j d_{j'}
(t_j \wedge t_{j'}) \sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma(i,v_j,v_{j'})
= \sum_{j,j'=1}^q d_j d_{j'}
(t_j \wedge t_{j'}) C(v_j,v_{j'}) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the dominated convergence theorem was used in the last step. For the first term in , assume without loss of generality that $s_j \leq s_{j'}$ and note that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i,i'=1}^n \mathbb{E}[Z_{i,n} Z_{i',n}]
&= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j,j'=1}^q c_j c_{j'} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor s_j n \rfloor}
\sum_{i'= 1}^{\lfloor s_{j'} n \rfloor}
\mathrm{Cov} (Y_i(u_j),Y_{i'}(u_{j'})) \\
=& \sum_{j,j'=1}^q c_j c_{j'} \bigg( \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor s_j n \rfloor} \sum_{i'= 1}^{\lfloor s_{j} n \rfloor}
\gamma(i-i',u_j,u_{j'})
+ \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor s_j n \rfloor}
\sum_{i'= \lfloor s_j n \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor s_{j'} n \rfloor}
\mathrm{Cov} (Y_i(u_j),Y_{i'}(u_{j'})) \bigg) \\
&= \sum_{j,j'=1}^q c_j c_{j'} s_j \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty \gamma(i,u_j,u_{j'}) + o(1)
= \sum_{j,j'=1}^q c_j c_{j'} s_j ~ C(u_j,u_{j'}) + o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where the dominated convergence theorem was used again for the first term and the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor s_j n \rfloor}
\sum_{i'= \lfloor s_j n \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor s_{j'} n \rfloor}
|\mathrm{Cov} (Y_i(u_j),Y_{i'}(u_{j'}))|
\lesssim
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor s_{j'} n \rfloor -1}
i \varphi(i)^{1/2}
\leq \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor s_{j'} n \rfloor -1}
i a^{i/2} = o(1)\end{aligned}$$ for the second term. Observing –, it follows that Var$(n^{-1/2} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} B'_{j,n} ) =$Var$(Z) +o(1) $ as postulated.
For a proof of the Lindeberg condition, use Hölder’s inequality (with $p=1+\nu /2$ and $q=(2+\nu)/\nu$, where $\nu$ is the same as in Assumption (A1)) and Markov’s inequality to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Delta_n &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}\big[(B_{j,n}')^2
\mathds{1} \{|B_{j,n}'| > \sqrt{n}\delta\} \big] =
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E}\big[B_{j,n}^2
\mathds{1} \{|B_{j,n}| > \sqrt{n}\delta\} \big] \\
&\leq
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E} \big[ |B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{2/(2+\nu)}
\mathbb{P}\big(|B_{j,n}| > \sqrt{n}\delta\big)^{\nu/(2+\nu)}
\leq \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{k_n} \mathbb{E} \big[ |B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big] (n^{1/2}\delta)^{-\nu} .
\label{linde}\end{aligned}$$ Now, observing the definition of $Z_{i,n}$, $Z_{i,n}^{(1)}$ in , , respectively, and Assumption (A1), it can be seen that $\max_{1\leq i\leq n} \mathbb{E}\big[|Z_{i,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{1/(2+\nu)}
< \infty$ and $
\max_{1\leq i\leq n} \mathbb{E}\big[|Z^{(1)}_{i,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{1/(2+\nu)}
\lesssim \sqrt{l} $, and the Lindeberg condition follows from observing that the representation of $B_{j,n} $ in and Minkowski’s inequality give $\mathbb{E} \big[ |B_{j,n}|^{2+\nu}\big]^{1/(2+\nu)}=O(b_n l^{1/2})$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_n
= O \Big ( \frac{k_n b_n^{2+\nu} l^{(2+\nu)/2}}{ n^{1+ \nu/2}} \Big)= O \Big ( \frac{ b_n^{1+\nu} l^{(2+\nu)/2} }{n^{\nu/2}} \Big)
&= O(n^{1/2-\eta_b(1+\nu)} l^{(2+\nu)/2})
= O(n^{1/2-\eta_b(1+\nu)} n^{\beta(2+\nu)/2}) ,\end{aligned}$$ which converges to zero by the assumption .
[*(B) Asymptotic tightness:*]{} Since $(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges weakly to $\mathbb{V}$, the process $(\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is asymptotically tight and it remains to show that $(\tilde{B}_n^{(k)})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is asymptotically tight (for any $k=1,\dots,R$, note that marginal asymptotic tightness implies joint asymptotic tightness).
Let $s,t\in[0,1]$ be arbitrary and define $\varepsilon_{n,j} = Y_{n,j} -\mu_1$ for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $j=1,\dots,n$, then, since $\xi_1^{(k)},\dots,\xi_n^{(k)}$ are independent of $\varepsilon_{n,1},\dots,\varepsilon_{n,n}$ with $\mathbb{E} [\xi_j^{(k)}] = 0$ and Var$(\xi_j^{(k)}) = 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Vert\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,s) - \tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,t)\Vert_2^2 =&
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E} \Big[ \frac{1}{l}
\sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} \sum_{j'=i}^{i+l-1}
\big(\varepsilon_{n,j}(s) - \varepsilon_{n,j}(t) \big)
\big(\varepsilon_{n,j'}(s) - \varepsilon_{n,j'}(t) \big) \Big] \\
\leq& \frac{2}{l} \sum_{j=0}^{l-1}
(l-j) \mathbb{E}\big[ \big(\varepsilon_{n,1}(s) - \varepsilon_{n,1}(t) \big)
\big(\varepsilon_{n,1+j}(s) - \varepsilon_{n,1+j}(t) \big) \big] ,
\label{tight0}\end{aligned}$$ utilizing the fact that each row of the array $(\varepsilon_{n,j} \colon n\in\mathbb{N}, j=1,\dots,n)$ is stationary. Assumption (A3) implies $\mathbb{E} \big[ | \varepsilon_{n,i}(s) - \varepsilon_{n,i}(t)|^2 \big]^{1/2}
\lesssim | s-t |,$ and (3.17) in Dehling and Philipp [@dehling2002] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,s) - \tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,t)\Vert_2^2
&\lesssim \frac{2}{l} \sum_{j=0}^{l-1}
(l-j) |s-t|^2 ~ a^{j/2} \lesssim |s-t|^2 \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} a^{j/2}
\lesssim |s-t|^2 ~.\end{aligned}$$ Now consider the metric $\rho(s,t) = |s-t|$ on the interval $[0,1]$ and define $D(\eta,\rho) = \big\lceil \frac{1}{\eta} \big\rceil $ as the corresponding packing number, then Theorem 2.2.4 in Van der Vaart and Wellner [@wellner1996] shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big \Vert \sup_{\rho(s,t)\leq \delta} \vert \tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,s)
- \tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,t) \vert \Big\Vert_2
&\leq K' \Big [ \int_0^\eta \sqrt{D(\nu,\rho)}~d\nu + \delta D(\eta,\rho) \Big ]
\lesssim
2 \sqrt{\eta} + \frac{\delta}{\eta} ,\end{aligned}$$ and Markov’s inequality now yields, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P} \Big ( \sup_{\rho(s,t)\leq \delta} \big\vert \tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,s)
- \tilde{B}^{(k)}_n (1,t) \big\vert > \varepsilon \Big )
&\lesssim \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}
\Big[ 2 \sqrt{\eta} + \frac{\delta}{\eta}\Big ].\end{aligned}$$ Since $\eta >0$ is arbitrary, it follows that the process $(\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n(1,\cdot))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is asymptotically uniformly $\rho$-equicontinuous in probability. Moreover, the finite-dimensional distributions of $(\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n(1,\cdot))_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converge weakly to the finite-dimensional distribution of $\mathbb{V}^{(k)} (1,\cdot)$ and therefore it follows that $\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n(1,\cdot) \rightsquigarrow \mathbb{V}^{(k)} (1,\cdot)$ in $C([0,1])$ (see the discussion at the beginning of the proof of Theorem \[mixingCLT\]).
The asymptotic tightness of the process $\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n$ in $C([0,1]^2)$ is now a consequence of Corollary 3.5 in Samur [@samur1987]. To be precise, note that $\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n(1,t)=n^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^n D_{n,i}^{(k)}(t)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
D_{n,i}^{(k)}(t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}} \Big (\sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1}
\big(Y_{n,j}(t) - \mu_1(t)\big)\Big )\xi_i^{(k)}
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}} \Big (\sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1}
\big(X_{n,j}(t) - \mu^{(j)}(t)\big)\Big )\xi_i^{(k)}.\end{aligned}$$ The array $(D^{(k)}_{n,i} \colon n\in\mathbb{N}, i=1,\dots,n)$ is $\varphi$-mixing and (by Assumption (A1) and Markov’s inequality) $$\begin{aligned}
& n \mathbb{P} \Big( \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \|D^{(k)}_{n,1}\| > \varepsilon\Big)
\lesssim \frac{1}{\varepsilon^4} \frac{1}{n} \frac{1}{l^2}
\mathbb{E} \Big[ \Big( \sum_{j=1}^l \|X_{n,j}-\mu^{(j)}\|\Big) ^4 \Big]
\lesssim \frac{1}{\varepsilon^4} \frac{l^2}{n}
= \frac{1}{\varepsilon^4} n^{2\beta -1} .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, since $\beta < 1/3$ by assumption, $\lim_{n\to\infty} n
\mathbb{P} ( n^{-1/2} \|D^{(k)}_{n,1}\| > \varepsilon) = 0 $. By the previous discussion and , use Corollary 3.5 in Samur [@samur1987] to obtain $(\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \rightsquigarrow \mathbb{V}$ in $C([0,1]^2)$, which finally implies that $(\tilde{B}^{(k)}_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is asymptotically tight.
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert \bar{B}^{(k)}_n - \tilde{B}^{(k)}_n \Vert
\leq & \Big\Vert \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( l\mu_1(t) - \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n Y_{n,j}(t) \Big) \xi_i^{(k)} \Big\Vert \\
&+ \sup_{s,t\in[0,1]} \Big\vert \sqrt{n}\Big(s-\frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big)
\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}\Big( l\mu_1(t) - \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n Y_{n,j}(t)\Big)
\xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(k)} \Big\vert \\
&\leq \sup_{s\in [0,1]} \Big\vert \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor}
\xi_i^{(k)} \Big\vert
\times \frac{\sqrt{l}}{\sqrt{n}}\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \Big\vert
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^n (X_{n,j}(t)-\mu^{(j)}(t)) \Big\vert \\
&+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \max_{i=1}^n \vert \xi_i^{(k)} \vert
\times \frac{\sqrt{l}}{\sqrt{n}} \sup_{t\in[0,1]}\Big\vert
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(X_{n,j}(t) - \mu^{(j)}(t) \big) \Big\vert.\end{aligned}$$ Therein, $\sup_{s\in [0,1]} \vert n^{-1/2} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor}
\xi_i^{(k)} \vert = O_\mathbb{P} (1)$, $\max_{i=1}^n \vert \xi_i^{(k)} \vert = O_\mathbb{P} (\sqrt{\log n})$, while all other terms are of order $ O_\mathbb{P} ( \sqrt{l/n}) = o_\mathbb{P}(1)$, by Theorem \[mixingCLT\].
Recall the definition of $ \bar{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t)$ in and define $$\begin{aligned}
\check{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t) =& \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor}\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} \check{Y}_{n,j}(t)
- \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \check{Y}_{n,j}(t) \Big) \xi_i^{(k)} \\
&+ \sqrt{n}\Big(s - \frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big)\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor+l} \check{Y}_{n,j}(t)
- \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \check{Y}_{n,j}(t) \Big) \xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(k)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\check{Y}_{n,j} = X_{n,j}-(\hat{\mu}_2 - \hat{\mu}_1) \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{439}
\sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} |\check{B}_n^{(k)} (s,t) - \bar{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t)| \leq
U_n^{(1,1)} + U_n^{(1,2)} + U_n^{(2)} = o_{\mathbb{P}} (1),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{440}
U_n^{(1,1)} & = \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big|
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} \varepsilon_n(t) \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
\Big) \xi_i^{(k)} \Big|, \\
U_n^{(1,2)} & = \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big|
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}} \Big(
\frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \varepsilon_n(t)\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
\Big) \xi_i^{(k)} \Big|, \label{440a} \\
\nonumber
U_n^{(2)}&= \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big|
\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{l}} \Big(s - \frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big)
\Big( \sum_{j=\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor+l} \varepsilon_n(t)
\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
- \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \varepsilon_n(t)\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
\Big) \xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(k)} \Big|,\end{aligned}$$ and $\varepsilon_n = \hat{\mu}_2 - \mu_2 - (\hat{\mu}_1 - \mu_1)$. To prove , it will be shown that all terms on the right-hand side of converge to zero in probability, concentrating on $U_n^{(1,1)}$ and $U_n^{(1,2)}$ for the sake of brevity (the term $U_n^{(2)}$ can be treated similarly). At the end of this proof it will be verified that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{442}
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \big| \varepsilon_n(t) \big| = O_{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Direct calculations observing yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{441}
U_n^{(1,2)}
& \leq \sup_{s \in [0,1]} \Big| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \xi_i^{(k)} \Big| ~
\times \sqrt{l} \sup_{t\in[0,1]} \big| \varepsilon_n(t) \big|
= O_\mathbb{P} \bigg ( \sqrt{l\over n} \bigg)
= o_\mathbb{P} (1).\end{aligned}$$ For the first term on the right side of similar arguments yield $$\begin{aligned}
U_n^{(1,1)} & = \sup_{t \in [0,1]} \Big|
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor s^*n \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} \varepsilon_n(t) \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
\Big) \xi_i^{(k)} \Big| + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) \\
&\leq
\sum_{i=\lfloor s^*n \rfloor -l +1}^{\lfloor s^*n \rfloor} |\xi_i^{(k)}|
\frac{\sqrt{l}}{\sqrt{n}} \sup_{t \in [0,1]} \big|\varepsilon_n(t)\big| + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)
= O_{\mathbb{P}} \Big ( { l^{3/2} \over n} \Big ) +o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)
= O_{\mathbb{P}} ( n^{3/2\beta-1})+o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)
,\end{aligned}$$ which follows using , $\beta < 1/3$ (by assumption) and $\sum_{i=\lfloor s^*n \rfloor -l +1}^{\lfloor s^*n \rfloor} |\xi_i^{(k)}| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(l)$, the latter relation implied by Markov’s inequality.
Therefore holds and observing the definition of $\hat{B}_n^{(k)}$ in , it is next shown that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{443}
& \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} |\hat{B}_n^{(k)} (s,t) - \check{B}_n^{(k)}(s,t)| \leq Z_n^{(1)} +Z_n^{(2)} +Z_n^{(3)} +Z_n^{(4)} = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Z_n^{(1)} & = \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big|
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} \big(\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t)\big)
\big(\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
- \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor \} \big) \xi_i^{(k)} \Big| \\
Z_n^{(2)} & = \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big|
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}} \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t)\big)
\big(\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
- \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor \} \big)
\xi_i^{(k)} \Big|, \\
Z_n^{(3)} & = \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big| \Big(s - \frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big)\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{l}}
\sum_{j=\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor+l}
\big(\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t)\big)
\big(\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
- \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor \} \big) \xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(k)}\Big|, \\
Z_n^{(4)} &= \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big| \Big(s - \frac{\lfloor sn \rfloor}{n} \Big)\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{l}} \frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \big(\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t)\big)
\big(\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \}
- \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor \} \big)
\Big) \xi_{\lfloor sn \rfloor +1}^{(k)} \Big|.\end{aligned}$$ As $\big|\mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \} - \mathds{1}\{j> \lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor \} \big|
= \mathds{1}\{\lfloor (\hat{s} \wedge s^*)n \rfloor < j
\leq \lfloor (\hat{s} \vee s^*)n \rfloor\} $, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{444}
Z_n^{(2)}&\leq \sup_{(s,t) \in [0,1]^2} \Big(
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor sn \rfloor} \frac{|\xi_i^{(k)}|}{\sqrt{l}}
\frac{l}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n \big|\hat{\mu}_1(t)-\hat{\mu}_2(t)\big| ~
\mathds{1}\{\lfloor (\hat{s} \wedge s^*)n \rfloor < j
\leq \lfloor (\hat{s} \vee s^*)n \rfloor\}
\Big) \\
&\leq \|\hat{\mu}_1-\hat{\mu}_2\|_\infty
\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} |\xi_i^{(k)}| \Big)
\frac{\sqrt{l}}{n} ~\big(n|\hat{s} - s^*|+1\big) = O_{\mathbb{P}} \Big (\sqrt{l \over n} \Big ) = o_{\mathbb{P}}( 1),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ using that $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} |\xi_i^{(k)}| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(\sqrt{n})$ (by Markov’s inequality) and $\|\hat{\mu}_1 - \hat{\mu}_2 \| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$ (implied by ).
For the first term on the right-side of , use similar arguments as in to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Z_n^{(1)} & \leq \big\|\hat{\mu}_1-\hat{\mu}_2\big\|_\infty
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} ~
\mathds{1}\{\lfloor (\hat{s} \wedge s^*)n \rfloor < j
\leq \lfloor (\hat{s} \vee s^*)n \rfloor\} \Big) |\xi_i^{(k)}| \\
&\hspace{15pt} = \big\|\hat{\mu}_1-\hat{\mu}_2\big\|_\infty
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\sum_{i=\lfloor (\hat{s} \wedge s^*)n \rfloor -l+2}^{\lfloor (\hat{s} \vee s^*)n \rfloor}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{l}}
\Big( \sum_{j=i}^{i+l-1} ~
\mathds{1}\{\lfloor (\hat{s} \wedge s^*)n \rfloor < j
\leq \lfloor (\hat{s} \vee s^*)n \rfloor\} \Big) |\xi_i^{(k)}| \\
&\hspace{15pt} \leq \big\|\hat{\mu}_1-\hat{\mu}_2\big\|_\infty
\frac{\sqrt{l}}{\sqrt{n}}
\sum_{i=\lfloor (\hat{s} \wedge s^*)n \rfloor -l+2}^{\lfloor (\hat{s} \vee s^*)n \rfloor}
|\xi_i^{(k)}| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(l^{3/2}n^{-1/2}) = O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{ 3 \beta /2-1/2}) = o_{\mathbb{P}} (1),\end{aligned}$$ since $\sum_{i=\lfloor (\hat{s} \wedge s^*)n \rfloor -l+2}^{\lfloor (\hat{s} \vee s^*)n \rfloor}
|\xi_i^{(k)}| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(l) $, which follows from $|\hat{s}-s^*| = O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1}) $. Similarly, one can show $ Z_n^{(3)} = o_{\mathbb{P}} (1) $, $ Z_n^{(4)} = o_{\mathbb{P}} (1) $ and therefore holds, which implies (observing ) the assertion .
In order to prove the remaining statement , note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expectation1}
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \big| \hat{\mu}_1(t) - \mu_1(t) \big| \leq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \frac{n}{\lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor} \big( Q_n^{(1)} +Q_n^{(2)} \big),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Q_n^{(1)} & =
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \Big| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\sum_{j=1}^{\lfloor (\hat{s}\wedge s^*) n \rfloor}
\big( X_{n,j}(t) - \mu_1(t) \big) \Big|, \\
Q_n^{(2)} & =
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \Big| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\sum_{j=\lfloor (\hat{s}\wedge s^*) n \rfloor +1}^{\lfloor (\hat{s}\vee s^*) n \rfloor}
\big( X_{n,j}(t) - \mu_1(t) \big) \Big| ~.\end{aligned}$$ Recall the definition of $\mathbb{\hat V}_n$ in , then Theorem \[WIP\] and the extended continuous mapping theorem (see Theorem 1.11.1 in Van der Vaart and Wellner [@wellner1996]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expectation2}
Q_n^{(1)}&=
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \big|
\hat{\mathbb{V}}_n \big(\lfloor (\hat{s}\wedge s^*) n \rfloor / n ,t\big) \big|
= O_{\mathbb{P}}(1) ~.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{p\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} ~ \mathbb{P} \big(
Q_n^{(2)} > p \big) & \leq \lim_{p\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} ~ \mathbb{P} \big(
Q_n^{(2)} > p ~ , ~
\big|\lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor - \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \big| \leq p \big) \\
& \qquad+ \lim_{p\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} ~ \mathbb{P} \big(
\big|\lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor - \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \big| > p \big).\end{aligned}$$ The second term in this inequality is of order $o_{\mathbb{P}} (1)$, since $|\hat{s}-s^*|=O_{\mathbb{P}}(n^{-1})$. For the first term use Markov’s inequality and Assumption (A1) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{p\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} ~ \mathbb{P} \big(
Q_n^{(2)} > p ~ , ~
\big|\lfloor \hat{s}n \rfloor - \lfloor s^*n \rfloor \big| \leq p \big)
& \leq \lim_{p\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} ~ \mathbb{P} \Big(
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}
\sum_{j=\lfloor s^* n \rfloor - p}^{\lfloor s^*n \rfloor + p}
\big( \|X_{n,j}\|+ \|\mu_1\| \big) > p \Big) \\
& \lesssim \lim_{p\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty} ~
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} = 0 ~.\end{aligned}$$ This means that $Q_n^{(2)} = O_{\mathbb{P}}(1) $. Observing the calculations in and leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{449}
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \big| \hat{\mu}_1(t) - \mu_1(t) \big| = O_{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\bigg)
\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\sup_{t\in[0,1]} \big| \hat{\mu}_2(t) - \mu_2(t) \big| = O_{\mathbb{P}}\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ the second estimate following similarly. This yields and completes the proof of .
In order to prove the assertion define $$\begin{aligned}
\bold{D}_n = |\hat{d}_\infty - d_\infty| + \sup_{t\in[0,1]}|\hat{\mu}_1(t) - \hat{\mu}_2(t)
- (\mu_1(t) - \mu_2(t))|.\end{aligned}$$ Observing and Corollary \[setT\], yields $\mathbb{P}({c_n}/{\sqrt{n}} \geq \bold{D}_n)\to 1$ as $n\to\infty$, and the same arguments as given in the proof of Lemma \[setConvergence\] show $ d_h(\hat{\mathcal{E}}^\pm_n,\mathcal{E}^\pm ) \xrightarrow{\mathbb{P}^*} 0, $ where the sets $\hat{\mathcal{E}}^+_n$ and $ \hat{\mathcal{E}}^-_n$ are now defined in . Theorem \[bTheorem\] and Lemma \[maxSetConvergence\] lemma imply $$\begin{aligned}
(\tilde{D}_n(\mathcal{E}),~ T_n^{(1)},\dots,T_n^{(R)})
\Rightarrow (T(\mathcal{E)},~ T^{(1)},\dots,T^{(R)})\end{aligned}$$ in $\mathbb{R}^{R+1}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{D}_n(\mathcal{E}) = \frac{1}{\hat{s}(1-\hat{s})}
\max\big\{\max_{t\in\mathcal{E}^+} \hat{W}_n(\hat{s},t),
\max_{t\in\mathcal{E}^-} (-\hat{W}_n(\hat{s},t)) \big\}\end{aligned}$$ and the random variable $\hat{W}_n$ is defined by . From the discussion following Theorem \[rate\] and the proofs of Lemma \[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:1\] and Lemma \[lem:proofs:weak\_conv:2\], $
\tilde{D}_n(\mathcal{E}) = \mathbb{D}_n/[{\hat{s}(1-\hat{s})}] + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)
= \sqrt{n}(\hat d_\infty - d_\infty) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)
$, where $\mathbb{D}_n$ is defined by . This implies the assertion.
[^1]: Fakultät für Mathematik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universitätsstra[ß]{}e 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany, emails:
[^2]: Department of Statistics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA, email:
[^3]: This research was partially supported by NSF grants DMS 1305858 and DMS 1407530, by the Collaborative Research Center ‘Statistical modeling of nonlinear dynamic processes’ ([*Sonderforschungsbereich 823, Teilprojekt A1, C1*]{}) and by the Research Training Group ‘High-dimensional Phenomena in Probability - Fluctuations and Discontinuity’ ([*RTG 2131*]{}) of the German Research Foundation. Part of the research was done while A. Aue was visiting Ruhr-Universität Bochum as a Simons Visiting Professor of the Mathematical Research Institute Oberwolfach.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $V$ denote a vector space with finite positive dimension, and let $(A,A^*)$ denote a Leonard pair on $V$. As is known, the linear transformations $A$, $A^*$ satisfy the Askey-Wilson relations $$\begin{aligned}
A^2 A^*-\beta A A^*\!A+A^*\!A^2-\gamma\left( A A^*\!+\!A^*\!A
\right)-\varrho\,A^* {&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\gamma^*\!A^2+\omega A+\eta\,I,\\
A^*{}^2\!A-\beta A^*\!AA^*\!+AA^*{}^2\!-\gamma^*\!\left(A^*\!A\!+\!A
A^*\right)-\varrho^*\!A {&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\gamma A^*{}^2\!+\omega A^*\!+\eta^*I,\end{aligned}$$ for some scalars $\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*,\omega,\eta,\eta^*$. The scalar sequence is unique if the dimension of $V$ is at least $4$.
If $c,c^*\!,t,t^*\!$ are scalars and $t,t^*\!$ are not zero, then $(tA+c,t^*\!A^*\!+c^*)$ is a Leonard pair on $V$ as well. These affine transformations can be used to bring the Leonard pair or its Askey-Wilson relations into a convenient form. This paper presents convenient normalizations of Leonard pairs by the affine transformations, and exhibits explicit Askey-Wilson relations satisfied by them.\
[**AMS 2000 MSC Classification**]{}: 05E35, 33D45, 33C45.\
[**Keywords**]{}: Leonard pairs, Askey-Wilson relations.\
[**E-mail address**]{}: [[email protected]]{}.\
author:
- |
Raimundas Vidūnas[^1]\
*Kyushu University*
bibliography:
- '../terwilliger.bib'
- '../../hypergeometric.bib'
title: 'Normalized Leonard pairs and Askey-Wilson relations'
---
Introduction
============
Throughout the paper, ${{\Bbb K}}$ denotes an algebraically closed field. Apart from one remark, we assume the characteristic of ${{\Bbb K}}$ is not equal to 2.
Recall that a tridiagonal matrix is a square matrix which has nonzero entries only on the main diagonal, on the superdiagonal and the subdiagonal. A tridiagonal matrix is called irreducible whenever all entries on the superdiagonal and subdiagonal are nonzero.
\[deflp\] Let $V$ be a vector space over ${{\Bbb K}}$ with finite positive dimension. By a [*Leonard pair*]{} on $V$ we mean an ordered pair $(A,A^*)$, where $A:V\to
V$ and $A^*:V\to V$ are linear transformations which satisfy the following two conditions:
1. There exists a basis for $V$ with respect to which the matrix representing $A^*$ is diagonal, and the matrix representing $A$ is irreducible tridiagonal.
2. There exists a basis for $V$ with respect to which the matrix representing $A$ is diagonal, and the matrix representing $A^*$ is irreducible tridiagonal.
In this paper we do not use the conventional notation $A^*$ for the conjugate-transpose of $A$. In a Leonard pair $(A,A^*)$, the linear transformations $A$ and $A^*$ are arbitrary subject to the conditions [*(i)*]{} and [*(ii)*]{} above.
Leonard pairs occur in the theory of orthogonal polynomials, combinatorics, the representation theory of the Lie algebra $sl_2$ or the quantum group $U_q(sl_2)$. We refer to [@terwgen] as a survey on Leonard pairs, and as a source of further references.
We have the following result [@TerwVid Theorem 1.5].
\[lptheorem\] Let $V$ denote a vector space over ${{\Bbb K}}$ with finite positive dimension. Let $(A,A^*)$ be a Leonard pair on $V$. Then there exists a sequence of scalars $\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*$, $\omega,\eta,\eta^*$ taken from ${{\Bbb K}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{askwil1}
A^2 A^*-\beta A A^*\!A+A^*\!A^2-\gamma\left( A A^*\!+\!A^*\!A
\right)-\varrho\,A^* {&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\gamma^*\!A^2+\omega A+\eta\,I,\\
\label{askwil2} A^*{}^2\!A-\beta A^*\!AA^*\!+AA^*{}^2-
\gamma^*\!\left(A^*\!A\!+\!A A^*\right)-\varrho^*\!A {&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\gamma
A^*{}^2+\omega A^*\!+\eta^*I.\end{aligned}$$ The sequence is uniquely determined by the pair $(A,A^*)$ provided the dimension of $V$ is at least $4$.
The equations (\[askwil1\])–(\[askwil2\]) are called the [*Askey-Wilson relations*]{}. They first appeared in the work [@Zhidd] of Zhedanov, where he showed that the Askey-Wilson polynomials give pairs of infinite-dimensional matrices which satisfy the Askey-Wilson relations. We denote this pair of equations by $AW(\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*,\omega,\eta,\eta^*)$.
It is easy to notice that if $(A,A^*)$ is a Leonard pair, then $$\label{translation}
(tA+c,\,t^*\!A^*\!+c^*),\qquad \mbox{with}\ c,c^*,t,t^*\!\in{{\Bbb K}}\mbox{ and }
t,t^*\neq 0,$$ is a Leonard pair as well. We say that the two Leonard pairs are related by the [*affine transformation*]{} $(A,A^*)\mapsto
(tA+c,\,t^*\!A^*\!+c^*)$. Affine transformations act on Askey-Wilson relations as well, as explained in Section \[normawrels\] below. For example, if then the Askey-Wilson relations can be normalized so that $\gamma=0$ and . Affine transformations can be used to normalize Leonard pairs, parameter arrays representing them, or the Askey-Wilson relations conveniently.
This paper presents convenient normalizations of Leonard pairs and their Askey-Wilson relations. We generally assume that the dimension of the underling vector space is at least 4, and use Terwilliger’s classification [@TerwLTparr] (or [@terwgen Section 35]) of parameter arrays representing Leonard pairs. For parameter arrays of the $q$-type, we present two normalizations: one that is close to Terwilliger’s general expressions in [@TerwLTparr], and one where Askey-Wilson coefficients are normalized most attractively. For other parameter arrays, we give one normalization. This work is more of bookkeeping kind than of deep research. Examples of Askey-Wilson relations for normalized Leonard pairs are given in [@TerwVid], [@hjalmarpaul]. Indirectly, Askey-Wilson relations for Leonard pairs arising from certain distince regular graphs are computed in [@Cur2hbipT], [@Go].
We note that Terwilliger’s classification of parameter arrays by certain families of orthogonal polynomials from the Askey-Wilson scheme can be largely imitated to categorize Leonard pairs and Askey-Wilson relations; see Sections \[lsparar\] and \[classifics\] below. We have the same types of Leonard pairs and of Askey-Wilson relations, except that the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk and affine $q$-Krawtchouk types are merged.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we discuss the relation between Leonard pairs and parameter arrays. In Section \[paawrel\] we recall expressions of the Askey-Wilson coefficients in (\[askwil1\])–(\[askwil2\]) in terms of parameter arrays. Section \[normawrels\] deals with possible normalizations of Askey-Wilson relations. Sections \[qpararrays1\] and \[qpararrays2\] present two normalizations of $q$-parameter arrays and Askey-Wilson relations for them. Section \[otherpararrays\] presents normalizations of other parameter arrays and Askey-Wilson relations for them. In Section \[classifics\] we give a classification of Askey-Wilson relations consistent with the classification of Leonard pairs. In Section \[conclusions\] we discuss uniqueness of normalizations of Leonard pairs and Askey-Wilson relations.
Leonard pairs and parameter arrays {#lsparar}
==================================
Leonard pairs are represented and classified by parameter arrays. More precisely, parameter arrays are in one-to-one correspondence with [*Leonard systems*]{} [@terwgen Definition 3.2], and to each Leonard pair one associates 4 Leonard systems or parameter arrays. From now on, let $d$ be a non-negative integer, and let $V$ be a vector space with dimension $d+1$ over ${{\Bbb K}}$.
[@hartwig] Let $(A,A^*)$ denote a Leonard pair on $V$. Let $W$ denote a vector space over ${{\Bbb K}}$ with finite positive dimension, and let $(B,B^*)$ denote a Leonard pair on $W$. By an [*isomorphism of Leonard pairs*]{} we mean an isomorphism of vector spaces $\sigma:V\mapsto W$ such that $\sigma
A\sigma^{-1}=B$ and $\sigma A^*\sigma^{-1}=B^*$. We say that $(A,A^*)$ and $(B,B^*)$ are [*isomorphic*]{} if there is an isomorphism of Leonard pairs from $(A,A^*)$ to $(B,B^*)$.
\[defpa\] [@TerwLTparr] By a [*parameter array*]{} over ${{\Bbb K}}$, of diameter $d$, we mean a sequence $$\label{paraar}
(\theta_0,\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d;\;\theta_0^*,\theta_1^*,\ldots,\theta_d^*;\;
\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_d;\;\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_d)$$ of scalars taken from ${{\Bbb K}}$, that satisfy the following conditions:
1. $\theta_i\neq\theta_j$ and $\theta_i^*\neq\theta_j^*$ if $i\neq j$, for $0\le i,j\le d$.
2. $\varphi_i\neq 0$ and $\phi_i\neq 0$, for $1\le i\le d$.
3. $\displaystyle\varphi_i=\phi_1\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}
\frac{\theta_j-\theta_{d-j}}{\theta_0-\theta_d}+\left(\theta^*_i-\theta_0^*\right)
\left(\theta_{i-1}-\theta_d\right)$, for $1\le i\le d$.
4. $\displaystyle\phi_i=\varphi_1\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}
\frac{\theta_j-\theta_{d-j}}{\theta_0-\theta_d}+\left(\theta^*_i-\theta_0^*\right)
\left(\theta_{d-i+1}\!-\theta_0\right)$, for $1\le i\le d$.
5. The expressions $$\frac{\theta_{i-2}-\theta_{i+1}}{\theta_{i-1}-\theta_i},\qquad
\frac{\theta^*_{i-2}-\theta^*_{i+1}}{\theta^*_{i-1}-\theta^*_i}$$ are equal and independent of $i$, for $2\le i\le d-1$.
To get a Leonard pair from parameter array (\[paraar\]), one must choose a basis for $V$ and define the two linear transformations by the following matrices (with respect to that basis): $$\label{split1}
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} \theta_0 \\ 1 & \theta_1 \\ & 1 & \theta_2 \\
& & \ddots & \ddots \\ & & & 1 & \theta_d \end{array}\right),\qquad
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} \theta^*_0 & \varphi_1 \\ & \theta^*_1 &
\varphi_2 \\ & & \theta^*_2 & \ddots \\
& & & \ddots & \varphi_d \\ & & & & \theta^*_d \end{array}\right).$$ Alternatively, the following two matrices define an isomorphic Leonard pair on $V$: $$\label{split2}
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} \theta_d \\ 1 & \theta_{d-1} \\ & 1 & \theta_{d-2} \\
& & \ddots & \ddots \\ & & & 1 & \theta_0 \end{array}\right),\qquad
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} \theta^*_0 & \phi_1 \\ & \theta^*_1 &
\phi_2 \\ & & \theta^*_2 & \ddots \\
& & & \ddots & \phi_d \\ & & & & \theta^*_d \end{array}\right).$$
Conversely, if $(A,A^*)$ is a Leonard pair on $V$, there exists [@terwgen Section 21] a basis for $V$ with respect to which the matrices for $A$, $A^*$ have the bidiagonal forms in (\[split1\]), respectively. There exists another basis for $V$ with respect to which the matrices for $A$, $A^*$ have the bidiagonal forms in (\[split2\]), respectively, with the same scalars $\theta_0,\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d;
\theta^*_0,\theta^*_1,\ldots,\theta^*_d$. Then the following 4 sequences are parameter arrays of diameter $d$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{parray1}
(\theta_0,\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d;\;\theta_0^*,\theta_1^*,\ldots,\theta_d^*;\;
\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_d;\;\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_d),\\
$$$$\begin{aligned}
\label{parray2}
(\theta_0,\theta_1,\ldots,\theta_d;\;\theta_d^*,\ldots,\theta_{1}^*,\theta_0^*;\;
\phi_d,\ldots,\phi_1;\;\varphi_d,\ldots,\varphi_1),\\ \label{parray3}
(\theta_d,\ldots,\theta_{1},\theta_0;\;\theta_0^*,\theta_1^*,\ldots,\theta_d^*;\;
\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_d;\;\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_d),\\ \label{parray9}
(\theta_d,\ldots,\theta_{1},\theta_0;\;\theta_d^*,\ldots,\theta_{1}^*,\theta_0^*;\;
\varphi_d,\ldots,\varphi_1;\;\phi_d,\ldots,\phi_1).\end{aligned}$$ If we apply to any of these parameter arrays the construction above, we get back a Leonard pair isomorphic to $(A,A^*)$. These are all parameter arrays which correspond to $(A,A^*)$ in this way.
The parameter arrays in (\[parray1\])–(\[parray9\]) are related by permutations. The permutation group is isomorphic to ${{\Bbb Z}}_2\times{{\Bbb Z}}_2$. The group action is without fixed points, since the eigenvalues $\theta_i$’s (or $\theta_i^*$’s) are distinct. Let $\downarrow$ and $\Downarrow$ denote the permutations which transform (\[parray1\]) into, respectively, (\[parray2\]) and (\[parray3\]). Observe that the composition $\downarrow\Downarrow$ transforms (\[parray1\]) into (\[parray9\]). We refer to the permutations $\downarrow$, $\Downarrow$ and $\downarrow\Downarrow$ as [*relation operators*]{}, because in [@terwgen Section 4] the parameter arrays in (\[parray1\])–(\[parray9\]) corresponding to $(A,A^*)$ and the 4 similar parameter arrays corresponding to the Leonard pair $(A^*,A)$ are called [*relatives*]{} of each other.
Parameter arrays are classified by Terwilliger in [@TerwLTparr]; alternatively, see [@terwgen Section 35]. For each parameter array, certain orthogonal polynomials naturally occur in entries of the transformation matrix between two bases characterized in Definition \[deflp\] for the corresponding Leonard pair. Terwilliger’s classification largely mimics the terminating branch of orthogonal polynomials in the Askey-Wilson scheme [@koekswart]. Specifically, the classification comprises Racah, Hahn, Krawtchouk polynomials and their $q$-versions, plus Bannai-Ito and orphan polynomials. Classes of parameter arrays can be identified by the type of corresponding orthogonal polynomials; we refer to them as [*Askey-Wilson types*]{}. The type of a parameter array is unambiguously defined if $d\ge 3$. We recapitulate Terwilliger’s classification in Sections \[qpararrays1\] through \[otherpararrays\] by giving general normalized parameter arrays of each type.
By inspecting Terwilliger’s general parameter arrays [@terwgen Section 35], one can observe that the relation operators $\downarrow$, $\Downarrow$, $\downarrow\Downarrow$ do not change the Askey-Wilson type of a parameter array (but only the free parameters such as $q,h,h^*,s$ there), except that the $\Downarrow$ and $\downarrow\Downarrow$ relations mix up the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk and affine $q$-Krawtchouk types. Consequently, given a Leonard pair, all 4 associated parameter arrays have the same type, except when parameter arrays of the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk or affine $q$-Krawtchouk type occur. Therefore we can use the same classifying terminology for Leonard pairs, except that we have to merge the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk and affine $q$-Krawtchouk types.
Parameter arrays and AW relations {#paawrel}
=================================
Let us consider a parameter array as in (\[parray1\]). Suppose that the corresponding Leonard pair satisfies Askey-Wilson relations $AW(\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*,\omega,\eta,\eta^*)$. Note that the Askey-Wilson relations are invariant under isomorphism of Leonard pairs. Expressions for the 8 Askey-Wilson coefficients in terms of parameter arrays are presented in [@TerwVid Theorem 4.5 and Theorem 5.3]. Here are the formulas: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betap1}
\beta+1{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{\theta_{i-2}-\theta_{i+1}}{\theta_{i-1}-\theta_i}=
\frac{\theta^*_{i-2}-\theta^*_{i+1}}{\theta^*_{i-1}-\theta^*_i},\\
\label{betap2}\gamma{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta_{i-1}-\beta\theta_i+\theta_{i+1},\\
\label{betap3}\gamma^*{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta^*_{i-1}-\beta\theta^*_i+\theta^*_{i+1},\\
\label{betap4}\varrho{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta_i^2-\beta\,\theta_i\,\theta_{i-1}
+\theta_{i-1}^2-\gamma\,(\theta_i+\theta_{i-1}),\\
\label{betap5}\varrho^*{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta^{*\,2}_i-\beta\theta^*_i\theta^*_{i-1}
+\theta^{*2}_{i-1}- \gamma^*(\theta^*_i+\theta^*_{i-1}),\\
\label{betap6}\omega{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}a_i\,(\theta^*_i-\theta^*_{i+1})+a_{i-1}\,
(\theta^*_{i-1}-\theta^*_{i-2})-\gamma\,(\theta^*_i+\theta^*_{i-1})\\
\label{betap7}{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}a^*_i\,(\theta_i-\theta_{i+1})+a^*_{i-1}\,
(\theta_{i-1}-\theta_{i-2})-\gamma^*\,(\theta_i+\theta_{i-1}),\\
\label{betap8}\eta{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}a^*_i\,(\theta_{i}\!-\!\theta_{i-1})\,
(\theta_{i}\!-\!\theta_{i+1})-\gamma^*\,\theta_i^2-\omega\,\theta_i,\\
\label{betap9}\eta^*{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}a_i\,(\theta^*_{i}\!-\!\theta^*_{i-1})\,
(\theta^*_{i}\!-\!\theta^*_{i+1})-\gamma\,\theta_i^*{}^2-\omega\,\theta^*_i.\end{aligned}$$ The expressions for $\beta+1$ and $\omega$ are valid for $2\le i\le d-1$, the expressions for $\varrho$, $\varrho^*$ are valid for $1\le i\le d$, and the expressions for $\gamma,\gamma^*,\eta,\eta^*$ are valid for $1\le i\le
d-1$. The numbers $a_i,a_i^*$ are the diagonal entries in the tridiagonal forms of $A$, $A^*$ of Definition \[deflp\]; see [@terwgen Section 7]. In terms of parameter arrays, we have [@Terw24 Section 10]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{asipq0}
a_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta_i+\frac{\varphi_i}{\theta^*_i-\theta^*_{i-1}}+
\frac{\varphi_{i+1}}{\theta^*_i-\theta^*_{i+1}}\\
\label{asipq1} {&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta_{d-i}+\frac{\phi_i}{\theta^*_i-\theta^*_{i-1}}+
\frac{\phi_{i+1}}{\theta^*_i-\theta^*_{i+1}},\\
\label{asipq2} a_i^*{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta_i^*+\frac{\varphi_i}{\theta_i-\theta_{i-1}}+
\frac{\varphi_{i+1}}{\theta_i-\theta_{i+1}}\\ \label{asipq}
{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\theta^*_{d-i}+\frac{\phi_{d-i+1}}{\theta_i-\theta_{i-1}}+
\frac{\phi_{d-i}}{\theta_i-\theta_{i+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here for $i\in\{0,d\}$ we should take $$\label{phiconv}
\varphi_0=0, \quad \varphi_{d+1}=0, \quad \phi_0=0, \quad\phi_{d+1}=0.$$ The numbers $\theta_{-1},\theta_{d+1},\theta_{-1}^*,\theta_{d+1}$ can be left undetermined. Surely, the Askey-Wilson coefficients are invariant under the action of $\downarrow$, $\Downarrow$, $\downarrow\Downarrow$ on parameter arrays.
As stated in Theorem \[lptheorem\], the coefficient sequence $\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*,\omega,\eta,\eta^*$ is unique if $d\ge 3$. If $d=2$, we can take $\beta$ freely and other coefficients get determined uniquely. If $d=1$, we can take the 3 coefficients $\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*$ freely. If $d=0$, we can take the 6 coefficients $\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*,\omega$ freely.
Normalized Askey-Wilson relations {#normawrels}
=================================
Let $(A,A^*)$ denote a Leonard pair on $V$. Suppose that it satisfies the Askey-Wilson relations $AW(\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*,\omega,\eta,\eta^*)$. It can be computed that Leonard pair (\[translation\]) then satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{newaw}
&&\hspace{-24pt}AW\left(
\beta,\;\gamma\,t+(2-\beta)\,c,\;\gamma^*t^*+(2-\beta)\,c^*,\;
\varrho\,t^2-2\gamma\,c\,t+(\beta-2)\,c^2,\right.\nonumber \\
&&\varrho^*t^*{}^2\!-2\gamma^*c^*t^*\!+(\beta\!-\!2)\,c^*{}^2,\,\omega\,t\,t^*\!
-2\gamma\,c^*t-2\gamma^*c\,t^*\!+2(\beta\!-\!2)\,c\,c^*,\nonumber\\
&&\eta\,t^2t^*-\varrho\,c^*t^2-\omega\,c\,t\,t^*
+\gamma^*c^2t^*+2\gamma^*c\,c^*t+(2-\beta)\,c^2c^*,\nonumber\\
&&\left.\eta^*t\,t^*{}^2\!-\varrho^*c\,t^*{}^2\!-\omega\,c^*t\,t^*
+\gamma\,c^*{}^2t+2\gamma\,c\,c^*t^*\!+(2-\beta)\,c\,c^*{}^2\right).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\beta$ stays invariant. The affine transformations $$\label{afftr}
(A,A^*)\mapsto (tA+c,\, t^*\!A^*\!+c^*),\qquad \mbox{with}\
c,c^*,t,t^*\!\in{{\Bbb K}},\ t,t^*\neq 0,$$ can be used to normalize Leonard pairs so that their Askey-Wilson relations would have a simple form. We refer to a transformations of the form $(A,A^*)\mapsto (A+c,A^*+c^*)$ as an [*affine translation*]{}, and to a transformation of the form $(A,A^*)\mapsto (tA,\,t^*A^*)$ as an [*affine scaling*]{}. Generally, we can use an affine translation to set some two Askey-Wilson coefficients to zero, and then use an affine scaling to normalize some two nonzero coefficients. Specifically, by affine translations we can achieve the following.
\[normrules\] The Askey-Wilson relations $AW(\beta,\gamma,\gamma^*,\varrho,\varrho^*,\omega,\eta,\eta^*)$ can be normalized as follows:
1. If $\beta\neq 2$, we can set $\gamma=0$, $\gamma^*=0$.
2. If $\beta=2$, $\gamma\neq 0$, $\gamma^*\!\neq 0$, we can set $\varrho=0$, $\varrho^*=0$.
3. If $\beta=2$, $\gamma=0$, $\gamma^*\!\neq 0$, we can set $\varrho^*=0$, $\omega=0$.
4. If $\beta=2$, $\gamma^*\!=0$, $\gamma\neq 0$, we can set $\varrho=0$, $\omega=0$.
5. If $\beta=2$, $\gamma=0$, $\gamma^*=0$, $\omega^2\neq\varrho\varrho^*$, we can set $\eta=0$, $\eta^*=0$.
6. If $\beta=2$, $\gamma=0$, $\gamma^*=0$, $\mbox{\rm
rk}{\omega\;\; \varrho\;\;\eta\choose\,\varrho^*\,\;\omega\;\eta^*}\le 1$, we can set $\eta=0$, $\eta^*=0$.
7. Otherwise, we have $$\beta=2,\quad \gamma=0,\quad \gamma^*=0,\quad
\omega^2=\varrho\varrho^*,\quad \mbox{\rm rk}{\omega\quad
\varrho\quad\eta\,\choose\varrho^*\quad\!\!\omega\quad\eta^*}=2.$$ Then we can set either $\eta=0$ or $\eta^*=0$, but not both.
In the first $5$ cases, there is a unique affine translation to make the normalization. In the last $2$ cases, there are infinitely many normalizations by affine translations.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}The first 4 cases are straightforward, including the uniqueness statement. If $\beta=2$, $\gamma=0$, $\gamma^*=0$, the new Askey-Wilson relations (\[newaw\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle
AW\left( 2,\,0,\,0,\,\varrho\,t^2,\,\varrho^*t^*{}^2,\,
\omega\,tt^*\!,\,\big(\eta-\omega\,a-\varrho\,a^*\big)\,t^2t^*,\,
\big(\eta^*-\varrho^*a-\omega\,a^*\big)\,t\,t^*{}^2\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $a=c/t$ and $a^*=c^*/t^*$. To set the last two parameters to zero, we have to solve two linear equations in $a,a^*$. If we have $\det{\omega\;\;
\varrho\choose\,\varrho^*\; \omega}\neq 0$, the solution is unique. Otherwise we have either infinitely many or none solutions, which leads us to the last two cases. [$\Box$]{}\
As it turns out, cases 6 and 7 of Lemma \[normrules\] do not occur for Askey-Wilson relations satisfied by Leonard pairs if $d\ge 3$. See part 3 of Theorem \[classth\] below.
In Section \[qpararrays1\], we normalize the general $q$-parameter arrays in Terwilliger’s classification [@terwgen Section 35] with most handy changes in the explicit expressions. We use the following simplest action of (\[afftr\]) on parameter arrays, consistent with the transformation of Leonard pairs: $$\label{scalingtr}
\theta_i\mapsto t\,\theta_i+c,\qquad \theta^*_i\mapsto t^*\theta^*_i+c^*,
\qquad \varphi_i\mapsto t\,t^*\varphi_i, \qquad \phi_i\mapsto t\,t^*\phi_i.$$ It turns out that the corresponding Askey-Wilson relations follow the specification of part 1 of Lemma \[normrules\] immediately.
Suppose that we normalized a pair of Askey-Wilson relations to satisfy implications of Lema \[normrules\], and suppose that cases 6 and 7 do not apply. Then the only affine transformations which preserve two specified zero coefficients are affine scalings. One can use affine scalings to normalize some two nonzero coefficients to convenient values. Sections \[qpararrays2\] and \[otherpararrays\] present such normalized parameter arrays that in their Askey-Wilson relations two nonzero coefficients are basically constants. (More precisely, in the $q$-cases they depend on $q$, or equivalently, on $\beta$.) The scaling normalization is explained more thoroughly in Section \[classifics\].
Normalized $q$-parameter arrays {#qpararrays1}
===============================
Here we present the most straightforward normalizations of the general parameter arrays in [@terwgen Section 35] with the $q$-parameter. Lemma \[awnormals\] below gives the Askey-Wilson relations for the corresponding Leonard pairs. The Askey-Wilson relations turn out to be normalized according to part 1 of Lemma \[normrules\].
\[normlps\] The parameter arrays in [[@terwgen Examples 35.2–35.8]]{} can be normalized by affine transformations $(\ref{scalingtr})$ to the following forms:
- The $q$-Racah case: $\displaystyle\theta_i=q^{-i}+s\,q^{i+1},\quad
\theta^*_i=q^{-i}+s^*q^{i+1}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{1-2i}\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)
\left(1-r\,q^i\right)\left(r-s\,s^*q^{d+1+i}\right)\big/r,\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{1-2i}\left(1-q^i\right)\nonumber
\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)\left(r-s^*q^i\right)\left(s\,q^{d+1}-r\,q^i\right)\big/r.\end{aligned}$$
- The $q$-Hahn case: $\displaystyle\theta_i=q^{-i},\quad
\theta^*_i=q^{-i}+s^*q^{i+1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{1-2i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)\left(1-r\,q^i\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}-q^{1-i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)\left(r-s^*q^i\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The dual $q$-Hahn case: $\displaystyle
\theta_i=q^{-i}+s\,q^{i+1},\quad\theta^*_i=q^{-i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{1-2i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)\left(1-r\,q^i\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{d+2-2i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)\left(s-r\,q^{i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The $q$-Krawtchouk case: $\displaystyle\theta_i=q^{-i},\quad
\theta^*_i=q^{-i}+s^*q^{i+1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{1-2i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}s^*q\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The dual $q$-Krawtchouk case: $\displaystyle
\theta_i=q^{-i}+s\,q^{i+1},\quad\theta^*_i=q^{-i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{1-2i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}s\,q^{d+2-2i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The quantum $q$-Krawtchouk case: $\theta_i=q^{i+1}$, $\theta^*_i=q^{-i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}-r\,q^{1-i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{d+2-2i}\,
\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)\left(1-r\,q^{i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The affine $q$-Krawtchouk case: $\theta_i=q^{-i}$, $\theta^*_i=q^{-i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}q^{1-2i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right)\left(1-r\,q^i\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}-r\,q^{1-i}\,\left(1-q^i\right)\left(1-q^{i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
In each case, $q,s,s^*,r$ are nonzero scalar parameters such that $\theta_i\neq \theta_j$, $\theta^*_i\neq\theta^*_j$ for $0\le i<j\le d$, and $\varphi_i\neq 0$, $\phi_i\neq 0$ for $1\le i \le d$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}By affine translations, we adjust Terwilliger’s parameters $\theta_0,\theta^*_0$ so that we have only summands depending on $i$ in the expanded expressions for $\theta_i$, $\theta^*_i$ in [@terwgen Examples 35.2–35.8]. By affine scalings, we set Terwilliger’s parameters $h,h^*$ to the value 1. In the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk case [@terwgen Example 35.5] there is no parameter $h$, so we set $s=1$. Other parameters remain unchanged, except that in the $q$-Racah case we rename $r_1$ to $r$ and set $r_2=s\,s^*q^{d+1}/r$.[$\Box$]{}
\[awnormals\] Let $q,s,s^*,r$ denote the same scalar parameters as in the previous lemma. We use the following notations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{normconsts}
S=s\,q^{d+1}+1, \qquad S^*=s^*q^{d+1}+1, \qquad
R=r+\frac{s\,s^*\,q^{d+1}}r,\\ Q=q^{d+1}+1,\qquad K=-\frac{(q^2\!-1)^2}q, \quad
K^*=\frac{(q-1)^2}{q^{d+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ The Askey-Wilson relations for the parameter arrays of Lemma $\ref{normlps}$ are:
- For the $q$-Racah case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}AW\big(q+q^{-1},\,0,\,0,\,s\,K,\,s^*K,\,-K^*\!\left(S\,S^*\!+R\,Q\right),\nonumber\\
&&(q+1)K^*\!\left( S\,R+s\,S^*Q\right),\,
(q+1)K^*\!\left(S^*R+s^*S\,Q\right)\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the $q$-Hahn case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}AW\big(q+q^{-1},\,0,\,0,\,0,\,s^*K,\,-K^*\!\left(S^*+r\,Q\right),\nonumber\\
&&(q+1)K^*r,\, (q+1)K^*\!\left(S^*r+s^*Q\right)\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the dual $q$-Hahn case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}AW\big(q+q^{-1},\,0,\,0,\,s\,K,\,0,\,-K^*\!\left(S+r\,Q\right),\nonumber\\
&&\qquad (q\!+\!1)K^*\!\left(S\,r+s\,Q\right),\,(q\!+\!1)K^*r\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the $q$-Krawtchouk case: $$\begin{aligned}
AW\big(q+q^{-1},\,0,\,0,\,0,\,s^*K,\,-K^*\!S^*,\,0,\,(q\!+\!1)K^*s^*Q\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the dual $q$-Krawtchouk case: $$\begin{aligned}
AW\big(q+q^{-1},\,0,\,0,\,s\,K,\,0,\,-K^*\!S,\,(q\!+\!1)K^*s\,Q,\,0\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk case: $$\begin{aligned}
AW\big(q+q^{-1},\,0,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,-K^*\!\left(q^{d+1}\!+r\,Q\right),\,
(q\!+\!1)(q\!-\!1)^2r,\,(q\!+\!1)K^*r\big).$$
- For the affine $q$-Krawtchouk case: $$\begin{aligned}
AW\big(q+q^{-1},\,0,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,-K^*\!\left(1+r\,Q\right),\,
(q\!+\!1)K^*r,\,(q\!+\!1)K^*r\big).\quad\end{aligned}$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Direct computations with formulas (\[betap1\])–(\[asipq2\]).[$\Box$]{}
Alternative normalized $q$-arrays {#qpararrays2}
=================================
Here we present alternative normalizations of the general parameter arrays in [@terwgen Section 35] with the general $q$-parameter. The parameters are rescaled, and the free parameters $q,s,s^*,r$ are different. In particular, the $q$ of the previous section is replaced by $q^2$. The normalization for the $q$-Racah case is proposed in [@hjalmarpaul]. The corresponding Askey-Wilson relations are normalized according to part 1 of Lemma \[normrules\]. Advantages of this normalization are: the two nonzero values normalized by affine scaling are $q$-constants; expressions for normalized parameter arrays are more symmetric; the set of normalized parameter arrays is preserved by the $\downarrow$, $\Downarrow$, $\downarrow\Downarrow$ operations (see Section \[conclusions\]).
\[normlps1\] The parameter arrays in [[@terwgen Examples 35.2–35.8]]{} can be normalized by affine transformations $(\ref{scalingtr})$ to the following forms:
- The $q$-Racah case: $\displaystyle\theta_i=s\,q^{d-2i}+\frac{q^{2i-d}}{s},\quad
\theta^*_i=s^*q^{d-2i}+\frac{q^{2i-d}}{s^*}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}{s\,s^*r}\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)
\left(s\,s^*-r\,q^{2i-d-1}\right)\left(s\,s^*r-q^{2i-d-1}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}{s\,s^*r}\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\nonumber
\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)\left(s^*r-s\,q^{2i-d-1}\right)\left(s^*-s\,r\,q^{2i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The $q$-Hahn case: $\displaystyle\theta_i=r\,q^{d-2i},\quad
\theta^*_i=s^*q^{d-2i}+\frac{q^{2i-d}}{s^*}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}{r}\,
\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)\left(s^*r^2-q^{2i-d-1}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}-\frac{q^{d+1-2i}}{r\,s^*}\,
\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)\left(s^*-r^2q^{2i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The dual $q$-Hahn case: $\displaystyle
\theta_i=s\,q^{d-2i}+\frac{q^{2i-d}}{s},\quad\theta^*_i=r\,q^{d-2i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}{r}\,
\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)\left(s\,r^2-q^{2i-d-1}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}{r\,s}\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)\left(r^2-s\,q^{2i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The $q$-Krawtchouk: $\displaystyle\theta_i=q^{d-2i},\quad
\theta^*_i=s^*q^{d-2i}+\frac{q^{2i-d}}{s^*}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}s^*\,q^{2d+2-4i}\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{1}{s^*}\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The dual $q$-Krawtchouk: $\displaystyle
\theta_i=s\,q^{d-2i}+\frac{q^{2i-d}}{s},\quad\theta^*_i=q^{d-2i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}s\;q^{2d+2-4i}\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}{s}\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The quantum $q$-Krawtchouk: $\theta_i=r\,q^{2i-d}$, $\theta^*_i=r\,q^{d-2i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}-\frac{q^{d+1-2i}}{r}\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}{r}\,
\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)\left(r^3-q^{2i-d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
- The affine $q$-Krawtchouk: $\theta_i=r\,q^{d-2i}$, $\theta^*_i=r\,q^{d-2i}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\frac{q^{2d+2-4i}}r\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right)\left(r^3-q^{2i-d-1}\right),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}-\frac{q^{d+1-2i}}r\,\left(1-q^{2i}\right)\left(1-q^{2i-2d-2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
In each case, $q,s,s^*,r$ are nonzero scalar parameters such that $\theta_i\neq \theta_j$, $\theta^*_i\neq\theta^*_j$ for $0\le i<j\le d$, and $\varphi_i\neq 0$, $\phi_i\neq 0$ for $1\le i \le d$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}In every case of Lemma \[normlps\], we substitute $$q\mapsto q^2,\qquad s\mapsto\frac1{s^2\,q^{2d+2}},\qquad
s^*\mapsto\frac1{s^*{}^2q^{2d+2}}.$$ Besides, in the $q$-Racah, $q$-Hahn, dual $q$-Hahn, quantum $q$-Krawtchouk and affine $q$-Krawtchouk cases we substitute $r$ by, respectively, $$\frac{r}{s\,s^*q^{d+1}},\quad \frac{1}{s^*r^2q^{d+1}},\quad
\frac{1}{s\,r^2q^{d+1}},\quad \frac{q^{d+1}}{r^3},\quad
\frac{1}{r^3q^{d+1}}.$$ After that, we apply affine scaling. We use formula (\[scalingtr\]) with $c=0,c^*=0$ and $(t,t^*)$ equal to, respectively in the listed order, $$\begin{aligned}
(s\,q^d,s^*q^d), \quad (r\,q^d,s^*q^d), \quad (s\,q^d,r\,q^d), \quad
(q^d,s^*q^d), \quad (s\,q^d,q^d),\\
(r\,q^{-d-2},r\,q^d), \quad (r\,q^d,r\,q^d).\end{aligned}$$ [$\Box$]{}
\[awnormals1\] As in the previous lemma, let $q,s,s^*,r$ denote nonzero scalar parameters. We use the following notations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{normconsts1}
Q_j=q^j+q^{-j},\qquad Q_j^*=q^j-q^{-j}, \quad \mbox{for $j=1,2,\ldots$},\\
S=s+\frac{1}s, \qquad S^*=s^*+\frac{1}{s^*}, \qquad R=r+\frac{1}{r}.\end{aligned}$$ The Askey-Wilson relations for the parameter arrays of Lemma $\ref{normlps1}$ are:
- For the $q$-Racah case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}AW\big(Q_2,\,0,\,0,\,-Q_2^*{}^2,\,-Q_2^*{}^2,
\,-Q_1^*{}^2\!\left(S\,S^*\!+Q_{d+1}R\right),\nonumber\\
&&Q_1Q_1^*{}^2\!\left( S\,R+Q_{d+1}S^*\right),\,
Q_1Q_1^*{}^2\!\left(S^*R+Q_{d+1}S\right)\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the $q$-Hahn case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}AW\big(Q_2,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,-Q^*_2{}^2,\,-Q_1^*{}^2\!\left(S^*r+Q_{d+1}r^{-1}\right),\nonumber\\
&&Q_1Q_1^*{}^2,\, Q_1Q_1^*{}^2\!\left(S^*r^{-1}+Q_{d+1}r\right)\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the dual $q$-Hahn case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}AW\big(Q_2,\,0,\,0,\,-Q^*_2{}^2,\,0,\,-Q_1^*{}^2\!\left(S\,r+Q_{d+1}r^{-1}\right),
\nonumber\\ &&\qquad
Q_1Q_1^*{}^2\!\left(S\,r^{-1}\!+Q_{d+1}r\right),\,Q_1Q_1^*{}^2\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the $q$-Krawtchouk case: $$\begin{aligned}
AW\big(Q_2,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,-Q_2^*{}^2,\,-Q_1^*{}^2S^*,\,0,\,Q_1Q_1^*{}^2Q_{d+1}\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the dual $q$-Krawtchouk case: $$\begin{aligned}
AW\big(Q_2,\,0,\,0,\,-Q_2^*{}^2,\,0,\,-Q_1^*{}^2S,\,Q_1Q_1^*{}^2Q_{d+1},\,0\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk and affine $q$-Krawtchouk cases: $$\begin{aligned}
AW\big(Q_2,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,0,\,-Q_1^*{}^2\!\left(r^2+Q_{d+1}r^{-1}\right),\,
Q_1Q_1^*{}^2,\,Q_1Q_1^*{}^2\big).\quad\end{aligned}$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Transform the Askey-Wilson relations in Lemma \[awnormals\] with the same substitutions and affine scalings as in the previous proof. In the notation of this lemma, the expressions $S,S^*,R,Q,K,K^*$ of Lemma \[awnormals\] get replaced by, respectively, $S/s$, $S^*/s^*$, $R/q^{d+1}s\,s^*$, $q^{d+1}Q_{d+1}$, $-q^2Q_2^*{}^2$ and $q^{-2d}Q_1^*{}^2$. [$\Box$]{}
Other parameter arrays {#otherpararrays}
======================
Here we present normalizations of the remaining general parameter arrays in [@terwgen Section 35]. The corresponding Askey-Wilson relations are normalized according to Lemma \[normrules\], and two nonzero values are constants. Since we generally assume that char ${{\Bbb K}}\neq 2$, the orphan case is missing in the lemmas below. It is briefly discussed in Remark \[orphan\].
\[normlps2\] The parameter arrays in [[@terwgen Examples 35.9–35.13]]{} can be normalized by affine transformations $(\ref{scalingtr})$ to the following forms:
- The Racah case: $\theta_i=(i+u)(i+u+1)$, $\theta^*_i=(i+u^*)(i+u^*+1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}i\,(i-d-1)\,(i+u+u^*-v)\,(i+u+u^*+d+1+v),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}i\,(i-d-1)\,(i-u+u^*+v)\,(i-u+u^*-d-1-v).\end{aligned}$$
- The Hahn case: $\theta_i=i+v-\frac{d}2$, $\theta^*_i=(i+u^*)(i+u^*+1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}i\,(i-d-1)\,(i+u^*\!+2v),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}-i\,(i-d-1)\,(i+u^*\!-2v).\end{aligned}$$
- The dual Hahn case: $\theta_i=(i+u)(i+u+1)$, $\theta^*_i=i+v-\frac{d}2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}i\,(i-d-1)\,(i+u+2v),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}i\,(i-d-1)\,(i-u+2v-d-1).\end{aligned}$$
- The Krawtchouk case: $\theta_i=i-\frac{d}2$, $\theta^*_i=i-\frac{d}2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}v\,i\,(i-d-1),\\
\phi_i{&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}(v-1)\,i\,(i-d-1).\end{aligned}$$
- The Bannai-Ito case: $\theta_i=(-1)^i\left(i+u-\frac{d}2\right)$, $\theta^*_i=(-1)^i\left(i+u^*\!-\frac{d}2\right)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl} -i\left(i+u+u^*\!+v-\frac{d+1}2\right),&
\mbox{for $i$ even, $d$ even}.\\
-(i-d-1)\left(i+u+u^*\!-v-\frac{d+1}2\right), &
\mbox{for $i$ odd, $d$ even}.\\
-i\,(i-d-1), & \mbox{for $i$ even, $d$ odd}.\\
v^2-\left(i+u+u^*\!-\frac{d+1}2\right)^2, &
\mbox{for $i$ odd, $d$ odd}.\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_i=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl} i\left(i-u+u^*\!-v-\frac{d+1}2\right),& \mbox{for $i$ even, $d$ even}.\\
(i-d-1)\left(i-u+u^*\!+v-\frac{d+1}2\right), & \mbox{for $i$ odd, $d$ even}.\\
-i\,(i-d-1), & \mbox{for $i$ even, $d$ odd}.\\
v^2-\left(i-u+u^*\!-\frac{d+1}2\right)^2, &
\mbox{for $i$ odd, $d$ odd}.\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$
In each case, $u,u^*,v$ are scalar parameters such that $\theta_i\neq
\theta_j$, $\theta^*_i\neq\theta^*_j$ for $0\le i<j\le d$, and $\varphi_i\neq
0$, $\phi_i\neq 0$ for $1\le i \le d$.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Like in the proof of Lemma \[normlps\], we adjust Terwilliger’s parameters $\theta_0,\theta^*_0$ by an affine translation, and then adjust other two parameters by an affine scaling. We also make linear substitutions for the remaining parameters. In the Racah case, we substitute $$s\mapsto 2u,\quad s^*\!\mapsto 2u^*,\quad r_1\mapsto u+u^*-v, \quad \mbox{so
that} \quad r_2=u+u^*+d+1+v.$$ Then we adjust $\theta_0=u^2+u$, $\theta^*_0=u^*{}^2\!+u^*\!$, $h=1$, $h^*\!=1$. In the Hahn case, we substitute $s^*\!\mapsto 2u^*$, $r\mapsto
u^*\!+2v$ and adjust $\theta_0=v-\frac{d}2$, $\theta^*_0=u^*{}^2\!+u^*\!$, $h^*\!=1$, $s=1$. In the dual Hahn case, we substitute $s\mapsto 2u$, $r\mapsto u+2v$ and adjust $\theta_0=u^2+u$, $\theta^*_0=v-\frac{d}2$, $h=1$, $s=1$. In the Krawtchouk case, we substitute $r\mapsto v$ and adjust $\theta_0=-\frac{d}2$, $\theta^*_0=-\frac{d}2$, $s=1$, $s^*\!=1$. In the Bannai-Ito case, we substitute $$\textstyle
s\mapsto d+1-2u,\quad s^*\!\mapsto d+1-2u^*,\quad r_1\mapsto
u+u^*+v-\frac{d+1}2, $$ so that $r_2\mapsto u+u^*-v-\frac{d+1}2$, and adjust $\theta_0=u-\frac{d}2$, $\theta^*_0=u^*\!-\frac{d}2$, $h=\frac12$, $h^*\!=\frac12$. [$\Box$]{}
\[awnormals2\] Let $u,u^*,v$ denote the same scalar parameters as in the previous lemma. The Askey-Wilson relations for the parameter arrays of Lemma $\ref{normlps2}$ are:
- For the Racah case: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}
AW\big(2,\,2,\,2,\,0,\,0,-2u^2-2u^*{}^2\!-2v^2-2(d\!+\!1)(u+u^*+v)-2d^2-4d,\nonumber\\
&&2\,u\left(u+d+1\right)\left(v-u^*\right)\left(v+u^*+d+1\right), \\
&&2\,u^*\!\left(u^*\!+d+1\right)\left(v-u\right)\left(v+u+d+1\right)\big).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
- For the Hahn case: $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle
AW\big(2,\,0,\,2,\,1,\,0,\,0,\,-(u^*\!+1)(u^*\!+d)-2v^2-\frac{d^2}2,\,-4u^*(u^*\!+d+1)v\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the dual Hahn case: $$\begin{aligned}
\textstyle
AW\big(2,\,2,\,0,\,0,\,1,\,0,\,\,-4u(u+d+1)\,v,\,-(u+1)(u+d)-2v^2-\frac{d^2}2\big).\end{aligned}$$
- For the Krawtchouk case: $$AW\big(2,\,0,\,0,\,1,\,1,\,2v-1,\,0,\,0\big).$$
- For the Bannai-Ito case, if $d$ is even: $$AW\big(-2,\,0,\,0,\,1,\,1,\,4uu^*\!-2(d\!+\!1)\,v,\,2uv-(d\!+\!1)\,u^*,\,2u^*v-(d\!+\!1)\,u\big).$$
- For the Bannai-Ito case, if $d$ is odd: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\hspace{-24pt}\textstyle AW\big(-2,\,0,\,0,\,1,\,1,\,
-2u^2-2u^*{}^2+2v^2+\frac{(d+1)^2}2, \nonumber \\
&&\textstyle
-u^2+u^*{}^2-v^2+\frac{(d+1)^2}4,\,u^2\!-u^*{}^2\!-v^2\!+\frac{(d+1)^2}4\big).\end{aligned}$$
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Direct computations with formulas (\[betap1\])–(\[asipq2\]).[$\Box$]{}
\[orphan\] In the characteristic 2, the normalization of part 1 in Lemma \[normrules\] is not available, hence our results are incomplete if char ${{\Bbb K}}=2$. In particular, we miss the orphan case (with char ${{\Bbb K}}=2$ and $d=3$) completely. A general parameter array of the orphan type can be normalized as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\theta_0,\theta_1,\theta_2,\theta_3\right){&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\left(0,\,s+1,\,1,\,s\right),\\
\left(\theta^*_0,\theta^*_1,\theta^*_2,\theta^*_3\right){&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\left(0,\,s^*\!+1,\,1,\,s^*\right),\\
\left(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\varphi_3\right){&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\left(r,\,1,\,r+s+s^*\right),\\
\left(\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3\right){&\!\!\!=\!\!\!&}\left(r+s+s\,s^*,\,1,\,r+s^*\!+s\,s^*\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here adjusted $\theta_0=0$, $\theta^*_0=0$, $h=1$, $h^*=1$ in [@terwgen Example 35.14]. The Askey-Wilson relations are $$\label{orphanaw}
AW(0,\,1,\,1,\,s^2+s,\,s^*{}^2+s^*,\,s\,s^*,\,r\,s,\,r\,s^*).$$ The relations can be renormalized to $\rho=0$, $\rho^*=0$ by affine translations (in 4 ways, generally). The normalized coefficients $\eta,\eta^*,\omega$ in (\[orphanaw\]) are dependent on two free parameters, so there is a relation between them. Here is the relation, in the form invariant under affine rescaling: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{orphanwc}
\left(\omega^2\!-\varrho\varrho^*\right)^2=\omega\,(\gamma\omega-\gamma^*\varrho)
(\gamma^*\omega-\gamma\varrho^*).\end{aligned}$$
Classification of AW relations {#classifics}
==============================
Askey-Wilson relations can be consistently classified by families of orthogonal polynomials in the same way as Leonard pairs. The classification is presented in the first two columns of Table \[elltab\].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Askey-Wilson type Askey-Wilson coefficients with Leonard pairs
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------
$q$-Racah $\beta\neq\pm2$, $\underline{\gamma=\gamma^*\!=0}$, $\widehat{\varrho}\,\widehat{\varrho}^*\!\neq 0$ —
$q$-Hahn $\beta\neq\pm2$, $\underline{\gamma=\gamma^*\!=0}$, $\widehat{\varrho}=0$, $\widehat{\varrho}^*\widehat{\eta}\neq 0$ —
Dual $q$-Hahn $\beta\neq\pm2$, $\underline{\gamma=\gamma^*\!=0}$, $\widehat{\varrho}^*\!=0$, $\widehat{\varrho}\,\widehat{\eta}^*\!\neq 0$ —
$q$-Krawtchouk $\beta\neq\pm2$, $\underline{\gamma=\gamma^*\!=0}$, $\widehat{\varrho}=\widehat{\eta}=0$ $\widehat{\varrho}^*\widehat{\eta}^*\neq 0$
Dual $q$-Krawtchouk $\beta\neq\pm2$, $\underline{\gamma=\gamma^*\!=0}$, $\widehat{\varrho}^*\!=\widehat{\eta}^*\!=0$ $\widehat{\varrho}\;\widehat{\eta}\neq 0$
$\begin{array}{l} \mbox{Quantum/affine}\vspace{-5pt}\\ $\beta\neq\pm2$, $\underline{\gamma=\gamma^*\!=0}$, $\widehat{\varrho}=\widehat{\varrho}^*\!=0$ $\widehat{\eta}\,\widehat{\eta}^*\!\neq 0$
\mbox{$q$-Krawtchouk}\end{array}$
Racah $\beta=2$, $\gamma\,\gamma^*\neq 0$, $\underline{\varrho=\varrho^*=0}$ —
Hahn $\beta=2$, $\gamma=0$, $\gamma^*\neq 0$, $\underline{\varrho^*=0}$ $\varrho\neq 0$, $\underline{\omega=0}$
Dual Hahn $\beta=2$, $\gamma^*\!=0$, $\gamma\!\neq 0$, $\underline{\varrho=0}$ $\varrho^*\!\neq 0$, $\underline{\omega=0}$
Krawtchouk $\beta=2$, $\gamma=\gamma^*\!=0$ $\varrho\varrho^*\!\neq 0$, $\underline{\eta=\eta^*\!=0}$
Bannai-Ito $\beta=-2$, $\underline{\gamma=\gamma^*=0}$ $\widehat{\varrho}\,\widehat{\varrho}^*\neq 0$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Classification of Askey-Wilson relations[]{data-label="elltab"}
In each line, the underlined equalities can be achieved by using affine translations if the preceding conditions are satisfied. If $\beta\neq 2$, by $\widehat{\varrho}$, $\widehat{\varrho}^*$, $\widehat{\omega}$, $\widehat{\eta}$, $\widehat{\eta}^*$ we denote the Askey-Wilson coefficients in a normalization specified by part 1 of Lemma \[normrules\].
The first part of the following theorem establishes the consistency of Askey-Wilson types for Leonard pairs and for Askey-Wilson relations.
\[classth\] Assume that $d\ge 3$. Let $(A,A^*)$ denote a Leonard pair on $V$, and let $AW$ denote the Askey-Wilson relations satisfied by $(A,A^*)$.
1. The Askey-Wilson relations $AW$ have the same Askey-Wilson type as the Leonard pair $(A,A^*)$.
2. If there is other Leonard pair on $V$ that satisfies AW, it has the same Askey-Wilson type as $(A,A^*)$.
3. There exist unique affine translation which normalizes $AW$ according to the specifications of Lemma $\ref{normrules}$.
4. The Askey-Wilson relations AW satisfy all inequalities in the last two columns of Table $\ref{elltab}$ on the corresponding line. All underlined equalities can be achieved after an affine translation, and such an affine translation is unique. The indicated nonzero coefficients can be normalized to any chosen values by an affine scaling.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}For the first statement, check the results in Section \[qpararrays1\] (or Section \[qpararrays2\]) and Section \[otherpararrays\], and observe that the Askey-Wilson relations associated to any parameter array have the same Askey-Wilson type as the parameter array, with the exception of the ambiguity between the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk and affine $q$-Krawtchouk types.
The second statement is an immediate consequence.
For the third statement, we have to prove that cases $6$ and $7$ of Lemma $\ref{normrules}$ do not apply to $AW$. Assuming the contrary, $AW$ would have the Krawtchouk type. In the corresponding normalized form of Lemma \[awnormals2\] we would have $v\in\{0,1\}$. But then the Krawtchouk parameter array of Lemma \[normlps2\] degenerates, since $\phi_i=0$ or $\psi_i=0$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,d$. The third statement follows.
The inequalities of the last column of Table \[elltab\] can be checked by inspecting all Askey-Wilson relations in Lemmas \[awnormals\], \[awnormals1\] and \[awnormals2\]. Normalization by affine translations follows from the Lemma \[normrules\] and the previous part here. Normalization by affine scalings is clear.[$\Box$]{}\
Note that the normalization specified by Lemma \[normrules\] follows implications of part 4 of Theorem \[classth\]. By part 3 of Theorem \[classth\], there is a unique affine translation to set two specified Askey-Wilson coefficients to zero. For each type of Leonard pairs, we get two Askey-Wilson coefficients which are certainly nonzero after the normalizing affine translation. These coefficients can be characterized as follows: they are the first nonzero (after the normalizing translation) coefficients in the two sequences $$\label{scalingpars}
(\gamma,\,\varrho,\,\eta,\,\eta^*)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
(\gamma^*,\varrho^*,\eta^*,\eta).$$ By affine scalings, the two coefficients can be normalized to any convenient values. In the Askey-Wilson relations of Lemmas \[awnormals1\] and \[awnormals2\], the normalized values depend only on $\beta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{scnormal}
\mbox{ }\gamma,\gamma^*: && \mbox{$2$ (if $\beta=2$)};\nonumber\\
\mbox{ }\varrho,\varrho^*: && \left\{\begin{array}{cl}
4\!-\!\beta^2, & \mbox{if } \beta\neq\pm 2,\\
1, & \mbox{if } \beta=\pm 2;\end{array}\right.\\
\mbox{ }\eta,\eta^*: &&
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}\,(\beta\!-\!2), & \mbox{if }
\eta\eta^*\neq 0 \mbox{ or } \omega=0,\\
\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}\,(\beta\!-\!2)\,Q_{d+1}, & \mbox{if } \eta\eta^*=0 \mbox{
and } \omega\neq 0.\end{array}\right.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $Q_{d+1}$ can be independently defined by the linear recurrence $Q_{n+2}=\beta\,Q_n-Q_{n-2}$ with the initial values $Q_{-1}=Q_1=\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}$, $Q_0=2$, $Q_2=\beta$. One can take for $\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}$ any of the two values of the square root. In the context of Lemma \[awnormals1\], we should identify $\sqrt{\beta+2}$ with $q+q^{-1}$. The effect of changing the sign of $\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}$ is multiplication of $A$ and/or $A^*$ by $-1$.
Uniqueness of normalizations {#conclusions}
============================
The results in Sections \[qpararrays1\] through \[otherpararrays\] can be used to compute the Askey-Wilson relations for any Leonard pair. To do this, one may take a parameter array corresponding to a given Leonard pair; then find an affine transformation (\[afftr\]) which normalizes the parameter array by (\[scalingtr\]) to one of the forms of Lemmas \[normlps\], \[normlps1\] or \[normlps2\]; then pick up the corresponding normalized Askey-Wilson relations in Lemmas \[awnormals\], \[awnormals1\] or \[awnormals2\]; and then apply the inverse affine transformation to the normalized relations using formula (\[newaw\]). This procedure can be applied for any $d$, although for $d<3$ the type of a representing parameter array is ambiguous and the Askey-Wilson relations are not unique.
For the rest of this section, we refer to the results of Sections \[qpararrays2\] and \[otherpararrays\]. We assume $d\le 3$ and adopt the following terminology. A pair of Askey-Wilson relations is called [*normalized*]{} if it satisfies the specifications of Lemma \[normrules\] and the description in the previous section; see (\[scalingpars\]) and (\[scnormal\]). A Leonard pair is [*normalized*]{} if it satisfies normalized Askey-Wilson relations. A parameter array is [*normalized*]{} if it can be expressed in one of the forms of Lemma \[normlps1\] or Lemma \[normlps2\].
We consider the following questions:
\[question0\] How unique is normalization of Askey-Wilson relations?
\[question1\] Given a Leonard pair, how unique is its normalization?
\[question4\] Is every normalized Leonard pair representable by a normalized parameter array?
\[question2\] Are normalized parameter arrays represented uniquely by the forms in Lemmas \[awnormals1\] and \[awnormals2\]?
\[question3\] Do the relation operators $\downarrow$, $\Downarrow$, $\downarrow\Downarrow$ preserve the set of normalized parameter arrays?
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Askey-Wilson Affine scaling Conversion of normalized
type $(t,t^*)$ parameter arrays
$q$-Racah $(-1,1)$ $s\mapsto -s$, $r\mapsto -r$
$(1,-1)$ $s^*\mapsto -s^*$, $r\mapsto -r$
$q$-Hahn $(\sqrt{-1},-1)$ $s^*\mapsto-s^*$, $r\mapsto\sqrt{-1}\,r$
Dual $q$-Hahn $(-1,\sqrt{-1})$ $s\mapsto-s$, $r\mapsto\sqrt{-1}\,r$
$q$-Krawtchouk $(1,-1)$ $s^*\mapsto -s^*$
Dual $q$-Krawtchouk $(-1,1)$ $s\mapsto -s$
$\begin{array}{l} \mbox{Quantum and affine}\vspace{-5pt}\\ $(\zeta_3,\zeta_3)$ $r\mapsto\zeta_3\,r$
\mbox{$q$-Krawtchouk}\end{array}$
Racah — —
Hahn $(-1,1)$ $\Downarrow$ and $v\mapsto-v$
Dual Hahn $(1,-1)$ $\downarrow$ and $v\mapsto-v$
Krawtchouk $(-1,1)$ $\Downarrow$
$(1,-1)$ $\downarrow$
Bannai-Ito $(-1,1)$ If $d$ even: $\Downarrow$ and $u\mapsto-u$, $v\mapsto-v\;\;$
$(1,-1)$ If $d$ even: $\downarrow$ and $u^*\!\mapsto-u^*$, $v\mapsto-v$
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
: Reparametrization of different normalizations[]{data-label="normtr"}
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
Askey-Wilson Change of sign Parameter array
type of $\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}$ stays invariant
$q$-Racah — $r\mapsto 1/r$; also (\[qracahinv\]), (\[qracahin2\])
$q$-Hahn $q\mapsto -q$, $s^*\mapsto (-1)^{d+1}s^*$ —
Dual $q$-Hahn $q\mapsto-q$, $s\mapsto (-1)^{d+1}s$ —
$q$-Krawtchouk If $d$ odd: $q\mapsto-q$, $s^*\mapsto-s^*\!$ If $d$ even: $q\mapsto -q$
Dual $q$-Krawtchouk If $d$ odd: $q\mapsto -q$, $s\mapsto-s\;\;$ If $d$ even: $q\mapsto-q$
$\begin{array}{l} \mbox{Quantum and affine}\vspace{-5pt}\\ $q\mapsto-q$, $r\mapsto (-1)^{d+1}r$ —
\mbox{$q$-Krawtchouk}\end{array}$
Racah — $v\mapsto -v-d-1$
Bannai-Ito — If $d$ odd: $v\mapsto -v$
------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
: Alternative normalization and invariant reparametrizations[]{data-label="invartr"}
Regarding the first question, non-uniqueness occurs for two reasons:
- There exist affine scalings by small roots of unity that leave the first nonzero coefficients in both sequences of (\[scalingpars\]) invariant. The list of these affine scalings is given by the first two columns of Table \[normtr\]. By $\zeta_3$ we denote a primitive cubic root of unity. In the $q$-Racah, Krawtchouk and Bannai-Ito cases, two given scalings can be composed. In the $q$-Hahn, dual $q$-Hahn and quantum/affine $q$-Krawtchouk cases, there are non-trivial iterations of the given scalings. The third column of Table \[normtr\] gives corresponding conversions of parameter arrays.
- In all $q$-Hahn and $q$-Krawtchouk cases, there exists an alternative normalization of the two nonzero Askey-Wilson coefficients from (\[scalingpars\]), with the other sign of $\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}$. This effectively multiplies $A$ or $A^*$ (or both) by $-1$. The corresponding action on parameter arrays is given by the second column of Table \[invartr\].
Normalization of Askey-Wilson relations is unique in the Racah case. Otherwise, the normalization is unique in the $q$-Racah, Hahn, dual Hahn, Krawtchouk and Bannai-Ito cases if (and only if) the Askey-Wilson relations remain invariant under the respective affine scalings. This means that the non-scaled coefficients (such as $\widehat{\omega}$, $\widehat{\eta}$, $\widehat{\eta}^*$ in the $q$-Racah and Bannai-Ito cases) in the normalized relations are equal to zero.
Question \[question1\] is equivalent to Question \[question0\]. However, existence and uniqueness of representation of a normalized Leonard pair by a normalized parameter array is determined by Questions \[question4\] through \[question3\].
An important discrepancy between normalization of Askey-Wilson relations and normalization of parameter arrays occurs in the Bannai-Ito case if $d$ is odd. As Table \[normtr\] implies, affine scalings that preserve normalization of Askey-Wilson relations cannot be realized by transformations of normalized parameter arrays then. This has implications for Question \[question4\].
\[normscale\]
1. Any normalized Leonard pair can be represented by a normalized parameter array, except when the Askey-Wilson type is Bannai-Ito, and $d$ is odd.
2. Suppose that $d$ is odd. Let $(B,B^*)$ denote the Leonard pair represented by the parameter array of the Bannai-Ito type in Lemma $\ref{normlps2}$. Then the following four Leonard pairs satisfy normalized Askey-Wilson relations of the Bannai-Ito type: $$\label{bito4}
(B,B^*),\quad (-B,B^*),\quad (B,-B^*),\quad (-B,-B^*).$$ Of these Leonard pairs, only $(B,B^*)$ can be represented by a normalized parameter array.
[[**Proof.** ]{}]{}Let $(A,A^*)$ denote a normalized Leonard pair on $V$. Let $\Phi$ denote a parameter array for $(A,A^*)$. Let $\Phi^\#$ denote a normalization of $\Phi$ by (\[scalingtr\]); it can be expressed in one of the forms of Lemmas \[awnormals1\] and \[awnormals2\]. The parameter arrays $\Phi$ and $\Phi^\#$ differ by an affine scaling from Table \[normtr\], plus (in some $q$-cases) possibly the change of the sign of $\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}$ in the Askey-Wilson relations. If the sign of $\sqrt{\beta\!+\!2}$ is changed, one can apply a corresponding reparametrization in the second column of Table \[invartr\]. Reparametrizations for relevant affine scalings are indicated in Table \[normtr\], except for the Bannai-Ito case with odd $d$. Hence $\Phi$ is normalized as well, except perhaps when it has the Bannai-Ito type and $d$ is odd.
Now we prove the second part. The four Leonard pairs in (\[bito4\]) are normalized according to our discussion of Questions \[question0\] and \[question1\]. The Bannai-Ito parameter array of Lemma $\ref{normlps2}$ has the following property: the even-indexed $\theta_i$’s and the even indexed $\theta^*_i$’s form increasing sequences. Since $d$ is assumed odd, the relation operators $\downarrow$, $\Downarrow$, $\downarrow\Downarrow$ preserve this property. But affine scalings (\[scalingtr\]) with $t=-1$ or $t^*=-1$ reverse this property for $\theta_i$’s or $\theta^*_i$’s, respectively. Hence, in all parameter arrays representing $(-B,B^*)$, $(B,-B^*)$ or $(-B,-B^*)$ the even-indexed $\theta_i$’s and/or the even indexed $\theta_i^*$’s are in the decreasing order. The conclusion is that the four Leonard pairs $(\pm B,\pm B^*)$ cannot be transformed to each other by change of the parameters $u,u^*,v$ or the relation operators. Hence only $(B,B^*)$ can be represented as a specialization of the Bannai-Ito parameter array of Lemma $\ref{normlps2}$.[$\Box$]{}
Questions \[question2\] and \[question3\] determine how unique are representations of normalized Leonard pairs by normalized parameter arrays. Invariant reparametrization of parameter arrays do occur. They are given in the third column of Table \[invartr\]. In the $q$-Racah case, we additionally have the following invariant transformations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qracahinv}
&q\mapsto 1/q, \qquad s\mapsto 1/s, \qquad s^*\mapsto1/s^*;\\
\label{qracahin2} &q\mapsto -q, \quad s\mapsto (-1)^ds, \quad
s^*\mapsto(-1)^ds^*,\quad r\mapsto (-1)^{d+1}r.\end{aligned}$$ Question \[question3\] is thoroughly answered in Table \[invartr2\]. There, “Switch" means interchanging the quantum $q$-Krawtchouk and affine $q$-Krawtchouk types of parameter arrays. Of course, $\downarrow\Downarrow$ is the composition of $\downarrow$ and $\Downarrow$. As wee see, the relation operators preserve normalization of parameter arrays in all $q$-cases, in the Racah case, and in the Bannai-Ito case with odd $d$.
Askey-Wilson type Conversion to $\Downarrow$ Conversion to $\downarrow$
------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
$q$-Racah $s\mapsto 1/s$ $s^*\mapsto 1/s^*$
$q$-Hahn $q\mapsto 1/q$, $s^*\!\mapsto 1/s^*$ $s^*\mapsto 1/s^*$
Dual $q$-Hahn $s\mapsto 1/s$ $q\mapsto 1/q$, $s\mapsto 1/s$
$q$-Krawtchouk $q\mapsto 1/q$, $s^*\!\mapsto 1/s^*$ $s^*\mapsto 1/s^*$
Dual $q$-Krawtchouk $s\mapsto 1/s$ $q\mapsto 1/q$, $s\mapsto 1/s$
Quantum/affine $q$-Krawtchouk Switch Switch and $q\mapsto1/q$
Racah $u\mapsto -u-d-1$ $u^*\mapsto -u^*\!-d-1$
Hahn — $u^*\mapsto -u^*\!-d-1$
Dual Hahn $u\mapsto -u-d-1$ —
Bannai-Ito, $d$ odd $u\mapsto-u$ $u^*\mapsto -u^*$
: Relative parameter arrays[]{data-label="invartr2"}
[^1]: Supported by the 21 Century COE Programme “Development of Dynamic Mathematics with High Functionality” of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Mohammad Shoaib Jamall
bibliography:
- 'color.bib'
title: 'A Coloring Algorithm for Triangle-Free Graphs'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A definition of gravitational energy is proposed for any theory described by a diffeomorphism-invariant Lagrangian. The mathematical structure is a Noether-current construction of Wald involving the boundary term in the action, but here it is argued that the physical interpretation of current conservation is conservation of energy. This leads to a quasi-local energy defined for compact spatial surfaces. The energy also depends on a vector generating a flow of time. Angular momentum may be similarly defined, depending on a choice of axial vector. For Einstein gravity: for the usual vector generating asymptotic time translations, the energy is the Bondi energy; for a stationary Killing vector, the energy is the Komar energy; in spherical symmetry, for the Kodama vector, the energy is the Misner-Sharp energy. In general, the lack of a preferred time indicates the lack of a preferred energy, reminiscent of the energy-time duality of quantum theory.'
address: |
Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry, 104 Davey Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-6300, U.S.A.\
[[email protected]]{}
author:
- 'Sean A. Hayward'
date: 13th April 2000
title: Gravitational energy as Noether charge
---
Introduction
============
The notion of gravitational energy is perhaps the most outstanding unresolved conceptual issue in Einstein gravity. Energy is of fundamental importance in most branches of physics, yet there is no accepted definition of the energy of the gravitational field. Indeed, the general view is that the equivalence principle forbids a local gravitational energy density. Nevertheless, the total energy of an asymptotically flat space-time as defined by the Bondi energy is accepted as physically meaningful, since it satisfies a certain conservation law involving the energy flux of gravitational waves, e.g.[@W1]. Similarly, there are definitions of energy in spherical[@sph; @1st] and cylindrical symmetry[@cyl] which have the desired physical properties, again including conservation laws. All these definitions are quasi-local in the sense that they depend on a spatial surface (with respect to the conformal metric in the asymptotic case) rather than a spatial hypersurface; in other words, they are surface rather than volume integrals. There have been many attempts to construct such quasi-local energies, but as yet no consensus.
Energy in classical or quantum physics is most commonly understood via an action. For instance, in Einstein gravity, the energy-momentum-stress tensor of the matter may be defined by the variation of the matter Lagrangian with respect to the metric. The energy-momentum-stress tensor of the gravitational field may similarly be defined by the variation of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian with respect to the metric, leading to the Einstein tensor, with the Einstein equation expressing zero combined energy. This makes sense physically, but this local energy does not lead to the type of quasi-local energy discussed above; it gives a definition of the mass of the matter as a volume integral, with no contribution from gravitational energy. Any variation of any Lagrangian will similarly give zero combined energy by the corresponding field equation.
However, this involves the usual assumption that boundary terms in the variation are ignored. One might expect that these boundary terms give a boundary contribution to energy, to be added to the vanishing bulk terms. This is the idea explored in this article. Similar ideas have been proposed by other authors, e.g. recently[@E; @FFFR; @CN] and references therein, but with different implementation and results. In particular, this author regards as very basic criteria that the energy should recover the Schwarzschild mass for the Schwarzschild black hole and be generally well defined and real inside black holes. The desired physical properties of gravitational energy are perhaps best illustrated by the symmetric cases[@sph; @1st; @cyl].
A general framework for studying boundary terms in diffeomorphism-invariant actions has been developed by Wald[@W2] and Iyer & Wald[@IW] in a different context, namely to try to define black-hole entropy. The key idea is that one can always construct a Noether current which is conserved when the field equations hold. Here it will be argued that the physical meaning of this is conservation of energy, when the diffeomorphism generates a flow of time. The corresponding Noether charge then furnishes a quasi-local energy.
Boundary terms in the action
============================
The method may be summarized as follows, taking the case of a 4-manifold $M$ for definiteness. The dynamical fields are a set of tensor fields on $M$ which will be denoted simply by $\phi$. When there is a metric $g$, the remaining fields will be denoted by $\psi$. Then the particular dynamical theory is defined by a Lagrangian 4-form $L[\phi]$ which is invariant under diffeomorphisms: $$L[\xi^*(\phi)]=\xi^*L[\phi]$$ where $\xi^*$ denotes the action of the diffeomorphism generated by a vector $\xi$. In particular, Einstein gravity is defined by $$L[g,\psi]={{*}R[g]\over{16\pi}}+L_m[g,\psi]$$ where $R$ is the Ricci scalar and $*$ the Hodge dual, mapping $p$-forms to $(4-p)$-forms, with ${*}1$ the space-time volume 4-form. The first term is the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian, with units such that the Newton constant is unity, and the second term is the matter Lagrangian, with $\psi$ being the matter fields. Then the variations $${\delta\over{\delta g}}({*}R)\cong-{*}G\qquad
{\delta L_m\over{\delta g}}\cong{{*}T\over2}$$ define the Einstein tensor $G$ and the energy-momentum-stress tensor $T$ in contravariant form, where $\cong$ denotes equality up to boundary terms. Then the action principle $$\delta\int_M L=0$$ yields the Einstein equation $$G=8\pi T.$$ Returning to the general case, the boundary term may be included as $$\delta L={*}(\Phi\circ\delta\phi)+d\Theta$$ where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $\circ$ denotes the sum of the contractions of each $\phi$ with its appropriate ${*}\Phi\cong\delta L/\delta\phi$, so that $\Phi$ is a set of tensors dual to $\phi$. Here the boundary 3-form $\Theta[\phi,\delta\phi]$ is called the symplectic potential[@IW]. Then $$\delta\int_ML=\int_M{*}(\Phi\circ\delta\phi)+\int_{\partial M}\Theta$$ and the action principle for variations fixed on the boundary $\partial M$ yields the field equations $$\Phi=0.
\label{field}$$ The Noether current defined by Wald[@W2; @IW] is the 3-form $$J[\phi,\xi]=\Theta[\phi,{\cal L}_\xi\phi]-\xi\cdot L[\phi]
\label{current}$$ where ${\cal L}_\xi$ denotes the Lie derivative along $\xi$ and the dot denotes contraction between last and first indices respectively. Then the general identity $${\cal L}_\xi\Lambda=\xi\cdot d\Lambda+d(\xi\cdot\Lambda)
\label{identity}$$ for a $p$-form $\Lambda$ yields $$dJ=-{*}(\Phi\circ{\cal L}_\xi\phi).$$ Thus there is a conservation law $$dJ=0
\label{law}$$ when the field equations (\[field\]) hold. Therefore locally there exists a 2-form $Q$ such that $$J=dQ$$ when the field equations hold. It should be noted that there is gauge dependence in $Q$, given by $$L\mapsto L+d\alpha\qquad
\Theta\mapsto\Theta+d\beta\qquad
Q\mapsto Q+d\gamma.$$ However, the transformation of $Q$ will not affect the energy, to be defined as an integral of $Q$ over a compact surface (without boundary). Also, a standard choice of $L$ is usually given for a particular theory. For $\Theta$, in practice, natural gauge choices often exist.
Energy as Noether charge
========================
It will now be proposed that the physical interpretation of the conservation law (\[law\]) is [*conservation of energy*]{}, if $\xi$ generates a flow of time. Then the 1-form ${*}2J$ is the [*energy-momentum density*]{} of the boundary. This can be seen from $$\delta L={{*}(T:\delta g)\over2}-{{*}(G:\delta g)\over{16\pi}}
+{*}(\Psi\circ\delta\psi)+d\Theta$$ where the colon denotes double contraction. Just as the first term yields the bulk energy-momentum-stress $T$, so the last term yields the boundary energy-momentum. The transformation (\[current\]) from $\Theta$ to $J$ may be regarded as a covariant analog of the construction of a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. The unfortunate factor of 2 follows from the conventions of Wald[@W2; @IW]. Then $2Q$ is the surface energy density of the boundary. Taking a spatial surface $S\subset\partial M$, assumed connected and compact, the [*energy*]{} is defined as the Noether charge $$E=\oint_S2Q.$$ It seems natural to take $\xi$ to generate $\partial M$ locally from $S$. When the field equations hold, the energy may also be written as a volume integral $$E=\int_\Sigma 2J$$ where $\Sigma$ is a spatial hypersurface such that $S=\partial\Sigma$. However, conservation of $J$ means that $E$ is independent of the choice of $\Sigma$; it is really a surface integral. As such, it is a quasi-local energy, though it also depends on the diffeomorphism vector $\xi$, which represents a choice of time. Generally one may denote the dependence as $E_S[\phi,\xi]$, though this will be shortened henceforth to $E[\xi]$.
Einstein gravity
================
Iyer & Wald[@IW] found that for pure Einstein gravity, $L={*}R/16\pi$, the gauge freedom may be naturally fixed so that $$Q[\xi]=-{{*}d\xi\over{8\pi}}.$$ The sign depends on the convention for $*$, which is chosen as $${*}1=\sqrt{\det g}\,dt\wedge dr\wedge d\vartheta\wedge d\varphi$$ where $\xi=\partial/\partial t$ and $(\vartheta,\varphi)$ are polar coordinates on $S$, assumed henceforth of spherical topology. Then $$E[\xi]=-{1\over{4\pi}}\oint_S{*}d\xi.$$ This may be recognized as the Komar energy $E_{st}$ if $\xi$ is a stationary Killing vector $\xi_{st}$[@W1]: $$E_{st}=E[\xi_{st}].$$ It is also a standard expression for the Bondi energy $E_\infty$ if $\xi$ is the vector $\xi_\infty$ generating asymptotic time translations, gauge-fixed as described e.g. by Wald[@W1]: $$E_\infty=E[\xi_\infty].$$ A third example is spherical symmetry: in terms of the areal radius $r$, there is a preferred flow of time given by the Kodama vector[@sph; @1st] $$\xi_{sph}=\hat{*}dr$$ where $\hat{*}$ is the Hodge operator of the space normal to the spheres, covariant and contravariant duals with respect to $g$ not being denoted explicitly. A widely accepted definition of energy is the Misner-Sharp energy[@sph; @1st] $$E_{sph}=(1-dr\cdot dr)r/2.$$ A recent definition of dynamic surface gravity is[@1st] $$\kappa=\hat{*}d\hat{*}dr/2.$$ Then $$E[\xi_{sph}]=r^2\kappa.$$ This can be interpreted as a relativistic version of the Newtonian law of gravitation. One component of the Einstein equation reads[@1st] $$E_{sph}=r^2\kappa-2\pi r^3\hbox{tr}\,T
\label{Einstein}$$ where the trace is in the normal space. Thus in vacuo, $$E_{sph}=E[\xi_{sph}].$$ This also holds for any matter field for which $\hbox{tr}\,T$ vanishes, such as a massless Klein-Gordon field. Otherwise, one needs to include the contribution from the matter Lagrangian, as will be seen below for the Einstein-Maxwell case. The fourth example of cylindrical symmetry[@cyl] does not work in this simple way, indicating that the definition needs to be modified (or abandoned) for non-spherical topology. With this caveat, the known energies are recovered as special cases of the general definition when a preferred flow of time exists.
It may also be proposed that $E$ can represent energy in more general senses, such as momentum and angular momentum, depending on the nature of $\xi$. For instance, a definition of [*angular momentum*]{} would be $$-E[\xi_{ax}]/2$$ where $\xi_{ax}$ is an axial vector, particularly an axial Killing vector. For the Kerr black hole in the usual Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, one does indeed find $$m=E[\xi_{st}]\qquad ma=-E[\xi_{ax}]/2$$ where $m$ and $ma$ are the usual mass and angular momentum respectively[@W1]. This illustrates that there is no need for $\xi$ to be hypersurface-orthogonal.
Klein-Gordon and Maxwell fields
===============================
For the purposes of this article, the variation $\delta$ of the Wald method need only ever be a Lie derivative ${\cal L}_\xi$. Consequently one may write $\Theta$ as a function of $(\phi,\xi)$ without explicitly determining it as a function of $(\phi,\delta\phi)$, which saves some calculation. It should be noted that the most natural fixing of the gauge dependence may be different by these two methods. The identity (\[identity\]) yields $${\cal L}_\xi d\Lambda=d{\cal L}_\xi\Lambda.$$
Warming up with the Klein-Gordon field $\psi$, defined by the Lagrangian $$L[g,\psi]=-{*}(d\psi\cdot d\psi+m^2\psi^2)/2$$ one finds $$\delta L={*}(T:\delta g)/2+{*}\Psi d\psi+d\Theta$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&T=d\psi\otimes d\psi-(d\psi\cdot d\psi+m^2\psi^2)g/2\\
&&\Psi={*}d{*}d\psi-m^2\psi\\
&&\Theta=-\delta(\psi{*}d\psi)/2.\end{aligned}$$ The three terms respectively give the energy-momentum-stress tensor, the Klein-Gordon equation and the energy-momentum density $$2J=2dQ-\psi\xi\cdot({*}\Psi)$$ where $$2Q=-\psi\xi\cdot({*}d\psi).$$ Turning to the Maxwell field, defined by the Lagrangian $$L[g,A]=-{{*}(F:F)\over{16\pi}}$$ where the 1-form $A$ is the electromagnetic potential and $F=2dA$ is the electromagnetic field tensor, one finds $$\delta L={*}(T:\delta g)/2+{*}(\Psi\cdot dA)+d\Theta$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&T=-(F\cdot F+(F:F)g/4)/4\pi\\
&&\Psi={*}d{*}F/4\pi\\
&&\Theta=-\delta({*}(A\cdot F))/8\pi.\end{aligned}$$ The three terms respectively give the energy-momentum-stress tensor, the Maxwell equation (paired with $dF=0$) and the energy-momentum density $$2J=2dQ-\xi\cdot({*}(\Psi\cdot A))$$ where $$2Q=-\xi\cdot({*}(A\cdot F))/4\pi.$$ This is clearly gauge-dependent, but for the Reissner-Nordström black hole there is a natural gauge choice[@W1] $A=-(e/r)dt$ which leads to the Maxwell energy $$E_M=\oint_S2Q_M={e^2\over r}$$ where the suffix distinguishes the Maxwell terms from the pure Einstein terms, given as above by $$E_E=\oint_S2Q_E=r^2\kappa$$ where $\xi=\partial/\partial t$. Using the component (\[Einstein\]) of the Einstein equation with the appropriate $\hbox{tr}\,T=-e^2/4\pi r^4$ and $E_{sph}=m-e^2/2r$, the combined Einstein-Maxwell charge is found to be[@AH] $$E_E+E_M=m.$$ Remarkably, this is just the usual mass. Note that this holds anywhere in the space-time, not just on the horizon. This illustrates that, in order to obtain the expected mass in the presence of matter fields, the appropriate energy is the combined energy of the matter and gravitational field, not that of the latter alone. A similar situation occurs in the Hamiltonian method to determine the mass of an isolated horizon[@ABF].
Conclusion
==========
For any theory defined by a diffeomorphism-invariant Lagrangian, an energy has been defined as the Noether charge associated with a conserved Noether current, an energy-momentum density derived from the boundary term in the variation of the action. The conservation law is interpreted as conservation of energy. The energy is quasi-local in the sense that it is an integral over a compact spatial surface. It also depends on a vector generating a flow of time through the surface. This neatly answers the equivalence-principle objection to gravitational energy: generally there is no preferred time, different choices giving different energies. However, when there is a preferred flow of time, such as in a stationary or spherically symmetric space-time, or at infinity in an asymptotically flat space-time, the definition does indeed recover standard definitions of energy for Einstein gravity, due to Komar, Misner & Sharp and Bondi respectively. In each case, $E_{known}=E[\hbox{preferred vector}]$. In the presence of matter, the matter Lagrangian should also be included, as the Reissner-Nordström case shows.
Comparing with quantum theory, where energy becomes an operator $$\hat E=i\hbar\xi^*$$ explicitly determined by the chosen flow of time, the duality of energy and time is a fundamental feature, expressed for instance by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This article suggests, for a wide class of gravitational theories, a purely classical relationship between gravitational energy and time. Understanding the connection may provide new paths in quantum gravity.
The author is grateful to Abhay Ashtekar and the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry for hospitality. Research supported by the National Science Foundation under award PHY-9800973.
R M Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago Press 1984). S A Hayward, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**D53**]{}, 1938 (1996). S A Hayward, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [**15**]{}, 3147 (1998). S A Hayward, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [**17**]{}, 1749 (2000). R J Epp, Angular momentum and an invariant quasilocal energy in general relativity (gr-qc/0003035). L Fatibene, M Ferraris, M Francaviglia & M Raiteri, Noether charges, Brown-York quasilocal energy and related topics (gr-qc/0003019). C-N Chen & J M Nester, A symplectic Hamiltonian derivation of quasilocal energy-momentum for GR, (gr-qc/0001088). R M Wald, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**D48**]{}, 3427 (1993). V Iyer & R M Wald, [Phys. Rev.]{} [**D50**]{}, 846 (1994). M C Ashworth & S A Hayward, Noether currents of charged spherical black holes (in preparation). A Ashtekar, C Beetle & S Fairhurst, [Class. Quantum Grav.]{} [**17**]{}, 253 (2000).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'CCD [*UBVRI*]{} photometry is presented for type IIb SN 2008ax for about 320 days. The photometric behavior is typical for core-collapse SNe with low amount of hydrogen. The main photometric parameters are derived and the comparison with SNe of similar types is reported. Preliminary modeling is carried out, and the results are compared to the observed light curves. The main parameters of the hydrodynamical models are close to those used for SN IIb 1993J.'
---
pz.sty epsf.sty
Supernova SN 2008ax was discovered independently by Mostardi et al. (2008) and Itagaki (Nakano and Itagaki, 2008) on March 3.45 UT and March 4.62 UT, respectively. The magnitude of SN at discovery, estimated on unfiltered CCD frames, was about 16. The first detection was only 6 hours after the image with limiting magnitude about 18.5 and showing no sign of the SN was obtained by Arbour (2008). The offsets from the nucleus of the host galaxy NGC 4490 are 53$\arcs$.1E, 25$\arcs$.8S. The projected distance from the center is 2.8 kpc, while the radius of the galaxy is about 9 kpc. NGC 4490 is a barred spiral galaxy of type SBcd. SN II-P 1982F was discovered earlier in this galaxy (Tsvetkov, 1984). The positions of two SNe are quite close, SN 1982F occurred 19$\arcs$ (0.9 kpc) closer to the nucleus at about the same positional angle (116$\deg$ for SN 2008ax, 120$\deg$ for SN 1982F).
Crockett et al. (2008) identified a source coincident with the position of SN 2008ax in pre-explosion HST observations in three optical filters. The possible progenitor may be a single massive star (initial mass $\sim 28 {\rm M}_{\odot}$), which loses most of its H-rich envelope and explodes as an 11-12 M$_{\odot}$ helium-rich Wolf-Rayet star, or an interacting binary producing a stripped progenitor.
Photometric and spectroscopic observations of SN 2008ax covering first 2 months past discovery were reported by Pastorello et al. (2008) (hereafter P08). The object displayed typical spectral and photometric evolution of a type IIb supernova, consistent with the explosion of a young Wolf-Rayet star.
Roming et al. (2009) (hereafter R09) presented UV, optical, X-ray and radio properties of SN 2008ax. They detected initial fading in UV light curves followed by a rise, reminiscent to the dip seen in type IIb SN 1993J.
We started photometric monitoring of SN 2008ax 4 days after the discovery and continued observations until 2009 January 23. CCD images in [*UBVRI*]{} filters were obtained with the following instruments: the 50-cm reflector of Astronomical Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences at Tatranska Lomnica with SBIG ST-10XME CCD camera (hereafter S50); the 50-cm meniscus telescope and the 60-cm reflector of Crimean Observatory of Sternberg Astronomical Institute equipped respectively with Meade Pictor 416XT and Apogee AP-47 cameras (C50, C60); the 70-cm reflector of Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow with Apogee AP-7 CCD camera (M70); the 1-m reflector of Simeiz Observatory with AP-47 camera (C100). The images on 2009 January 23 were obtained at the 2-m Faulkes Telescope North (F200).
The standard image reductions and photometry were made using IRAF.
The galaxy background around SN 2008ax is strong and non-uniform, and we applied image subtraction for most of the frames. Our observations did not allow to construct good template frames, and we used for subtraction the images of NGC 4490 downloaded from the ING archive.
After subtraction, the magnitudes of the SN were derived by PSF-fitting relative to a sequence of local standard stars. The comparison stars are shown on Fig. 1, and their magnitudes are reported in Table 1.
Star $U$ $\sigma_U$ $B$ $\sigma_B$ $V$ $\sigma_V$ $R$ $\sigma_R$ $I$ $\sigma_I$
------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------
1 11.73 0.04 11.62 0.01 11.06 0.01 10.73 0.01 10.41 0.01
2 13.78 0.05 12.94 0.01 11.89 0.01 11.35 0.01 10.85 0.01
3 13.66 0.05 13.71 0.01 13.18 0.01 12.83 0.02 12.50 0.02
4 14.61 0.06 14.60 0.02 13.96 0.01 13.55 0.04 13.18 0.02
5 16.25 0.03 15.20 0.02 14.57 0.03 14.03 0.03
6 16.58 0.07 16.02 0.03 15.00 0.02 14.47 0.02 13.93 0.03
: Magnitudes of local standard stars
Stars 1-4 were measured photoelectrically in the $B,V$ filters by Tsvetkov (1984), the comparison with the new CCD data reveals good agreement, the mean differences are $\Delta B = -0.02; \Delta V = 0.04$ mag. We may conclude that both calibrations are sufficiently correct.
The results of observations of the SN are presented in Table 2.
JD 2454000+ $U$ $\sigma_U$ $B$ $\sigma_B$ $V$ $\sigma_V$ $R$ $\sigma_R$ $I$ $\sigma_I$ Tel.
------------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------- ------------ ------
532.51 17.25 0.08 15.92 0.03 15.35 0.04 15.09 0.04 S50
537.59 15.22 0.02 14.54 0.02 14.19 0.03 13.84 0.04 S50
541.37 14.43 0.06 14.46 0.03 13.88 0.03 13.67 0.05 13.37 0.03 S50
544.42 14.09 0.06 14.22 0.02 13.68 0.02 13.36 0.03 13.06 0.02 S50
546.39 14.06 0.06 14.13 0.02 13.56 0.02 13.24 0.04 12.93 0.02 S50
551.31 14.33 0.06 14.19 0.02 13.41 0.02 13.08 0.03 12.73 0.03 S50
552.53 14.56 0.05 14.25 0.02 13.45 0.01 13.07 0.02 12.73 0.02 S50
553.43 15.07 0.12 14.38 0.05 13.58 0.04 13.10 0.07 12.80 0.03 S50
555.52 15.21 0.08 14.67 0.06 13.64 0.05 13.12 0.06 12.86 0.05 S50
556.42 15.60 0.08 14.82 0.05 13.77 0.05 13.32 0.05 12.87 0.05 S50
557.41 15.87 0.07 15.02 0.02 13.87 0.02 13.27 0.05 12.90 0.03 S50
563.40 17.27 0.13 15.77 0.04 14.39 0.03 13.76 0.05 13.19 0.04 S50
564.47 15.81 0.07 14.41 0.03 13.75 0.03 13.18 0.03 S50
570.37 16.21 0.10 14.71 0.02 14.05 0.05 13.40 0.03 S50
579.38 16.45 0.04 14.97 0.02 14.33 0.02 13.68 0.03 M70
583.33 16.52 0.05 15.07 0.03 14.46 0.03 13.79 0.04 M70
585.35 16.49 0.05 15.05 0.03 14.42 0.03 13.77 0.04 M70
590.30 16.62 0.05 15.20 0.03 14.59 0.03 13.89 0.03 M70
601.47 16.84 0.09 15.41 0.04 14.86 0.04 14.08 0.03 S50
602.34 16.99 0.04 15.50 0.03 14.89 0.02 14.17 0.03 M70
613.32 16.91 0.04 15.65 0.02 15.08 0.02 14.35 0.03 M70
616.41 17.03 0.04 15.69 0.03 15.08 0.04 14.35 0.04 S50
623.33 16.96 0.05 15.87 0.03 15.31 0.02 14.56 0.03 M70
628.44 17.25 0.10 16.00 0.03 15.45 0.03 14.60 0.04 S50
643.34 16.37 0.03 15.73 0.03 14.97 0.06 C50
644.32 16.35 0.03 15.75 0.03 15.07 0.11 C50
647.31 16.35 0.04 15.80 0.03 C50
647.31 17.53 0.05 16.41 0.02 15.85 0.02 15.00 0.04 C100
649.30 16.41 0.03 15.83 0.03 C50
656.30 16.63 0.02 15.98 0.03 C50
658.30 16.63 0.10 16.00 0.05 C50
660.33 16.67 0.04 16.07 0.03 15.49 0.10 C60
674.34 18.25 0.14 17.01 0.06 16.33 0.04 15.55 0.03 S50
675.32 17.01 0.04 16.45 0.07 15.73 0.08 S50
677.32 17.19 0.05 16.36 0.05 15.60 0.05 S50
679.32 17.31 0.07 16.52 0.06 15.73 0.16 S50
699.28 17.57 0.20 16.78 0.07 M70
720.24 16.99 0.07 C60
781.63 17.90 0.05 C60
783.62 18.98 0.07 18.18 0.06 C60
855.05 20.90 0.18 20.45 0.07 19.22 0.03 18.77 0.03 F200
: Observations of SN 2008ax
The light curves of SN 2008ax are shown in Fig. 2. The premaximum rise and the peak have good coverage by observations, and we can determine the dates and magnitudes of maximum light in different bands: $U_{max}=14.06; t_{Umax}={\rm JD}2454546.9;
B_{max}=14.09; t_{Bmax}={\rm JD}2454548.2; V_{max}=13.40;
t_{Vmax}={\rm JD}2454550.3; R_{max}=13.06; t_{Rmax}={\rm JD}2454552.4;
I_{max}=12.73; t_{Imax}={\rm JD}2454552.5$. The dates of maximum in [*UBVRI*]{} bands are in good agreement with the results by P08 and R09, while for the peak magnitudes the agreement is slightly worse. The maximum magnitudes from R09 in $b,v$ bands are about 0.2 mag fainter than our data, but their $u$ peak magnitude is practically equal to our estimate. The peak $BV$ magnitudes derived by P08 are slightly fainter than our data.
After the maximum the brightness of SN declined very fast. At the phase 15 days past maximum the $B$ magnitude declined by 1.67 mag. The fast drop continued for about 25 days, and at about JD 2454580 the onset of the linear decline is observed. The rates of decline in the period JD 2454580-680 are (in mag/day): 0.022 in $V$, 0.021 in $R$, 0.020 in $I$. After JD 2454680 the rate slightly decreased, the values for the period JD 2454680-850 are: 0.018 in $V$, 0.016 in $R$, 0.017 in $I$. In the $B$ band the decline rate is constant for the period JD 2454580-850 and equals 0.016.
Fig. 3 presents the comparison of our data with the results by P08 and R09. The photometry by P08 in Sloan $u',r',i'$ filters is transformed to $U,R,I$ bands by the relations derived by Chonis and Gaskell (2008). The agreement between our magnitudes and the data from P08 is quite good, some differences are observed near maximum in the $U,R,I$ bands. They may result from errors of transformation from Sloan to Johnson-Cousins photometric systems. The $b,v$ magnitudes from R09 are significantly fainter than our results, while their $u$ magnitudes agree well with our $U$ data. We also plot in Fig. 3 the $V$-band light curves of SN IIb 1993J and SN Ic 2002ap (Richmond et al, 1996; Foley et al., 2003), aligned to match the peaks of the curves. The shape of the light curve of SN 2002ap is different from that of SN 2008ax: the rise to the maximum is faster, and the decline is slower. The second peak on the light curve of SN 1993J matches closely the light curve of SN 2008ax.
The absolute $V$-magnitude light curves of SN 2008ax and several SNe of types IIb, Ib and Ic are compared in Fig. 4. For SN 2008ax we adopted distance modulus $\mu = 29.92$ and extinction $E(B-V)=0.3$ as in P08. The light curves of other SNe are taken from Richmond et al. (1996), Qiu et al. (1999), Stritzinger et al. (2002), Foley et al. (2003). With absolute peak $V$ magnitude of $-17.45$ mag SN 2008ax appears to be quite typical among SNe of similar classes. It is little fainter than SN IIb 1993J and SN Ib 1999ex, have nearly the same luminosity as SN Ic 2002ap and is significantly brighter than SN IIb 1996cb.
The color curves are shown in Fig. 5. The evolution of colors $B-V$ and $V-R$ is similar. Before maximum SN 2008ax becomes bluer, then quickly redden, and finally the colors remain nearly constant. $U-B$ color probably evolves in the same way, but our data spans only the period of fast reddening. The $R-I$ color curve is different, the color before maximum is nearly constant, and then only a slight reddening is observed.
We compute the light curves in [*UBVRI*]{} bands using our code STELLA, which incorporates implicit hydrodynamics coupled to a time-dependent multi-group non-equilibrium radiative transfer (Blinnikov et al., 1998). The specific model employed here was Model 13C of Woosley et al. (1994). This model was derived from a 13 M$_{\odot}$ main sequence star that lost most of its hydrogen envelope to a nearby companion. The main parameters of the model are: total mass 3.8 M$_{\odot}$, radius 600 R$_{\odot}$, mass of $^{56}$Ni 0.11 M$_{\odot}$, explosion energy $1.5 \times 10^{51}$ erg. The chemical composition is shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 7 gives the resulting light curves, and Fig. 8 presents the light curves for the first 50 days past explosion.
The model light curves give a very good fit to the observed maximum, concerning both the luminosity and the shape. The differences are on the rising branch, where the computed early-time peak is brighter than observed, and on the tail, especially for the $U$ and $B$ bands. We consider the agreement to be quite satisfactory, but we continue the search for models which will give better fits. The results and more detailed discussion of the properties of the models and their impact on the possible evolution of the progenitor will be published in a subsequent paper.
We thank N.P.Ikonnikova and N.N.Pavlyuk, who made some of the observations. The work of D.T. is partly supported by the Leading Scientific Schools Foundation under grant NSh.433.2008.2. I.V. acknowledges financial support from SAI scholarship and from Slovak Academy Information Agency (SAIA). The work of S.B. and P.B. is supported partly by the grant RFBR 07-02-00830-a, by the Leading Scientific Schools Foundation under grants NSh.2977.2008.2, NSh.3884.2008.2, and in Germany by MPA guest program.
This paper makes use of data obtained from the Isaac Newton Group Archive which is maintained as part of the CASU Astronomical Data Centre at the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge.
Arbour, R., 2008, [*CBET*]{}, No. 1286
Blinnikov, S. I., Eastman, R., Bartunov, O. S., Popolitov, V. A., Woosley, S. E., 1998, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, 496, 454
Chonis, T.S., Gaskell, C.M., 2008, [*Astron. J.*]{}, 135, 264
Crockett, R.M., Eldridge, J.J., Smartt, S.J., et.al., 2008, [*MNRAS*]{}, 391, 5
Foley, R.J., Papenkova, M.S., Swift, B.J., Filippenko, A.V., et al., 2003, [*PASP*]{}, 115, 1220
Mostardi, R., Li, W., Filippenko, A.V., 2008, [*CBET*]{}, No. 1280
Nakano, S., Itagaki, K., 2008, [*CBET*]{}, No. 1286
Richmond, M.W., Treffers, R.R., Filippenko, A.V., Paik, Y., 1996, [*Astron. J.*]{}, 112, 732
Roming, P.W.A., Pritchard, T.A., Brown, P.J., et al., 2009, preprint (arXiv:0909.0967)
Pastorello, A., Kasliwal, M.M., Crockett, R.M., et al., 2008, [*MNRAS*]{}, 389, 955
Stritzinger, M,, Hamuy, M., Suntzeff, N.B., et al., 2002, [*Astron. J.*]{}, 124, 2100
Tsvetkov, D.Yu., 1984, [*Astron. Tsirk.*]{}, No. 1346, 1
Woosley, S.E., Eastman, R.G., Weaver, T.A., Pinto, P.A., 1994, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, 429, 300
Qiu, Y., Li, W., Qiao, Q., Hu, J., 1999, [*Astron. J.*]{}, 117, 736
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A new algorithm for eigenvalue problems for the fractional Jacobi type ODE is proposed. The algorithm is based on piecewise approximation of the coefficients of the differential equation with subsequent recursive procedure adapted from some homotopy considerations. As a result, the eigenvalue problem (which is in fact nonlinear) is replaced by a sequence of linear boundary value problems (besides the first one) with a singular linear operator called the exact functional discrete scheme (EFDS). A finite subsequence of $m$ terms, called truncated functional discrete scheme (TFDS), is the basis for our algorithm. The approach provides an super-exponential convergence rate as $m \to \infty$. The eigenpairs can be computed in parallel for all given indexes. The algorithm is based on some recurrence procedures including the basic arithmetical operations with the coefficients of some expansions only. This is an exact symbolic algorithm (ESA) for $m=\infty$ and a truncated symbolic algorithm (TSA) for a finite $m$. Numerical examples are presented to support the theory.'
address:
- 'University of Cooperative Education Gera-Eisenach, Am Wartenberg 2, 99817 Eisenach, Germany'
- 'Institute of Mathematics of NAS of Ukraine, 3 Tereshchenkivs’ka Str., 01004 Kyiv-4, Ukraine'
- 'Institute of Mathematics of NAS of Ukraine, 3 Tereshchenkivs’ka Str., 01004 Kyiv-4, Ukraine'
author:
- Ivan Gavrilyuk
- Volodymyr Makarov
- Nataliia Romaniuk
date: 'July 10, 2006'
title: 'Super-Exponentially Convergent Parallel Algorithm for a Fractional Eigenvalue Problem of Jacobi-Type'
---
Introduction
============
Using various definitions of fractional derivatives one can consider, e.g., differential operators of fractional order, boundary and eigenvalue problems for these operators, as well as various approximation methods for them (see e.g. [@mot; @ford]).
The eigenvalue problem (EVP) is the problem of finding eigenvalues (frequencies) and eigenfunctions (vibration shapes) or so called eigenpairs and plays an important role in various applications concerned with vibrations and wave processes [@af; @pr]. Often it is needed to compute a great number (hundreds of thousands) of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions including eigenpairs with great indexes (see e.g. [@pr p. 273]). A very efficient approach to solve such problems represent methods based on perturbation and homotopy ideas [@allg; @arm], such as the FD-method [@m1; @m2; @m3; @dgm] (compare with the Adomian decomposition method [@a; @r]). These approaches allow in a natural way the use of computer algebra tools (see e.g. [@gg]).
In [@csw] a spectral approximation of Jacobi-type fractional differential equations (FDEs) is considered. Chen, Shen and Wang defined a new class of generalized Jacobi functions (GJFs), which are the eigenfunctions of some fractional differential operator and can serve as natural basis functions for properly designed spectral methods for FDEs. The spectral approximation results for these GJFs in weighted Sobolev spaces involving fractional derivatives are established and efficient GJF-Petrov-Galerkin methods for a class of prototypical fractional initial value problems (FIVPs) and fractional boundary value problems (FBVPs) of general order are constructed and analyzed. One of the important drawbacks of these methods is the following: their accuracy decreaces with the growth of the eigenvalue index.
In order to find numerically the higher eigenvalues we propose a new approach described below which we will refer to as the FD-method (following [@m1; @m2; @m3; @dgm; @gmr]). This approach has been applied also to EVPs with multiple eigenvalues [@gmr]. We would like to emphasize the following features of our approach, which differ from many other methods: 1) all eigenpairs can be computed in parallel, 2)The convergence rate increases as the index of the eigenpair increases, 3) the approximation called the truncated discrete scheme (TFDS) is derived from an exact discrete representation of the solution which we call the exact discrete scheme (EFDS), 4) the computational algorithm operates with the coefficients of some expansions of the initial data and uses the basic arithmetical operations only so that the computer algebra tools are the natural medium of choice, 5) under some assumptions it is possible to pass to the limit at the truncated sum of the series and to obtain the exact solution in a closed form [@m4]. This is the reason, why we call our algorithm symbolic.
The article is organized as follows. First, we describe the FD-method for the fractional Jacobi-type differential operator. In Section \[s2\] we prove the super-exponential convergence rate of our method for the case when the potential function is approximated by the constant zero. Section \[s3\] deals with the reformulation of the algorithm in the case of a polynomial potential as a recursive procedure for the coefficients of the representation of corrections of the FD-method through the generalized Jacobi functions. Although these corrections are the solutions of some BVPs with a singular differential operator, this procedure does not use any BVP-solver but some recursions for the expansion coefficients with basic arithmetical operations only. We call such procedures symbolic algorithms. Note that similar algorithms for some special potential functions were proposed in [@dgm]. In Section \[s4\] numerical examples are given to support the theoretical results.
Algorithm of the FD-method for a fractional Sturm-Liouville-type operator with an Jacobi-type weight function {#s1}
==============================================================================================================
Let us define the left-side and right-side Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives of order $s\in \left(0,1\right)$ $$\label{1}
{}_{-1} D_{x}^{s} v(x)=\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-s)} \frac{d}{dx} \int _{-1}^{x}\frac{v(y)}{(x-y)^{s} } dy,\; \; \; \; \; x\in \left(-1,1\right),$$ $$\label{2}
{}_{x} D_{1}^{s} v(x)=-\frac{1}{\Gamma (1-s)} \frac{d}{dx} \int _{x}^{1}\frac{v(y)}{(y-x)^{s} } dy,\; \; \; \; \; x\in \left(-1,1\right),$$ where $\Gamma \left(\alpha \right)$ is the gamma-function. Let us consider the following eigenvalue problem of Sturm-Liouville-type $$\label{4}
\begin{split}
&{{}^{+} L_{\alpha ,\beta }^{2s} u(x)+\left(q(x)-\lambda \right)u(x)=0,\; \; x\in \left(-1,1\right),\; \; \, s\in \left(0,1\right),\; \; \; \alpha \ge 0,\;\;\beta >-1,} \\
&{\left|u(-1)\right|<\infty ,\; \; \; \left|u(1)\right|<c \delta _{\alpha,0},\;\;\; c=\text{const} <\infty}
\end{split}$$ for the fractional Jacobi-type differential operator $$\label{3}
{}^{+} L_{\alpha ,\beta }^{2s} u(x)=\omega ^{(\alpha ,-\beta )} {}_{-1} D_{x}^{s} \left\{\omega ^{(-\alpha +s,\beta +s)} {}_{x} D_{1}^{s} u(x)\right\},\; \; x\in \left(-1,1\right)$$ with a piecewise smooth potential coefficient $q(x)$ and the Jacobi-type weight function $$\omega ^{(\alpha ,\beta )} =\omega ^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x)=(1-x)^{\alpha } (1+x)^{\beta }.$$ In $\delta _{n,k} $ denotes the Kronecker delta. A solution of the eigenvalue problem consists of an eigenvalue $\lambda$ and of a corresponding eigenfunction $u(x)$, in other words, of the eigenpair $\lambda, u(x)$. If the set of eigenpairs is countable, we identify each pair by a natural number $n=1,2,...$. According to [@csw] (see Corollary 3.1) the Sturm-Liouville singular differential operator is selfadjoint provided that $s\in \left(0,1\right)$. For $s-1<\alpha<0$ the second boundary condition in is given as follows: $$\label{3-0}
\left|\omega ^{(-\alpha +s,\beta +s)} {}_{x} D_{1}^{s} \left\{(1-x)^{\alpha } P_{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x) \right\}\right|_{x=1}<\infty.$$
We apply to problem (\[4\]) the FD-method (see e.g. [@dgm] for details) which is a combination of perturbation of the original differential operator by a parameter dependent operator (embedding) and then a “trip” along this parameter from a “simple” problem to the original one (homotopy). The homotopy idea was exploited in various ways e.g. in [@allg; @arm]. The FD-method consists of the following steps: 1) the function $q(x)$ (the potential) is approximated by a piece-wise constant function $\overline{q}(x)$; 2) problem (\[4\]) is embedded into the parametric family of problems with the potential $\overline{q}(x)+t(q(x)-\overline{q}(x))$ (the perturbation of the operator); 3) the solution of the perturbed family is represented as a power series in $t$ with the coefficients which are solutions of a recursive sequence of problems with the potential $\overline{q}(x)$; 4) by setting $t=1$ one obtains the series representations of the solution of the original problem. Below we consider the simplest case of the approximation of $q(x)$ by the constant $\overline{q}(x)\equiv 0$. Note that in this case the idea of the FD-method is close to the idea of the Adomian method [@a; @r].
The exact solution of the eigenvalue problem is then represented by the series $$\label{5-0}
{u}_{n}(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}} u_{n}^{(j)}(x), \; \; \; {\lambda}_{n}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}} \lambda_{n}^{(j)}$$ provided that these series converge. The sufficient conditions for the convergence of the series will be presented later in Section \[s2\] (see ). The approximate solution to problem is represented by a pair of corresponding truncated series $$\label{5}
\overset{m}{u}_{n}(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{\sum}} u_{n}^{(j)}(x), \; \; \; \overset{m}{\lambda}_{n}=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{\sum}} \lambda_{n}^{(j)}$$ which is called an approximation of rank $m$. The summands of series (\[5-0\]), (\[5\]) are the solutions of the following recursive sequence of problems: $$\label{5-1}
\begin{split}
&{{}^{+} L_{\alpha ,\beta }^{2s} u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)-\lambda _{n}^{(0)} u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=F_{n}^{(j+1)} (x),\; \; x\in \left(-1,1\right),} \\
&{s\in \left(0,1\right),\; \; \; \alpha \ge 0,\;\;\;\beta >-1,} \\
&{\left|u_{n}^{(j+1)} (-1)\right|<\infty ,\; \; \; \; \; \left|u_{n}^{(j+1)} (1)\right| \le c \delta _{\alpha,0},\;\;\; c=const<\infty,}
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{5-2}
F_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\sum _{p=0}^{j}\lambda _{n}^{(j+1-p)} u_{n}^{(p)} (x)-q(x)u_{n}^{(j)} (x),\; \; \; j=0,1,2,...,\; \; \; n=0,1,2,...$$ and $\delta _{\alpha, \beta}$ is the Kronecker delta.
For $s-1<\alpha<0$ the second boundary condition in is given as follows: $$\label{5-3}
\left|\omega ^{(-\alpha +s,\beta +s)} {}_{x} D_{1}^{s} \left\{u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x) \right\}\right|_{x=1}<\infty.$$ The initial approximation $u_{n}^{(0)} (x),$ $\lambda _{n}^{(0)} $ is the solution of the so called base problem, that is, $$\label{6}
\begin{split}
&{{}^{+} L_{\alpha ,\beta }^{2s} u_{n}^{(0)} (x)-\lambda _{n}^{(0)} u_{n}^{(0)} (x)=0,\; \; x\in \left(-1,1\right),\, \; \; \; s\in \left(0,1\right),\; \;\; \alpha \ge 0,\; \; \;\beta >-1} \\
&{\left|u_{n}^{(0)} (-1)\right|<\infty ,\; \; \; \; \; \left|u_{n}^{(0)} (1)\right| \le c \delta _{\alpha,0},\;\;\; c=const<\infty}
\end{split}$$ and for $s-1<\alpha<0$ the second boundary condition in is given by $$\label{6-1}
\left|\omega ^{(-\alpha +s,\beta +s)} {}_{x} D_{1}^{s} \left\{u_{n}^{(0)} (x) \right\}\right|_{x=1}<\infty.$$ We call the representation of the exact solution by the series (\[5-0\]), i.e., by the sequences $\{u_{n}^{(j)}, j=0,1,...\}$, and we call $\{\lambda_{n}^{(j)}, j=0,1,...\}$ we call the exact discrete scheme (EDisS) and the approximate representation by the corresponding truncated series the truncated discrete scheme (TDisS). The idea in broad sense is related to the idea of exact and truncated difference schemes (EDS and TDS) from [@ghmk] but the algorithms are rather different.
The solution of (\[6\]) is the generalized Jacobi function $$\label{7}
{}^{+} J_{n}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)=(1-x)^{\alpha } P_{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x),$$ where $P_{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x)$ is the classical Jacobi polynomial. This is a generalization of the eigenfunctions of the classical Jacobi differential operator (see (\[10\]) and Theorem 3.2 in [@csw]). Since the operator in (\[5-1\]) is singular these problems are solvable under the solvability condition $$\int _{-1}^{1} F_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)u_{n}^{(0)} (x)\omega^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)dx=0.$$ The solution of (\[6\]) can be found up to a constant whose value is determined by the orthogonality condition $$\label{7-1}
\int _{-1}^{1} u_{n}^{(0)} (x)u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)\omega ^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)dx=0.$$ The polynomials $P_{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)$ are orthogonal with the Jacobi weight function $\omega ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(x)$ (see [@gr]), i.e. $$\label{8}
\int _{-1}^{1}P_{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x)P_{k}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x) \omega ^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x)dx=\gamma _{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} \delta _{n,k} ,$$ where $$\label{9}
\gamma _{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} =\frac{2^{\alpha +\beta +1} \Gamma (n+\alpha +1)\Gamma (n+\beta +1)}{(2n+\alpha +\beta +1)n!\Gamma (n+\alpha +\beta +1)}.$$ The normalized solution of problem (\[6\]) is $$\label{10}
\begin{split}
&{u_{n}^{(0)} (x)=\left(\gamma _{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} \right)^{-1/2} \cdot {}^{+} J_{n}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x),} \\
&{\lambda _{n}^{(0)} =\frac{\Gamma (n+\alpha +1)\Gamma (n+\beta +s+1)}{\Gamma (n+\alpha -s+1)\Gamma (n+\beta +1)} ,\; \; \; n=0,1,2,...}
\end{split}$$ Using the solvability condition and the orthogonality property (\[7-1\]) we obtain from (\[5-1\]), (\[5-2\]) the following formula for the eigenvalue corrections $$\label{13}
\lambda _{n}^{(j+1)} =\int _{-1}^{1} q(x)u_{n}^{(0)} (x)u_{n}^{(j)} (x)\omega ^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)dx.$$ We consider the solution $u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)$ of problem (\[5-1\]), (\[5-2\]) satisfying the orthogonality condition (\[7-1\]) as an element of the Hilbert space $L_{w}^{2} \left[-1,1\right]$ with the scalar product $(u,v)=\int_{-1}^1\omega^{(-\alpha ,\beta )}(x)u(x)v(x)dx$. Now, using (\[7-1\]) we obtain the following representation for the eigenfunction corrections $$\label{15}
u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\underset{p=0,p\ne n}{\overset{\infty }{\sum}}\int _{-1}^{1} F_{n}^{\left(j+1\right)} \left(\xi \right)u_{p}^{(0)} \left(\xi \right)\omega ^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} \left(\xi \right)d\xi \frac{u_{p}^{(0)} (x)}{\lambda _{n}^{(0)} -\lambda _{p}^{(0)} } .$$
Note that (\[5-0\]) can be considered as an exact discrete scheme for the boundary value problem (\[4\]) where we have switched from a nonlinear problem to the sequence $u_{n}^{(j)}(x)$ of solutions of linear problems. The truncated series (\[5\]) can be viewed as an algorithmically realizable truncated discrete scheme.
Convergence of the FD-method with $\overline{q}(x)\equiv 0$ {#s2}
===========================================================
In this section we find sufficient convergence conditions of the FD-method as well as the accuracy estimates.
From (\[15\]) we obtain $$\label{16}
\begin{split}
&{\left\| u_{n}^{(j+1)} \right\| \; =\left(\underset{p=0,p\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}}\left(\int _{-1}^{1} F_{n}^{\left(j+1\right)} \left(\xi \right)u_{p}^{(0)} \left(\xi \right)\omega^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} \left(\xi \right)d\xi \left(\lambda _{n}^{(0)} -\lambda _{p}^{(0)} \right)^{-1} \right)^{2} \right)^{1/2} } \\
&{\le \max \left\{\left(\lambda _{n}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n-1}^{(0)} \right)^{-1} ,\left(\lambda _{n+1}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n}^{(0)} \right)^{-1} \right\}\left\| F_{n}^{\left(j+1\right)} \right\| =M_{n} \left\| F_{n}^{\left(j+1\right)} \right\| ,}
\end{split}$$ where $$\label{17}
\left\| u_{n}^{(j+1)} \right\|=\left\| u_{n}^{(j+1)} \right\|_{L_{\omega}^2} =\left(\int _{-1}^{1} \left(u_{n}^{(j+1)} \left(x\right)\right)^{2} \omega^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} \left(x\right)dx\right)^{{1\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {1 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} } , \left\| u_{n}^{(0)} \right\| =1,$$ and $$\label{18}
\begin{split}
&{M_{n} =\max \left\{\frac{1}{\lambda _{n}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n-1}^{(0)} } ,\frac{1}{\lambda _{n+1}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n}^{(0)} } \right\}} \\
&{=\frac{\Gamma \left(n+\beta +1\right)\Gamma \left(n+\alpha +1-s\right)}{s\left(2n+\beta +\alpha \right)\Gamma \left(n+\alpha \right)\Gamma \left(n+\beta +s\right)}}\\
&{\times \max \left\{1,\frac{\left(n+\beta +1\right)\left(2n+\beta +\alpha \right)\left(n+\alpha +1-s\right)}{\left(2n+\beta +\alpha +2\right)\left(n+\alpha \right)\left(n+\beta +s\right)} \right\}.}
\end{split}$$ Here we have $M_{n}=1$ if coincidentally $s=1/2$ and $\alpha =\beta$ or $s=1/2$ and $\alpha =\beta +1$.
The asymptotic formula from [@te], namely, $$\label{19}
\frac{\Gamma \left(z+\gamma \right)}{\Gamma \left(z+\eta \right)} =z^{\gamma -\eta } \left[1+\frac{\left(\gamma -\eta \right)\left(\gamma +\eta -1\right)}{2z} +o\left(\left|z\right|^{-2} \right)\right]\,\,\, \text{as}\,\,\, z \to \infty$$ together with (\[18\]) yields $$\label{27}
\begin{split}
&\underset{n \to \infty}{\lim}M_{n}=\frac{1}{2s}\cdot \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\infty, & \; s \in (0,1/2), \\
1, & \; s=1/2, \\
0, & \; s \in (1/2,1).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{split}$$
From (\[16\]) and (\[13\]) we obtain $$\label{28}
\left\| u_{n}^{(j+1)} \right\| \le M_{n} \left\| q\right\| _{\infty } \left\{\sum _{l=1}^{j} \left\| u_{n}^{(j-l)} \right\| \left\| u_{n}^{(l)} \right\| +\left\| u_{n}^{(j)} \right\| \right\},\; \; \; \; {\kern 1pt} {\kern 1pt} \left|\lambda _{n}^{(j+1)} \right|\le \left\| q\right\| _{\infty } \left\| u_{n}^{(j)} \right\| ,$$ where $\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } =\mathop{\max }\limits_{x\in \left[-1,1\right]} \left|q(x)\right|$. The estimates (\[28\]) lead to $$\label{29}
\left\| u_{n}^{(j+1)} \right\| \le M_{n} \left\| q\right\| _{\infty } \sum _{l=0}^{j} \left\| u_{n}^{(j-l)} \right\| \left\| u_{n}^{(l)} \right\| .$$ Substituting here $U_{j} =\left(\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } M_{n} \right)^{-j} \left\| u_{n}^{\left(j\right)} \right\|$ and $U_{0} =\left\| u_{n}^{\left(0\right)} \right\| =1$ and replacing the new variables by the majorant variables subject to $U_{j} \le \overline{U}_{j} $ and $\overline{U}_{0} =U_{0} =1$, we come to the majorant equation $$\label{30}
\overline{U}_{j+1} =\sum _{l=0}^{j} \; \overline{U}_{j-l} \overline{U}_{l}.$$ The solution of this convolution type equation is (see e.g. [@v p. 159-161,210] and [@rnd]) $$\label{31}
\overline{U}_{j+1} =\frac{\left(2j+2\right)!}{\left(j+1\right)!\left(j+2\right)!} =4^{j+1} 2\frac{\left(2j+1\right)!!}{\left(2j+4\right)!!} .$$ Returning to the old variables we obtain the following estimate for the solution of (\[29\]) $$\label{32}
\left\| u_{n}^{\left(j+1\right)} \right\| \le \left(4\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } M_{n} \right)^{j+1} 2\frac{\left(2j+1\right)!!}{\left(2j+4\right)!!} \le \frac{\left(4\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } M_{n} \right)^{j+1} }{\left(j+2\right)\sqrt{\pi \left(j+1\right)} } ,$$ and then from (\[28\]) the next estimate for the eigenvalue corrections $$\label{33}
\left|\lambda _{n}^{(j+1)} \right|\le \left\| q\right\| _{\infty }\left(4\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } M_{n} \right)^{j} 2\frac{\left(2j-1\right)!!}{\left(2j+2\right)!!} \le \left\| q\right\| _{\infty }\frac{\left(4\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } M_{n} \right)^{j} }{\left(j+1\right)\sqrt{\pi j} } .$$ The last part of inequalities (\[32\]) and (\[33\]) was obtained using the reflections like those from the proof of the Wallis formula (see e.g. [@f p. 344]).
From (\[32\]) and (\[33\]) follows the next assertion.
Under the condition $$\label{34}
r_{n} =4\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } M_{n} <1, n=0,1,2,...$$ the FD-method converges super-exponentially and his accuracy is characterized by the estimates $$\label{35}
\left|\lambda _{n} -\overset{m}{\lambda}_{n} \right|\le 2 \left\| q\right\| _{\infty } \frac{\left(r_{n} \right)^{m} }{1-r_{n} } \frac{\left(2m-1\right)!!}{\left(2m+2\right)!!} \le \left\| q\right\| _{\infty } \frac{\left(r_{n} \right)^{m} }{1-r_{n} } \frac{1}{\left(m+1\right)\sqrt{\pi m} }$$ and $$\label{36}
\left\| u_{n} -\overset{m}{u}_{n} \right\| \le 2\frac{\left(r_{n} \right)^{m+1} }{1-r_{n} } \frac{\left(2m+1\right)!!}{\left(2m+4\right)!!} \le \frac{\left(r_{n} \right)^{m+1} }{1-r_{n} } \frac{1}{\left(m+2\right)\sqrt{\pi \left(m+1\right)} } .$$
The relation (\[27\]) shows that for a fixed $s \in (1/2,1)$ there exists some $n_{0}$ such that for all $n\ge n_{0} $ condition (\[34\]) of the theorem is fulfilled and the FD-method converges super-exponentially. The error estimates (\[35\]) and (\[36\]) show that the accuracy of our method increases as we increase the eigenvalue number. This remarkable property can be lost for problem (\[4\]) with a fixed $0<s<1/2$ or if coincidentally $s=1/2$ and $\alpha =\beta$ or $s=1/2$ and $\alpha =\beta +1$. For these cases condition (\[34\]) for a given $n$ can be fulfilled for $\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } $ small enough. If this is not the case then the trivial variant of the FD-method with $\overline{q}(x)\equiv 0$ is divergent and one should apply the variant with a piecewise constant $\overline{q}(x)$ (see [@m1; @m2]).
Symbolic algorithm of the FD-method with $\overline{q}(x)\equiv 0$ {#s3}
==================================================================
A new algorithmic realization of the FD-method for problem (\[4\]) with $\bar{q}(x)\equiv 0, \alpha =\beta =0$ and with the potential $q(x)=x^{2} $ was proposed in [@dgm]. It was shown that the corrections to eigenfunctions of the FD-method are linear combinations of Legendre polynomials with a number of summands depending on the degree of the potential polynomial and on the correction number $j$. The coefficients of these linear combinations can be represented recursively through the corresponding coefficients computed at previous steps using the basic arithmetical operations only. The approximations of the eigenvalues are represented through these coefficients too. Thus, the method uses these arithmetical operations and does not involve solutions of any supplementary BVPs and computation of any integrals unlike the traditional implementations. In this sense our algorithm is a symbolic one since it operates with the expansion coefficients only.
Further we extend these results and describe such algorithm for problem (\[4\]) with the potential $$\label{37}
q(x)=\sum _{l=0}^{r}c_{l} x^{l}\,\,\,\,\, (c_{r} \ne 0),$$ where $c_{l}$, $l=0,1,...,r$ are real constant coefficients. In this case the FD-method is exactly realizable in the sense that the corrections to the eigenfunctions can be explicitly represented as linear combinations of the generalized Jacobi functions ${}^{+} J_{n}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)$ with coefficients which can be explicitly represented as polynomials of $c_{l}$, $l=0,1,...,r$ with rational coefficients.
The solution $u_{n}^{(0)} (x)$ of the base problem (\[10\]) (up to an arbitrary multiplicative constant) can be represented as $u_{n}^{(0)} (x)=a_{n}^{(0)} {}^{+} J_{n}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)$, $a_{n}^{(0)} \ne 0$ (see Lemma 4.1 below). Note that we can renounce here the normalizing of the eigenfunctions of the base problem which we have used above to prove the convergence of the FD-method. For the orthonormal eigenfunctions $\left\{u_{n}^{(0)} (x)\right\}_{n=1}^{\infty } $ in accordance with (\[10\]) we have $a_{n}^{(0)} =\left(\gamma _{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} \right)^{-1/2} $.
Further we use the following recurrence relation for the Jacobi polynomials (see, e.g., [@be Section 10.8]) $$\label{38}
x^{r} P_{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x)=\sum _{k=\max (n-r,0)}^{n+r}b_{n+r+1-k,n,r} P_{k}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x),\,\,\,\,\,\,\, r,n=0,1,2,...,$$ where $$b_{1,n,0} =1,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, b_{1,n,1} =\frac{2(n+1)(n+\alpha +\beta +1)}{(2n+\alpha +\beta +1)(2n+\alpha +\beta +2)} ,$$ $$b_{2,n,1} =\frac{\beta ^{2} -\alpha ^{2} }{(2n+\alpha +\beta +1)(2n+\alpha +\beta +2)} ,$$ $$b_{3,n,1} =\frac{2(n+\alpha )(n+\beta )}{(2n+\alpha +\beta +1)(2n+\alpha +\beta )} ;$$ $$b_{n+r+1-k,n,r} =\sum _{t=\max (0,k-1,n-r+1)}^{\min (k+1,n+r-1)}b_{n+r-t,n,r-1} b_{t-k+2,t,1} ,$$ with $k=\max (n-r,0),\max (n-r,0)+1,...,n+r$ and $r=2,3,...$. The $(j+1)$-th step of the FD-method consists of solving the BVP (\[5-1\]), (\[5-2\]) with $$\label{39}
F_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\sum _{p=0}^{j}\lambda _{n}^{(j+1-p)} u_{n}^{(p)} (x)-\sum _{l=0}^{r}c_{l} x^{l} u_{n}^{(j)} (x).$$ Using the solution of the base problem (\[10\]) and considering the properties of the classical Jacobi polynomials $P_{n}^{(\alpha ,\beta )} (x)$, of the generalized Jacobi functions ${}^{+} J_{k}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)$, the properties of the fractional Sturm-Liouville type operator ${}^{+} L_{\alpha ,\beta }^{2s} u(x)$ as well as the relations (\[38\]) and (\[39\]) we come to the following assertion.
The solution of problem (\[5-1\]) with the right-hand sides (\[39\]) can be represented by $$\label{40}
u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\underset{k=\max (0,\; n-r(j+1))}{\overset{n+r(j+1)}{\sum}}a_{k}^{(j+1)} \; {}^{+} J_{k}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x),\, \, \, \; \; n,j=0,1,2,...,$$ where $a_{n}^{(j+1)} =0$, $j=0,1,2,...$, and $a_{n}^{(0)}\neq 0$.
Let us substitute (\[40\]) into (\[39\]) and use (\[38\]) with the aim to represent (\[39\]) through the generalized Jacobi functions ${}^{+} J_{k}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)$ only. Then, by changing the summation order we arrive at $$\label{41}
\begin{split}
&{F_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\left(\lambda _{n}^{(j+1)} a_{n}^{(0)} -\underset{t=\max (0,n-r)}{\overset{n+r}{\sum}}a_{t}^{(j)} \underset{l=\max (0,n-t,t-n)}{\overset{r}{\sum}} c_{l} b_{t+l+1-n,t,l} \right) \; {}^{+} J_{n}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)} \\
&{+\underset{m=\max (0,n-rj), m\ne n}{\overset{n+rj}{\sum}}{}^{+} J_{m}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)\underset{p=\left[\frac{|m-n|+r-1}{r} \right]}{\overset{\min (j,n+rj)}{\sum}}\lambda _{n}^{(j+1-p)} a_{m}^{(p)} } \\
&{-\underset{m=\max (0,\; n-r(j+1)), m\ne n}{\overset{n+r(j+1)}{\sum}}{}^{+} J_{m}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )} (x)\underset{l=0}{\overset{r}{\sum}}c_{l} \underset{k=\max (0,n-rj,m-l)}{\overset{\min (n+rj,m+l)}{\sum}}a_{k}^{(j)} b_{k+l+1-m,k,l} ,}
\end{split}$$ where $\left[\sigma \right]$ is the entire part of $\sigma $. Substituting (\[40\]) into (\[7-1\]) and comparing the coefficients in the front of the generalized Jacobi functions ${}^{+} J_{k}^{(-\alpha ,\beta )}(x),$ where $k$ is an integer in $\left[\max (0,\; n-r(j+1)),n+r(j+1)\right],$ we obtain the following formulas for the eigenvalue corrections $$\label{42}
\lambda _{n}^{(j+1)} =\left(a_{n}^{(0)} \right)^{-1} \; \sum _{t=\max (0,n-r)}^{n+r}a_{t}^{(j)} \sum _{l=\max (0,n-t,t-n)}^{r}c_{l} b_{t+l+1-n,t,l} ,\; \; j=0,1,2,...,$$ $$a_{n}^{(j)} =0,\; j=1,2,...,\;$$ $$\label{43}
\lambda _{n}^{(0)} =\frac{\Gamma (n+\alpha +1)\Gamma (n+\beta +s+1)}{\Gamma (n+\alpha -s+1)\Gamma (n+\beta +1)}$$ as well as the following recursive representations for the coefficients in (\[40\]): $$\label{44}
\begin{split}
&a_{m}^{(j+1)} =-\left(\lambda _{m}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n}^{(0)} \right)^{-1} \underset{l=0}{\overset{r}{\sum}}c_{l} \; \underset{k=\max (0,n-rj,m-l)}{\overset{\min (n+rj,m+l)}{\sum}}a_{k}^{(j)} b_{k+l+1-m,k,l},
\end{split}$$ with $m=n+rj+1,n+rj+2,...,n+r(j+1),\; \; m\ne n,\; \; j=0,1,2,...$, $$\label{45}
\begin{split}
&a_{m}^{(j+1)} =\left(\lambda _{m}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n}^{(0)} \right)^{-1} \left(\underset{p=\left[\frac{|m-n|+r-1}{r} \right]}{\overset{\min (j,n+rj)}{\sum}}\lambda _{n}^{(j+1-p)} a_{m}^{(p)} -\underset{l=0}{\overset{r}{\sum}}c_{l} \sum _{k=\max (0,n-rj,m-l)}^{\min (n+rj,m+l)}a_{k}^{(j)} b_{k+l+1-m,k,l} \right),
\end{split}$$ with $m=\max (0,n-rj),\max (0,n-rj)+1,...,n+rj,\; \; m\ne n,\; \; j=0,1,2,...$, $$\label{46}
\begin{split}
&a_{m}^{(j+1)} =-\left(\lambda _{m}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n}^{(0)} \right)^{-1} \sum _{l=0}^{r}c_{l} \sum _{k=\max (0,n-rj,m-l)}^{\min (n+rj,m+l)}a_{k}^{(j)} b_{k+l+1-m,k,l},
\end{split}$$ with $m=\max (0,n-r(j+1)),\max (0,n-r(j+1))+1,...,\max (0,n-rj-1),\; \;m\ne n,\; \; j=0,1,2,...$, and $$\label{47}
a_{n}^{(j+1)} =0,\;\;\;\; j=0,1,2,...,\;\;\;\;a_{n}^{(0)}\neq 0.$$ Formulas (\[40\])-(\[47\]) represent the symbolic algorithm of the FD-method for problem (\[4\]) with the polynomial potential (\[37\]).
Numerical examples {#s4}
==================
\[ex\_r1\] We consider the eigenvalue problem (\[4\]) with $\alpha =1/2 ,\beta =0,$ $s=3/4$, and with potential (\[37\]), where $r=3$, $c_{3} =1/4$ and $c_{l} =0$, $l=0,1,2$. In this case the sufficient convergence condition $r_{n}<1$ (see (\[34\])) is fulfilled for $n\ge 1$ (see Table 1). We have $\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } =1/4$ and in $$M_{n} =\frac{8}{3} \frac{\Gamma \left(n+1\right)}{\left(4n+1\right)\Gamma \left(n+1/2 \right)}.$$ The computer algebra system Maple 17 was used, where the corrections and to the eigenpairs were computed exactly as mathematical expressions, i.e., we had no rounding errors. Below we give the eigenvalue corrections and the coefficients of (\[40\]) for some first steps of the FD-method: $$\lambda _{0}^{(0)} =\frac{3}{8} \sqrt{\pi } ,\; \; \; \; u_{0}^{(0)} (x)=a_{0}^{(0)} {}^{+} J_{0}^{(-1/2 ,0 )} (x),$$ $$\lambda _{0}^{(1)} =-\frac{13c_{3} }{105} , \lambda _{0}^{(2)} =-\frac{{\rm 201134942464}}{{\rm 1943987920875}} \frac{\left(c_{3} \right)^{2} }{\sqrt{\pi } } ,\; \lambda _{0}^{(3)} =-\frac{{\rm 274356801766461046784}}{{\rm 81295088830639587028125}} \frac{\left(c_{3} \right)^{3} }{\pi } ,\;$$ $$\lambda _{0}^{(4)} \approx {\rm 0.001622...}\cdot \frac{\left(c_{3} \right)^{4} }{\pi ^{{3\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {3 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} } } ,\; \dots , \lambda _{0}^{(10)} \approx {\rm 0.000005157...}\cdot \frac{\left(c_{3} \right)^{10} }{\pi ^{{9\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {9 2}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 2} } },$$ $$a_{0}^{(0)} =1,\,\,\,a_{1}^{(1)} =-\frac{1216}{2475} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} c_{3} }{\sqrt{\pi } } ,\,\,\, a_{2}^{(1)} =\frac{2048}{38493} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} c_{3} }{\sqrt{\pi } } ,\,\,\, a_{3}^{(1)} =-\frac{16384}{204633} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} c_{3} }{\sqrt{\pi } } ,$$ $$a_{1}^{(2)} =\frac{{\rm 290443255808}}{{\rm 70816702831875}} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} \left(c_{3} \right)^{2} }{\pi } , a_{2}^{(2)} =\frac{{\rm 193813841149952}}{{\rm 1609728034189275}} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} \left(c_{3} \right)^{2} }{\pi } ,$$ $$a_{3}^{(2)} =-\frac{{\rm 48103527022592}}{{\rm 8557490370203775}} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} \left(c_{3} \right)^{2} }{\pi } , a_{4}^{(2)} =\frac{{\rm 340833471561728}}{{\rm 13515289050237975}} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} \left(c_{3} \right)^{2} }{\pi } ,$$ $$a_{5}^{(2)} =-\frac{{\rm 336081190912}}{{\rm 249927686251425}} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} \left(c_{3} \right)^{2} }{\pi } , a_{6}^{(2)} =\frac{{\rm 68719476736}}{{\rm 48376171671975}} \frac{a_{0}^{(0)} \left(c_{3} \right)^{2} }{\pi } .$$ The approximations $\overset{m}{\lambda }_{n} $ of rank $m$ to the eigenvalues $\lambda _{n} $ for $n=0,1,2,3,4,10$ using the FD-method of rank $m=20$ are given in Table 1. The behavior of the corrections $\lambda _{n}^{(m)} ,\; u_{n}^{(m)} (x)$, $m=0,1,...,10,20$ for the eigenpairs $\lambda _{n} ,$ $u_{n} (x),$ $n=0,10,$ is illustrated in Table 2, which contains the corrections to these eigenvalues as well as the norms of the eigenfunction corrections $|| u_{n}^{(m)} ||$. One can observe that the convergence of the method improves when the eigenpair number $n$ increases (see Remark 3.1). Table 2 shows that the method converges for $n=0$ too, i.e., the conditions of Theorem 3.1 are rough and can be improved.
$n$ $r_{n}$ $\overset{20}{\lambda }_{n} $
----- --------- ----------------------------------
0 1.505 0.630053891717269391713596782178
1 0.602 2.30514376782605437183729542346
2 0.446 4.56663095405447807274309207123
3 0.370 7.26852041545097231248033107978
4 0.324 10.3587519350445765031940934458
10 0.208 35.2508805155975526382623041970
: Approximations $\overset{20}{\lambda }_{n}$ to the eigenvalues $\lambda _{n}$ and the values of the ratio $r_{n}$ of the geometric progression for $n=0,1,2,3,4,10$.
$m$ $\lambda _{0}^{(m)} $ $|| u_{0}^{(m)} || $ $\lambda _{10}^{(m)} $ $|| u_{10}^{(m)} ||$
----- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------
0 0.6647 1.373 35.25 0.3627
1 $-0.03095$ 0.06253 $-0.0002053$ 0.009806
2 $-0.003648$ 0.001742 0.00009424 0.00007673
3 $-0.00001679$ 0.00004165 $ -1.207 \cdot {10}^{-8}$ 0.000002101
4 0.000001138 0.000002067 $6.993 \cdot {10}^{-10}$ $2.059 \cdot {10}^{-8}$
5 $9.723 \cdot {10}^{-8}$ $4.556 \cdot {10}^{-8}$ $-7.034 \cdot {10}^{-13}$ $5.656 \cdot {10}^{-10}$
6 $ -1.319 \cdot {10}^{-10}$ $5.386 \cdot {10}^{-9}$ $1.597 \cdot {10}^{-14}$ $5.657 \cdot {10}^{-12}$
7 $-2.950 \cdot {10}^{-10}$ $ 1.856 \cdot {10}^{-10} $ $-4.932 \cdot {10}^{-17}$ $1.553 \cdot {10}^{-13}$
8 $ -4.443 \cdot {10}^{-12}$ $1.438 \cdot {10}^{-11}$ $7.277 \cdot {10}^{-19}$ $1.558 \cdot {10}^{-15}$
9 $7.229 \cdot {10}^{-13}$ $7.175 \cdot {10}^{-13}$ $-6.316 \cdot {10}^{-21}$ $4.277 \cdot {10}^{-17}$
10 $2.848 \cdot {10}^{-14}$ $3.451 \cdot {10}^{-14}$ $ 2.910 \cdot {10}^{-23}$ $4.293 \cdot {10}^{-19}$
20 $ -3.979 \cdot {10}^{-27}$ $2.621 \cdot {10}^{-26}$ $-3.694 \cdot {10}^{-45}$ $6.793 \cdot {10}^{-35}$
: Corrections $\lambda^{(m)}_{n}, n=0,10$, and the norms of corrections to the corresponding eigenfunctions $u^{(m)}_{n}, n=0,10$, for the FD-method of the ranks $m=0,1,...10, 20$.
\[ex\_r2\] Let us consider the eigenvalue problem (\[4\]) in the case $s-1<\alpha<0$ with the second boundary condition , namely with $\alpha=-1/8$, $\beta=-1/2$, $s =3/4$ and with potential , where $r=3$, $c_{l} =1/12$, $l=0,1,2,3$. In we have $$M_{{n}}={\frac {32}{3}}\,{\frac {\Gamma \left( n+1/2 \right) \Gamma
\left( n+1/8 \right) }{ \left( 16\,n-5 \right) \Gamma \left( n+1/4
\right) \Gamma \left( n-1/8 \right) }}$$ and $\left\| q\right\| _{\infty } =\mathop{\max }\limits_{x\in \left[-1,1\right]} \left|q(x)\right|=1/3$. Table 3 shows that the sufficient convergence condition (\[34\]) is fulfilled, i.e., $r_{n}<1$ for $n\ge 2$.
As in Example \[ex\_r1\] the computer algebra system Maple 17 was used, where the corrections to the eigenpairs and were computed exactly as mathematical expressions. The approximations $\overset{m}{\lambda }_{n} $ of rank $m$ to the eigenvalues $\lambda _{n} $ for $n=0,1,2,3,4,10$ using the FD-method of ranks $m=20$ and $m=30$ are given in Table 3. The normalized solution of problem (\[6\]) with the second boundary condition is given by . The behavior of the corrections $\lambda _{n}^{(m)}$, $m=0,1,...,10,20,30,$ for the eigenvalues $\lambda _{n} ,$ $n=0,1,2,3,4,$ is illustrated in Table 4. One can observe that the method converges for $n=0,1$ too, i.e. the conditions of Theorem 3.1 are rough and can be improved. Besides we can see that the convergence of the method improves when the eigenpair number $n$ increases (see Remark 3.1).
$n$ $r_{n}$ $\overset{20}{\lambda }_{n} $ $\overset{30}{\lambda }_{n} $
----- --------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------
0 1.202 0.15067840864298071809615545712 0.15067840864298071808633595280
1 1.093 1.43411319565086825800583685557 1.43411319565086825801565633056
2 0.687 3.36697390018171063527745195043 3.36697390018171063527745197976
3 0.543 5.81865643939502492320620997309 5.81865643939502492320620997309
4 0.463 8.69578418818622939490618135946 8.69578418818622939490618135946
10 0.286 32.6418532333094312351786092007 32.6418532333094312351786092007
: Approximations $\overset{m}{\lambda }_{n}$ of the ranks $m=20,30$ to the eigenvalues $\lambda _{n}$ and the values of the ratio $r_{n}$ of the geometric progression for $n=0,1,2,3,4,10$.
$m$ $\lambda _{0}^{(m)} $ $\lambda _{1}^{(m)}$ $\lambda _{2}^{(m)} $ $\lambda _{3}^{(m)} $ $\lambda _{4}^{(m)} $
----- ---------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
0 $0.07396$ $1.294$ $3.236$ $5.691$ $8.569$
1 $0.08152$ $0.1389$ $0.1297$ $0.1269$ $0.1260$
2 $-0.005109$ $0.001165$ $0.001380$ $0.0004626$ $0.0002623$
3 $0.0003151$ $-0.0003367$ $ 0.7655 \cdot {10}^{-5}$ $0.9807 \cdot {10}^{-5}$ $0.2132 \cdot {10}^{-5}$
4 $-0.5669 \cdot {10}^{-5}$ $0.8132 \cdot {10}^{-5}$ $-0.2832 \cdot {10}^{-5}$ $2.742 \cdot {10}^{-7}$ $2.891 \cdot {10}^{-9}$
5 $-0.1551 \cdot {10}^{-5}$ $0.1676 \cdot {10}^{-5}$ $-1.164 \cdot {10}^{-7}$ $ -9.865 \cdot {10}^{-9}$ $ 1.484 \cdot {10}^{-9}$
6 $1.943 \cdot {10}^{-7}$ $-1.979 \cdot {10}^{-7}$ $4.191 \cdot {10}^{-9}$ $-5.421 \cdot {10}^{-10}$ $-1.394 \cdot {10}^{-11}$
7 $-4.321 \cdot {10}^{-9}$ $ 3.925 \cdot {10}^{-9} $ $4.053 \cdot {10}^{-10}$ $-7.920 \cdot {10}^{-12}$ $-1.403 \cdot {10}^{-12}$
8 $ -1.618 \cdot {10}^{-9}$ $1.619 \cdot {10}^{-9}$ $-5.889 \cdot {10}^{-13}$ $1.278 \cdot {10}^{-13}$ $-2.140 \cdot {10}^{-14}$
9 $2.199 \cdot {10}^{-10}$ $-2.186 \cdot {10}^{-10}$ $-1.253 \cdot {10}^{-12}$ $1.466 \cdot {10}^{-14}$ $-7.319 \cdot {10}^{-17}$
10 $-4.351 \cdot {10}^{-12}$ $4.382 \cdot {10}^{-12}$ $ -3.167 \cdot {10}^{-14}$ $5.091 \cdot {10}^{-16}$ $1.464 \cdot {10}^{-18}$
20 $ -1.116 \cdot {10}^{-20}$ $1.116 \cdot {10}^{-20}$ $2.576 \cdot {10}^{-26}$ $-2.037 \cdot {10}^{-30}$ $7.184 \cdot {10}^{-34}$
30 $ 8.072 \cdot {10}^{-30}$ $-8.072 \cdot {10}^{-30}$ $7.176 \cdot {10}^{-38}$ $1.316 \cdot {10}^{-44}$ $4.848 \cdot {10}^{-50}$
: Corrections $\lambda^{(m)}_{n}, n=0,1,2,3,4$ for the FD-method of the ranks $m=0,1,...,10,20,30$.
Let us consider problem (\[4\]) with $\alpha =\beta =0,\, \, s =3/4$ and with the potential $q(x)=(\text{sgn}(x)+1)/2$. The potential is not polynomial but we can use the general idea of the symbolic algorithms above representing the potential as a series with respect to the base problem solution. Then we represent the solution $u_n^{(j+1)}(x)$ of the problems (\[5-1\]) by a series of the same type and obtain some recurrence relations for the series coefficients like (\[43\])-(\[46\]) but with $\infty$ as the upper bound for $m$. By restricting $m$ by some finite $N$ we have an approximate symbolic algorithm which we describe below in detail.
The solution of the base problem in this case is $$\label{48}
u_{n}^{(0)} (x)=P_{n} (x),\, \, \lambda _{n}^{(0)} =\frac{\Gamma (n+7/4)}{\Gamma (n+1/4)},$$ where $P_{n} (x)$ is the Legendre polynomial. We look for the solution of problem (\[5-1\]), (\[5-2\]) in the form $$\label{49}
u_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\underset{s=0, s\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}} a_{n,s}^{(j+1)} P_{s} (x)$$ which satisfies the condition $$\label{50}
\int _{-1}^{1} u_{n}^{(j+1)} (\, x)u_{n}^{(0)} (\, x)dx=0.$$ Let us find for the right-hand side of (\[5-1\]) the following expansion like (similar to \[49\]) $$\label{51}
F_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\sum _{s=0}^{\infty } f_{n,s}^{(j+1)} P_{s} (x).$$ To find the coefficients of this expansion we use the formula $$\label{52}
\begin{split}
&\frac{2b_{s,t}}{2t+1}=\int _{-1}^{1} q(x)P_{s} (x)P_{t} (x)dx=\int _{0}^{1} P_{s} (x)P_{t} (x)dx \\
&{=\frac{2}{\pi (s-t)(s+t+1)} \left[A_{s,t} \sin \left(\frac{s\pi}{2}\right)\cos \left(\frac{t\pi}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{A_{s,t} } \sin \left(\frac{t\pi}{2} \right)\cos \left(\frac{s\pi}{2}\right)\right],}
\end{split}$$ with $$A_{s,t} =\frac{\Gamma \left(\frac{1+s}{2} \right)\Gamma \left(1+\frac{t}{2} \right)}{\Gamma \left(\frac{1+t}{2} \right)\Gamma \left(1+\frac{s}{2} \right)}$$ (see, e.g., [@be], Volume 1, Section 3.12, formula (15)). Then we obtain $$\label{53}
\begin{split}
&F_{n}^{(j+1)} (x)=\lambda _{n,s}^{(j+1)} P_{n} (x)+\sum _{p=1}^{j}\lambda _{n,s}^{(j-p+1)} \underset{s=0, s\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}} a_{n,s}^{(p)} P_{s} (x) \\
&{-\underset{s=0, s\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}}a_{n,s}^{(j)} \sum _{t=0}^{\infty } b_{s,t}^{} P_{t} (x)=\left(\lambda _{n,s}^{(j+1)} -\underset{s=0, s\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}}a_{n,s}^{(j)} b_{s,n}^{} \right)P_{n} (x)} \\
&{+\underset{s=0, s\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}} \left(\sum _{p=1}^{j}\lambda _{n,s}^{(j-p+1)} a_{n,s}^{(p)} -\underset{t=0, t\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}}a_{n,t}^{(j)} b_{t,s}^{} \right)P_{s} (x)}.
\end{split}$$ Now, from (\[5-1\]), (\[5-2\]) and (\[51\]), we obtain the following exact symbolic algorithm $$\label{54}
\begin{split}
&\lambda _{n}^{(j+1)} =\underset{s=0, s\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}}a_{n,s}^{(j)} b_{s,n}\\
&f_{n,s}^{(j+1)} =\underset{p=1}{\overset{j}{\sum}}\lambda _{n}^{(j-p+1)} a_{n,s}^{(p)} -\underset{t=0, t\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}} a_{n,t}^{(j)} b_{t,s}, \\
&a_{n,s}^{(j+1)} =\frac{1}{\lambda _{s}^{(0)} -\lambda _{n}^{(0)} } \left(\sum _{p=1}^{j}\lambda _{n}^{(j-p+1)} a_{n,s}^{(p)} -\underset{t=0, t\ne n}{\overset{\infty}{\sum}} a_{n,t}^{(j)} b_{t,s}\right), \\
& s=0,1,...,\infty ,\, \, \, \, s\ne n.
\end{split}$$ The truncated sums with $N$ summands represent a practically realizable symbolic algorithm.
The computations for the case $n=0, N=64$, using Maple with 32 significant digits, resulted in $$\overset{4}{\lambda}_0=0.73277189290359102980467600413989,$$ $$\overset{8}{\lambda}_0=0.73277298398625680196269290377257,$$ $$\overset{16}{\lambda}_0=0.73277298419141034176589978524115.$$ The correction to the eigenvalue in the 16-th step (i.e. the 16-th summand of the series) is $$\lambda _{0}^{(16)} ={\rm 0.88694390139173379459088819979359e-13}$$ and all corrections with odd numbers are equal to zero. It is easy to obtain analytically the corrections $\lambda _{0}^{(0)} =\frac{3\sqrt{2} }{8\pi } \Gamma ^{2} \left(\frac{3}{4} \right),\, \, u_{0}^{(0)} (x)=1,\;\lambda _{0}^{(1)} =1.$
[**[Acknowledgment.]{}**]{} We want to thank the anonymous referees for their helpful remarks which contributed to improvement of the article.
[9]{}
G. Adomian, [Solving frontier problems of physics: The Decomposition method]{}, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht and Boston, 1994. E.L. Allgower, Introduction to Numerical Continuation Methods, Colorado State University, Colorado, 1990. P. Antunes and R. Ferreira, An augmented-rbf method for solving fractional Sturm–Liouville eigenvalue problem, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 37 (2003), no. 1, A515–A535. M. A. Armstrong, Basic Topology, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1983. H.Bateman and A. Erdèlyi, Higher Trancendental Functions. Vol. 1, 2, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953. S. Chen, J. Shen and L.-L. Wang. Generalized Jacobi functions and their applications to fractional differential equations, Math. Comp., 2016, no.85, 1603-1638. I.I. Demkiv, I.P. Gavrilyuk, V.L. Makarov, Super-exponentially convergent parallel algorithm for the eigenvalue problems with fractional derivatives, [Comput. Methods Appl. Math.]{} [2016]{}; 16 (4):633-652; DOI: 10.1515/cmam-2016-0018. N. Ford and M. Morgado, Fractional boundary value problems: Analysis and numerical methods, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 14 (2011), no. 4, 554-567. G.M. Fichtenholz, Foundations of mathematical analysis, Nauka, Moscow, 1968. I. Gavrilyuk, V. Makarov, M.Hermann and M.Kutniv. Exact and truncated difference schemes for boundary Value ODEs, Birkh[ä]{}user, Basel, 2011. I. P. Gavrilyuk, V. Makarov and N. Romaniuk, Super-exponentially convergent parallel algorithm for an abstract eigenvalue problem with applications to ODEs, Nonl. Oscillations 18 (2015), no. 3, 332-356. I. S. Gradshteyn, I. M. Ryzhik, Y. V. Geronimus and M. Y. Tseytlin, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products, Academic Press, New York, 2014. A. Gusev, V. Gerdt, M. Kaschiev, V. Rostovtsev, V. Samoylov, T. Tupikova, S. Vinitsky, A Symbolic-Numerical Algorithm for Solving the Eigenvalue Problem for a Hydrogen Atom in Magnetic Field, in: Computer Algebra in Scientific Computing (CASC 2006), Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 4194, Springer, Berlin (2006), 205–218. A. Malinowska, T. Odzijewicz and D. Torres, Advanced Methods in the Fractional Calculus of Variations, Springer, Berlin, 2015. V.L.Makarov, The FD-method for first-order linear hyperbolic differential equations with piecewise smooth coefficients, J. Math. Sci., 1995, Vol. 77, No. 5, 3399-3405. V.L. Makarov, On a functional-difference method of an arbitrary accuracy order for a Sturm-Liouville problem with piece-wise smooth coefficients, [DAN SSSR]{}, [1991]{}, Vol. 320, No.1, 34-39. V.L.Makarov, FD-method - an exponential convergence rate, [Computational and applied mathematics]{}, Kiev, 1997, No. 82, 69-74. V.L.Makarov, Exact solutions of a spectral problem for the Schr[ö]{}dinger differential operator with polynomial potential in $R^2$, [Reports of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine]{}, Kiev, 2017, No. 1, 3-9. J.Pryce, Numerical solution of Sturm - Liouville problems, Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993. R. Rach, A bibliography of the theory and applications of the Adomian decomposition method, [Kybernetes]{}, [2012]{}, Vol. 41, No. 7/8, DOI 10.1108/k.2012.06741gaa.007. E.M.Reingold, J.Nievergelt, N.Deo, [Combinatorial algorithms. Theory and Practice]{}, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1977. F. Tricomi and A. Erdèlyi, The asymptotic expansion of a ratio of gamma functions, [Pacific Journal of Mathematics]{}, 1 [1951]{}, no. 1, 133-142. N.Ja.Vilenkin. Combinatorics. Moscow: Nauka, 1969.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $S$ be a regular local ring (or a polynomial ring over a field). In this paper we provide a criterion for Golodness of an ideal of $S$. We apply this to find some classes of Golod ideals. It is shown that for an ideal (or homogeneous ideal) ${\mathfrak{a} }$, there exists an integer $\rho({\mathfrak{a} })$ such that for any integer $m>\rho({\mathfrak{a} })$, any ideal between ${\mathfrak{a} }^{2m-2\rho({\mathfrak{a} })}$ and ${\mathfrak{a} }^m$ is Golod. In the case where $S$ is graded polynomial ring over a field of characteristic zero or where $S$ is of dimension 2, we establish that $\rho({\mathfrak{a} })=1$. Among other things, we prove that if an ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is a Koszul module, then ${\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$ is Golod for any ideal ${\mathfrak{b} }$ containing ${\mathfrak{a} }$.'
address: 'Rasoul Ahangari Maleki, School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), P.O. Box: 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran'
author:
- Rasoul Ahangari Maleki
title: Golod property of powers of ideals and of ideals with linear resolutions
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m} },k)$ be a Notherian local ring (or a standard graded $k$-algebra) with the (homogeneous) maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m} }$ and the residue field $k$. The Poincaré series of a finitely generated $R$-module $M$ is denoted by $P_{M}^{R}(t)$ and defined to be the formal power series $\sum_{i\geq 0}\dim_k{\operatorname{Tor}}_{i}^{R}(M,k)t^i$. The Poincaré series $P_{M}^{R}(t)$ is rational if $P_{M}^{R}(t)=f(t)/g(t)$ for some complex polynomials $f(t)$ and $g(t)$. Rationality of a Poincaré series provides a repetitive relation for Betti numbers which can be useful in constructing a minimal free resolution. But in general this power series is not a rational function. Anick [@D] discovered the first example of a local ring $R$ such that $P_{k}^{R}(t)$ is not a rational function. Also see [@ROO] for more such examples. However counterexamples do not seem to be plentiful.\
Let $(S,{\mathfrak{n} },k)$ and $(R,{\mathfrak{m} },k)$ are Noetherian local rings ( or a standard graded $k$-algebra) with the maximal (or homogeneous maximal) ideals ${\mathfrak{n} }$ and ${\mathfrak{m} }$ respectively, and with the same residue field $k$. Let $\varphi:(S,{\mathfrak{n} },k)\rightarrow (R,{\mathfrak{m} },k)$ be a surjective ring homomorphism. Then there is a coefficientwise inequality of formal power series which was initially derived by Serre : $$P_{k}^{R}(t)\preceq\frac{P^{S}_{k}(t)}{1-t(P^{S}_{R}(t)-1)}.$$ The homomorphism $\varphi$ is said to be Golod if the equality holds. In the case where $S$ is a regular local ring (or a polynomial over $k$) and $\dim S={\operatorname{emb dim}}R$ and ${\mathfrak{a} }=\ker\varphi$ we say that $R$ is Golod, or the ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is Golod, if the homomorphism $\varphi$ is Golod . In this case the Golodness of $R$ implies that $P_{k}^{R}(t)$ is rational. More than this, Golod rings are an example of good rings, in the sense that all finitely generated modules over such rings have rational Poincaré series sharing a common denominator [@Av-K]. In the case where $S$ is a polynomial ring over a field of characteristic zero, Herzog and Huneke [@HH] find quite large classes of Golod ideals. They show that for a homogeneous ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }$, the ideals ${\mathfrak{a} }^m$, ${\mathfrak{a} }^{(m)}$ (the $m$-th symbolic power of ${\mathfrak{a} }$) and $\widetilde{{\mathfrak{a} }^{m}}$ (the saturated power of ${\mathfrak{a} }$) are Golod for all $m\geq 2$. Their proofs hinge on the definition of strongly Golod ideals. The authors call an ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is strongly Golod if $\partial({\mathfrak{a} })^2\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }$. Here $\partial({\mathfrak{a} })$ denotes the ideal generated by all the partial derivatives of elements of ${\mathfrak{a} }$. They show that strongly Golod ideals are Golod.\
In view of these results, it is a natural expectation that the same results of [@HH] also must be true when $S$ is a regular local ring (or a polynomial ring over a field of any characteristic ). A known fact in this direction is a result of Herzog, Welker and Yassemi [@HWY] which states that large powers of an ideal are Golod. Also in [@HSt] it is shown that if ${\mathfrak{a} }$ and ${\mathfrak{b} }$ are ideals of a regular local ring (or a polynomial ring over a field) and ${\mathfrak{a} }\cap {\mathfrak{b} }={\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$, then ${\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$ is Golod. Viewing these known Golod ideals, another ideals which may candidate for being Golod are products of ideals. Newly Stefani [@St] find an example of two monomial ideals in a polynomial ring over a field, whose product is not Golod.
In this paper we are going to find some new classes of Golod ideals of a regular local ring ((or polynomial ring over a filed). In Section one we show the following: A surjective homomorphism $\varphi:(S,{\mathfrak{n} },k)\rightarrow (R,{\mathfrak{m} },k)$ of local rings is Golod if there exists a proper ideal $L$ of $R$ satisfying $L^2=0$ and the induced maps $${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R/L,k)$$ by the projection $R\rightarrow R/L$ are zero for all $i>0$. In the case where $S$ is a regular local ring ( or a polynomial ring over a field), this provides a criterion for Golodness of an ideal of $S$. In section two we apply this to get some class of Golod ideals.
Let ${\mathfrak{a} }$ and ${\mathfrak{b} }$ be proper ideals of a regular local ring (or a polynomial ring over $k$) $(S,{\mathfrak{n} },k)$. We show that there exists a positive integer $\rho({\mathfrak{a} })$ (see Section 2 for the definition) such that any ideal between ${\mathfrak{a} }^{2(m-\rho({\mathfrak{a} }))}$ and ${\mathfrak{a} }^m$ is Golod for all $m > \rho({\mathfrak{a} })$. In the following cases we are able to prove that $\rho({\mathfrak{a} })=1$.
1. $S$ is a polynomial ring over a field of characteristic zero, and ${\mathfrak{a} }$ any homogeneous ideal of $S$;
2. $S$ has Krull dimension at most 2;
3. ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is generated by a part of a regular system of parameter of $S$.
Also we show that if ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is a Koszul ideal ( that is the ideal whose associated graded module with respect to ${\mathfrak{n} }$ has a linear resolution) then ${\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$ is Golod for all ideal ${\mathfrak{b} }$ containing ${\mathfrak{a} }$, see Theorem \[Koszul\]. In particular case if ${\mathfrak{a} }$ generated by a regular system of parameter and ${\mathfrak{b} }$ contains a power ${\mathfrak{a} }^r$, then ${\mathfrak{a} }^r {\mathfrak{b} }$ is Golod.
Golod homomorphisms and Massey operations
=========================================
There is an important tool for investigating Golodness of a surjective homomorphism of local rings and studying of resolutions. We use this tool in this section.
Let $\varphi:(S,{\mathfrak{n} },k)\rightarrow (R,{\mathfrak{m} },k)$ be a surjective homomorphism of local rings. Assume $\mathcal{D}$ is a minimal free resolution of $k$ over $S$ equipped with a graded commutative DG-algebra structure; such a resolution always exists, see [@G]. Let $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{D}\otimes_S R$. Then $\mathcal{A}$ is a graded commutative DG-algebra. We denote $Z(\mathcal{A})$, $B(\mathcal{A})$ and ${\operatorname{H}}(\mathcal{A})=\frac{Z(\mathcal{A})}{B(\mathcal{A})}$ the module of cycles, boundaries and homologies of $\mathcal{A}$ respectively. If $a$ is a homogeneous element of $\mathcal{A}$, the degree of $a$ is denoted by $|a|$ and we set $\bar{a}=(-1)^{|a|+1}a$.\
According to Gulliksen, we say $\mathcal{A}$ admits a trivial Massey operation if for some homogeneous $k$-basis $\mathcal{B}=\{h_i\}_{\geq 1}$ of ${\operatorname{H}}_{\geq
1}(\mathcal{A}):=\bigoplus _{i\geq 1}{\operatorname{H}}_i(\mathcal{A})$ there exists a function $\mu:\bigsqcup_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathcal{B}^n
\rightarrow \mathcal{A}$, such that
1. $\mu(h_{\lambda})=z_{\lambda}\in Z(\mathcal{A})$ with $cls(z)=h$;\
2. $\partial \mu(h_{\lambda_1},\cdots,h_{\lambda_n})=
\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}\overline{\mu(h_{\lambda_1},\cdots,h_{\lambda_j})}\mu(h_{\lambda_{j+1}},\cdots,h_{\lambda_n})$ for $n\geq 2$;\
3. $\mu(\mathcal{B}^n)\subseteq {\mathfrak{m} }\mathcal{A}$ for $n\geq 1$.
It is well known that the homomorphism $\varphi$ is Golod if and only if the $DG$ algebra $\mathcal{A}$ admits a trivial Massey operation (see [@Av-K] and [@GU]). The following provides a criterion for Golodness of a homomorphism. The idea of this was motivated by [@RS Lemma 1.2]. We apply similar technic for the proof.
\[Key\] If there exists a proper ideal $L$ of $R$ with $L^2=0$ such that the map
$${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R/L,k)$$ induced by the projection $R\rightarrow R/L$ is zero for all $i>0$, then the map $\varphi$ is Golod. Moreover, the Massey operation $\mu$ can be constructed so that ${\operatorname{Im}}\mu\subseteq L \mathcal{A}$.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{D}\otimes_S R$ be as above. For proving that $\varphi$ is Golod we show that $\mu$ can be chosen that $\mu(h_{\lambda_1})\mu(h_{\lambda_2})=0$ for all $h_{\lambda_1}, h_{\lambda_2}\in \mathcal{B}$.
We have the isomorphisms $\mathcal{D}\otimes_S R/L\cong
(\mathcal{D}\otimes_S R)\otimes_R R/L=\mathcal{A}\otimes_R R/L\cong
\mathcal{A}/L\mathcal{A}$ of complexes of $S$-modules. Hence the map ${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R/L,k)$ can be identified with the map $$\psi_i:{\operatorname{H}}_i(\mathcal{A})\rightarrow {\operatorname{H}}_i(\mathcal{A}/L\mathcal{A})$$ induced by the projection $\mathcal{A}\rightarrow
\mathcal{A}/L\mathcal{A}$. Now let $h_{\lambda}\in\mathcal{B}$ so $h_{\lambda}=cls(z)$ for some $z\in Z_i(\mathcal{A})$ and for some $i>0$. Since $\psi_i(h_{z_{\lambda}})=0$, there is an element $x\in
B_i(\mathcal{A})$ such that $z-x \in L\mathcal{A}_i$. By setting $z_{\lambda}=z-x$ which is a cycle, we have $h_{\lambda}=cls({z_{\lambda}})$. Therefore every element $h_{\lambda}$ of $\mathcal{B}$ can be represented as $cls(z_{\lambda}) $ for some $z_{\lambda}\in Z(\mathcal{A})\cap
L\mathcal{A}$. Now we define $\mu(h_{\lambda})=z_{\lambda}$. Since $L^2=0$, for any two element $h_{\lambda_1}, h_{\lambda_2}$ we get $\mu(h_{\lambda_1})\mu(h_{\lambda_2})=0$. By using this property we may set $\mu(h_{\lambda_1},\cdots,h_{\lambda_n})=0$ for all $n\geq
2$ and then obviously $(2)$ is satisfied and $\varphi$ is Golod.
In the rest of the paper $(S,{\mathfrak{n} },k)$ denotes a regular local ring (or a polynomial over $k$ ) with the maximal (or homogeneous maximal) ideal ${\mathfrak{n} }$ and the residue field $k$. In the graded case all modules considered to be graded. Also we set $d=\dim
S$.
\[diagr\] Assume that $K$ is the Koszul complex of $S$ with respect to a minimal system of generators of ${\mathfrak{n} }$. We denote by $\mathcal{Z}$ the cycles of $K$. The complex $K$ is a minimal free resolution of $k$. For ideals ${\mathfrak{a} }\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }$ of $S$ we have the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} },k)\ar[d]^{\cong} \ar[r]^{ \varphi_i}& {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{b} },k) \ar[d]^{\cong}\\
{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i-1}({\mathfrak{a} },k)\ar[d]^{\cong} \ar[r]& {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i-1}({\mathfrak{b} },k) \ar[d]^{\cong}\\
{\operatorname{H}}_{i-1}({\mathfrak{a} }K )\ar[r]&{\operatorname{H}}_{i-1}({\mathfrak{b} }K )}$$ for all $i\geq 1$, where the top row induced by the natural isomorphism $S/{\mathfrak{a} }\rightarrow S/{\mathfrak{b} }$, the middle row by the inclusion ${\mathfrak{a} }\subseteq
{\mathfrak{b} }$ and the bottom row by the inclusion ${\mathfrak{a} }K\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }K$ (of complexes).
The following provides a criterion for the Golodness of an ideal.
\[cycle\] Let the situation be as Remark \[diagr\]. Assume that ${\mathfrak{b} }^2\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }$ and one of the following equivalent conditions hold.
1. $\mathcal{Z}_i\cap {\mathfrak{a} }K_i\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }\mathcal{Z}_i$ for all $i\geq 1$;
2. ${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} },k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{b} },k)$ is zero for all $i\geq 1$.
Then the ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is a Golod.
For an ideal ${\mathfrak{c} }$ of $S$ we have $${\operatorname{H}}_i({\mathfrak{c} }K)={\operatorname{H}}({\mathfrak{c} }K_{i+1}\rightarrow {\mathfrak{c} }K_i\rightarrow
{\mathfrak{c} }K_{i-1})=\frac{\mathcal{Z}_i\cap {\mathfrak{c} }K_i}{{\mathfrak{c} }\mathcal{Z}_i}.$$ Hence in view of Remark \[diagr\], for each $i\geq 1$, the map ${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} },k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{b} },k)$ can be identified with the natural map $$\frac{\mathcal{Z}_i\cap {\mathfrak{a} }K_i}{{\mathfrak{a} }\mathcal{Z}_i}\rightarrow
\frac{\mathcal{Z}_i\cap {\mathfrak{b} }K_i}{{\mathfrak{b} }\mathcal{Z}_i}.$$ Thus $(1)$ and $(2)$ are equivalent. Set $R:=S/{\mathfrak{a} }$ and $L:={\mathfrak{b} }/{\mathfrak{a} }$. For every $i\geq1$, the map
$${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R/L,k)$$ can be identified with the map $${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} },k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i(S/{\mathfrak{b} },k)$$ which is zero. Also by the hypothesis we get $L^2=0$. Now the assertion follows from Lemma \[Key\].
Golod ideals
============
In this section we apply the results of previous section to obtain some classes of Golod ideals.
Assume that ${\mathfrak{c} }$ is an ideal of $S$ and $N$ is a submodule of finitely generated $S$-module $M$. Artin-Rees lemma [@E Lemma 5.1] states that there exists an integer $r$ such that $$N\cap {\mathfrak{c} }^mM ={\mathfrak{c} }^{m-r}(N\cap {\mathfrak{c} }^rM)$$ for all $m\geq r$. The smallest such number $r$ is called the Artin-Rees number. A slightly weaker statement which follows from the lemma, and that is good enough for application, is that there exists a positive integer $r$ such that for all $m\geq r$ the following inclusion holds $$N\cap
{\mathfrak{c} }^mM\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }^{m-r}N.$$\
Following the notation of Section one let $K$ and $\mathcal{Z}$ be the Koszul complex and Koszul cycles. Thus from the above argument, for an ideal ${\mathfrak{c} }$ of $S$ there exists the smallest integer $\rho_i({\mathfrak{c} })$ such that the inclusion
$$\mathcal{Z}_i\cap {\mathfrak{c} }^mK_{i}\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }^{m-\rho_i({\mathfrak{c} })}\mathcal{Z}_i$$
holds for all $m\geq \rho_i({\mathfrak{c} })$. Define $\rho({\mathfrak{c} })$ to be the number $\max \{\rho_1({\mathfrak{c} }),\cdots,\rho_d({\mathfrak{c} })
\}$. We call this number the *Koszul Artin-Ress* number of the ideal ${\mathfrak{c} }$.
\[ro\] It follows from Remark \[diagr\] that $\rho({\mathfrak{c} })$ is the smallest integer $n$ such that for all $m\geq n$ and $i\geq 1$, the maps $${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{c} }^m,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{c} }^{m-n},k)$$ are zero.
The following theorem covers a result of Herzog et al. [@HWY] which says that all higher powers of an ideal of a regular local ring are Golod.
\[Golod\] Let ${\mathfrak{c} }$ be an ideal of $S$ and $m$ be a positive integer with $m>\rho({\mathfrak{c} })$. If ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is an ideal of $S$ such that ${\mathfrak{c} }^{2(m-\rho({\mathfrak{c} }))}\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }^m$. Then ${\mathfrak{a} }^p$ is Golod for all $p\geq 1$. In particular ${\mathfrak{c} }^m$ is Golod.
Let $p\geq 1$ be an integer. We have the following inclusions $$\mathcal{Z}_i\cap {\mathfrak{a} }^p K_{i}\subseteq \mathcal{Z}_i\cap {\mathfrak{c} }^{mp}K_{i}\subseteq{\mathfrak{c} }^{mp-\rho({\mathfrak{c} })}\mathcal{Z}_i$$ for all $1\leq i\leq d$ where the right inclusion follows from the definition of $\rho({\mathfrak{c} })$. Set ${\mathfrak{b} }:={\mathfrak{c} }^{mp-\rho({\mathfrak{c} })}$ thus we get ${\mathfrak{b} }^2\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }^p\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }$ and $\mathcal{Z}_i\cap
{\mathfrak{a} }^p K_{i}\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }\mathcal{Z}_i$. Now applying Proposition \[cycle\] we conclude that ${\mathfrak{a} }^p$ is a Golod ideal.
Let ${\mathfrak{a} }$, ${\mathfrak{b} }$ and ${\mathfrak{c} }$ be ideals of $S$. Assume that for some integers $p,q\geq\rho({\mathfrak{c} })$ the following containments hold
$${\mathfrak{c} }^{2p-\rho({\mathfrak{c} })}\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }^{p},\ \
{\mathfrak{c} }^{2q-\rho({\mathfrak{c} })}\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }^{q}.$$ Then ${\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$ is Golod.
From the hypothesis we have ${\mathfrak{c} }^{2(p+q-\rho({\mathfrak{c} }))}\subseteq{\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }^{p+q}$. Now by the above theorem we get the desired.
For an ideal ${\mathfrak{c} }$ of $S$ we have $\rho({\mathfrak{c} })\geq 1$, by definition. In view of Theorem \[Golod\], it would be good if $\rho({\mathfrak{c} })=1$. In the graded case we show that the Koszul Artin-Ress number of any homogeneous ideal reaches its lower bound.
\[deriv\] Let $S=k[X_1,\cdots,X_d]$ be a graded polynomial ring over a field $k$ of characteristic zero. For a homogeneous ideal ${\mathfrak{c} }$ of $S$ with ${\mathfrak{c} }\subseteq (X_1,\cdots,X_d)^2$, let $$0\rightarrow F_n\xrightarrow{\phi_n}F_{n-1}\rightarrow \cdots
\rightarrow F_1\xrightarrow{\phi_1}F_0\rightarrow S/{\mathfrak{c} }\rightarrow
0$$ be the graded minimal free resolution of $S/{\mathfrak{c} }$. Let $b_i$ be the rank of $F_i$ and $f_{i 1},\cdots, f_{i b_i}$ be a homogeneous basis of $F_i$. Also, assume that $$\phi_i(f_{ij})=\sum_{k=1}^{b_{i-1}} \alpha
_{jk}^{(i)}f_{i-1 k},$$ where the $\alpha _{jk}^{(i)}$ are homogeneous polynomials in $S$. Set $R=S/{\mathfrak{c} }$ and let $K^{R}$ be the Koszul complex of the ring $R$ with respect to a minimal homogeneous generating set of the graded maximal ideal of the ring. Then $K^R_1$ is the free module $\oplus_{i=1}^{d} Re_i$ with the basis $e_1,\cdots,e_d$ and for each $l=1,\cdots,d$ the elements $e_{i_1}\wedge\cdots \wedge e_{i_l}$ provide the natural $R$-basis for the free module $K^R_l=\bigwedge ^l(\oplus_{i=1}^{d} Re_i)$. From a result of Herzog [@H Corollary 2] for each $l=1,\cdots,
n$ a homogeneous $k$-basis of ${\operatorname{H}}_l(K^R)$ is given by cycles of the form $$z=\sum_{1\leq i_1 < i_2< \cdots <i_l\leq d}
u_{j_1,\cdots,j_l}e_{i_1}\wedge\cdots \wedge e_{i_l}$$ where each $u_{j_1,\cdots,j_l}$ is a linear combinations of Jacobians of the form $$\frac{\partial(\alpha _{j_1 j_2}^{(l)},\alpha
_{j_2j_3}^{(l-1)},\cdots, \alpha _{j_l 1}^{(1)})}{\partial
(x_{i_1},\cdots,x_{i_l})}$$ with $1\leq j_k\leq b_{l-k+1}$. Here the Jacobian $\frac{\partial (g_1,\cdots,g_l)}{\partial
(x_{i_1},\cdots,x_{i_l})}$ of the polynomials $g_1, \cdots, g_l$ with respect to $x_{i_1},\cdots,x_{i_l}$ is defined to be $${\operatorname{det}}(\frac{\partial g_k}{\partial X_{i_j}})_{1\leq k,j\leq l}\ \text{mod}\ \ {\mathfrak{c} }.$$ Denote by $\partial({\mathfrak{c} })$ the ideal generated by partial derivatives $\partial f/\partial X_i$ with $f\in {\mathfrak{c} }$ and $i=1,\cdots,d$. Since the elements $\alpha^{(1)}_{j_l 1}$ with $j_l=1,\cdots,b_1$ generate ${\mathfrak{c} }$, we see that $u_{j_1,\cdots,j_l} \in \partial({\mathfrak{c} })$. Thus the homology classes of elements of $\mathcal{Z}^R_l\cap \partial({\mathfrak{c} })K_l^R$ generate the homology module ${\operatorname{H}}_l(K^R)$, where $\mathcal{Z}_l^R$ denotes the $l$-cycles of $K^R$.
Let $S$ be a graded polynomial ring over a field of characteristic zero. Then for any homogeneous proper ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }$ of $S$ the following statement hold.
1. $\rho({\mathfrak{a} })=1$;\
2. any homogeneous ideal ${\mathfrak{b} }$ with ${\mathfrak{a} }^{2m-2}\subseteq {\mathfrak{b} }\subseteq
{\mathfrak{a} }^m$ is Golod.
We first prove the following claim: if ${\mathfrak{c} }_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }_2 $ are homogeneous ideals of $S$ such that $\partial ({\mathfrak{c} }_1)\subseteq
{\mathfrak{c} }_2$, then the map ${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{c} }_1,k)\rightarrow
{\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{c} }_2,k)$ is zero for all $i>0$. Set $R_1=S/{\mathfrak{c} }_1$ and $R_2=S/{\mathfrak{c} }_2$. Let $e_1,\cdots,e_d$ and $f_1,\cdots,f_d$ be the natural basis of the free modules $K_1^{R_1}=\oplus_{i=1}^{d}
R_1e_i$ and $K_1^{R_2}=\oplus_{i=1}^{d} R_2f_i$ respectively. Consider the natural morphism of complexes $$\psi:K^{R_1}\rightarrow
K^{R_2}$$ where $\psi( ({\mathfrak{c} }_1+1)e_i)=({\mathfrak{c} }_2+1)f_i$ for all $i=1,\cdots,d$. For any homogeneous ideal ${\mathfrak{c} }$ of $S$ there is a natural isomorphism $S/{\mathfrak{c} }\otimes_SK^S\rightarrow K^{S/{\mathfrak{c} }}$ of complexes. Thus the map ${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R_1,k)\rightarrow
{\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(R_2,k)$ can be identified with the natural map $${\operatorname{H}}_i(\psi):{\operatorname{H}}_i(K^{R_1})\rightarrow {\operatorname{H}}_i(K^{R_1})$$ induced by $\psi$ on homology modules. From the above remark, the homology classes of elements of $\mathcal{Z}^{R_1}_i\cap
\partial({\mathfrak{c} }_1)K^{R_1}_i$ generate ${\operatorname{H}}_i(K^{R_1})$. Now since $\partial({\mathfrak{c} }_1)\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }_2$ we have $\psi_i(\mathcal{Z}^{R_1}_i\cap \partial({\mathfrak{c} }_1)K^{R_1}_i)\subseteq
\partial({\mathfrak{c} }_1)K^{R_2}_i=0$. Thus ${\operatorname{H}}_i(\psi)=0$ and this complete the proof of the claim. For $(i)$, applying we Remark \[ro\] and Theorem \[Golod\], it is enough to show that the map $${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1},k)$$ is zero for all $i>0 $. To this end, observe that $\partial({\mathfrak{a} }^m)\subseteq
\partial({\mathfrak{a} }){\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$ and apply the claim with ${\mathfrak{c} }_1={\mathfrak{a} }^m$ and ${\mathfrak{c} }_2={\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$. Using Theorem \[Golod\], $(ii)$ is a direct consequence of $(i)$.
Motivated by the above theorem we ask the following natural question.
Let $S$ be a regular local ring. Is it true that $\rho({\mathfrak{a} })=1$ for any proper ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }$ of $S$ or equivalently that the map $${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1},k)$$ is zero for all $i>0$?
At least in the case where $\dim S\leq 2$ the answer is positive. The case that $\dim S=1$ is obvious. The following is for the case of dimension two.
\[d2\] Let ${\mathfrak{a} }$ be an ideal of the regular local ring (or a polynomial ring over a field) $S$ of dimension $ 2$. Then $\rho({\mathfrak{a} })=1$.
Let $m>0$. We show that the map $${\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m,k)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^{S}_i(S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1},k)$$ is zero for all $i>0$. For the case where $i=1$ the map is identified with the natural map ${\mathfrak{n} }\cap{\mathfrak{a} }^m/{\mathfrak{n} }{\mathfrak{a} }^m\rightarrow {\mathfrak{n} }\cap{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}/{\mathfrak{n} }{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$ which is clearly zero.\
For a sequence $x_1,\cdots,x_{t}$ of elements of $S$ and for all $S$-module $M$, we have the following exact sequences $$0\rightarrow {\operatorname{H}}_0(K(x_t)\otimes {\operatorname{H}}_i(x_1,\cdots,x_{t-1};M))\rightarrow {\operatorname{H}}_i(x_1,\cdots,x_{t};M)$$ $$\rightarrow
{\operatorname{H}}_1(K(x_t)\otimes {\operatorname{H}}_{i-1}(x_1,\cdots,x_{t-1};M))\rightarrow 0$$ of Koszul homology modules, see [@Ser]. Now let $x,y$ be a regular system of parameter of $S$ then by replacing $M$ with $S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m$ and $S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$ we get the commutative diagram $$\label{diag}
\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] &{\operatorname{H}}_0(K(y)\otimes
{\operatorname{H}}_2(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m))\ar[d]^{\alpha} \ar[r]& {\operatorname{H}}_2(x,y;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m)
\ar[d]^{\beta} \ar[r]&{\operatorname{H}}_1(K(y)\otimes
{\operatorname{H}}_1(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m))\ar[d]^{\gamma}\ar[r]&0\\
0 \ar[r] &{\operatorname{H}}_0(K(y)\otimes {\operatorname{H}}_2(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1})) \ar[r]&
{\operatorname{H}}_2(x,y;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1})\ar[r]&{\operatorname{H}}_1(K(y)\otimes
{\operatorname{H}}_1(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}))\ar[r]&0}$$
We have to show that $\beta=0$. Since ${\operatorname{H}}_2(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m)=0={\operatorname{H}}_2(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1})$, we need to show that $\gamma=0$. The map $\gamma$ is induced by the map $
{\operatorname{H}}_1(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^m)\rightarrow {\operatorname{H}}_1(x;S/{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1})$ where can be identified with the map $$xS\cap {\mathfrak{a} }^m/x{\mathfrak{a} }^m\rightarrow xS\cap
{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}/x{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}.$$ Therefore it is enough to show that $({\mathfrak{a} }^m:x)\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$. Note that the ring $S/xS$ is a regular local of dimension one and so the image of ${\mathfrak{a} }$ in $S/xS$ is generated by an element $xS+u$ for some $u\in {\mathfrak{a} }$. Now it is easy to see that there are elements $r_1,\cdots, r_t$ in $S$ such that ${\mathfrak{a} }=(u, r_1x,\cdots, r_tx)$. One has ${\mathfrak{a} }^m\subseteq Su^m+
x{\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$. If $z\in ({\mathfrak{a} }^m:x)$, then we can write $zx=su^m+bx$ for some $s\in S$ and $b\in {\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$ and we have $(z-b)x=su^m$. Since $(x)$ is a prime ideal of $S$ we get $u\in (x)$ or $s\in(x)$. In any case we can obtain that $z\in {\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$. Therefore $({\mathfrak{a} }^m:x)\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }^{m-1}$.
Golodness of ideals with linear resolutions
-------------------------------------------
Let $A$ be a standard graded algebra over a field $k$ and $N$ be a graded $A$-module with a minimal generating set all of the same degree $q$. We say that $N$ has a $q$-linear resolution if ${\operatorname{Tor}}_i^A(N,k)_j=0$ for all $i$ and all $j\neq i+q$. Also, we say that $N$ is componentwise linear if for all integer $q$ the graded submodule $N_{\langle q\rangle}$ generated by all homogeneous elements of $N$ with degree $q$, has a $q$-linear resolution.\
There is an analogue of the notion of modules with linear resolution which is defined in both local and graded case. Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m} },k)$ be a local ring (or a standard graded $k$-algebra) with the maximal (or homogeneous maximal )ideal ${\mathfrak{m} }$. An $R$-module $M$ is called Koszul if its associated graded module $\gr_{{\mathfrak{m} }}(M)=\oplus
_{i\geq 0}{\mathfrak{m} }^iM/{\mathfrak{m} }^{i+1}M$ as a graded $gr_{{\mathfrak{m} }}(R)$-module has linear resolution. If the residue field $k$ is Koszul we say that the ring $R$ is Koszul. Note that in the graded case $gr_{{\mathfrak{m} }}(R)$ is identified with $R$ itself and any graded module with linear resolution is a Koszul module. However such a graded modules are not the only modules which are Koszul see [@HI example 1.9]. If $R$ is a graded Koszul algebra there is a characterization of (graded) Koszul modules due to Römer [@T]: A graded $R$-module $M$ is Koszul if and only if $M$ is componentwise linear.\
Let $S$ be a polynomial ring with standard grading. It is known [@AF] that every graded ideals of $S$ with linear resolution is Golod. This result generalized by Herzog, Reiner and Welker for componentwise linear ideals of $S$. Since $S$ is a Koszul algebra, in view of the characterization of Römer this can be restated in the following form: any Koszul ideal of $S$ is Golod. Motivated by this the following natural question raised in the local case.
Let $S$ be a regular local ring. Is any Koszul ideal of $S$ Golod?
Unfortunately we do not have an answer to this question, but in what follows we show some relations between Golod ideals and Koszul ideals.\
There is a characterization, due to Şega, of Koszul module. This provides a necessary condition for Koszulness of a module.
(see [@S Theorem 2.2 (c)])\[ko\] Let $(R,{\mathfrak{m} };k)$ be a local ring ( or a standard graded $k$-algebra). If an $R$-module $M$ is Koszul, then the map $${\operatorname{Tor}}^R_i(M,R/{\mathfrak{m} }^2)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^R_i(M,R/{\mathfrak{m} })$$ is zero for all $i>0$.\
In the graded case, when $M$ generated by elements of the same degree, one can see that this condition is equivalent to say that $M$ has a linear resolution.
\[Koszul\] Let ${\mathfrak{a} }$ and ${\mathfrak{b} }$ be ideals of $S$ such that ${\mathfrak{a} }\subseteq
{\mathfrak{b} }$. If the map
$$\delta_i:{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{a} },S/{\mathfrak{n} }^2)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{a} },S/{\mathfrak{n} })$$ induced by the natural projection $S/{\mathfrak{n} }^2\rightarrow S/{\mathfrak{n} }$ is zero for all $i>0$, then ${\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$ is Golod. In particular, if ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is Koszul (as an $S$-module), then ${\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$ is Golod.
Applying Proposition \[cycle\], and Remark \[diagr\] it is enough to show that the map $$\alpha_i:{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} },S/{\mathfrak{n} })\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{a} },S/{\mathfrak{n} })$$ is zero for all $i>0$. Using the exact sequence $0\rightarrow{\mathfrak{n} }/{\mathfrak{n} }^2\rightarrow S/{\mathfrak{n} }^2\rightarrow S/{\mathfrak{n} }\rightarrow0$ we get the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
&{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i}({\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} },S/{\mathfrak{n} })\ar[d]^{\alpha_{i}}\ar[r]& {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i-1}({\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} },{\mathfrak{n} }/{\mathfrak{n} }^2)\ar[d]^{\beta_{i-1}}\\
{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i}({\mathfrak{a} },S/{\mathfrak{n} }^2)\ar[r]^{\delta_i}&{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i}({\mathfrak{a} },S/{\mathfrak{n} })\ar[r]^{\gamma_i}&
{\operatorname{Tor}}^S_{i-1}({\mathfrak{a} },{\mathfrak{n} }/{\mathfrak{n} }^2)}$$ for any $i> 0$. For all $i>0$, the map $\gamma_i$ is injective since $\delta_i=0$ by the hypothesis. This in conjunction with the fact that ${\mathfrak{n} }/{\mathfrak{n} }^2$ is a $S/{\mathfrak{n} }$-vector space implies that $\alpha_i=0$ if $\beta_{i-1}=0$. One can see that $\beta_0=0$ and so $\alpha_1=0$. Observe that $\beta_i$ is a direct sum of $\alpha_i$. Therefore using induction on $i$, one concludes the desired. In the particular case where ${\mathfrak{a} }$ is Koszul by the above remark $\delta_i=0$ for all $i>0$ thus we get the conclusion.
We remark that in the above theorem the condition ${\mathfrak{a} }\subseteq
{\mathfrak{b} }$ is necessary: Let $k$ be a field and $S=k[X,Y,Z,W]$ a polynomial ring. Then homogeneous maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }=(X,Y,Z,W)$ is Koszul. Consider the ideal ${\mathfrak{b} }=(X^2,Y^2,Z^2,W^2)$. The the ideal ${\mathfrak{a} }{\mathfrak{b} }$ is not Golod, see [@St Example 2.1].\
It is known that the powers of maximal ideal of a Koszul local ring are Koszul modules. When the ring is regular, this result can be extend to the powers of an ideal generated by a part of a regular system of parameter.
Let ${\mathfrak{p} }$ be an ideal of $S$ generated by a part of a regular system of parameter. Then ${\mathfrak{p} }^r$ is a Koszul module.
\[sop\]
Let $x_1,\cdots,x_u$ be a part of a regular system of parameter and ${\mathfrak{p} }=(x_1,\cdots,x_u)$. Extend this sequence to a regular system of parameter $x_1,\cdots,x_u,x_{u+1},\cdots x_v$, where $v=\dim_k{\mathfrak{n} }/{\mathfrak{n} }^2$. Set ${\mathfrak{q} }:=(x_{u+1},\cdots x_v)$, $\bar{S}:=S/{\mathfrak{q} }$ and $\bar{{\mathfrak{n} }}:={\mathfrak{n} }/{\mathfrak{q} }$. $\bar{S}$ is a regular local ring an then the module ${\mathfrak{p} }^r+{\mathfrak{q} }/{\mathfrak{q} }\cong \bar{{\mathfrak{n} }}^r$ is Koszul over $\bar{S}$. Set $x^*=x+{\mathfrak{n} }^2$ for any $x$ in ${\mathfrak{n} }\setminus {\mathfrak{n} }^2$. Since $x_{u+1}^{*},\cdots,x_v^{*}$ is a regular sequence of degree one on $\gr_{{\mathfrak{n} }}(S)$ and $\gr_{{\mathfrak{n} }}(\bar{S})=\gr_{{\mathfrak{n} }}(S)/(x_{u+1}^{*},\cdots,x_v^{*})$, we see that $\gr_{{\mathfrak{n} }}(\bar{S})$ has a linear resolution as a graded $\gr_{{\mathfrak{n} }}(S)$-module. Therefore $\bar{S}$ is a Koszul $S$-module. Now by [@Hop Theeorem 5.2], ${\mathfrak{p} }^r+{\mathfrak{q} }/{\mathfrak{q} }$ is a Koszul $S$-module. Also one can see that $x_{u+1}^{*},\cdots,x_v^{*}$ forms a regular sequence on $\gr_{{\mathfrak{n} }}(S)$-module $\gr_{n}(S/{\mathfrak{p} }^r)$. Applying [@IT Theorem 2.13 (c)], we conclude that ${\mathfrak{p} }^r$ is Koszul $S$-module.
It is a known result that if ${\mathfrak{c} }$ is ${\mathfrak{n} }$-primary ideal of $S$ with ${\mathfrak{n} }^{2r-2}\subseteq {\mathfrak{c} }\subseteq {\mathfrak{n} }^r$, then ${\mathfrak{c} }$ is Golod. This was first noticed by Löfwall [@Lo] also see [@HH Example 2.10]. The following extends this result to an ideal generated by a part of a regular system of parameter.
Let ${\mathfrak{p} }$ be an ideal of $S$ generated by a part of a regular system of parameter. Assume that $r$ is a positive integer. Then the following holds.
1. $\rho({\mathfrak{p} })=1$;
2. if $r\geq 2$, then any ideal of $S$ between ${\mathfrak{p} }^{2r-2}$ and ${\mathfrak{p} }^r$ is Golod;
3. if ${\mathfrak{a} }$ be an ideal of $S$ satisfying ${\mathfrak{p} }^r\subseteq {\mathfrak{a} }$, then ${\mathfrak{p} }^r{\mathfrak{a} }$ is Golod.
From Lemma \[sop\], ${\mathfrak{p} }^r$ is Koszul. Hence by Remark \[ko\], the map $${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{p} }^r,S/{\mathfrak{n} }^2)\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{p} }^r,S/{\mathfrak{n} })$$ is zero for all $i>0$. Now, applying similar argument used in the proof of \[Koszul\], one can see that the map $${\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{p} }^r,S/{\mathfrak{n} })\rightarrow {\operatorname{Tor}}^S_i({\mathfrak{p} }^{r-1},S/{\mathfrak{n} })$$ is zero for all $i>0$. Thus $(1)$ follows from Remark \[ro\]. Part $(2)$ follows from $(1)$ and Theorem \[Golod\]. Since ${\mathfrak{p} }^r$ is Koszul, Theorem \[Koszul\] concludes $(3)$.
1 cm 1 cm
[2]{} D. J. Anick, A counterexample to a conjecture of Serre, Ann. of Math. 115 (1982), 1-33.
L. L. Avramov, A. R Kustin, M. Miller, Poincaré series of modules over local rings of small embedding codepth or small linking number, J. Algebra 118 (1988), 162-204.
J. Backelin and R. Fröberg, Koszul algebras, Veronese subrings, and rings with linear resolutions, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures. Appl. 30 (1985), 85–-97.
D. Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry, Grad. Text in Math. 150, Springer, New York, 1995.
T. H. Gulliksen, Massey operations and the Poincar´e series of certain local rings, J. Algebra 22 (1972), 223–-232.
J. Herzog, Canonical Koszul cycles, Aportaciones Mat. Notas de Investigaci´on 6 (1992) 33-–41. J. Herzog, C. Huneke, Ordinary and symbolic powers are Golod, Adv. Math., 246: 89-99 (2013) J. Herzog, M. Steurich, Golodideale der Gestalt $\mathfrak{a}\cap \mathfrak{b}$, J. Algebra 58 (1979), 31-36. J. Herzog, S. Iyengar, Koszul modules, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 201 (2005) 154–188. J. Herzog, V. Welker and S. Yassemi, Homology of powers of ideals: Artin-Rees numbers of syzygies and the Golod property. Preprint (2011), http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.5862.
S. Iyengar, T. R$\ddot{o}$mer, Linearity defects of modules over commutative rings. J. Algebra 322 (2009), 3212–-3237. H. D. Nguyen, Good and bad behaviour of the linearity defect, arXiv:1411.0261
C. L$\ddot{o}$fwall, On the subalgebra generated by the one-dimensional elements in the Yoneda Ext-algebra, in: Algebra, Algebraic Topology and Their Interactions, (Stockholm, 1983), in: Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1183, Springer- Verlag, 1983, pp. 291–-338. J.E. Roos, A Gorenstein numerical semi-group ring having a transcendental series of Betti numbers, Preprint, 2012 M.E. Rossi, L.M. Sega, [*Poincaré series of modules over compressed Gorenstein local rings*]{}, J.Algebra 259 (2014), 421-–447. T. H. Gulliksen, G. Levin, Homology of local rings, Queen’s Papers Pure Appl. Math. 20, Queen’s Univ., Kingston, ON (1969).
T. R$\ddot{o}$mer, On minimal graded free resolutions, Dissertation, Essen, 2001. Liana M. Şega, On the linearity defect of the residue field. J. Algebra 384 (2013), 276-–290.
J.P. Serre, Alg$\acute{a}$bre Locale et Multiplicités. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 11Springer, Berlin (1965).
A. De Stefani, Products of ideals may not be Golod, arXiv:1506.09129.
[^1]: This research was in part supported by a grant from IPM (No. 94130028).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study charmonium and bottomonium as relativistic bound states in a light-front quantized Hamiltonian formalism. The effective Hamiltonian is based on light-front holography. We use a recently proposed longitudinal confinement to complete the soft-wall holographic potential for the heavy flavors. The spin structure is generated from the one-gluon exchange interaction with a running coupling. The adoption of asymptotic freedom improves the spectroscopy compared with previous light-front results. Within this model, we compute the mass spectroscopy, decay constants and the r.m.s. radii. We also present a detailed study of the obtained light-front wave functions and use the wave functions to compute the light-cone distributions, specifically the distribution amplitudes and parton distribution functions. Overall, our model provides a reasonable description of the heavy quarkonia.'
author:
- Yang Li
- Pieter Maris
- 'James P. Vary'
title: Quarkonium as relativistic bound state on the light front
---
Introduction
============
Non-perturbative calculations of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) provide insights into the fundamental structure of hadrons which constitute the majority of the visible matter in the Universe. Lattice gauge theory has produced high precision results for hadron spectroscopy and many other observables. It is expected that Lattice QCD will eventually provide a valid description of the experimental data arising from both the theoretical progress and the growth of computational capacity. On the other hand, QCD at high energy is most conveniently expressed through the light-front variables [@Lepage:1980fj]. While the so-called “hard processes” may be evaluated through perturbation theory (pQCD), non-perturbative information from QCD is also needed and is encoded within the so-called “light-cone distributions”. The light-cone distributions are intrinsically *Minkowskian*, and cannot be easily extracted from a Euclidean formulation of quantum field theories. It is anticipated that the light-front[^1] Hamiltonian formalism provides a complementary alternative to lattice gauge theory [@Bakker:2013cea], with convenient access to light-cone distributions and other observables.
In principle, the hadron mass spectrum and light-front wave functions (LFWFs) can be obtained from diagonalizing the light-front quantized QCD (LFQCD) Hamiltonian operator [@Brodsky:1997de]. Ab initio light-front Hamiltonian approaches, such as Discretized Light-Cone Quantization (DLCQ, [@Pauli:1985ps]) and Basis Light-Front Quantization (BLFQ, [@Vary:2009gt]), have made important strides in tackling various test problems, and show promise of advancing towards more realistic field theories, including QCD [@Vary:2016emi]. As a complementary method to these ab initio approaches, light-front holography constructs an effective Hamiltonian based on insights from string theory, and has been shown, notwithstanding criticisms (e.g., [@Ballon-Bayona:2014oma; @Glozman:2009bt]), to be a valuable approximation to QCD [@Brodsky:2014yha]. The efforts to improve light-front holography can be roughly cast into two categories: one is on the holographic QCD side (see [@Brodsky:2014yha] and the references therein); the other is on the light-front Hamiltonian side (see [@Hiller:2016itl] for a recent review).
The present work falls into the second category. We generalize the light-front holographic QCD of Brodsky and de Téramond to incorporate quark masses and quarkonium spin structure by extending the “soft-wall” light-front Hamiltonian. Our model introduces a phenomenological effective Hamiltonian. Key elements include a confining potential in the longitudinal direction and an effective one-gluon exchange interaction derived from light-front QCD [@Li:2015zda; @Li:2016wwu]. It was long pointed out by Lepage and Brodsky [@Lepage:1980fj] that the dominant ultraviolet (UV) physics can be analyzed through one-gluon exchange. Here, we combine the one-gluon exchange physics at short distance and the holographic QCD at long distance. The present work improves our previous calculation [@Li:2015zda] by including the evolution of the strong coupling as a function of invariant 4-momentum transfer. Incorporating the running coupling not only implements important QCD physics, but also improves the UV asymptotics of the kernel. In particular, a previous non-covariant UV counterterm is now removed and the hyperfine structure is readily improved as we present in this work.
The motivation of the present work is multi-fold. As stated, we supplement the light-front holographic QCD interaction with one-gluon exchange, rather than patching the holographic wave functions with, e.g., spin structures (see, e.g., Ref. [[@Chen:2016dlk] and the references therein)]{}. The spectroscopy and the wave functions are obtained as a natural output. More importantly, we solve the problem using the basis function method [@Vary:2009gt]. Effectively, we are applying BLFQ to a phenomenological interaction that emulates features of QCD. Indeed, this work is a direct extension of the BLFQ approach to positronium in QED [@Wiecki:2014ola]. Finally, we acknowledge the similarities between our work and the relativistic bound-state models in QCD (e.g., Refs. [@Sommerer:1994bk; @Spence:1995bm; @Spence:1999db; @Maris:1999nt; @Leitao:2016bqq]), especially the light-front QCD bound-state models [@Pauli:1996ne; @Brisudova:1995hv; @Brisudova:1996vw; @Glazek:2003ky; @Glazek:2006cu; @Choi:2015ywa].
We organize this paper as follows. In Sect. \[sec:ingredients\], we introduce the theoretical model, including the longitudinal confinement and a running strong coupling. The formulation and the methods are detailed in Sect. \[sect:formalism\]. Sect. \[sect:numerical\_results\] summarizes and analyzes the numerical results, including the spectroscopy, decay constants and radii. Sect. \[sect:lfwfs\] presents LFWFs and light-cone distributions computed from them. We summarize the paper in Sect. \[sect:summary\].
Holographic Confinement plus One-Gluon Exchange {#sec:ingredients}
===============================================
We extend light-front holography by introducing realistic QCD interactions such as the one-gluon exchange interaction with running coupling [@Li:2015zda]. In addition we include finite quark masses, important for heavy flavors, as well as a longitudinal confining potential to complement the transverse holographic confining potential. Spin structure and excited states (radial and angular) naturally emerge from the one-gluon exchange and its non-perturbative interplay with the confining potential [@Li:2016wwu]. The effective Hamiltonian $H_\text{eff}\equiv P^+P^-_\text{eff}-\vec P^2_\perp$ reads, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:Heff}
H_\mathrm{eff} = \frac{\vec k^2_\perp + m_q^2}{x} + \frac{\vec k^2_\perp+m_{\bar q}^2}{1-x}
+ \kappa^4 \vec \zeta_\perp^2 - \frac{\kappa^4}{(m_q+m_{\bar q})^2} \partial_x\big( x(1-x) \partial_x \big) \\
- \frac{C_F4\pi\alpha_s(Q^2)}{Q^2}\bar u_{s'}(k')\gamma_\mu u_s(k) \bar v_{\bar s}(\bar k) \gamma^\mu v_{\bar s'}(\bar k').\end{gathered}$$ where $\vec \zeta_\perp \equiv \sqrt{x(1-x)} \vec r_\perp$ is Brodsky and de Téramond’s holographic variable [@Brodsky:2014yha], $\partial_x f(x, \vec\zeta_\perp) = \partial f(x, \vec \zeta_\perp)/\partial x|_{\vec\zeta}$, $C_F = (N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)=4/3$ is the color factor for the color singlet state. $\kappa$ is the strength of the confinement, and $m_q$ ($m_{\bar q}$) is the mass of the quark (anti-quark). $Q^2 = -(1/2) (k'-k)^2- (1/2) (\bar k'-\bar k)^2$ is the average 4-momentum squared carried by the exchanged gluon. In terms of kinematical variables, $$Q^2 = \frac{1}{2}\Big(\sqrt{\frac{x'}{x}}\vec k_\perp-\sqrt{\frac{x}{x'}}\vec k'_\perp\Big)^2 +
\frac{1}{2}\Big(\sqrt{\frac{1-x'}{1-x}}\vec k_\perp-\sqrt{\frac{1-x}{1-x'}}\vec k'_\perp \Big)^2
+ \frac{1}{2}(x-x')^2\Big( \frac{m_q^2}{xx'}+\frac{m_{\bar q}^2}{(1-x)(1-x')}\Big) + \mu_g^2.$$
Longitudinal Confinement
------------------------
In Eq. (\[eqn:Heff\]), the term $\kappa^4 \vec\zeta^2_\perp \equiv \kappa^4 x(1-x)\vec r^2_\perp$ is the “soft-wall” confinement from light-front holography, which is introduced in the massless case. For heavy quarkonium, the quark masses and the longitudinal dynamics cannot be ignored[^2] and we introduce a longitudinal confining interaction to complete the transverse holographic confinement. The form of the longitudinal confinement is designed to produce a power-law behavior for the distribution amplitudes $\phi(x)\sim x^a(1-x)^b$ at the endpoints (cf. [@Gutsche:2012ez; @Gutsche:2013zia; @Chabysheva:2012fe]).
We fix the strength of the longitudinal confinement by matching to the transverse holographic confinement in the non-relativistic limit. Therefore, rotational symmetry is retained in the heavy-quark limit. Another advantage of this choice for the longitudinal confinement is that it produces, without the one-gluon exchange, analytic solutions. Therefore, it affords computational convenience within the basis function method (see Sect. \[sec:3.1\]). In the massless limit, our wave function (without the one-gluon exchange) reduces to the soft-wall wave function of Brodsky and de Téramond[^3] [@Brodsky:2014yha]. It has been suggested that in the massless limit one can choose the longitudinal confining strength to be independent of the quark mass to reproduce the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation [@Gutsche:2012ez]. Our proposal shares some similarities with other proposals in the literature [@Gutsche:2014oua; @Trawinski:2014msa; @Chabysheva:2012fe].
Running Coupling
----------------
As mentioned, we employ a running coupling based on the 1-loop pQCD. The running coupling is a function of the 4-momentum transfer squared $Q^2=-q^2>0$ (see also Fig. \[fig:runalf\]), viz $$\alpha_s(Q^2) = \frac{1}{\beta_0 \ln \big(Q^2/\Lambda^2 +\tau\big)} \triangleq
\frac{\alpha_s(M_\textsc{z}^2)}{1+\alpha_s(M_\textsc{z}^2)\beta_0
\ln(\mu^2_\textsc{ir}+Q^2)/(\mu^2_\textsc{ir}+M^2_\textsc{z})},$$ where $\beta_0 = (33-2N_f)/(12\pi)$, with $N_f$ the number of quark flavors, $N_f = 4$ for charmonium and $N_f=5$ for bottomonium. A constant $\tau$ is introduced to avoid the pQCD IR catastrophe. Similar ansätze are widely adopted in the literature (e.g. [@Maris:1999nt]). $\Lambda$ and constant $\tau$ are obtained by fixing the strong coupling at the Z-boson mass $\alpha_s(M_\textsc{z}^2)=0.1183$ and at $Q=0$. In practice, we choose $\alpha_s(0) = 0.6$, corresponding to $\mu_\textsc{ir} = 0.55 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ for $N_f=4$. We find, however, the spectra are not sensitive to the choice of $\alpha_s(0)$ within the range of $0.4\le
\alpha_s(0) \le 0.8$.
![The effective running coupling implemented in this work. Data points correspond to various experimental measurements. The vertical and horizontal lines mark the location of $M_\textsc{z}$ and $\alpha_s(M_\textsc{z}^2)$.[]{data-label="fig:runalf"}](Figures/RunAlf.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Introducing the evolution of the strong coupling implements asymptotic freedom for the one-gluon exchange through a natural dependence on the covariant 4-momentum transfer $Q^2$. The use of the running coupling also serves to improve the UV asymptotics of the one-gluon exchange kernel. In our previous work [@Li:2015zda], we used a fixed coupling. The effective one-gluon exchange kernel, as derived from the leading-order effective Hamiltonian approach, produces a divergent results, as is well known in the literature (e.g., Refs. [@Krautgartner:1991xz; @Gubankova:1997mq; @ManginBrinet:2003nm]). This divergence is the result of the high momentum contribution from the spin non-flip part of the Hamiltonian matrix elements. It can be easily seen from the power counting in transverse momenta. In Ref. [@Li:2015zda], we adopted a UV counterterm proposed by Krautgärtner, Pauli and Wölz (KPW) [@Krautgartner:1991xz] (cf. Refs. [@Glazek:1992bs; @Trittmann:1997xz; @Wiecki:2014ola; @Lamm:2016djr]). However, the KPW counterterm is non-covariant, and introduces a major source of violation of the rotational symmetry that is manifested in the spectrum. With asymptotic freedom, the UV divergence associated with the one-gluon exchange kernel is absent. Therefore, the non-covariant KPW counterterm is not needed and we omit it in the present work. As we will see below, the rotational symmetry is improved compared to the results of Ref. [@Li:2015zda].
Hamiltonian formalism {#sect:formalism}
=====================
Eigenvalue Equation
-------------------
The mass spectrum and the wave functions are obtained from diagonalizing the effective light-front Hamiltonian operator (\[eqn:Heff\]): $$\label{eqn:eigenvalue_equation}
H_\text{eff} |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle = M^2_h |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle.$$ where $P=(P^-, P^+, \vec P_\perp)$ is the 4-momentum of the particle; $j$ and $m_j$ are the particle’s total angular momentum and the magnetic projection, respectively.
The Fock space representation of quarkonium reads: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eqn:Fock_expansion}
|\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle =
\sum_{s, \bar s}\int_0^1\frac{\dd x}{2x(1-x)} \int \frac{\dd^2 k_\perp}{(2\pi)^3}
\, \psi^{(m_j)}_{s\bar s/h}(\vec k_\perp, x) \\
\times \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_c}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_c} b^\dagger_{s{}i}\big(xP^+, \vec k_\perp+x\vec P_\perp\big) d^\dagger_{\bar s{}i}\big((1-x)P^+,
-\vec k_\perp+(1-x)\vec P_\perp\big) |0\rangle. \end{gathered}$$ The coefficients of the expansion, $\psi^{(m_j)}_{s\bar s/h}(\vec k_\perp, x)$ are the valence sector LFWFs with $s$ ($\bar s$) representing the spin of the quark (antiquark). The quark and anti-quark creation operators $b^\dagger$ and $d^\dagger$ satisfy the canonical anti-commutation relations, $$\label{eqn:CCR}
\big\{ b_{si}(p^+, \vec p_\perp), b_{s'i'}^\dagger(p'^+, \vec p'_\perp) \big\}
= \big\{ d_{si}(p^+, \vec p_\perp), d_{s'i'}^\dagger(p'^+, \vec p'_\perp) \big\}
= 2p^+(2\pi)^3\delta^3(p-p')\delta_{ss'}\delta_{ii'},$$ where $\delta^3(p-p') \equiv \delta(p^+-p'^+)\delta^2(\vec p_\perp-\vec p'_\perp)$. We have kept only the $q\bar q$ sector while, in principle, the $q\bar qg$ sector can be included by, e.g., a perturbative treatment [@Leitner:2010nx]. The hadron state vector can be orthonormalized according to the one-particle state \[cf. Eq. (\[eqn:CCR\])\]: $$\label{eqn:normalizaiton_of_state_vector}
\langle \psi_h(P, j, m_j) | \psi_{h'}(P', j', m_j')\rangle = 2P^+ (2\pi)^3 \delta^3(P - P')
\delta_{jj'}\delta_{m_j,m_j'} \delta_{hh'},$$ Then, the orthonormalization of the LFWFs reads, $$\label{eqn:normalization}
\sum_{s, \bar s} \int_0^1\frac{\dd x}{2x(1-x)} \int \frac{\dd^2 k_\perp}{(2\pi)^3}
\psi^{(m_j')*}_{s \bar s/h'}(\vec k_\perp, x)\psi^{(m_j)}_{s \bar s/h}(\vec k_\perp, x) = \delta_{hh'}\delta_{m_j,m_j'}.$$ Note that different hadron states with the same quantum numbers, such as $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$, are also orthogonal. It is also useful to introduce LFWFs in the transverse coordinate space: $$\widetilde\psi_{s\bar s} (\vec r_\perp, x) \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{x(1-x)}}\int \frac{\dd^2 k_\perp}{(2\pi)^2} e^{\imag \vec k_\perp \cdot
\vec r_\perp} \psi_{s \bar s} (\vec k_\perp, x).$$ with orthonormalization, $$\sum_{s, \bar s} \int_0^1\frac{\dd x}{4\pi} \int \dd^2 r_\perp \, \widetilde\psi^{(m_j')*}_{s \bar s/h'}(\vec r_\perp, x)
\widetilde\psi^{(m_j)}_{s \bar s/h}(\vec r_\perp, x) = \delta_{hh'}\delta_{m_j,m_j'}.$$
Parity $\mathcal P$ is a dynamical symmetry on the light front, as it swaps light-front coordinate $x^-$ and light-front time $x^+$. The mirror parity $m_P \equiv \mathcal R_x(\pi)\mathcal P$, which only flips one of the transverse spatial coordinates ($x^1$), survives as a kinematical symmetry in light-front dynamics. The eigenvalue equations related to the mirror parity $\hat m_P$ and the charge conjugation $\hat C$ are [@Krautgartner:1991xz; @Trittmann:1997xz; @Brodsky:2006ez; @Li:2015zda]: $$\label{eqn:parity}
\hat m_P |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle = (-i)^{2j}\mathsf{P}|\psi_h(\widetilde P, j, -m_j)\rangle, \quad \hat C |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle =
\mathsf C |\psi_{\bar h}(P, j,
m_j)\rangle.$$ Here $\mathsf P$ and $\mathsf C$ are the parity and charge conjugation quantum numbers, respectively; and $P=(P^-, P^+, P^1, P^2)$ is the total 4-momentum of the particle, $\widetilde P = (P^-, P^+, -P^1, P^2)$. $\bar h$ represents the antiparticle of hadron $h$.
Particles are further classified by the eigenvalues of the intrinsic angular momenta $\{\vec{\mathcal J}^2,
\mathcal J_z \}$, viz $$\vec{\mathcal J}^2 |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle = j(j+1) |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle, \quad
\mathcal J_z |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle = m_j |\psi_h(P, j, m_j)\rangle.$$ On the light front, $\vec{\mathcal J}^2$ is dynamical and, in principle, it should be diagonalized simultaneously with the light-front Hamiltonian operator $P^-$ to obtain the total angular momentum $j$ [@Brodsky:1997de]. Accordingly, in a truncated and regularized model space, $\vec{\mathcal
J}^2$ may not commute with $P^-$, and the rotational symmetry is only approximate (see Fig. \[fig:raw\_spectrum\]). To extract $j$, we compute the mass eigenvalues from all $m_j$ sectors. We count the multiplicity of the nearly-degenerate mass eigenstates with the further help of the mirror parity, charge conjugation and other relevant quantities[^4]. For this scheme to succeed, the degeneracies have to be observed in the results with sufficient accuracy to resolve ambiguities.
Basis Representation {#sec:3.1}
--------------------
The eigenvalue equation (\[eqn:eigenvalue\_equation\]) can be solved in a basis function approach [@Vary:2009gt; @Li:2015zda]. The basis function approach is particularly advantageous for the present model with the holographic confining potential, since, in the absence of the one-gluon exchange term, it can be diagonalized analytically. On the other hand, the confining interactions in momentum space are highly singular. The solutions can be expressed in terms of the analytic functions $\phi_{nm}$ and $\chi_l$. For the transverse direction, we have (see Fig. \[fig:basis\_functions\_a\]): $$\phi_{nm}(\vec q_\perp; b) = b^{-1} \sqrt{\frac{4\pi n!}{(n+|m|)!}} \bigg(\frac{q_\perp}{b}\bigg)^{|m|}
\exp\big(-q^2_\perp/(2b^2)\big) L_n^{|m|}(q^2_\perp/b^2) \exp\big(\imag m \theta_q),$$ where $\vec q_\perp \triangleq \vec k_\perp/\sqrt{x(1-x)}$, $q_\perp = |\vec q_\perp|$, $\theta_q = \arg \vec q_\perp$. $L_n^a(z)$ is the associated Laguerre polynomial. $b$ is the harmonic oscillator (HO) basis parameter in mass dimension. Following Ref. [@Li:2015zda], we choose $b\equiv \kappa$ to match the confining strength. For simplicity, we will often omit the label $b$ though it is implicit throughout. In the longitudinal direction, we have (see Fig. \[fig:basis\_functions\_b\]): $$\chi_l(x; \alpha,\beta) =
\sqrt{4\pi(2l+\alpha+\beta+1)}\sqrt{\frac{\Gamma(l+1)\Gamma(l+\alpha+\beta+1)}{\Gamma(l+\alpha+1)\Gamma(l+\beta+1)}}
x^{{\mathsmaller{\frac{\beta}{2}}}}(1-x)^{{\mathsmaller{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}} P^{(\alpha,\beta)}_l(2x-1).$$ Here $P_l^{(\alpha, \beta)}(z)$ is the Jacobi polynomial. $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are dimensionless basis parameters. In the model, they are $\alpha = 2m_{\bar q}(m_q+m_{\bar q})/\kappa^2$, $\beta = 2m_{q}(m_q+m_{\bar q})/\kappa^2$. Again, we will drop the explicit dependence on $\alpha$ or $\beta$ from now on.
In the presence of the one-gluon exchange term, we use these analytic functions as a basis to expand the LFWFs in, $$\label{eqn:basis_representation}
\psi_{ss'/h}(\vec k_\perp, x) = \sum_{n, m, l} \psi_h(n, m, l, s, s') \, \phi_{nm}(\vec k_\perp/\sqrt{x(1-x)}) \chi_l(x).
$$ Here the coefficients $ \psi_h(n, m, l, s, s')$ are obtained from diagonalization. The basis is constructed to conserve the magnetic projection of the total angular momentum: $ m_j = m + s + s'$.
Performing a 2D Fourier transformation gives the LFWFs in coordinate space. The Fourier transformation of a HO function is a HO function with a relative phase, which simplifies the expression greatly. $$\widetilde \psi_{ss'/h}(\vec r_\perp, x) = \sqrt{x(1-x)} \sum_{n, m, l} \psi_h(n, m, l, s, s') \, \widetilde \phi_{nm}(\sqrt{x(1-x)} \vec
r_\perp) \chi_l(x).$$ Here $\widetilde \phi_{nm}$ is the 2D HO in coordinate space: $$\widetilde \phi_{nm}(\vec \rho_\perp; b^{-1}) = b \sqrt{\frac{n!}{\pi(n+|m|)!}} (b\rho_\perp)^{|m|} \exp\big(-b^2\rho^2_\perp/2\big)
L_n^{|m|}(b^2\rho_\perp^2) \exp\big[ \imag m\theta_\rho + \imag \pi (n+|m|/2) \big].$$
In practical calculations, the basis is truncated and wave functions are obtained in the basis expansion. Following Refs. [@Vary:2009gt; @Wiecki:2014ola; @Li:2015zda], we truncate the transverse and the longitudinal bases separately by their energies: $$2n + |m| + 1 \le N_\mathrm{max}, \quad 0 \le l \le L_{\mathrm{max}}.$$ As such, the $N_{\max}$-truncation provides a natural pair of UV and IR cutoffs: $\Lambda_\textsc{uv} \simeq b\sqrt{N_{\max}}$, $\lambda_\textsc{ir} \simeq b/\sqrt{N_{\max}}$, where $b=\kappa$ is the oscillator basis energy scale parameter. $L_{\max}$ represents the resolution of the basis in the longitudinal direction. Namely, the basis cannot resolve physics at: $\Delta x\lesssim L_{\max}^{-1}$ [@Wiecki:2014ola]. The complete basis is reached by taking $N_{\max}\to\infty, L_{\max} \to \infty$.
The eigenvalues of the parity and charge conjugation operators can be extracted from the basis representation of the LFWFs as [@Li:2015zda], $$\begin{aligned}
(-i)^{2j}\mathsf P =\,& \langle\psi_{-m_j}|\hat m_P | \psi_{m_j}\rangle = \sum_{n,m,l,s,\bar s} (-1)^m \psi_{-m_j}^*(n, -m, l, -s, -\bar s)
\psi_{m_j}(n, m, l, s, \bar s). \label{eqn:LFP}\\
\mathsf C =\,& \langle\psi_{m_j}|\hat C | \psi_{m_j}\rangle = \sum_{n,m,l,s,\bar s} (-1)^{m+l+1} \psi_{m_j}^*(n, m, l, \bar s, s)
\psi_{m_j}(n, m, l, s, \bar s). \label{eqn:C}\end{aligned}$$
Generalizing Light-Front Holography
-----------------------------------
Before proceeding to the full diagonalization, it is worth looking at the results without the one-gluon exchange, where the solutions are analytical. The mass eigenvalues are: $$M^2_{n,m,l} = (m_q+m_{\bar q})^2 + 2\kappa^2(2n+|m|+l+1) + \frac{\kappa^4}{(m_q+m_{\bar q})^2}l(l+1).$$ *Here $l$ is the longitudinal quantum number, not the orbital angular momentum*. The corresponding wave functions are: $$\psi_{nml}(\vec k_\perp, x) = \phi_{nm}(\vec k_\perp/\sqrt{x(1-x)}) \chi_l(x).$$
![ Comparison of the ground-state longitudinal wave functions obtained from the invariant mass ansatz: $N_1\exp\big(-\frac{m^2_q}{2\kappa^2x(1-x)}\big)$ and from BLFQ: $N_2 \big( x(1-x)\big)^{2m^2_q/\kappa^2}$. We convert the wave functions to those of the Brodsky-de Téramond convention [@Brodsky:2014yha] by including a factor $\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ \[cf. Eq. ([\[eqn:normalization\]]{})\]. Quark mass $m_q$ and confining strength $\kappa$ are taken from the fits of Ref. [@Brodsky:2014yha] and this work (Sect. \[sect:numerical\_results\]). []{data-label="fig:longitudinal_basis_functions"}](Figures/longitudinal_basis){width="50.00000%"}
States may be identified according to their mass spectrum with the help of parity $\mathsf P$ and charge conjugation $\mathsf C$. The quarkonium ground state (1S) is identified with $n=0, m=0, l=0$: $$\psi_\mathrm{gs}(\vec k_\perp, x) = N \exp\big[ -\vec k^2_\perp/(2\kappa^2 x(1-x)) \big] \big( x(1-x)\big)^{2m^2_q/\kappa^2}.$$ In the literature, a commonly-used way to incorporate quark masses in the AdS/QCD wave function is through the invariant mass ansatz (IMA) [@Brodsky:2008pg], viz, $$N \exp\big[ -\vec k^2_\perp/(2\kappa^2 x(1-x)) \big] \; \to \; N' \exp\big[ -(\vec k^2_\perp+m_q^2)/(2\kappa^2 x(1-x)) \big].$$ Figure \[fig:longitudinal\_basis\_functions\] compares the purely longitudinal part of our ground-state wave function with that of the IMA wave function. Our longitudinal wave function becomes almost identical to the IMA wave function in both the chiral limit and the heavy quark limit, except near the endpoints. This reflects the fact that rotational symmetry is restored in the non-relativistic limit with our choice of longitudinal basis functions.
The first excited state (1P) is identified with $n=0, m=\pm1, l=0$ or $n=0, m=0, l=1$, noting that for heavy quarkonium, the term $\kappa^4/(m_q+m_{\bar q})^2 l(l+1)$ is small comparing to the remaining terms. There are four 1P states: $\chi_0$ ($0^{++}$), $\chi_1$ ($1^{++}$), $\chi_2$ ($2^{++}$) and $h$ ($1^{+-}$). Let us focus on $h$ and restrict the discussion to $m_j=0$. From Eq. (\[eqn:C\]), we conclude: $-1 = \mathsf C = (-1)^{m+l+1}(-1)^{s+1}$, where $s$ is the total spin, viz $s=0$ for singlet and $s=1$ for triplet. Apparently, for both sets of quantum numbers ($m=\pm1, l=0$ or $m=0, l=1$), $s=0$. From Eq. (\[eqn:LFP\]), $-1 = (-1)^j\mathsf P =
(-1)^{m}(-1)^{s+1}$, implying $m=0$. Therefore, the correct quantum numbers for $h$ meson ($1^{+-}$) are $n=0, m=0, l=1$ with a singlet spin configuration, which is consistent with the non-relativistic quantum number assignment $1{\,}^{1}\!P_0$. Note that the orbital motion is excited through the longitudinal direction but not the transverse direction. This cannot be obtained from IMA[^5].
Numerical Results {#sect:numerical_results}
=================
[ccc ccc ccc c]{}
& $N_f$ & $\alpha_s(0)$ & $\mu_\text{g}$ (GeV) & $\kappa$ (GeV) & $m_q$ (GeV) & rms (MeV) & $\overline{\delta_jM}$ (MeV) & $N_\text{exp}$ & $N_{\max}=L_{\max}$\
& & 0.6 & 0.02 & 0.966 & 1.603 & 31 & 17 & 8 & 32\
& & 0.6 & 0.02 & 1.389 & 4.902 & 38 & 8 & 14 & 32\
We apply the model to heavy quarkonia (charmonium and bottomonium), where the quark masses are large and the radiative corrections are negligible. Therefore these are ideal systems to test our model. The model parameters are summarized in Table \[tab:model\_parametersI\].
As mentioned, we fixed $\alpha_s(0)=0.6$. For fixed $N_{\max}$ and $L_{\max}$, we use experimental data to fit the confining strength $\kappa$ and the effective quark mass $m_q$ ($m_c$ and $m_b$) using the mass eigenvalues in the $m_j=0$ sector. We employ the experimental values, compiled by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [@Agashe:2014kda], below the open charm or open bottom threshold. We also introduced a small mass parameter $\mu_g = 0.02 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ to regularize the integrable Coulomb singularity in the energy denominator and to avoid numerical instability[^6]. As has been shown in previous work with fixed coupling, the mass eigenvalues are converged with respect to $\mu_g \to 0$ within the numerical precision.
![A representative bottomonium mass spectrum obtained by diagonalizing the light cone Hamiltonian within various $m_j$ sectors at $N_{\max} = L_{\max} = 32$. Even though the rotational symmetry is not exact, the approximate degeneracies are sufficient to extract $j$. States with the same orbital angular momentum $\ell$ tend to cluster, as expected from the non-relativistic quark model, even though $\ell$ is not a good quantum number, which is also helpful for identifying states. []{data-label="fig:raw_spectrum"}](Figures/spectrum_a0p60_kap1p39_mb4p90_style2){width="60.00000%"}
The effective Hamiltonian (\[eqn:Heff\]) is diagonalized for various $m_j$ sectors. Fig. \[fig:raw\_spectrum\] shows a representative spectrum as a function of $m_j$. The spectrum is symmetric with respect to $\pm m_j$, a consequence of the mirror parity symmetry (\[eqn:parity\]). The discrete quantum numbers $m_P = (-i)^{2j}\mathsf P$ and $\mathsf C$ are computed to help identify states as mentioned. Total spin $\langle\vec s^2\rangle=s(s+1)$ as an approximate quantum number is also exploited. States with the same $j$ but different $m_j$’s are not exactly degenerate owing to the violation of the rotational symmetry. As is seen in Fig. \[fig:raw\_spectrum\], the approximate degeneracies are easily visible, at least for low-lying states. So the multiplicities, together with $m_P$, $\mathsf C$, $s$ and the constraints: $$|\ell - s| \le j \le \ell+s, \quad \mathsf P=(-1)^{\ell+1}, \quad \mathsf C = (-1)^{\ell+s},$$ can be employed to deduce the full set of quantum numbers $n\,{}^{2s+1}\!\ell_j$ or $j^{\mathsf P\mathsf C}$, where $\ell$ is the total orbital angular momentum, $n$ the radial quantum number. We also cross-check the state identification with the decay constants and the wave functions themselves (see Sect. \[sect:lfwfs\]).
Spectroscopy {#sect:spectroscopy}
------------
![The reconstructed charmonium (*left panel*) and bottomonium (*right panel*) spectra at $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$. The horizontal and vertical axises are $j^{\mathsf P\mathsf C}$ and invariant mass in GeV, respectively. Model parameters are listed in Table \[tab:model\_parametersI\]. Calculated states are marked by boxes to represent the spread of the mass eigenvalues in $m_j$ owing to violation of the rotational symmetry (see text). The mean mass spreads, i.e. the average heights of the boxes, are 17 MeV and 8 MeV for charmonium and bottomonium, respectively. The r.m.s. deviations of the masses from the PDG values are 31 MeV and 38 MeV for charmonium and bottomonium, respectively. See text for details. []{data-label="fig:spectroscopy"}](Figures/charm_spectrum_Runalf0p6_kap0p97_mc1p60_NL32_style8.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The reconstructed charmonium (*left panel*) and bottomonium (*right panel*) spectra at $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$. The horizontal and vertical axises are $j^{\mathsf P\mathsf C}$ and invariant mass in GeV, respectively. Model parameters are listed in Table \[tab:model\_parametersI\]. Calculated states are marked by boxes to represent the spread of the mass eigenvalues in $m_j$ owing to violation of the rotational symmetry (see text). The mean mass spreads, i.e. the average heights of the boxes, are 17 MeV and 8 MeV for charmonium and bottomonium, respectively. The r.m.s. deviations of the masses from the PDG values are 31 MeV and 38 MeV for charmonium and bottomonium, respectively. See text for details. []{data-label="fig:spectroscopy"}](Figures/bottom_spectrum_a0p60_kap1p39_mb4p90_NL32_style9.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
The reconstructed spectra at $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$ are presented in Fig. \[fig:spectroscopy\]. In these figures, we use boxes to indicate the spreads of the mass eigenvalues from different $m_j$. The mean values, marked by dashed bars, are defined as: $$\overline M \equiv \sqrt{\frac{M^2_{-j} + M^2_{1-j} + \cdots + M^2_j}{2j+1}},$$ where $M_{m_j}$ is the mass eigenvalue associated with the magnetic projection $m_j$. This definition is motivated by the covariant light-front analysis of relativistic bound states in Refs. [@Carbonell:1998rj; @ManginBrinet:2003nm]. On the other hand, the mass spreads $\delta_j M \equiv \max M_{m_j} - \min M_{m_j}$ measure the violation of the rotational symmetry. We also introduce the mean spread: $$\overline{\delta_jM} \equiv \sqrt{ \frac{1}{N_h} \sum_{h}^{j\ne0} (\delta_jM_h)^2 }.\qquad \Big(N_h\equiv\sum_h^{j\ne0} 1\Big)$$ For charmonium (bottomonium) states evaluated by PDG below the threshold, the mean mass spread is 17 MeV (8 MeV), improving our previous results [@Li:2015zda] by a factor of $\sim$3 ($\sim$2). More comparison between the results of this work and those of Ref. [@Li:2015zda] is collected in Table \[tab:improvements\].
[l|ccccc]{} & $\overline{\delta_j M}_{c\bar c}$ & $\delta M_{c\bar c}$ (rms) & $\overline{\delta_j M}_{b\bar b}$ & $\delta M_{b\bar b}$ (rms) & $N_{\max} = L_{\max}$\
fix-$\alpha_s$ [@Li:2015zda] & 49 MeV & 52 MeV & 17 MeV & \*58 MeV & 24\
fix-$\alpha_s$ (refitted) & — & — & 15 MeV & 48 MeV & 24\
running-$\alpha_s$ & 17 MeV & 31 MeV & 7 MeV & 39 MeV & 24\
running-$\alpha_s$ & 17 MeV & 31 MeV & 8 MeV & 38 MeV & 32\
\
[\* In Ref. [@Li:2015zda], this is misquoted as 50 MeV.]{}
Our light-front Hamiltonian approach yields states with high angular and radial excitations, which are not easily accessible in some other methods. No exotic quantum numbers emerge from our calculation, as is expected from the two-body truncation. In bottomonium, predictions are made for various states below the $B\overline B$ threshold, as also predicted in other approaches (e.g., [@Crater:2010fc; @McNeile:2012qf; @Hilger:2014nma]). The quality of the spectra can be measured by the root mean squared (r.m.s.) deviation from the experimentally measured values. For charmonium (bottomonium), the r.m.s. mass deviation is 31 MeV (38 MeV), improving the fixed coupling results [@Li:2015zda] by as much as $\sim$40% ($\sim$20%). See Table \[tab:improvements\] for further comparisons. Our spectroscopy is competitive with those obtained from other relativistic models [@Crater:2010fc; @McNeile:2012qf; @Hilger:2014nma; @Leitao:2016bqq]. Not only are the mass spectra improved, the spread of the mass eigenvalues $\overline{\delta_j M}$ due to the violation of rotational symmetry, is also significantly reduced as mentioned. A related issue is the quenching of the hyperfine splitting found within the fixed coupling results. With the running coupling, this issue is resolved and the hyperfine splittings are consistent with the experimental values, as shown in Fig. \[fig:spectroscopy\] (cf. Fig. \[fig:conv\]). Therefore, the violation of the rotational symmetry is significantly reduced.
Figure \[fig:conv\] shows the trends of the charmonium mass eigenvalues as functions of $N_{\max}^{-1}$ (with $N_{\max}=L_{\max}$). The left panel presents the convergence trends of the ground-state masses ($\eta_c$ and $J/\psi$). The right panel presents the convergence trends for the hyperfine splittings between 1S ($M_{J/\psi}-M_{\eta_c}$) and 2S ($M_{\psi'}-M_{\eta'_c}$) states. Two sets of parameters are used: the fix-parameter results use model parameters from the $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$ fit; the refit-parameter calculation refits the model parameters for each $N_{\max}=L_{\max}$. Smooth extrapolations are made using three types of functions: $a+b/N_{\max}+c/N_{\max}^2$ (solid), $a+b \exp(-c N_{\max})$ (dashed), $a+b \exp(-c
\sqrt{N_{\max}})$ (dot-dashed). Both hyperfine splittings, 1S and 2S, show reasonable convergence in the complete basis limit ($N_{\max}^{-1}=L_{\max}^{-1}=0$).
Table \[tab:model\_parametersII\] compares the spectroscopy obtained from different $N_{\max} = L_{\max}$ fits. While results from different $N_{\max} = L_{\max}$ are well converged, the r.m.s. deviation decreases as $N_{\max}=L_{\max}$ increases. In the present work, we adopt $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$ for our presented results, unless otherwise specified.
![The $N_{\max}$ convergence. The *left panel* compares the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ mass eigenvalues as a function of $N_{\max}^{-1}$ ($N_{\max}=L_{\max}$, $m_j=0$) for fixed and refitted parameters. For the former (“fix-parameter”), parameters are the same for all $N_{\max}$, and are chosen to be the fitted values at $N_{\max}=32$. For the latter (“refit-parameter”), parameters are refitted for each $N_{\max}$. The *right panel* shows the hyperfine splittings $M_{\psi(nS)}-M_{\eta_c(nS)}$ as a function of $N_{\max}^{-1}$ ($N_{\max}=L_{\max}$, $m_j=0$) with fixed parameters. The PDG values are marked as crosses. In both figures, different fitting functions, $a+b/N_{\max}+c/N_{\max}^2$ (solid), $a+b \exp(-c N_{\max})$ (dashed), $a+b \exp(-c \sqrt{N_{\max}})$ (dot-dashed), are shown for the fix-parameter results. The refit-parameter results are simply connected by a straight line segments. []{data-label="fig:conv"}](Figures/charm_Nmax_convergence_refit "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![The $N_{\max}$ convergence. The *left panel* compares the $J/\psi$ and $\eta_c$ mass eigenvalues as a function of $N_{\max}^{-1}$ ($N_{\max}=L_{\max}$, $m_j=0$) for fixed and refitted parameters. For the former (“fix-parameter”), parameters are the same for all $N_{\max}$, and are chosen to be the fitted values at $N_{\max}=32$. For the latter (“refit-parameter”), parameters are refitted for each $N_{\max}$. The *right panel* shows the hyperfine splittings $M_{\psi(nS)}-M_{\eta_c(nS)}$ as a function of $N_{\max}^{-1}$ ($N_{\max}=L_{\max}$, $m_j=0$) with fixed parameters. The PDG values are marked as crosses. In both figures, different fitting functions, $a+b/N_{\max}+c/N_{\max}^2$ (solid), $a+b \exp(-c N_{\max})$ (dashed), $a+b \exp(-c \sqrt{N_{\max}})$ (dot-dashed), are shown for the fix-parameter results. The refit-parameter results are simply connected by a straight line segments. []{data-label="fig:conv"}](Figures/Hyperfine_splitting "fig:"){width="49.50000%"}
[c ccc ccc ccc]{}
& $\alpha_s(0)$ & $N_f$ & $\mu_\text{g}$ (GeV) & $\kappa$ (GeV) & $m_q$ (GeV) & rms (MeV) & $\overline{\delta_j M}$ (MeV) & $N_\text{exp}$ & $N_{\max}=L_{\max}$\
& & & & 0.985 & 1.570 & 41 & 15 & & 8\
& & & & 0.979 & 1.587 & 32 & 21 & &16\
& & & & 0.972 & 1.596 & 31 & 17 & & 24\
& & & & 0.966 & 1.603 & 31 & 17 & & 32\
& & & & 1.387 & 4.894 & 48 & 6 & & 8\
& & & & 1.392 & 4.899 & 41 & 6 & & 16\
& & & & 1.390 & 4.901 & 39 & 7 & & 24\
& & & & 1.389 & 4.902 & 38 & 8 & & 32\
Decay Constants {#sec:decay}
---------------
Decay constants are defined as the local vacuum-to-hadron matrix elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | \overline \psi(0) \gamma^+\gamma_5 \psi(0) | P(p) \rangle =\,& \imag p^+ f_P, \\
\langle 0 | \overline \psi(0) \gamma^+ \psi(0) | V(p, \lambda) \rangle =\,& e^+_\lambda M_V f_V.
\end{aligned}$$ Here only the “good” currents (the “+” component) are used. The corresponding LFWF representation reads [@Lepage:1980fj], $$\label{eqn:dc}
\frac{f_{P,V}}{2 \sqrt{2N_c}} = \int_0^1 \frac{\dd x}{2\sqrt{x(1-x)}} \int\frac{\dd^2k_\perp}{(2\pi)^3}
\psi^{(\lambda=0)}_{\uparrow\downarrow\mp\downarrow\uparrow}(x, \vec k_\perp).$$ For this calculation, we choose $N_{\max}=8$ for charmonium and $N_{\max}=32$ for bottomonium, roughly corresponding to $\Lambda_\textsc{uv}
\triangleq \kappa \sqrt{N_{\max}} \approx 1.7 m_q$, where $\Lambda_\textsc{uv}$ is the UV regulator, and $m_q$ is the heavy quark mass. This choice is motived by the competition between the needs for both a better basis resolution and a lower UV scale since our model does not incorporate radiative corrections. We also provide an indicator for sensitivity by altering the basis truncation parameter $N_{\max}$. The resulting charmonium and bottomonium decay constants are shown in Fig. \[fig:decay\], which also collects PDG values converted from dilepton or diphoton decay widths [@Agashe:2014kda], Lattice [@Davies:2010ip; @McNeile:2012qf; @Donald:2012ga; @Colquhoun:2014ica] and Dyson-Schwinger/Bethe-Salpeter equations (DSE/BSE or DSE, [@Blank:2011ha]; see also [@Ding:2015rkn]) results for comparison. Our results fall into the ballpark of the PDG values as well as those from other approaches wherever available.
![The decay constants for vector and pseudo-scalar charmonia and bottomonia. The results are obtained with $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=8$ for charmonium and $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$ for bottomonium, corresponding to UV cutoffs $\Lambda_\textsc{uv} \triangleq \kappa \sqrt{N_{\max}} \approx 1.7
m_q$, where $m_q$ is the heavy quark mass. The widths of the “error bars” are taken to be $\Delta f_{c\bar c} = \big|f_{c\bar
c}(N_{\max}=8) - f_{c\bar c}(N_{\max}=16)\big|$ for charmonium and $\Delta f_{b\bar b} = 2\big|f_{b\bar b}(N_{\max}=32) - f_{b\bar
b}(N_{\max}=24)\big|$ for bottomonium. They are used to indicate the sensitivity with respect to the basis truncation, rather than the full error estimates. Results from PDG [@Agashe:2014kda], Lattice [@Davies:2010ip; @McNeile:2012qf; @Donald:2012ga; @Colquhoun:2014ica] and Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSE) [@Blank:2011ha] are provided for comparison. []{data-label="fig:decay"}](Figures/decay_constants_raw_combined.pdf){width="65.00000%"}
Radii
-----
![ “Charge” and mass radii of (pseudo-)scalar mesons (see text). Results are obtained from extrapolating $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=8,16,24,32$ values. The numerical uncertainty is quoted as the difference between the extrapolated result and the largest basis result ($N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$). Charge radii from our earlier work with fixd $\alpha_s$ (BLFQ${}_{15}$, [@Li:2015zda]) as well as other approaches [@Dudek:2006ej; @Maris:2006ea] are provided for comparison. []{data-label="fig:radii"}](Figures/radii.pdf){width="65.00000%"}
Classically and in non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the root-mean-square charge (mass) radius is the expectation value of the displacement operator that characterizes the charge (mass) distribution of the system. In quantum field theory, no such local position operator is allowed and, instead, the form factors are defined as the slope of the charge (gravitational) form factor at zero momentum transfer: $$\label{eqn:ff}
\langle r^2_\mathrm{c} \rangle = -6\frac{\partial}{\partial Q^2}F_\mathrm{ch}(Q^2)\Big|_{Q\to0}, \quad
\langle r^2_\mathrm{m} \rangle = -6\frac{\partial}{\partial Q^2}F_\mathrm{gr}(Q^2)\Big|_{Q\to0}.$$ Remarkably, in LFWF representation [@Brodsky:2000ii], this definition exactly restores the charge (mass) distribution interpretation [@Li:2016wwu]. For example, for (pseudo-)scalar mesons in the two-body approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle r^2_\mathrm{c}\rangle =\,& \frac{3}{2} \langle \vec b^2_\perp \rangle
\triangleq \frac{3}{2} \sum_{s, \bar s} \int_0^1 \frac{\dd x}{4\pi} \int \dd^2r_\perp \, (1-x)^2\vec r^2_\perp \,
\widetilde\psi_{s\bar s}^*(\vec r_\perp, x)
\widetilde\psi_{s\bar s}(\vec r_\perp, x),
\label{eqn:light-front_charge_radii}\\
\langle r^2_\mathrm{m}\rangle =\,& \frac{3}{2} \langle \vec \zeta^2_\perp \rangle
\triangleq \frac{3}{2} \sum_{s, \bar s} \int_0^1 \frac{\dd
x}{4\pi} \int \dd^2r_\perp \, x(1-x)\vec r^2_\perp \,
\widetilde\psi_{s\bar s}^*(\vec r_\perp, x)
\widetilde\psi_{s\bar s}(\vec r_\perp, x).
\label{eqn:light-front_gravitational_radii}
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\widetilde\psi$ are LFWFs in transverse coordinate space. $\vec \zeta_\perp \triangleq \sqrt{x(1-x)}\vec r_\perp$ is Brodsky and de Téramond’s holographic variable [@Brodsky:2014yha], $\vec b_\perp \triangleq (1-x)\vec r_\perp$ is Burkardt’s impact parameter [@Burkardt:2000za]. This relation is also valid when higher Fock sector contributions are included if the we define $\vec \zeta_\perp$ and $\vec b_\perp$ in the $n$-body Fock sector as, $$\vec\zeta_\perp^2 \triangleq \sum_i x_i (\vec r_{i\perp} - \vec R_\perp)^2, \quad
\vec b_\perp^2 \triangleq \sum_i e_i (\vec r_{i\perp} - \vec R_\perp)^2,$$ where $\vec R_\perp \triangleq \sum_i x_i \vec r_{i\perp}$ is the transverse center of the system, $e_i$ is the charge number of the $i$-th constituent, and $\sum_i e_i \equiv Q$.
Due to charge conjugation symmetry, the charge radii of quarkonium vanishes. Here we define a fictitious charge radii by considering only the charge of the quark. With this definition, the “charge” radii are the same as the mass radii in the non-relativistic limit, which suggests that their difference is a pure relativistic effect. Fig. \[fig:radii\] presents the r.m.s. charge and mass radii of scalar and pseudo-scalar mesons. In our results, the mass radii are in general smaller than the charge radii and the difference is reduced in the heavier system (bottomonium). Fixed $\alpha_s$ BLFQ results (BLFQ${}_{15}$, [@Li:2015zda]) as well as earlier results from quenched Lattice calculation [@Dudek:2006ej] and DSE [@Maris:2006ea] are included in Fig. \[fig:radii\] for comparison. Our results are systematically smaller. From the trend with respect to basis truncation $N_{\max}=L_{\max}$, UV physics and/or higher Fock sector contributions may be expected to produce significant corrections to our results for radii.
Wave Functions, Amplitudes and Distributions {#sect:lfwfs}
============================================
Light-Front Wave Functions
--------------------------
Wave functions offer first-hand insight into the system. They play a central role in evaluating hadronic observables and light-cone distributions, and are an indispensable tool for investigating exclusive processes in deep inelastic scattering [@Chen:2016dlk]. Compared with the widely used phenomenological LFWFs in the literature, our wave functions generalize the AdS/QCD wave functions and provide unified access to ground and excited states. In particular, the spin structure is generated from the one-gluon exchange and its interplay with the confining interaction.
In this section, we present the valence sector wave functions. Heavy quarkonium is an ideal system to explore the qualitative features of the wave functions, as they can be compared with the familiar non-relativistic quantum mechanical wave functions. We show LFWFs with different polarizations and spin alignments: $\psi_{s\bar s}^\lambda(\vec k_\perp, x)$. For each spin configuration, the *orbital* angular momentum projection $m_\ell=\lambda-s_1-s_2$ is definite ($\lambda\equiv m_j$). Hence, the angular dependence of the wave function factorizes: $\psi_{s\bar s}^\lambda(\vec k_\perp, x) = \Psi_{s\bar s}^\lambda(k_\perp, x)\exp(\imag m_\ell
\theta)$, with $\theta\equiv\arg \vec k_\perp, k_\perp \equiv |\vec k_\perp|$. To visualize the wave functions, we drop the phase $\exp(\imag m_\ell \theta)$, while retaining the relative sign $\exp(\imag m_\ell \pi) =
(-1)^{m_\ell}$ for negative values of $k_\perp$. Namely, we plot: $$\Psi_{s\bar s}^\lambda(k_\perp, x) \equiv \left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\Psi_{s\bar s}^\lambda(k_\perp, x), & k_\perp \ge 0, \\
\Psi_{s\bar s}^\lambda(-k_\perp, x)\times(-1)^{m_\ell}, & k_\perp<0.
\end{array}\right.$$ We also define: $
\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow \pm \downarrow\uparrow}^\lambda(\vec k_\perp, x) \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \big[
\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow}^\lambda(\vec k_\perp, x) \pm \psi_{\downarrow\uparrow}^\lambda(\vec k_\perp, x) \big].
$ The full set of results is collected in supplemental materials. Here we focus on some selected results.
Figure \[fig:etac1S\] shows the LFWFs of the charmed ground-state pseudo scalar $\eta_c(1S)$. There are two independent components: $\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow-\downarrow\uparrow}(\vec k_\perp, x)$ and $\psi_{\downarrow\downarrow}(\vec k_\perp, x)=\psi^{*}_{\uparrow\uparrow}(\vec k_\perp, x)$. The number of independent components is not *a priori* the same in different relativistic approaches. One of the components is related to the non-relativistic wave functions, whereas the other one is of purely relativistic origin and becomes negligible in the non-relativistic limit. In covariant light-front dynamics, the extra component depends on the orientation of the quantization surface [@Carbonell:1998rj; @Leitner:2010nx]. Its existence ensures the rotational symmetry, albeit not exactly in our model [@Carbonell:1998rj]. The Lorentz structure of the pseudo scalar wave function can be written as [@Carbonell:1998rj; @Leitner:2010nx], $$\psi_{s\bar s}(\vec k_\perp, x) = \bar u_{s}(k_1)\Big[ \phi_1(k_\perp, x) \gamma_5 + \phi_2(k_\perp, x) \frac{\gamma^+\gamma_5}{P^+} \Big]
v_{\bar
s}(k_2).$$ where $\gamma^+ = \gamma^0+\gamma^3$. Let $n=(1,0,0,-1)$ be a null vector perpendicular to the quantization surface. $\gamma^+=n_\mu\gamma^\mu$, $P^+\equiv n_\mu P^\mu$, both depending on the orientation of the quantization surface.
For charmonium, the dominate component is the singlet $\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow-\downarrow\uparrow}$ and its wave function resembles an S-wave. In the non-relativistic limit, the longitudinal momentum fraction $x$ is reduced to: $x \to 1/2 + {k_z}/(2m_q)$. Hence, the $x$–$k_\perp$ plots in Fig. \[fig:etac1S\] (central panels) are reduced to the $k_z$–$k_\perp$ density plots of the non-relativistic wave function, i.e. a slice of the full 3D wave function, in the non-relativistic limit. To visualize the full 3D wave function, one may rotate the density plot along the vertical axis at $k_\perp=0$, applying a phase factor $\exp(\imag m_\ell \theta)$ as necessary[^7]. To facilitate the visualization in 3D, we also plot the real part of the wave functions in the transverse plane at $x=0.5$ in Fig. \[fig:etac1S\] (right panels).
Figure \[fig:etanS\] shows the spin singlet components of the charmed and beautified pseudo scalars $\eta_c(nS)$ and $\eta_b(nS)$. Each of them is the dominant component in their respective systems. The 2S and 3S states show both longitudinal and transverse nodes, consistent with the non-relativistic wave functions. Therefore, the non-relativistic picture emerges in heavy quarkonium as expected. Note that the node structure spans a broad kinematical region \[$x\sim (0.2\text{--}0.8)$\] in charmonium, extending beyond the naïve non-relativistic scope: $|x-\frac{1}{2}|\ll 1$.
It is also interesting to compare the charmonium and bottomonium LFWFs, as shown in Fig. \[fig:etac\_vs\_etab\]. Bottomonium is associated with a larger mass scale and is broader in the transverse momentum direction. On the other hand, bottomonium is more non-relativistic compared with charmonium, and hence in the longitudinal direction its wave functions are narrower. Recall that in the non-relativistic limit, the quarkonium distribution amplitude is a Dirac delta: $\phi(x) \propto \delta(x-\frac{1}{2})$.
![Comparison of the spin singlet LFWFs $\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow-\downarrow\uparrow}(\vec k_\perp, x)$ between charmonium (*left*) and bottomonium (*right*). The magnitude of the wave function is in $\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig:etac_vs_etab"}](Figures/etab_vs_etac_N32_mom_style2){width="40.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:VM\] compares selected spin configurations of the charmed vector mesons: $J/\psi$ with its “angular” excitation $\psi(1D)$. The dominant components of $J/\psi$ are $\psi^{\lambda=0}_{\uparrow\downarrow+\downarrow\uparrow}$ (Fig. \[fig:VM\_a\]) and $\psi^{\lambda=1}_{\uparrow\uparrow}$ (see supplemental materials) — both are S-wave. The D-wave components (e.g. Figs. \[fig:VM\_b\] & \[fig:VM\_c\]) are small but non-vanishing in $J/\psi$ as a result of S-D mixing. Similar sub-dominant components due to relativity are often missing in phenomenological vector meson wave functions[^8], e.g., boosted Gaussian wave function [@Chen:2016dlk]. The dominant components of $\psi(1D)$ are $\psi^{\lambda=0}_{\uparrow\downarrow+\downarrow\uparrow}$ (Fig. \[fig:VM\_d\]), $\psi^{\lambda=0}_{\downarrow\downarrow}$ (Fig. \[fig:VM\_e\]), and $\psi^{\lambda=1}_{\downarrow\downarrow}$ (Fig. \[fig:VM\_f\]). It is evident that they resemble the non-relativistic D-waves $Y_{20}(\hat k)$, $Y_{21}(\hat k)$ and $Y_{22}(\hat k)$, where $Y_{\ell m}(\hat k)$ are the spherical harmonics. This becomes more evident when LFWFs in the transverse plane ($k_x$–$k_y$) are considered (see Fig. \[fig:Dwave\_VM\]). Fig. \[fig:upsilon2D\] displays $\Upsilon(2D)$, a state consisting of both radial and angular excitations.
![One component of $\psi(1D)$: $\psi^{\lambda=+1}_{\downarrow\downarrow}$ in the $x$–$k_\perp$ plane (*left panel*) and in the transverse plane $k_x$–$k_y$ at $x=0.5$ (*right panel*). []{data-label="fig:Dwave_VM"}](Figures/psi1D_mj1_mm_N32_RunAlf_mom_style2 "fig:"){width="30.00000%"} ![One component of $\psi(1D)$: $\psi^{\lambda=+1}_{\downarrow\downarrow}$ in the $x$–$k_\perp$ plane (*left panel*) and in the transverse plane $k_x$–$k_y$ at $x=0.5$ (*right panel*). []{data-label="fig:Dwave_VM"}](Figures/psi1D_mj1_mm_N32_RunAlf_mom_style2_tran "fig:"){width="30.00000%"}
Distribution Amplitudes {#sec:da_and_pdf}
-----------------------
LFWFs provide unique access to light cone distributions by integrating out the transverse momentum [@Brodsky:1997de]. Among those, the distribution amplitudes (DAs) and the parton distribution functions (PDFs) control the exclusive and inclusive processes at large momentum transfer, respectively [@Lepage:1980fj].
DAs are defined from the light-like separated gauge invariant vacuum-to-meson matrix elements [@Lepage:1980fj; @Bodwin:2006dm]. In light-front formalism, the leading-twist DAs within the light-cone gauge for pseudo-scalar and vector mesons[^9] are [@Bodwin:2006dm; @Braguta:2006wr; @Braguta:2007fh]: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | \overline\psi(z)\gamma^+\gamma_5\psi(-z)|P(p)\rangle_\mu =\,& \imag p^+ f_P\int_0^1 \dd x \, e^{\imag p^+z^-(x-{\mathsmaller{\frac{1}{2}}})}
\phi_P(x;
\mu)\Big|_{z^+,\vec z_\perp=0,} \\
\langle 0 | \overline\psi(z)\gamma^+\psi(-z)|V(p,\lambda)\rangle_\mu =\,& e^+_\lambda(p) M_V f_V \int_0^1 \dd x \,
e^{\imag p^+z^-(x-{\mathsmaller{\frac{1}{2}}})}
\phi_V(x;
\mu)\Big|_{z^+,\vec z_\perp=0,} \quad (\lambda=0)\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{P,V}$ are the decay constants (see Sect. \[sec:decay\]). $M_{P,V}$ are the mass eigenvalues. $e^\mu_\lambda(p)$ is the polarization vector. The non-local matrix elements as well as the DAs depend on the scale $\mu$, the renormalization scale or UV cutoff. In these definitions, DAs are normalized to unity, viz: $$\int_0^1 \dd x \, \phi(x; \mu) = 1.$$ In LFWF representation, DAs can be written as [@Lepage:1980fj], $$\frac{f_{P,V}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}} \phi_{P,V}(x; \mu) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{x(1-x)}}
\int\limits^{\mathclap{\lesssim\mu^2}} \frac{\dd^2k_\perp}{2(2\pi)^3}\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow\mp\downarrow\uparrow}^{\lambda=0}(x, \vec
k_\perp).$$ Here $\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow\pm\downarrow\uparrow} = (\psi_{\uparrow\downarrow}\pm\psi_{\downarrow\uparrow})/\sqrt{2}$ as defined above and the minus (plus) sign is associated with the pseudo-scalar (vector) state. The UV cutoff is taken as $k_\perp/\sqrt{x(1-x)}\lesssim\mu$ (see, e.g., Refs. [@Lepage:1980fj; @Krautgartner:1991xz; @Zhang:1993dd]). In the basis representation, the truncation parameter $N_{\max}$ provides a natural UV regulator $\mu\approx\kappa\sqrt{N_{\max}}$ and no hard cutoff is needed in the integration.
Figure \[fig:DAs\] compares the ground-state vector meson ($J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$) DAs with predictions from BLFQ and AdS/QCD with or without IMA [@Brodsky:2014yha; @Vega:2009zb; @Branz:2010ub; @Swarnkar:2015osa]. Calculations using pure basis functions are also presented (AdS/QCD + LC), which turns out to be very close to AdS/QCD + IMA (cf. Fig. \[fig:longitudinal\_basis\_functions\]), but very different from the full diagonalization (“BLFQ”) results. In fact, the BLFQ results move towards the pQCD asymptotics as the scale increases. Obviously, the one-gluon exchange interaction plays an important role at short distance as is expected. DAs of S-wave heavy quarkonia are shown in Fig. \[fig:DAs\_2\]. The difference between the pseudo-scalar mesons and the accompanying vector mesons are, again, driven by the one-gluon exchange interaction. The shape of the excited state DAs is consistent with what has been obtained from other methods, e.g. QCD sum rule [@Braguta:2007tq], wherever available. The basis functions are optimized for long-distance physics, i.e., confinement, and DAs are sensitive to short-distance physics. The mismatch as a finite-basis effect is clearly visible around the endpoints in these figures.
![Comparison of the longitudinal leading-twist distribution amplitudes of $J/\psi$ (*left*) and $\Upsilon$ (*right*). The pQCD asymptotic is given by $6x(1-x)$ [@Lepage:1980fj]. The AdS/QCD prediction of Brodsky and de Téramond is given by $(8/\pi)\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ [@Brodsky:2014yha]. For AdS/QCD + IMA, we use parameters from Ref. [@Vega:2009zb] (cf. [@Swarnkar:2015osa]) for $J/\psi$ and our parameters $\kappa, m_q$ for $\Upsilon$. AdS/QCD+LC adopts longitudinal confinement to modify the AdS/QCD wave function, viz the basis functions. BLFQ further implements the one-gluon exchange. The BLFQ results are with basis truncation $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=8, 32$ as indicated in the legends. The corresponding UV cutoffs are $\mu_{c\bar
c}\approx 2.8, 5.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\mu_{b\bar b}\approx 3.9, 7.9\,\mathrm{GeV}$.[]{data-label="fig:DAs"}](Figures/Jpsi_DA_Nmax8vsNmax32 "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![Comparison of the longitudinal leading-twist distribution amplitudes of $J/\psi$ (*left*) and $\Upsilon$ (*right*). The pQCD asymptotic is given by $6x(1-x)$ [@Lepage:1980fj]. The AdS/QCD prediction of Brodsky and de Téramond is given by $(8/\pi)\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ [@Brodsky:2014yha]. For AdS/QCD + IMA, we use parameters from Ref. [@Vega:2009zb] (cf. [@Swarnkar:2015osa]) for $J/\psi$ and our parameters $\kappa, m_q$ for $\Upsilon$. AdS/QCD+LC adopts longitudinal confinement to modify the AdS/QCD wave function, viz the basis functions. BLFQ further implements the one-gluon exchange. The BLFQ results are with basis truncation $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=8, 32$ as indicated in the legends. The corresponding UV cutoffs are $\mu_{c\bar
c}\approx 2.8, 5.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\mu_{b\bar b}\approx 3.9, 7.9\,\mathrm{GeV}$.[]{data-label="fig:DAs"}](Figures/Upsilon_DA_Nmax8vsNmax32 "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
![The leading-twist distribution amplitudes of the S-wave charmonia (*left*) and S-wave bottomonia (*right*) at $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$. The corresponding UV cutoffs are $\mu_{c\bar c}\approx 5.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\mu_{b\bar b}\approx
7.9\,\mathrm{GeV}$.[]{data-label="fig:DAs_2"}](Figures/DA_charm "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![The leading-twist distribution amplitudes of the S-wave charmonia (*left*) and S-wave bottomonia (*right*) at $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$. The corresponding UV cutoffs are $\mu_{c\bar c}\approx 5.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\mu_{b\bar b}\approx
7.9\,\mathrm{GeV}$.[]{data-label="fig:DAs_2"}](Figures/DA_bottom "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
It is useful to compute the moments in order to quantitatively compare with other approaches. The $n$-th moment is defined as, $$\langle \xi^n\rangle = \int_0^1 \dd x\, (2x-1)^n \phi(x). \qquad (\xi \equiv 2x-1)$$ Table \[tab:mom\] compares the first few moments of selected heavy quarkonia states obtained from various approaches. Results from other approaches, including non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD, [@Bodwin:2006dn]), QCD sum rule (QCDSR, [@Braguta:2006wr; @Braguta:2007fh; @Braguta:2007tq]), light-front quark model (LFQM, [@Choi:2007ze]) and Dyson-Schwinger/Bethe-Salpeter equations (DSE, [@Ding:2015rkn]), are shown for comparison. In all these approaches, moments are computed at the effective heavy quark mass scale $\mu
\simeq m_q$, with the exception of DSE at $\mu = 2\,\mathrm{GeV}$. We provide results at $\mu \approx 1.7 m_q$, corresponding to $N_{\max} =
L_{\max} = 8$ for charmonium and $N_{\max} = L_{\max} = 32$ for bottomonium. For the sake of convenience, we also provide moments at the effective heavy quark mass scale $\mu = m_q$ (“BLFQ\*”) through simple extrapolation (for charmonium) or interpolation (for bottomonium). The $3\sigma$ (99.75% C.L.) extrapolation or interpolation errors (prediction intervals) are included. Our results are in reasonable agreement with various other approaches, though relativistic models, including ours, are systematically larger than those of NRQCD. Results from pQCD asymptotics and AdS/QCD of Brodsky and de Téramond (AdS/QCD, [@Brodsky:2014yha]) are not particularly applicable for heavy quarkonia at the heavy quark mass scale and are simply included for completeness. The second moment can be used to estimate the relative velocity of the partons: $\langle v^2 \rangle \approx 3 \langle
\xi^2 \rangle$, viz $$\begin{split}
c\bar c :& \quad \langle v^2_{\eta_c} \rangle \sim 0.36, \quad \langle v^2_{\eta'_c} \rangle \sim\, 0.54; \qquad(\mu \approx 1.7 m_c) \\
b\bar b :& \quad \langle v^2_{\eta_b} \rangle \sim 0.21, \quad \langle v^2_{\eta'_b} \rangle \sim\, 0.30,\quad \langle v^2_{\eta''_b}
\rangle \sim\, 0.36. \qquad (\mu \approx 1.6 m_b)\\
\end{split}$$
[cc rrrr rrrr rr]{} & & [NRQCD]{} & [QCDSR]{} & [LFQM]{} & [DSE]{} & [BLFQ\*]{} & [BLFQ]{} & [AdS/QCD]{} & IMA & [pQCD]{}\
& [$\langle \xi^2 \rangle$]{} & 0.075(11) & 0.070(7) & 0.0084[${}^{+0.004}_{-0.007}$]{} & 0.10 & 0.096(13) & 0.12 & 0.25 & 0.0058 & 0.20\
& [$\langle \xi^4 \rangle$]{} & 0.010(3) & 0.012(2) & 0.017${}^{+0.001}_{-0.003}$ & 0.032 & 0.019(2) & 0.036 & 0.13 & 0.0084 & 0.086\
& [$\langle \xi^6 \rangle$]{} & 0.0017(7) & 0.0032(9) & 0.0047${}^{+0.0006}_{-0.0010}$ & 0.015 & 0.0036(27) & 0.014 & 0.078 & 0.0018 & 0.047\
& [$\langle \xi^8 \rangle$]{} & & & & 0.0059 & $-$0.0005(46) & 0.0068 & 0.055 & 0.00047 & 0.030\
& $\mu$ & $m_c$ & $m_c$ & $m_c$ & 2 GeV & $m_c$ (ext.) & $1.7m_c$ & & & $\infty$\
& [$\langle \xi^2 \rangle$]{} & 0.075(11) & 0.070(7) & 0.082${}^{+0.004}_{-0.006}$ & 0.039 & 0.096(20) & 0.11 & 0.25 & 0.0058 & 0.20\
& [$\langle \xi^4 \rangle$]{} & 0.010(3) & 0.012(2) & 0.016${}^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ & 0.0038 & 0.021(9) & 0.030 & 0.13 & 0.0084 & 0.086\
& [$\langle \xi^6 \rangle$]{} & 0.0017(7) & 0.0031(8) & 0.0046${}^{+0.0005}_{-0.0010}$ & 7.3$\times10^{-4}$ & 0.0060(41) & 0.011 & 0.078 & 0.0018 & 0.047\
& [$\langle \xi^8 \rangle$]{} & & & & 3.3$\times10^{-4}$ & 0.0015(15) & 0.0053 & 0.055 & 0.00047 & 0.030\
& $\mu$ & $m_c$ & $m_c$ & $m_c$ & 2 GeV & $m_c$ (ext.) & $1.7m_c$ & & & $\infty$\
& [$\langle \xi^2 \rangle$]{} & 0.22(14) & 0.18${}^{+0.005}_{-0.07}$ & & & 0.157(9) & 0.179\
& [$\langle \xi^4 \rangle$]{} & 0.085(110) & 0.051${}^{+0.031}_{-0.031}$ & & & 0.043(7) & 0.059\
& [$\langle \xi^6 \rangle$]{} & 0.039(77) & 0.017${}^{+0.016}_{-0.014}$& & & 0.013(3) & 0.025\
& [$\langle \xi^6 \rangle$]{} & & & & & 0.0036(5) & 0.012\
& $\mu$ & $m_c$ & $m_c$ & $m_c$ & & $m_c$ (ext.) & $1.7m_c$ &\
& [$\langle \xi^2 \rangle$]{} & & & & 0.070 & 0.052(2) & 0.071 & 0.25 & & 0.20\
& [$\langle \xi^4 \rangle$]{} & & & & 0.015 & 0.0081(61) & 0.015 & 0.13 & & 0.086\
& [$\langle \xi^6 \rangle$]{} & & & & 0.0042 & 0.0020(48) & 0.0051 & 0.078 & & 0.047\
& [$\langle \xi^8 \rangle$]{} & & & & 0.0013 & 0.0006(31) & 0.0021 & 0.055 & & 0.030\
& $\mu$ & $m_b$ & $m_b$ & $m_b$ & 2 GeV & $m_b$ (int.) & $1.6m_b$ & & & $\infty$\
& [$\langle \xi^2 \rangle$]{} & & & & 0.014 & 0.047(17) & 0.061 & 0.25 & & 0.20\
& [$\langle \xi^4 \rangle$]{} & & & & 4.3$\times10^{-4}$ & 0.0066(73) & 0.012 & 0.13 & & 0.086\
& [$\langle \xi^6 \rangle$]{} & & & & $4.4\times10^{-5}$ & 0.0014(63) & 0.0036 & 0.078 & & 0.047\
& [$\langle \xi^8 \rangle$]{} & & & & $3.7\times10^{-6}$ & 0.0004(30) & 0.0014 & 0.055 & & 0.030\
& $\mu$ & $m_b$ & $m_b$ & $m_b$ & 2 GeV & $m_b$ (int.) & $1.6m_b$ & & & $\infty$\
& [$\langle \xi^2 \rangle$]{} & & & & & 0.082(13) & 0.10\
& [$\langle \xi^4 \rangle$]{} & & & & & 0.013(15) & 0.022\
& [$\langle \xi^6 \rangle$]{} & & & & & 0.003(10) & 0.0068\
& [$\langle \xi^8 \rangle$]{} & & & & & 0.0007(44) & 0.0027\
& $\mu$ & $m_b$ & $m_b$ & $m_b$ & 2 GeV & $m_b$ (int.) & $1.6m_b$ &\
Parton Distributions
--------------------
The quark Parton Distribution Function (PDF) $q(x; \mu)$ is the probability of finding a collinear quark carrying momentum fraction $x$ up to scale $\mu$. In the light-front formalism, it can be obtained by integrating out the transverse momentum of the squared wave function: $$q(x; \mu) = \frac{1}{x(1-x)} \sum_{s, \bar s}\int\limits^{\mathclap{\lesssim\mu^2}} \frac{\dd^2k_\perp}{2(2\pi)^3} \big| \psi_{s\bar
s}(x, \vec k_\perp) \big|^2.$$ Within the two-body approximation, the PDF and its first moment are normalized to unity \[cf. Eq. (\[eqn:normalization\])\]: $$\int_0^1 \dd x\, q(x; \mu) = 1, \quad \int_0^1 \dd x\, \big[ xq(x; \mu)+(1-x)q(x; \mu)\big] = 1.$$
Figure \[fig:pdf\] shows PDFs of (pseudo-)scalar quarkonia. They exhibit distinctive features compared with DAs. In particular, there is no dip at $x=1/2$ in excited-state PDFs, in contrast to DAs. There appear to be ripples on the downward slopes of PDFs for excited states as may be expected from contributions of longitudinally excited basis functions.
![PDFs of (pseudo-)scalar charmonia (*left*) and bottomonia (*right*) at $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$. The equivalent UV cutoffs are $\mu_{c\bar c}\approx 5.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\mu_{b\bar b}\approx 7.9\,\mathrm{GeV}$.[]{data-label="fig:pdf"}](Figures/PDF_charm "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![PDFs of (pseudo-)scalar charmonia (*left*) and bottomonia (*right*) at $N_{\max}=L_{\max}=32$. The equivalent UV cutoffs are $\mu_{c\bar c}\approx 5.5\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $\mu_{b\bar b}\approx 7.9\,\mathrm{GeV}$.[]{data-label="fig:pdf"}](Figures/PDF_bottom "fig:"){width="44.50000%"}
The generalization of PDFs, known as generalized parton distributions (GPDs), unifying PDFs and form factors, provide more insights into the system, and are directly related to experiments [@Burkardt:2000za; @Diehl:2003ny]. Wigner distributions are more general quantities unifying GPDs and the transverse momentum distributions. In principle, all of them are accessible through LFWFs, at least in some kinematical regime (e.g. [@Swarnkar:2015osa]). For example, in the zero skewedness limit, the impact parameter GPD $q(x, \vec b_\perp)$ of Burkardt [@Burkardt:2000za] is related to the LFWFs simply by, $$q(x, \vec b_\perp) = \frac{1}{(1-x)^2}\sum_{s, \bar s} \Big| \widetilde\psi_{s\bar s}\big( \vec b_\perp/(1-x), x \big) \Big|^2.
\qquad \big( \; \vec b_\perp = (1-x) \vec r_\perp \; \big)$$
Summary and Discussions {#sect:summary}
=======================
We present a light-front model for quarkonium that incorporates light-front holographic QCD and the one-gluon exchange interaction with a running coupling. We solve the model in the Hamiltonian approach with a basis function expansion. We obtain mass spectroscopy and the light-front wave functions. The spectroscopy agrees with the PDG data within 30–40 MeV of r.m.s. mass deviation for states below the open flavor threshold. The overall quality improves the previous work that employed a fixed strong coupling and a non-covariant counterterm. The wave functions reveal rich structures, especially for excited states. Through analysis and comparison, we find these structures are consistent with the standard non-relativistic picture. From these wave functions, we also compute the decay constants, r.m.s. radii, distribution amplitudes, and parton distributions. Our results appear to be in reasonable agreement with those from other approaches wherever available.
This work is an attempt to improve light-front holographic QCD approach by adding realistic QCD interactions. In particular, we show that while rotational symmetry is broken due to truncation, the extraction of angular momentum $j$ is feasible and reliable [@Trittmann:1997xz; @Brodsky:2006ez]. The Hamiltonian formalism and the basis function approach enable us to access a wide range of states, including radial and angular excited states extending over all known excited states and beyond. The obtained light-front wave functions allow us to directly compute hadronic distributions such as distribution amplitudes as well as hadronic observables. It should be emphasized that these attractive features are not limited to the present effective model—they are the shared advantages within the light-front Hamiltonian formalism [@Bakker:2013cea].
We did not include self-energy in solving the heavy quarkonia. However, radiative corrections may become important in evaluating some observables as we employ more realistic field-theory dynamics. The calculation of the decay constants illustrates this particular challenge. As we move to the light sector, the consistent inclusion of self-energies and renormalization issues may become more acute if one wants to address additional phenomena within QCD such as chiral symmetry breaking. Nevertheless, we believe the present work may serve as a substantial step for developing an elaborate light-front model for hadrons as relativistic bound states.
While the advantages of the basis function expansion is obvious, it nevertheless requires more investigation. The IR and UV scales are tied to the basis truncation parameter $N_{\max}$ and $L_{\max}$. Compared to the wave-equation approach, the UV asymptotics is not easy to analyze. We typically rely on extrapolation of the basis parameters as developed in ab initio nuclear structure calculations [@Coon:2012ab]. In BLFQ, the basis extrapolation requires further study. One investigation was conducted in the context of strong coupling light-front QED and the authors found robust basis extrapolations that are consistent with the wave-equation approach [@Wiecki:2014ola]. The coupling ($\alpha=0.3$), the transverse basis as well as the one-photon exchange kernel used in Ref. [@Wiecki:2014ola] are very similar to the present model.
Future developments should focus on the inclusion of higher Fock sectors and the non-perturbative renormalization (see Ref. [@Hiller:2016itl] for a recent review). In the top-down approach, a systematic non-perturbative renormalization scheme should be developed and non-pertubative dynamics has to be addressed using efficient numerical methods. Notable examples include the full basis light-front quantization (BLFQ, [@Vary:2009gt]), the renormalization group procedure for effective particles (RGPEP, [@Glazek:2012qj; @Gomez-Rocha:2015esa]), the Fock sector dependent renormalization (FSDR, [@Karmanov:2008br; @Li:2015iaw]), and the light-front coupled cluster method (LFCC, [@Chabysheva:2011ed]). In the bottom-up approach, one is motivated to design appropriate kernels that incorporate important physics while preserving the symmetries. Notable physics goals for hadrons include the radiative corrections, asymptotic freedom and the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. Incorporating the running coupling is the first step. In both approaches, the current model may serve as a first approximation. See also Refs. [@Ji:2012ux; @Chang:2013pq; @Ji:2013dva; @Karmanov:2005nv; @Leitao:2017] for some recent works bridging other approaches with the light-front approach.
The applicability of the current model is not restricted to heavy quarkonium. Extensions to other meson and baryon systems, in principle, are straightforward, although new issues have to be addressed in each of these systems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We wish to thank X. Zhao, G. Chen, M.-j. Li, S. Leitão, S.J. Brodsky, G. de Téramond, E. Swanson, J.R. Spence, J.R. Hiller, S.S. Chabysheva, S.D. Głazek, A. Trawiński and M. Gomez-Rocha for valuable discussions. One of us (Y.L.) also wants to thank the hospitality of the High Energy Nuclear Theory Group at the Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, China, where part of the work is being completed.
This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grant Nos. DE-FG02-87ER40371 and DESC0008485 (SciDAC-3/NUCLEI). Computational resources were provided by the National Energy Research Supercomputer Center (NERSC), which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
Light-Front Coordinates
=======================
We adopt natural units throughout the article: $\hbar = c = 1$. We roughly follow the convention of Ref. [@Wiecki:2014ola]. The light-front coordinates are defined as $x = (x^-, x^+, x^1, x^2) \equiv (x^-, x^+, \vec x_\perp)$, where $x^\pm = x^0 \pm x^3$. The inner product of two 4-vectors is defined as: $a\cdot b = \frac{1}{2} a^- b^+ + \frac{1}{2} a^+ b^- - \vec a_\perp \cdot \vec b_\perp$. It should be noted that the determinant of the metric tensor is $\det g = -(1/4)$.
The Lorentz invariant phase space measure is $$\int \frac{\dd^4 p}{(2\pi)^4}\vartheta(p^0) 2\pi\delta(p^2-m^2) =
\int \frac{\dd^3 p}{(2\pi)^32p^0}\vartheta(p^0) =
\int \frac{\dd^2 p_\perp \dd p^+}{(2\pi)^32p^+}\vartheta(p^+), \quad (m^2\ge0)$$ where $\vartheta(z)$ is the unit step function. The one-particle state is normalized as: $\langle p, j, m_j | p', j', m_j'\rangle =
2p^+\vartheta(p^+)(2\pi)^3\delta^3(p-p')\delta_{jj'}\delta_{m_j,m_j'}$, where the Dirac delta is defined as $\delta^3(p) \equiv
\delta(p^+)\delta^2(\vec p_\perp)$.
Few-Body Kinematics
===================
We define boost-invariant momenta from the single-particle momenta $\{p^+_i, \vec p_{i\perp}\}$ as, $$x_i = p^+_i/P^+, \quad \vec k_{i\perp} = \vec p_{i\perp} - x_i \vec P_\perp. \qquad (P^+ = \sum_i p^+_i, \quad \vec P_\perp = \sum_i \vec
p_{i\perp})$$ $x_i$ are the longitudinal light-front momentum fractions; and $k_{i\perp}$ are the transverse relative momenta. They satisfy: $$\sum_i x_i = 1, \quad \sum_i \vec k_{i\perp} = 0.$$ The $n$-body phase space integration measure factorizes: $$\prod_{i} \int \frac{\dd^2 p_{i\perp} \dd p^+_i}{(2\pi)^32p^+_i}\vartheta(p^+_i) = \int \frac{\dd^2 P_\perp \dd
P^+}{(2\pi)^32P^+}\vartheta(P^+) \prod_{i} \int_0^1\frac{\dd x_i}{2x_i}\int \frac{\dd^2 k_{i\perp}}{(2\pi)^3}
\times 2(2\pi)^3\delta\Big(\sum_i x_i-1\Big)\delta^2\Big(\sum_i\vec k_{i\perp}\Big).$$ The invariant mass squared of the $n$-body Fock state is: $$s \equiv (p_1 + p_2 + \cdots p_n)^2 = \sum_i \frac{\vec k_{i\perp}^2+m^2_i}{x_i}. \qquad (p^2_i = m^2_i)$$
Spinors
=======
The $u$, $v$ spinors are defined as, $$u_s(p) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{p^+}}(\slashed{p} + m ) \gamma^+ \chi_s, \qquad
v_s(p) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{p^+}}(\slashed{p} - m ) \gamma^+ \chi_{-s},$$ where $\chi_{+} = (1,0,0,0)^{ {\mathpalette{ \raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}, \chi_{-} = (0,1,0,0)^{ {\mathpalette{ \raisebox{\depth}{$\m@th\intercal$}}}$; $\gamma^\pm = \gamma^0 \pm \gamma^3$; $s=\pm$ is the light-front helicity. The $u$, $v$ spinors defined above are polarized in the $z$-direction (or longitudinal direction): $$S_z u_\pm(p^+, \vec{p}_\perp=0) = \pm {\mathsmaller{\frac{1}{2}}}u_\pm (p^+, \vec{p}_\perp=0), \quad
S_z v_\pm(p^+, \vec{p}_\perp=0) = \mp {\mathsmaller{\frac{1}{2}}}v_\pm (p^+, \vec{p}_\perp=0), \\$$ $S_z\equiv \frac{\imag}{2}\gamma^1\gamma^2$ and follow the standard orthonormality $$\bar{u}_s(p) u_{s'}(p) = 2m\delta_{s s'}, \quad
\bar{v}_s(p) v_{s'}(p) = -2m\delta_{s s'},\quad
\bar{u}_s(p) v_{s'}(p) = \bar{v}_s(p) u_{s'}(p) = 0,$$ and completeness $$\sum_{s=\pm} u_s(p) \bar{u}_s(p) = \slashed{p} + m,\qquad
\sum_{s=\pm} v_s(p) \bar{v}_s(p) = \slashed{p} - m.$$ Here are some useful identities: $$\bar u_{s'}(p')\gamma^+u_s(p) = 2\sqrt{p^+p'^+}\delta_{ss'},
\quad
\bar u_{s'}(p')\gamma^+\gamma_5u_{s}(p) = 2\sqrt{p^+p'^+}\delta_{ss'} \mathrm{sign}(s).$$
The spinor matrix elements for the one-gluon exchange are collected in Table \[tab:spinor\_matrix\] (see also Table I of Ref. [@Wiecki:2014ola]).
[cccc|c]{} $s_1$& $s_2$& $s_1'$& $s_2'$& $\mathlarger{\frac{\bar{u}_{s_1'}(p_1')\gamma_\mu
u_{s_1}(p_1)\bar{v}_{s_2}(p_2)\gamma^\mu
v_{s_2'}(p_2')}{2\sqrt{x(1-x)x'(1-x')}}} $\
$+$&$+$&$+$&$+$& $m_q^2\frac{1}{xx'}+m^2_a\frac{1}{(1-x)(1-x')} + \frac{pp'^*}{x(1-x)x'(1-x')}$\
$-$&$-$&$-$&$-$&$ m_q^2\frac{1}{xx'}+m^2_a\frac{1}{(1-x)(1-x')} + \frac{p^*p'}{x(1-x)x'(1-x')}$\
$+$&$-$&$+$&$-$&$
m_q^2\frac{1}{xx'}+m^2_a\frac{1}{(1-x)(1-x')} + \left(\frac{p'^\ast}{x'}+\frac{p^\ast}{1-x}\right)
\left(\frac{p}{x}+\frac{p'}{1-x'}\right)$\
$-$&$+$&$-$&$+$&$
m_q^2\frac{1}{xx'}+m^2_a\frac{1}{(1-x)(1-x')} + \left(\frac{p^\ast}{x}+\frac{p'^\ast}{1-x'}\right)
\left(\frac{p'}{x'}+\frac{p}{1-x}\right)$\
$+$&$+$&$+$&$-$&$m_a \frac{x'}{(1-x)(1-x')}\Big(\frac{p'}{x'} - \frac{p}{x} \Big)$\
$-$&$-$&$-$&$+$&$m_a \frac{x'}{(1-x)(1-x')}\Big(\frac{p^*}{x} - \frac{p'^*}{x'} \Big)$\
$-$&$+$&$-$&$-$&$m_a \frac{x}{(1-x)(1-x')}\Big(\frac{p'}{x'} - \frac{p}{x} \Big)$\
$+$&$-$&$+$&$+$&$m_a \frac{x}{(1-x)(1-x')}\Big(\frac{p^*}{x} - \frac{p'^*}{x'} \Big)$\
$+$&$+$&$-$&$+$&$m_q \frac{1-x'}{xx'}\Big(\frac{p}{1-x} - \frac{p'}{1-x'} \Big)$\
$-$&$-$&$+$&$-$&$m_q \frac{1-x'}{xx'}\Big(\frac{p'^*}{1-x'} - \frac{p^*}{1-x} \Big)$\
$+$&$-$&$-$&$-$&$m_q \frac{1-x}{xx'}\Big(\frac{p}{1-x} - \frac{p'}{1-x'} \Big)$\
$-$&$+$&$+$&$+$&$m_q \frac{1-x}{xx'}\Big(\frac{p'^*}{1-x'} - \frac{p^*}{1-x} \Big)$\
$+$&$-$&$-$&$+$&\
$-$&$+$&$+$&$-$&\
$+$&$+$&$-$&$-$&\
$-$&$-$&$+$&$+$&\
Polarization Vectors
====================
#### gauge bosons
The polarization vector of a gauge boson in light-cone gauge $A^+ = 0$ is: $$\varepsilon^\mu_\lambda(k) = (\varepsilon^-_\lambda, \varepsilon^+_\lambda, \vec \varepsilon_{\lambda\perp}) \triangleq
\Big( \frac{2\vec\epsilon_{\lambda\perp} \cdot \vec k_\perp}{k^+}, 0, \vec \epsilon_{\lambda\perp} \Big) , \quad (\lambda = \pm 1)$$ where $\vec\epsilon_{\pm\perp} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-1, \mp \imag)$. The polarization vector defined here satisfies:
- $k_\mu \varepsilon^\mu_\lambda(k) = 0$;
- $\varepsilon^\mu_\lambda(k)\varepsilon^*_{\lambda' \mu}(k) = - \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}$;
- helicity sum: $$\sum_{\lambda=\pm} \varepsilon^{\mu *}_\lambda(k)\varepsilon^\nu_\lambda(k) = -g^{\mu \nu} + \frac{n^\mu k^\nu + n^\nu
k^\mu}{n\cdot k} - \frac{k^2}{(n\cdot k)^2}n^\mu n^\nu.$$ Here $n = (1, 0, 0, -1)$ is a light-like 4-vector ($n_\mu n^\mu=0$) perpendicular to the light front.
#### vector bosons
The polarization vector for the a vector boson: $$e^\mu_\lambda(k) = \big(e^-_\lambda(k), e^+_\lambda(k), \vec e_{\lambda\perp}(k)\big) \triangleq
\left\{
\begin{array}{lc}
\big(\frac{\vec k_\perp^2-m^2}{ m k^+}, \frac{k^+}{m}, \frac{\vec k_\perp}{m} \big), & \lambda = 0 \\
\big(\frac{2\vec \epsilon_{\lambda\perp} \cdot \vec k_\perp}{k^+}, 0, \vec \epsilon_{\lambda\perp} \big), & \lambda = \pm 1\\
\end{array}\right.$$ where $m$ is the mass of the vector boson. The polarization vector defined here satisfies:
- $k_\mu e_\lambda^\mu(k) = 0$;
- $e^\mu_\lambda(k) e^*_{\lambda' \mu}(k) = - \delta_{\lambda,\lambda'}$;
- spin sum: $$\sum_{\lambda=0,\pm1} e^{\mu *}_\lambda(k) e^\nu_\lambda(k) = -g^{\mu \nu} + \frac{k^\mu k^\nu}{k^2}.$$
[10]{}
[^1]: In this article, we use the words “light-front” and “light-cone” interchangeably.
[^2]: Without a longitudinal confinement, the longitudinal excitations will not be separated by mass gaps. In light-front holography (no quark mass nor one-gluon exchange), these excitations are degenerate and the system is two-dimensional in nature.
[^3]: See Eq. (\[eqn:normalization\]) for our normalization convention.
[^4]: For example, the decay constants.
[^5]: In the literature, the longitudinal excitations are typically obtained from modeling the spin structure via the spinor wave function $\bar u \Gamma v$. However, the longitudinal profile of the spinor wave function is qualitatively different from the holographic wave function.
[^6]: Our numerical method is designed such that no singularity is encountered in the actual calculation. Nevertheless, we introduced this parameter, smaller than all other energy scales, to further tame the integrable singularity.
[^7]: This is where the relative sign at negative $k_\perp$ is useful.
[^8]: Very often, the spin structure of the phenomenological vector meson wave function is borrowed from the photon wave function, which is obtained via light-cone perturbation theory.
[^9]: In the present work, we focus on the longitudinal DA for vector mesons.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose and analyse a modified ghost-interference experiment, and show that revealing the particle-nature of a particle passing through a double-slit hides the wave-nature of a spatially separated particle which it is entangled with. We derive a [*nonlocal duality relation*]{}, ${\mathcal D}_1^2 + {\mathcal V}_2^2 \le 1$, which connects the path distinguishability of one particle to the interference visibility of the other. It extends Bohr’s principle of complementarity to a nonlocal scenario. We also propose a [*ghost quantum eraser*]{} in which, erasing the which-path information of one particle brings back the interference fringes of the other.'
author:
- Mohd Asad Siddiqui
- Tabish Qureshi
title: 'A Nonlocal Wave-Particle Duality'
---
Introduction
============
The two-slit interference experiment has become a cornerstone of the issue of wave-particle duality and Bohr’s complementarity principle. So beautifully and simply does it capture the dual nature of particles and light and the superposition principle that it has become symbolic of the mysterious nature of quantum mechanics. The fact that the wave and particle nature cannot be observed at the same time, appears to be so fundamental that Bohr elevated it to the level of a new principle, the principle of complementarity[@bohr]. Bohr asserted that if an experiment clearly revealed the particle nature, it would completely hide the wave nature, and vice-versa. This principle has stood its ground in face of several attacks over the years.
This principle has now been made quantitatively precise by a bound on the extent to which the two natures could be simultaneously observed [@greenberger; @englert]. The extent to which one can distinguish which of the two slits a particle passes through, is given by a quantity ${\mathcal D}$, called the path-distinguishability, quantifying the particle nature. The wave-nature is quantified by the visibility of the interference pattern, given by ${\mathcal V}$. The quantities ${\mathcal D}$ and ${\mathcal V}$ are so defined that they can take values only between 0 and 1. The relation putting a bound on the two is given by the so-called duality relation[@englert] $${\mathcal V}^2 + {\mathcal D}^2 \le 1.
\label{egy}$$ The above relation implies that a full which-path information (${\mathcal D}=1$) would definitely wash out the interference pattern completely (${\mathcal V}=0$).
It is quite obvious that when we talk of path distinguishability, we talk of the which-path knowledge of the same particle which eventually contributes to the interference pattern. In this sense the duality relation (\[egy\]) is [*local*]{}. In the following we propose and theoretically analyse an experiment involving pairs of entangled particles in which we relate the which-path information of one particle to the fringe visibility of the other.
Ghost interference
==================
The starting point of our analysis is the well known ghost-interference experiment carried out by Strekalov et al.[@ghostexpt]. In this experiment, pairs of entangled photons are generated from a spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) source. In the path of photon 1 is kept a double-slit and further down in the path is a [*fixed*]{} detector D1. Photon 2 travels undisturbed and is ultimately detected by the movable detector D2. The detectors D1 and D2 are connected to a coincidence counter. In coincident counts, a two-slit interference pattern is seen by detector D2 for photon 2. Note that photon 2 does not pass through any double-slit. This interference was appropriately called ghost interference, and has been understood to be a consequence of entanglement. This experiment generated lot of research attention in subsequent years [@ghostimaging; @rubin; @zhai; @jie; @zeil2; @pravatq; @twocolor; @sheebatq; @ghostunder]. The photon pairs emerging from an SPDC source are believed to capture the essence of the EPR state [@epr] introduced by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen [@klyshko]. The spatial correlations shown by photons emerging from parametric down-conversion are well understood now [@walborn].
Our proposed experiment is shown in Fig.\[ghostmod\]. Entangled particle pairs emerge from a source S. For the sake of generality, let us assume massive particles, although the ghost interference experiment is done with photons. Particle 1 passes through a double-slit and also interacts with a which-path detector. We do not specify any form of the which-path detector, but just assume that it is a quantum system, initially in a state $|d_0\rangle$. If the particle passes through slit 1, the path detector ends up in the state $|d_1\rangle$, and if it passes through slit 2, the path detector ends up in the state $|d_2\rangle$. In general, when the particle has passed through the double-slit, the two path detector states, $|d_1\rangle$ and $|d_2\rangle$, get entangled with the two paths of particle 1. This entanglement is a must in order that the which-path detector acquires the relevant information about the particle. Particle 1 then travels and reaches a [*fixed*]{} detector D1. Particle 2 travels unhindered to the detector D2. As the two particles have to be counted in coincidence, the paths travelled by both the particles, before reaching their respective detectors, are equal. Without the which-path detector, this experiment is just the original ghost interference experiment where particle 2 displays an interference pattern[@ghostexpt].
Essentially we are now looking at the issue of wave-particle duality in a system of entangled particles, a subject not particularly well studied. Wave-particle duality for entangled systems has been studied in a rather generalized formalism by Vaccaro [@vaccaro].
Which-path information
======================
We assumes $|d_1\rangle,|d_2\rangle$ to be normalized, but not necessarily orthogonal. The ultimate limit to the knowledge we can acquire as to which slit particle 1 went through, is set by how distinct the states $|d_1\rangle,|d_2\rangle$ are. If $|d_1\rangle,|d_2\rangle$ are orthogonal, we can [*in principle*]{} know with hundred percent accuracy which slit the particle went through. With this thinking we define which-path distinguishability [*for particle 1*]{} as $${\mathcal D}_1 = \sqrt{ 1 - |\langle d_1|d_2\rangle|^2}.
\label{duality}$$
In order to quantify the effect of the which-path detector on the ghost interference shown by particle 2, we carry out a quantum mechanical analysis of the dynamics of the entangled particles. We assume that the particles travel in opposite directions along the x-axis. The entanglement is in the z-direction. The best state to describe momentum-entangled particles is the [*generalized EPR state*]{}[@tqajp] $$\Psi(z_1,z_2) = C\!\int_{-\infty}^\infty dp
e^{-p^2/4\hbar^2\sigma^2}e^{-ipz_2/\hbar} e^{i pz_1/\hbar}
e^{-{(z_1+z_2)^2\over 4\Omega^2}}, \label{state}$$ where $C$ is a normalization constant, and $\sigma,\Omega$ are certain parameters. In the limit $\sigma,\Omega\to\infty$ the state (\[state\]) reduces to the EPR state introduced by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen[@epr].
After performing the integration over $p$, (\[state\]) reduces to $$\Psi(z_1,z_2) = \sqrt{ {\sigma\over \pi\Omega}}
e^{-(z_1-z_2)^2\sigma^2} e^{-(z_1+z_2)^2/4\Omega^2} .
\label{psi0}$$ It is straightforward to show that $\Omega$ and $\sigma$ quantify the position and momentum spread of the particles in the z-direction.
We assume that after travelling for a time $t_0$, particle 1 reaches the double slit ($vt_0 = L_2$), and particle 2 travels a distance $L_2$ towards detector D2. Using the strategy outlined in the preceding discussion, we can write the state of the entangled photons after a time $t_0$.
The state of the entangled system, after this time evolution, can be calculated using the Hamiltonian governing the time evolution, given by $\hat{H} = {p_1^2\over 2m} +{p_2^2\over 2m}$. After a time $t_0$, (\[psi0\]) assumes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z_1,z_2,t_0) = C_{t_0}
\exp\left[{-(z_1-z_2)^2\over {1\over\sigma^2} + {4i\hbar t_0\over m}}
-
{(z_1+z_2)^2\over 4\Omega^2 +
{i\hbar t_0\over m}} \right],\nonumber\\
\label{Psit}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{t_0}=\left({\pi}(\Omega+{i\hbar t_0\over 4m\Omega})
(1/\sigma + {4i\hbar t_0\over m/\sigma})\right)^{-1/2}$.
We take into account the effect of the double-slit on the entangled state as follows. We assume that the double-slit allows the portions of the wave-function in front of the slit to pass through, and blocks the other portions. We assume that what emerge from the double-slit are localized Gaussian wavepackets, whose width is the width of the slit. The two slits being A and B, the wavepackets which pass through, are denoted by $|\phi_A(z_1)\rangle$ and $|\phi_B(z_1)\rangle$, respectively. The portion of particle 1 which gets blocked is, say, $|\chi(z_1)\rangle$. These three states are obviously orthogonal, and the entangled two-particle state can be expanded in terms of these. We can thus write: $$|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t_0)\rangle = |\phi_A\rangle|\psi_A\rangle
+ |\phi_B\rangle|\psi_B\rangle +
|\chi\rangle|\psi_{\chi}\rangle , \label{slit}$$ where the corresponding states of particle 2 are given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi_A(z_2)\rangle &=& \langle\phi_A(z_1)|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t_0)\rangle \nonumber\\
|\psi_B(z_2)\rangle &=& \langle\phi_B(z_1)|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t_0)\rangle \nonumber\\
|\psi_\chi(z_2)\rangle &=& \langle\chi(z_1)|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t_0)\rangle \label{psi}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, the wavepackets of particle 1 get entangled with the two states of the which-path detector $|d_1\rangle,|d_2\rangle$. So, the state we get after particle 1 crosses the double-slit is: $$|\Psi(z_1,z_2)\rangle = |d_1\rangle|\phi_A\rangle|\psi_A\rangle
+ |d_2\rangle|\phi_B\rangle|\psi_B\rangle +
|d_0\rangle|\chi\rangle|\Psi_\chi\rangle .$$ The first two terms represent the amplitudes of particle 1 passing through the double-slit, and the last term represents the amplitude of it getting blocked. If the particle 1 gets blocked, the state of the path detector remains what it was initially, i.e., $|d_0\rangle$. Unitarity of the dynamics makes sure that these three parts of the wave-function will evolve independently, without affecting each other. Since we are only interested in situations where particle 1 passes through the slit, we will throw away the term which represents particle 1 not passing through the slits. To do that, we just have to renormalise the remaining part of the wave-function, which looks like $$|\Psi(z_1,z_2)\rangle = {1\over A} (|d_1\rangle|\phi_A\rangle|\psi_A\rangle
+ |d_2\rangle|\phi_B\rangle|\psi_B\rangle),$$ where $A = \sqrt{\langle\psi_A|\psi_A\rangle + \langle\psi_B|\psi_B\rangle}$.
In the following, we assume that $|\phi_A\rangle$, $|\phi_B\rangle$, are Gaussian wave-packets: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_A(z_1) &=& {1\over(\pi/2)^{1/4}\sqrt{\epsilon}} e^{-(z_1-z_0)^2/\epsilon^2}
,\nonumber\\
\phi_B(z_1) &=& {1\over(\pi/2)^{1/4}\sqrt{\epsilon}} e^{-(z_1+z_0)^2/\epsilon^2}
,
\label{gaussians}\end{aligned}$$ where $\pm z_0$ is the z-position of slit A and B, respectively, and $\epsilon$ their widths. Thus, the distance between the two slits is $2 z_0 \equiv d$.
Using (\[Psit\]), (\[psi\]) and (\[gaussians\]), wave-functions $|\psi_A\rangle$, $|\psi_B\rangle$ can be calculated, which, after normalization, have the form $$\psi_A(z_2) = C_2 e^{-{(z_2 - z_0')^2 \over \Gamma}},~~~
\psi_B(z_2) = C_2 e^{-{(z_2 + z_0')^2 \over \Gamma}} ,$$ where $C_2 = (2/\pi)^{1/4}(\sqrt{\Gamma_R} + {i\Gamma_I\over\sqrt{\Gamma_R}})^{-1/2}$, $$z_0' = {z_0 \over {4\Omega^2\sigma^2+1\over
4\Omega^2\sigma^2-1} + {4\epsilon^2 \over 4\Omega^2-1/\sigma^2}},$$ and $$\Gamma = \frac{\epsilon^2+ {1\over\sigma^2}+{\epsilon^2\over 4\Omega^2\sigma^2}
+ {2i\hbar t_0\over m}
}{1 + {\epsilon^2\over\Omega^2}+{i2\hbar t_0\over 4\Omega^2m} +
{1\over 4\Omega^2\sigma^2}} + {2i\hbar t_0\over m}.$$ Thus, the state which emerges from the double slit, has the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z_1,z_2) &=& c|d_1\rangle e^{{-(z_1-z_0)^2\over\epsilon^2}}
e^{{-(z_2 - z_0')^2 \over \Gamma}} \nonumber\\
&&+ c|d_2\rangle e^{{-(z_1+z_0)^2\over\epsilon^2}}
e^{{-(z_2 + z_0')^2 \over \Gamma}} \label{virtual},\end{aligned}$$ where $c = (1/\sqrt{\pi\epsilon})(\sqrt{\Gamma_R} +
{i\Gamma_I\over\sqrt{\Gamma_R}})^{-1/2}$. Particles travel for another time $t$ before reaching their respective detectors. We assume that the wave-packets travel in the x-direction with a velocity $v$ such that $\lambda=h/mv$ is the de Broglie wavelength. Using this strategy, we can write $\hbar (t+2t_0)/m = \lambda D/2\pi$, $\hbar t_0/m = \lambda L_2/2\pi$. The expression $\lambda D/2\pi$ will also hold for a photon provided, one uses the wavelength of the photon for $\lambda$[@ghostunder]. The state acquires the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z_1,z_2,t)=C_t
|d_1\rangle\exp\left[{{-(z_1-z_0)^2\over\epsilon^2+{iL_1\lambda\over\pi}}}\right]
\exp\left[{{-(z_2 - z_0')^2 \over \Gamma+{iL_1\lambda\over\pi}}}\right]
\nonumber\\
+ C_t |d_2\rangle\exp\left[{{-(z_1+z_0)^2\over\epsilon^2+{iL_1\lambda\over\pi}}}\right]
\exp\left[{{-(z_2 + z_0')^2 \over \Gamma+{iL_1\lambda\over\pi}}}\right],\nonumber\\
\label{psifinal}\end{aligned}$$ where $$C_t = {1\over \sqrt{\pi}\sqrt{\epsilon+iL_1\lambda/\epsilon\pi}
\sqrt{\sqrt{\Gamma_r}+(\Gamma_i+iL_1\lambda/\pi)/\sqrt{\Gamma_r}}}.$$
In order to get simplified results, we consider the limit $\Omega \gg \epsilon$ and $\Omega \gg 1/\sigma$. In this limit $$\Gamma^2 \approx \gamma^2 + 4i\hbar t_0/m ,$$ where $\gamma^2 = \epsilon^2 + 1/\sigma^2$ and $z_0' \approx z_0$.
Nonlocal wave-particle duality
==============================
We are now in a position to calculate the probability of D2 detecting particle 2 at a position $z_2$, provided that D1, which is fixed at $z_1=0$, detects particle 1. This probability density is given by $|\Psi(0,z_2,t)|^2$, which has the following form $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi(0,z_2,t)|^2 &=& \alpha
e^{{-2(z_2^2+z_0^2)\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}}
\cosh\left[{4z_2z_0\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{ 1 + |\langle d_1|d_2\rangle|
{\cos\left[{4z_2z_0\lambda D\pi\over\gamma^4\pi^2+\lambda^2 D^2}\right]
\over \cosh\left[{4z_2z_0\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}\right]}
\right\},
\label{pattern}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha = |C_t|^2 e^{{-2z_0^2\over\epsilon^2+[{\lambda L\over\pi\epsilon}]^2}}$. Eqn. (\[pattern\]) represents a ghost interference pattern for particle 2, even though it has not passed through any double-slit.
We can calculate the fringe visibility of the interference formed by particle 2. Fringe visibility is defined as ${\mathcal V} = {I_{max}-I_{min}\over I_{max}+I_{min}}$, where $I_{max},I_{min}$ is the maximum and minimum intensity in neighboring region of the interference pattern[@born]. The fringe visibility for particle 2, from (\[pattern\]), is given by $${\mathcal V_2} = {|\langle d_1|d_2\rangle|\over
\cosh({4z_2z_0\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2})} .$$ The visibility of ghost interference has also been derived earlier by Barbosa [@barbosa], calculating a fourth order correlation function in the theory of Mandel and coworkers [@mandel]. However, a connection of the visibility of ghost interference to the which-path information for photon 1 has not been studied before.
As $\cosh(\theta) \ge 1$, we can write the inequality $${\mathcal V_2} \le |\langle d_1|d_2\rangle|$$ Using (\[duality\]), the above inequality yields $${\mathcal D}_1^2 + {\mathcal V}_2^2 \le 1
\label{gduality}$$
The inequality (\[gduality\]) is a very interesting one. It puts a bound on how much which-path information for particle 1 and visibility of interference fringes for particle 2 we can get at the same time. Clearly, full which-path information for particle 1 implies that the interference pattern of particle 2 will be completely washed out.
Bohr’s complementarity principle is made quantitatively precise by the inequality (\[egy\]). However, here we have a curious scenario where complementarity is governing two separated particles which are not even interacting with each other. By virtue of entanglement, their natures are also entwined with each other. Revealing the particle nature of one, hides the wave nature of the other! It appears that in this kind of entangled state, the two particle can either reveal their wave-nature together, or particle nature together.
Ghost quantum eraser
====================
In the preceding section we saw that extracting which-path information in particle 1, leads to disappearance of interference in particle 2. For a conventional two-slit experiment it is well known that if we devise a way to erase the which-path information, it is possible to recover the lost interference. This phenomenon goes by the name of [*quantum eraser*]{}[@jaynes; @scully].
In the following we propose a quantum eraser experiment which can be performed with entangled photons. The setup is shown in Fig.(\[geraser\]), and is motivated by a two-slit quantum eraser demonstrated by Walborn et al.[@walborn1; @walborn2]. Properties of entangled photons have been used to construct quantum eraser earlier [@kim; @scarcelli]. Recently quantum eraser has been demonstrated even with thermal light [@peng]. Our proposal is radically different from all these in that the which-path information and interference is probed, not in the same photon, but in two different photons. The setup consists of a type I SPDC source generating pairs of photons which we call 1 and 2. Type I SPDC source produces pairs of photons which have the same polarization. The source is assumed to include a polarizer which produces photon pairs which are linearly polarized.
The experiment may also be carried out using a type II SPDC source which produces linearly polarized photons with orthogonal polarizations. The requirement is that the two photons should not be polarization-entangled. There is a double-slit in the path of photon 1, followed by a [*fixed*]{} detector D1. Photon 2 travels undisturbed to detector D2 which scans various positions, and acts like a screen. The two detectors are connected to a coincidence counter. Behind the double-slit are kept two quarter-wave plates which convert the passing linearly polarized photons to left-circular and right-circular polarizations respectively. This makes the which-path information about photon 1 available to an experimenter. By probing the polarization of the photon detected at D1, the experimenter can know which slit the photon came from.
These orthogonal polarization states of photon 1 play the role of $|d_1\rangle$ and $|d_2\rangle$, as described in the preceding analysis. However, $|d_1\rangle$ and $|d_2\rangle$ are orthogonal in this case. The state of the two photons, when they reach their respective detectors, is given by (\[psifinal\]). The coincident probability of detecting photon 2 is given by (\[pattern\]), with $\langle d_1|d_2\rangle=0$. There will be no interference seen in this situation, which is depicted in the upper diagram of Fig.\[geraser\].
Next we put a horizontal polarizer in front of D1. This will convert both left- and right-circularly poralized photons to horizontally polarized ones. All the photons reaching D1 now, are horizontally polarized, whether they came from one slit or the other. There is no way now that an experimenter can know which slit photon 1 came from. We have to see what will be the behavior of photon 2 in this situation, by a careful analysis. If the left- and right-circular polarizations are represented by $|d_1\rangle$ and $|d_2\rangle$ respectively, adding the two would give us linear polarization. We introduce a state $|q_1\rangle=(|d_1\rangle+|d_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ which represents horizontal polarization. The state of the photons which reach D1 (after passing through the horizontal plate) and D2 now, is given by $\langle q_1|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t)\rangle$, where $|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t)\rangle$ is given by (\[psifinal\]).
The coincident probability of detecting photon 2 is now given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle q_1|\Psi(0,z_2,t)\rangle|^2 = {\alpha\over 2}
e^{{-2(z_2^2+z_0^2)\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}}
\cosh\left[{4z_2z_0\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}\right]\nonumber\\
\times\left\{ 1 +
{\cos\left[{4z_2z_0\lambda D\pi\over\gamma^4\pi^2+\lambda^2 D^2}\right]
\over \cosh\left[{4z_2z_0\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}\right]}
\right\},
\label{pattern1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha = |C_t|^2 e^{{-2z_0^2\over\epsilon^2+[{\lambda L\over\pi\epsilon}]^2}}$. The above represents an interference pattern, even in the presence of the quarter-wave plates. The horizontal polarizer has erased the which-path information for photon 1 and the interference for photon 2 has come back. This scenario is depicted in the lower diagram of Fig.\[geraser\]. We call it a ghost quantum eraser because erasing the which-path information in one photon is recovering the interference in its remote, entangled cousin, photon 2.
One can see that the which-path information can also be erased by putting a [*vertical*]{} polarizer, instead of a horizontal one. Let us see if one recovers the interference in this case too. The vertical polarization state can be represented by the quantum state $|q_2\rangle=(|d_1\rangle-|d_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. The state of the two photons which reach D1 after passing through the vertical plate, and D2, respectively, is given by $\langle q_2|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t)\rangle$, where $|\Psi(z_1,z_2,t)\rangle$ is given by (\[psifinal\]). The coincident probability of detecting photon 2 is now given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\langle q_2|\Psi(0,z_2,t)\rangle|^2 = {\alpha\over 2}
e^{{-2(z_2^2+z_0^2)\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}}
\cosh\left[{4z_2z_0\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}\right]\nonumber\\
\times\left\{ 1 -
{\cos\left[{4z_2z_0\lambda D\pi\over\gamma^4\pi^2+\lambda^2 D^2}\right]
\over \cosh\left[{4z_2z_0\over\gamma^2+[{\lambda D\over\pi\gamma}]^2}\right]}
\right\}.
\label{pattern2}\end{aligned}$$ The above expression represents an interference pattern which is almost exactly the same as that in (\[pattern1\]), except that it is shifted along the z-axis. The shift is such that the bright fringes of (\[pattern2\]) are at the location of the dark fringes of (\[pattern1\]).
Discussion
==========
We have theoretically analysed a modified ghost-interference setup where a which-path detector for particle 1 has been introduced. Unravelling the particle aspect of photon 1 hides the wave aspect of photon 2. This appears to be a nonlocal extension of Bohr’s complementarity principle. We also derive a nonlocal duality relation connecting the which-path distinguishability of particle 1 with the interference fringe visibility of particle 2. Because of entanglement, the wave and particle aspects of the two particles are no longer independent.
We wish to reemphasize again that this proposal should not be confused with certain other experiments, where two-particle correlation is used to infer the which-way information of a particle, which passes through a double-slit[@kim; @scarcelli; @peng]. In those experiments, the wave and particle natures in question are properties of the [*same*]{} particle, only that another correlated particle is used to get which-way information of the particle passing through a double-slit [*and*]{} showing interference. In our proposal, particle 1 passes though a double-slit and we use certain which-way detector to know which of the two slits it passed through. Particle 2 [*does not pass through any double-slit*]{}, so one cannot even talk about any which-way information for it. However, it does show interference in coincidence with detector D1. So the nonlocal duality relation connects which-way information for particle 1 to interference visibility for particle 2.
We propose a realizable [*ghost quantum eraser*]{} experiment. Here erasing the which-path information of one photon recovers the interference for the other photon. The aspects discussed in this investigation reveal highly non-classical and nonlocal features of entangled systems.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
M.A. Siddiqui thanks the University Grants Commission, India for financial support. Authors thank an anonymous referee for suggesting changes which improved the clarity of the discussion.
[0]{}
N. Bohr, “The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory," Nature (London) 121, 580-591 (1928).
D. M. Greenberger and A. Yasin, “Simultaneous wave and particle knowledge in a neutron interferometer", Phys. Lett. A 128, 391 (1988).
B-G. Englert, “Fringe visibility and which-way information: an inequality", [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**77**]{}, 2154 (1996).
D.V. Strekalov, A.V. Sergienko, D.N. Klyshko, Y.H. Shih, “Observation of two-photon ghost interference and diffraction," [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**74**]{}, 3600 (1995).
M. D’Angelo, Y-H. Kim, S. P. Kulik and Y. Shih, “Identifying Entanglement Using Quantum Ghost Interference and Imaging," [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{}, 233601 (2004).
S. Thanvanthri and M. H. Rubin, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**70**]{}, 063811 (2004).
Y-H. Zhai, X-H. Chen, D. Zhang, L-A. Wu, *Phys. Rev. A* [**72**]{}, 043805. (2005).
L. Jie, C. Jing, *Chinese Phys. Lett.* [**28**]{}, 094203 (2011).
J. Kofler, M. Singh, M. Ebner, M. Keller, M. Kotyrba, A. Zeiling er, *Phys. Rev. A* [**86**]{}, 032115 (2012).
P. Chingangbam, T. Qureshi, “Ghost interference and quantum erasure," [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**127**]{}, 383-392 (2012).
D-S. Ding, Z-Y. Zhou, B-S. Shi, X-B Zou, G-C. Guo, “Two-color ghost interference," [*AIP Advances*]{} [**2**]{}, 032177 (2012).
S. Shafaq, T. Qureshi, “Theoretical analysis of two-color ghost interference," [*Eur. Phys. J. D*]{} [**68**]{}, 52 (2014).
T. Qureshi, P. Chingangbam, S. Shafaq, “Understanding ghost interference," arXiv:1406.0633 \[quant-ph\]
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?", *Phys. Rev.* [**47**]{} (1935) 777–780.
D.N. Klyshko, “A simple method of preparing pure states of an optical field, of implementing the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiment, and of demonstrating the complementarity principle," [*Sov. Phys. Usp.*]{} [**31**]{}, 74 (1988).
S.P. Walborn, C.H. Monken, S. Pádua, P.H. Souto Ribeiro, “Spatial correlations in parametric down-conversion," *Phys. Rep.* [**495**]{}, 87-139 (2010).
J.A. Vaccaro, “Particle-wave duality: a dichotomy between symmetry and asymmetry," [*Proc. R. Soc. A.*]{} [**468**]{}, 1065-1084 (2012).
T. Qureshi, “Understanding Popper’s experiment," [*Am. J. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{}, 541-544 (2005).
M. Born, E. Wolf, “Principles of Optics” (Cambridge University Press, UK, 2002), 7th edition.
G.A. Barbosa, “Quantum images in double-slit experiments with spontaneous down-conversion light," [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**54**]{}, 4473 (1996).
L.J. Wang, X.Y. Zou, L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. A 44, 4614 (1991); X.Y. Zou, L.J. Wang, L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318 (1991); Z.Y. Ou, L.J. Wang, L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1428 (1989); C.K. Hong L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 58 (1986).
E. Jaynes, in [*Foundations of Radiation Theory and Quantum Electronics*]{}, ed. A. O. Barut (Plenum, New York 1980), pp. 37.
M. O. Scully, B.-G. Englert and H. Walther, [*Nature (London)*]{} [**351**]{} (1991), 111.
S.P. Walborn, M.O. Terra Cunha, S. Pádua, C.H. Monken, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**65**]{}, 033818 (2002)
S.P. Walborn, M.O. Terra Cunha, S.Pádua, C.H. Monken, “Quantum erasure", [*American Scientist*]{} [**91**]{}, 336-343 (2003).
Y-H Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y. Shih, “Delayed ‘Choice’ Quantum Eraser," [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 1 (2000).
G. Scarcelli, Y. Zhou, Y. Shih, “Random delayed-choice quantum eraser via two-photon imaging," [*Eur. Phys. J. D*]{} [**44**]{}, 167-173 (2007).
T. Peng, H. Chen, Y. Shih, “Delayed-choice quantum eraser with thermal light," [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**112**]{}, 180401 (2014).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth, compact Riemannian manifold with smooth boundary, with $n=\dim M=2,3$. We suppose the boundary $\partial M$ to be a smooth submanifold of $M$ with dimension $n-1$. We consider a singularly perturbed nonlinear system, namely Klein-Gordon-Maxwell-Proca system, or Klein-Gordon-Maxwell system of Scrhoedinger-Maxwell system on $M$. We prove that the number of low energy solutions, when the perturbation parameter is small, depends on the topological properties of the boundary $\partial M$, by means of the Lusternik Schnirelmann category. Also, these solutions have a unique maximum point that lies on the boundary.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, via F. Buonarroti 1/c, 56127 Pisa, Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, via F. Buonarroti 1/c, 56127 Pisa, Italy'
author:
- Marco Ghimenti
- Anna Maria Micheletti
title: 'Low energy solutions for singularly perturbed coupled nonlinear systems on a Riemannian manifold with boundary.'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $(M,g)$ be a smooth, compact Riemannian manifold with smooth boundary, with $n=\dim M=2,3$. We suppose the boundary $\partial M$ to be a smooth submanifold of $M$ with dimension $n-1$.
We consider the following singularly perturbed electrostatic Klein-Gordon-Maxwell-Proca (shortly KGMP) system on $M$ with Neumann boundary condition
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
-\varepsilon^{2}\Delta_{g}u+au=|u|^{p-2}u+\omega^{2}(qv-1)^{2}u & \text{ in }M\\
-\Delta_{g}v+(1+q^{2}u^{2})v=qu^{2} & \text{ in }M\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}=0,\ \frac{\partial v}{\partial\nu}=0 & \text{ on }\partial M
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:kgmps}$$
Here $\varepsilon>0$, $a>0$, $q>0$, $\omega\in(-\sqrt{a},\sqrt{a})$ and $4\le p<2^{*}$ being $2^{*}=6$ for $n=3$ or $2^{*}=+\infty$ for $n=2$.
The Neumann condition for the function $u$ is interesting since it shows how the topological properties of the boundary influence the number of solutions of (\[eq:kgmps\]). Moreover from a physical viewpoint, give a Neumann condition for the second function $v$ corresponds to fix the electrical field on $\partial M$ which is a natural condition (for a more detailed discussion on this topic, we refer to [@DPS2; @DPS1]).
The study of KGMP systems recently has known a rise of interest in the mathematical community. In [@GMkg; @HT; @HW] equation (\[eq:kgmps\]) has been studied on a Riemaniann boundariless manifold $M$. A similar problem has been considered in a flat domain $\Omega$ by D’Aprile and Wei [@DW1; @DW2]. In the context of flat domains, moreover, many authors have dealt with Klein Gordon Maxwell systems without singular perturbation in the Laplacian term [@AP2; @BF; @C; @DM04; @DP; @Mu].
In this paper we prove the following result.
\[thm:main\]For $\varepsilon$ small enough the KGMP system (\[eq:kgmps\]) has at least $\textup{cat}\partial M$ non constant distinct solutions $(u_\varepsilon,v_\varepsilon)$ with low energy. Here $\textup{cat}\partial M$ is the Lusternik Schnirelmann category. Moreover the functions $u_\varepsilon$ have a unique maximum point $P_{\varepsilon}\in\partial M$ and $u_{\varepsilon}=Z_{\varepsilon,P_{\varepsilon}}+\Psi_{\varepsilon}$ where $Z_{\varepsilon,P_{\varepsilon}}$ is defined in (\[zeq\]) and $\|\Psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{\infty}(M)}\rightarrow0$.
We notice that the same result can be obtained verbatim for the electrostatic Klein-Gordon-Maxwell (shortly KGM) system with Neumann/Dirichlet boundary condition, $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
-\varepsilon^{2}\Delta_{g}u+au=|u|^{p-2}u+\omega^{2}(qv-1)^{2}u & \text{ in }M\\
-\Delta_{g}v+q^{2}u^{2}v=qu^{2} & \text{ in }M\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}=0,\ v=0 & \text{ on }\partial M
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:kgms}$$ and for the Schroedinger-Maxwell system with Neumann/Dirichlet boundary condition, for $\varepsilon>0$, $a>0$, $q>0$, $\omega\in\mathbb{R}$ and $4<p<2^{*}$ $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
-\varepsilon^{2}\Delta_{g}u+au+\omega uv=|u|^{p-2}u & \text{ in }M\\
-\Delta_{g}v=qu^{2} & \text{ in }M\\
\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}=0,\ v=0 & \text{ on }\partial M
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:sms}$$ We explicitly treat systems (\[eq:kgmps\]) and (\[eq:kgms\]) in the paper, pointing out the differences in the proofs whenever necessary. For system (\[eq:sms\]) the estimates are easier and left to the reader. We just mention that we have to rule out the case $p=4$ in order to have a smooth Nehari manifold (cfr. section \[sec:Nehari\])
The result of this paper relies on the topology of the boundary $\partial M$. In a forthcoming paper the authors will point out how the geometry of $\partial M$ affects the number of one peaked solutions.
The paper is structured as follows: in Section \[sec:Preliminaries\] some basic concepts are recalled and it is introduced the variational structure of the problem. The Nehari manifold that is a natural constraint for the variational problem is introduced in Section \[sec:Nehari\]. Section \[sec:Strategy\] contains the lines of the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], while in sections \[sec:phi\], \[sec:Concentration\] and \[sec:beta\] the steps of the proof are explained in full details. The profile description is contained in Section \[sec:Profile-description\]. Some technical result is postponed in Section \[sec:Proof-of-technical\] to do not overload the presentation of the results.
\[sec:Preliminaries\]Preliminaries
===================================
We recall some well know result on Riemaniann manifold with boundary. At first we introduce a coordinates system for a neighborhood of the boundary $\partial M$.
If $\xi$ belongs to $\partial M$, let $\bar{y}=\left(y_{1},\dots,y_{n-1}\right)$ be Riemannian normal coordinates on the $n-1$ manifold $\partial M$ at the point $\xi$. For a point $x\in M$ close to $\xi$, there exists a unique $\bar{x}\in\partial M$ such that $d_{g}(x,\partial{ \mathcal M})=d_{g}(x,\bar{x})$. We set $\bar{y}(x)\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ the normal coordinates for $\bar{x}$ and $y_{n}(x)=d_{g}(x,\partial{ \mathcal M})$. Then we define a chart $\Psi_{\xi}^{\partial}:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}\rightarrow M$ such that $\left(\bar{y}(x),y_{n}(x)\right)=\left(\Psi_{\xi}^{\partial}\right)^{-1}(x)$. These coordinates are called *Fermi coordinates* at $\xi\in\partial M$.
We note by $d_{g}^{\partial}$ and $\exp^{\partial}$ respectively the geodesic distance and the exponential map on by $\partial M$.
We define the following neighborhood of a point $\xi\in\partial M$ $$I_{\xi}(\rho,R)=\left\{ x\in M:\ y_{n}=d_{g}(x,\partial M)<\rho\text{ and }\left\vert \bar{y}\right\vert =d_{g}^{\partial}\left(\exp_{q}^{\partial}(\bar{y}(x)),\xi\right)<R\right\} .$$ where $R,\rho>0$ are smaller than the injectivity radius of $M$. Often we will denote $I_{\xi}(R)=I_{\xi}(R,R)$ and, if no ambiguity is present, we simply use $I_{\xi}$ for $I_{\xi}(R,\rho)$ or for $I_{\xi}(R)$ .
Let $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}=\left\{ y=(\bar{y},y_{n}):\bar{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1},y_{n}\geq0\right\} $. It is well known that there exists a least energy solution $V\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ of the equation $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
-\Delta V+(a-\omega^{2})V=|V|^{p-2}V,\text{ }V>0 & \text{ on }\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}\\
\frac{\partial V}{\partial y_{n}}|_{(\bar{y},0)}=0.
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:V}$$ We remark that, set $U$ the least energy solution of $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
-\Delta U+(a-\omega^{2})U=|U|^{p-2}U,\text{ }U>0 & \text{ on }\mathbb{R}^{n}\\
U\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:U}$$ which is radially symmetric, we have that $V=\left.U\right|_{y_{n}\ge0}$.
Set $V_{\varepsilon}(y)=V\left(\frac{y}{\varepsilon}\right)$, and fixed $\xi\in\partial M$ we define the function $Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}(x)$ as $$Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
V_{\varepsilon}\left(y(x)\right)\chi_{R}\left(|\bar{y}(x)|\right)\chi_{\rho}\left(y_{n}(x)\right) & \text{if }x\in I_{\xi}\\
\\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}\right.\label{zeq}$$ where $\chi_{T}:\mathbb{R}^{+}:\rightarrow[0,1]$ is a smooth cut off function such that $\chi_{T}(s)\equiv1$ for $0\le s\le T/2$, $\chi_{R}(s)\equiv0$ for $s\ge T$ and $|\tilde{\chi}'_{T}(s)|\le1/T$.
We endow $H_{g}^{1}(M)$ with the scalar product and norm $${\displaystyle \left\langle u,v\right\rangle _{\varepsilon}:=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\varepsilon^{2}\nabla_{g}u\nabla_{g}v+(a-\omega^{2})uvd\mu_{g};\ \ \ \|u\|_{\varepsilon}=\left\langle u,u\right\rangle _{\varepsilon}^{1/2}.}$$ We call $H_{\varepsilon}$ the space $H_{g}^{1}$ equipped with the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\varepsilon}$. We also define $L_{\varepsilon}^{p}$ as the space $L_{g}^{p}(M)$ endowed with the norm ${\displaystyle |u|_{\varepsilon,p}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\left(\int_{M}u^{p}d\mu_{g}\right)^{1/p}}$. We also use the obvious notation $H_{0,\varepsilon}$ for the space $H_{0,g}^{1}$ with the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\varepsilon}$, where $H_{g}^{1}$ (resp. $H_{0,g}^{1}$) is the closure of $ $$C^{\infty}(M)$ (resp. $C_{0}^{\infty}(M)$) with respect to the norm $\int_{M}|\nabla_{g}u|^{2}+u^{2}$ (resp. $\int_{M}|\nabla_{g}u|^{2}$).
The function $\psi$
-------------------
First of all, we reduce the system to a single equation. In order to overcome the problems given by the competition between $u$ and $v$, using an idea of Benci and Fortunato [@BF], we introduce the map $\psi$ defined by the equation $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
-\Delta_{g}\psi+(1+q^{2}u^{2})\psi=qu^{2} & \text{ in }M\\
\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\nu}=0 & \text{on }\partial M
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:ei-N}$$ in case of Neumann boundary condition or by $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
-\Delta_{g}\psi+qu^{2}\psi=qu^{2} & \text{ in }M\\
\psi=0 & \text{on }\partial M
\end{array}\right.\label{eq:ei-D}$$ in case of Dirichlet boundary condition.
In what follows we call $H=H_{g}^{1}$ for the Neumann problem and $H=H_{0,g}^{1}$ for the Dirichelt problem. Thus with abuse of language we will say that $\psi:H\rightarrow H$ in both (\[eq:ei-N\]) and (\[eq:ei-D\]). Moreover, from standard variational arguments, it easy to see that $\psi$ is well-defined in $H$ and it holds $$0\le\psi(u)\le1/q\label{psipos}$$ for all $u\in H$.
\[lem:e1\]The map $\psi:H\rightarrow H$ is $C^{2}$ and its differential $\psi'(u)[h]=V_{u}[h]$ at $u$ is the map defined by $$-\Delta_{g}V_{u}[h]+(1+q^{2}u^{2})V_{u}[h]=2qu(1-q\psi(u))h\text{ for all }h\in H.\label{eq:e2}$$ in case of Neumann boundary condition or $$-\Delta_{g}V_{u}[h]+q^{2}u^{2}V_{u}[h]=2qu(1-q\psi(u))h\text{ for all }h\in H.\label{eq:e2-2}$$ in case of Dirichlet boundary condition.
Also, we have $$0\le\psi'(u)[u]\le\frac{2}{q}.$$ Finally, the second derivative $(h,k)\rightarrow\psi''(u)[h,k]=T_{u}(h,k)$ is the map defined by the equation $$-\Delta_{g}T_{u}(h,k)+(1+q^{2}u^{2})T_{u}(h,k)=-2q^{2}u(kV_{u}(h)+hV_{u}(k))+2q(1-q\psi(u))hk$$ in case of Neumann boundary condition or $$-\Delta_{g}T_{u}(h,k)+q^{2}u^{2}T_{u}(h,k)=-2q^{2}u(kV_{u}(h)+hV_{u}(k))+2q(1-q\psi(u))hk$$ in case of Dirichlet boundary condition.
\[lem:e2\]The map $\Theta:H\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ given by $$\Theta(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{M}(1-q\psi(u))u^{2}d\mu_{g}$$ is $C^{2}$ and $$\Theta'(u)[h]=\int_{M}(1-q\psi(u))^{2}uhd\mu_{g}$$ for any $u,h\in H$
For the proofs of these results we refer to [@DH], in which the case of KGMP is treated. For KGM systems, the proof is identical.
Now, we introduce the functionals $I_{{\varepsilon}},J_{{\varepsilon}},G_{{\varepsilon}}:H\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ $$I_{{\varepsilon}}(u)=J_{{\varepsilon}}(u)+\frac{\omega^{2}}{2}G_{{\varepsilon}}(u),\label{ieps-1}$$ where $$J_{{\varepsilon}}(u):=\frac{1}{2{\varepsilon}^{n}}\int\limits _{M}\left[{\varepsilon}^{2}|\nabla_{g}u|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})u^{2}\right]d\mu_{g}-\frac{1}{p\varepsilon^{n}}\int\limits _{M}\left(u^{+}\right)^{p}d\mu_{g}\label{jieps-1}$$ and $$G_{{\varepsilon}}(u):=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}^{n}}q\int_{M}\psi(u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}.\label{geps-1}$$ By Lemma \[lem:e2\] we deduce that $$\frac{1}{2}G_{\varepsilon}'(u)[\varphi]=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}[2q\psi(u)-q^{2}\psi^{2}(u)]u\varphi d\mu_{g}.\label{eq:gprimo}$$ If $u\in H$ is a critical point of $I_{\varepsilon}$ then the pair $(u,\psi(u))$ is the desired solution of Problem (\[eq:kgmps\]) or (\[eq:kgms\]).
\[sec:Nehari\]The Nehari manifold
=================================
It is well known that a critical point of the free functional $I_{\varepsilon}(u)$ can be found as a critical point constrained on the natural constraint $$\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}=\left\{ u\in H\smallsetminus\{0\}\ :\ I_{\varepsilon}^{\prime}(u)u=0\right\} .$$ We want to prove that the Nehari manifold $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ is a $C^{2}$ manifold when $p\ge4$. (Here is the only point in which for Schroedinger Maxwell systems we require $p>4$).
\[lem:nehari\]It holds that
1. $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ is a $C^{2}$ manifold and $\inf_{{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}}\|u\|_{\varepsilon}>0$.
2. It holds the Palais-Smale condition for the functional $I_{\varepsilon|\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}}$ on $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ and for the functional $I_{\varepsilon|\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}}$ on $H$.
3. For all $u\in H$ such that $|u^{+}|_{\varepsilon,p}=1$ there exists a unique positive number $t_{\varepsilon}=t_{\varepsilon}(u)$ such that $t_{\varepsilon}(u)u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$. Moreover $t_{\varepsilon}(u)$ depends continuously on $u$, provided that $u^{+}\not\equiv0$.
4. $\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}t_{\varepsilon}(Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})=1$
The proof of this lemma is postponed in the appendix.
\[rem:nehari\]We notice that, if $u\in{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\varepsilon}(u) & =\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{p}\right)\frac{\omega^{2}q}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}u^{2}\psi(u)d\mu_{g}+\frac{\omega^{2}q^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}p}\int_{M}u^{2}\psi^{2}(u)d\mu_{g}\\
& =\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)|u^{+}|_{p,\varepsilon}^{p}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega^{2}q^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}u^{2}\psi^{2}(u)d\mu_{g}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega^{2}q}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}u^{2}\psi(u)d\mu_{g}\end{aligned}$$
We define $$m_{\varepsilon}:=\inf\left\{ I_{\varepsilon}(u)\,:\, u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\right\} .$$
\[sec:Strategy\]Strategy of the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]
=============================================================
We sketch the proof of our main result. First of all, since the functional $I_{\varepsilon}\in C^{2}$ is bounded below and satisfies PS condition on the manifold ${\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}$, we have, by well known Lusternik Schnirelmann theorem, that $I_{\varepsilon}$ has at least $\text{cat}I_{\varepsilon}^{d}$ critical points in the sublevel $$I_{\varepsilon}^{d}=\left\{ u\in{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}\ :\ I_{\varepsilon}(u)\le d\right\} .$$ We prove that, for $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$ small enough, it holds $$\text{cat}\partial M\le\text{cat}\left({\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\right)\label{eq:cat}$$ where $m_{e}^{+}\in\mathbb{R}$ will be defined in Section \[sec:phi\] (Proposition \[propphi\])
To get (\[eq:cat\]) we build two continuous operators $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\varepsilon} & :\partial M\rightarrow{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\\
\beta & :{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\rightarrow(\partial M)_{2\rho}\end{aligned}$$ where $(\partial M)_{2\rho}=\left\{ x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\ :\ d(x,\partial M)<2\rho\right\} $ with $\rho$ small enough in order to have $\text{cat}\partial M\le\text{cat}(\partial M)_{2\rho}$.
We build these operators $\Phi_{\varepsilon}$ and $\beta$ such that $\beta\circ\Phi_{\varepsilon}:\partial M\rightarrow(\partial M)_{2\rho}$ is homotopic to the immersion $i:\partial M\rightarrow(\partial M)_{2\rho}$. Thus, by the properties of Lusternik Schinrelmann category we obtain (\[eq:cat\]). Then applying the above mentioned Lusternik Schnirelmann theorem we obtain the proof of our main result.
\[sec:phi\]The map $\Phi_{\varepsilon}$
=======================================
We define a function $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{\varepsilon} & :\partial M\rightarrow\mathcal{N_{\varepsilon}}\\
\Phi_{\varepsilon}(q) & =t_{\varepsilon}(Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}\end{aligned}$$
\[propphi\]For any $\varepsilon>0$ the application $\Phi_{\varepsilon}:\partial M\rightarrow\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ is continuous. Moreover, for any $\delta>0$ there exists $\varepsilon_{0}=\varepsilon_{0}(\delta)>0$ such that, if $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_{0}$ then $$\Phi_{\varepsilon}(\xi)\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\text{ for all }\xi\in\partial M$$ being $$\begin{aligned}
m_{e}^{+}= & \inf\left\{ E^{+}(v):v\in\mathcal{N}(E^{+})\right\} \\
E^{+}(v)= & \int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}\frac{1}{2}|\nabla v|^{2}+\frac{(a-\omega^{2})}{2}|v|^{2}-\frac{1}{p}|v^{+}|^{p}dx;\\
\mathcal{N}(E^{+})= & \left\{ v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})\smallsetminus\{0\}\ :\ E^{+}(v)v=0\right\} ;\end{aligned}$$
The continuity follows directly by the continuity of $t_{\varepsilon}$. For the second claim, we observe that $$I_{\varepsilon}\left(t_{\varepsilon}(Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}\right)=\frac{1}{2}t_{\varepsilon}^{2}\|Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}-\frac{1}{p}t_{\varepsilon}^{p}|Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}|_{\varepsilon,p}^{p}+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}qt_{\varepsilon}^{2}\int_{M}\psi(t_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}d\mu_{g}$$ In light of Lemma \[lem:nehari\], claim 4, we have that $t_{\varepsilon}(Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})\rightarrow1$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$, uniformly with respect to $\xi\in\partial M$. Moreover, since $t_{\varepsilon}(Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})\rightarrow1$ and by (\[eq:lim1\]) have, uniformly with respect to $\xi$, $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}qt_{\varepsilon}^{2}\int_{M}\psi(t_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}d\mu_{g}\rightarrow0$$ Finally, by Remark \[remark:Zeps\], we get $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}I_{\varepsilon}(t_{\varepsilon}(Z_{\varepsilon,q})Z_{\varepsilon,q})=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}|\nabla V|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})V^{2}dy-\frac{1}{p}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}V^{p}dy=m_{e}^{+}\label{jeps}$$ uniformly with respect to $q\in\partial M$.
\[remlimsup\]By Proposition \[propphi\], given $\delta$, we have that $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\neq\emptyset$ for $\varepsilon$ small enough. Moreover we have $$\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}m_{\varepsilon}\leq m_{e}^{+}.$$
\[sec:Concentration\]Concentration results
==========================================
For any $\varepsilon>0$ we can construct a finite closed partition $\mathcal{P}^{\varepsilon}=\left\{ P_{j}^{\varepsilon}\right\} _{j\in\Lambda_{\varepsilon}}$ of $M$ such that
- $P_{j}^{\varepsilon}$ is closed for every $j$ and $P_{j}^{\varepsilon}\cap P_{k}^{\varepsilon}\subset\partial P_{j}^{\varepsilon}\cap\partial P_{k}^{\varepsilon}$ for $j\neq k$;
- $K_{1}\varepsilon\leq d_{j}^{\varepsilon}\leq K_{2}\varepsilon$, where $d_{j}^{\varepsilon}$ is the diameter of $P_{j}^{\varepsilon}$ and $c_{1}\varepsilon^{n}\leq\mu_{g}\left(P_{j}^{\varepsilon}\right)\leq c_{2}\varepsilon^{n}$;
- for any $j$ there exists an open set $I_{j}^{\varepsilon}\supset P_{j}^{\varepsilon}$ such that, if $P_{j}^{\varepsilon}\cap\partial M=\emptyset$, then $d_{g}\left(I_{j}^{\varepsilon},\partial M\right)>K\varepsilon/2$, while, if $P_{j}^{\varepsilon}\cap\partial M\neq\emptyset$, then $I_{j}^{\varepsilon}\subset\left\{ x\in M\,:\, d_{g}\left(x,\partial M\right)\leq\frac{3}{2}K\varepsilon\right\} $;
- there exists a finite number $\nu(M)\in\mathbb{N}$ such that every $x\in M$ is contained in at most $\nu(M)$ sets $I_{j}^{\varepsilon}$, where $\nu(M)$ does not depends on $\varepsilon$.
By compactness of $M$ such a partition exists, at least for small $\varepsilon$. In the following we will choose always $\varepsilon_{0}(\delta)$ sufficiently small in order to have this partition.
\[lemmagamma\]There exists a constant $\gamma>0$ such that, for any fixed $\delta>0$ and for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}(\delta))$, where $\varepsilon_{0}(\delta)$ is as in Proposition \[propphi\], given any partition $\mathcal{P}^{\varepsilon}$of $M$ as above, and any function $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}$, there exists a set $P_{j}^{\varepsilon}\subset\mathcal{P}^{\varepsilon}$ such that $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{P_{j}^{\varepsilon}}|u^{+}|^{p}d\mu_{g}\geq\gamma>0.$$
By Remark \[remlimsup\] we have that $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\neq\emptyset$. For any function $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}$ we denote by $u_{j}^{+}$ the restriction of $u^{+}$ to the set $P_{j}^{\varepsilon}$. Then we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2} & =\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}(u^{+})^{p}d\mu_{g}-\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{3}}\int_{M}\left(2-q\psi(u)\right)\psi(u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}\\
& \le\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}(u^{+})^{p}d\mu_{g}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\sum_{j}\int_{M}(u_{j}^{+})^{p}d\mu_{g}=\\
& =\sum_{j}\frac{|u_{j}^{+}|_{p}^{p-2}}{\varepsilon^{\frac{n(p-2)}{p}}}\frac{|u_{j}^{+}|_{p}^{2}}{\varepsilon^{\frac{2n}{p}}}\leq\max_{j}\left\{ \frac{|u_{j}^{+}|_{p}^{p-2}}{\varepsilon^{\frac{n(p-2)}{p}}}\right\} \sum_{j}\frac{|u_{j}^{+}|_{p}^{2}}{\varepsilon^{\frac{2n}{p}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the proof follows exactly as in [@GM10], Lemma 5.1.
\[ekeland\]Fixed $\delta$ and $\varepsilon$, we recall that the Ekeland variational principle states that, for any $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J_{\varepsilon}^{m_{\varepsilon}+2\delta}$ there exists $u_{\delta}\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$I_{\varepsilon}(u_{\delta})<I_{\varepsilon}(u),\ \ \left\vert \left\vert u_{\delta}-u\right\vert \right\vert _{\varepsilon}<4\sqrt{\delta};$$
$$\left\vert \left({I_{\varepsilon}}_{|\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}}\right)'(u_{\delta})[\varphi]\right\vert <\sqrt{\delta}\left\vert \left\vert \varphi\right\vert \right\vert _{\varepsilon}.$$ Moreover, since a Palais Smale sequence for ${I_{\varepsilon}}_{|\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}}$ is indeed a PS sequence for the free functional we have also that $$\left\vert I_{\varepsilon}'(u_{\delta})[\varphi]\right\vert <\sqrt{\delta}\left\vert \left\vert \varphi\right\vert \right\vert _{\varepsilon}.$$
\[propconc\]For all $\eta\in(0,1)$ there exists a $\delta_{0}<m_{e}^{+}$ such that for any $\delta\in(0,\delta_{0})$ for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_{0}(\delta))$ (as in Prop. \[propphi\]) and for any function $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}$ we can find a point $\xi=\xi(u)\in\partial M$ for which $$\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{I_{\xi}(\rho,R)}|u^{+}|^{p}d\mu_{g}\ge(1-\eta)m_{e}^{+}\label{eq:tesi9}$$
We first prove this property for $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{\varepsilon}+2\delta}$.
Assume, by contradiction, that there exists $\eta\in(0,1)$, two sequences of vanishing real numbers $\left\{ \delta_{k}\right\} _{k}$ and $\left\{ \varepsilon_{k}\right\} _{k}$ and a sequence of functions $\left\{ u_{k}\right\} _{k}\subset\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon_{k}}\cap I_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta_{k}}\cap I_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{m_{\varepsilon_{k}}+2\delta_{k}}$ such that, for any $\xi\in\partial M$ it holds $$\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{I_{\xi}(\rho,R)}|u_{k}^{+}|^{p}d\mu_{g}<(1-\eta)m_{e}^{+}.\label{uk}$$ By Remark \[ekeland\] we can assume $$J_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{\prime}(u_{k})[\varphi]\leq\sqrt{\delta_{k}}\left\vert \left\vert \varphi\right\vert \right\vert _{\varepsilon_{k}}\text{ for all }\varphi\in H_{g}^{1}(M).$$ By Lemma \[lemmagamma\] there exists a set $P_{k}^{\varepsilon_{k}}\in\mathcal{P}_{\varepsilon_{k}}$ such that $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{P_{k}^{\varepsilon_{k}}}|u_{k}^{+}|^{p}d\mu_{g}\geq\gamma>0.$$ we have to examine two cases: either there exists a subsequence $P_{i_{k}}^{\varepsilon_{i_{k}}}$ such that $P_{i_{k}}^{\varepsilon_{i_{k}}}\cap\partial M\neq\emptyset$, or there exists a subsequence $P_{i_{k}}^{\varepsilon_{i_{k}}}$ such that $P_{i_{k}}^{\varepsilon_{i_{k}}}\cap\partial M=\emptyset$. For simplicity we write simply $P_{k}$ for $P_{i_{k}}^{\varepsilon_{i_{k}}}$.
**First case:** $\ P_{k}\cap\partial M\neq\emptyset$. We choose a point $\xi_{k}$ interior to $P_{k}\cap\partial M$. We have the Fermi coordinates $\Psi_{\xi_{k}}^{\partial}:B_{n-1}(0,R)\times[0,R]\rightarrow M$, $\Psi_{\xi_{k}}^{\partial}(\bar{y},y_{n})=(\bar{x},x_{n})=x$, being $B_{n-1}(0,R)=\left\{ \bar{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1},\ |\bar{y}|<R\right\} $. In what follows we simply call $$B(R)_{+}:=B_{n-1}(0,R)\times[0,R]$$ We consider the function $w_{k}:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ defined by $$u_{k}(\Psi_{\xi_{k}}^{\partial}(\bar{y},y_{n}))\chi_{R}(|\bar{y}|)\chi_{R}(y_{n})=u_{k}(\Psi_{\xi_{k}}^{\partial}(\varepsilon_{k}\bar{z},\varepsilon z_{n}))\chi_{R}(|\varepsilon_{k}\bar{z}|)\chi_{R}(\varepsilon z_{n})=w_{k}(\bar{z},z_{n}).$$ It is clear that $w_{k}\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ with $w_{k}(\bar{z},z_{n})=0$ when $|\bar{z}|=0,R/\varepsilon_{k}$ or $z_{n}=R/\varepsilon_{k}$. We now show some properties of the function $w_{k}$.
It is easy to see (cfr. [@GM10], Prop. 5.3) that $\left\{ w_{k}\right\} _{k}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$. Then there exists $w\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ such that $w_{k}$ converges to $w$ weakly in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ and strongly in $L_{\text{loc}}^{p}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}).$
We claim that the limit function $w$ is a weak solution of $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
-\Delta w+(a-\omega^{2})w=(w^{+})^{p-1} & \text{in }\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n};\\
\frac{\partial w}{\partial\nu}=0 & \text{for }y=(\bar{y},0);
\end{array}\right.$$ First, for any $f\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ we define on the manifold $M$ the function $$f_{k}(x):=f\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}}\left(\Psi_{\xi_{k}}^{\partial}\right)^{-1}(x)\right)=f(z)\text{ where }x=\Psi_{\xi_{k}}^{\partial}(\varepsilon_{k}z).$$ We notice that for every $f\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$, there exists $k$ such that $\text{supp}f\subset B(0,R/2\varepsilon_{k})$. Thus, $\text{supp}f_{k}\subset I_{\xi_{k}}(R/2)$.
Moreover, we have $\|f_{k}\|_{\varepsilon_{k}}\le C\|f\|_{H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}$, thus, by Ekeland principle we have $$|I'_{\varepsilon_{k}}(u_{k})[f_{k}]|\le\sigma_{k}\|f_{k}\|_{\varepsilon_{k}}\rightarrow0\text{ while }k\rightarrow\infty.\label{eq:stella}$$ On the other hand we have $$\begin{gathered}
I'_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})[f_{k}]=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{M}\varepsilon_{k}^{2}\nabla_{g}u_{k}\nabla_{g}f_{k}+au_{k}f_{k}-(u_{k}^{+})^{p-1}f_{k}-\omega^{2}(1-q\psi(u_{k}))^{2}u_{k}f_{k}d\mu_{g}\\
=\left\langle u_{k},f_{k}\right\rangle _{\varepsilon_{k}}-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{M}(u_{k}^{+})^{p-1}f_{k}d\mu_{g}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon_{k}^{3}}\int_{M}\left(2-q\psi(u_{k})\right)\psi(u_{k})u_{k}f_{k}d\mu_{g}\\
=\int_{T_{k}}\left[\sum_{ij}g_{\xi_{k}}^{ij}(\varepsilon_{k}z)\partial_{z_{i}}w_{k}(z)\partial_{z_{j}}f(z)+(a-\omega^{2})w_{k}(z)f(z)\right]|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\\
-\int_{T_{k}}(w_{k}^{+}(z))^{p-1}f(z)|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\\
+q\omega^{2}\int_{T_{k}}\left(2-q\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)\right)\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)w_{k}(z)f(z)|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\label{eq:Iprimouk-1}\end{gathered}$$ Here $T_{k}=B(R/2\varepsilon_{k})_{+}\cap\text{supp}f$ and $\psi(u_{k})(x):=\psi_{k}(x)=\psi_{k}(\Psi_{\xi_{k}}^{\partial}(\varepsilon_{k}z)):=\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)$ where $x\in I_{\xi_{k}}(R)$ and $z\in B(R/\varepsilon_{k})_{+}$. Since $\text{supp}f_{k}\subset I_{\xi_{k}}(R/2)$, for KGMP systems, by (\[eq:kgmps\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
0 & = & \int_{M}\nabla_{g}\psi(u_{k})\nabla_{g}f_{k}+(1+q^{2}u_{k})\psi(u_{k})f_{k}-qu_{k}^{2}f_{k}d\mu_{g}\\
& = & \frac{\varepsilon_{k}^{3}}{\varepsilon_{k}^{2}}\int_{T_{k}}\sum_{ij}g_{q_{k}}^{ij}(\varepsilon_{k}z)\partial_{z_{i}}\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)\partial_{z_{j}}f(z)|g_{q_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\\
& & +\varepsilon_{k}^{3}\int_{T_{k}}(1+q^{2}w_{k}(z))\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)f(z)|g_{q_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\\
& & -\varepsilon_{k}^{3}\int_{T_{k}}qw_{k}^{2}(z)f(z)|g_{q_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz,\end{aligned}$$ The above equation holds for KGMP systems but the analogous for KGM systems is obvious. We have $$\begin{gathered}
-\int_{T_{k}}\sum_{ij}g_{\xi_{k}}^{ij}(\varepsilon_{k}z)\partial_{z_{i}}\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)\partial_{z_{j}}f(z)|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz=\\
=\varepsilon_{k}^{2}\int_{T_{k}}\left((1+q^{2}w_{k}(z))\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)-qw_{k}^{2}(z)\right)f(z)|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\label{eq:psitildek}\end{gathered}$$ Arguing as in Lemma \[lem:w-psi\] we have that $$\begin{aligned}
c\int_{B(R/\varepsilon_{k})_{+}}|\nabla\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)|^{2}dz & \le & \frac{\varepsilon_{k}^{2}}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{M}|\nabla_{g}\psi_{k}|^{2}d\mu_{g}\le\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}q\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi_{k}\\
& \le & \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int u_{k}^{2}\le\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{2}\le C\end{aligned}$$ where $c,C>0$ are suitable constants. Moreover, by Lemma \[lem:w-psi\] $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1}\int_{B(0,R/\varepsilon_{k})}|\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)|^{2}dz & \le & \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{M}\psi_{k}^{2}d\mu_{g}\le\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\|\psi_{k}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}^{2}\le c_{2}\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}|u_{k}|_{4,g}^{4}\\
& \le & c_{2}|u_{k}|_{4,\varepsilon}^{4}\le C\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{1},c_{2},C>0$ are suitable constants. Conlcuding, we have that $\|\tilde{\psi}_{k}\|_{H^{1}(B(R/\varepsilon_{k})_{+})}$ is bounded, and then also $\|\chi_{R/\varepsilon_{k}}(z)\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)\|_{H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})}^{2}$ is bounded. So, there exists a $\bar{\psi}\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ such that $\bar{\psi}_{k}(z):=\chi_{R/\varepsilon_{k}}(z)\tilde{\psi}_{k}(z)\rightarrow\bar{\psi}$ weakly in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ and strongly in $L_{\text{loc}}^{p}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ for any $2\le p<2^{*}$.
By (\[eq:psitildek\]) we have $$\begin{gathered}
-\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}\sum_{ij}g_{\xi_{k}}^{ij}(\varepsilon_{k}z)\partial_{z_{i}}\bar{\psi}_{k}(z)\partial_{z_{j}}f(z)|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz=\\
=\varepsilon_{k}^{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}\left((1+q^{2}w_{k}(z))\bar{\psi}_{k}(z)-qw_{k}^{2}(z)\right)f(z)|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\end{gathered}$$ and, using that $g_{k}^{ij}(\varepsilon z)=\delta_{ij}+O(\varepsilon_{k}|z|)$ and that $|g_{q}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}=1+O(\varepsilon_{k}|z|)$ we get $$\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}\nabla\bar{\psi}_{k}(z)\nabla f(z)dz=O(\varepsilon_{k}).$$ Thus, the function $\bar{\psi}\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ is a weak solution of $-\Delta\bar{\psi}=0$, so $\bar{\psi}=0$.
At this point, arguing as above we have $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{M}\left(2-q\psi(u_{k})\right)\psi(u_{k})u_{k}f_{k}d\mu_{g}=\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{I_{\xi_{k}}(R/2)}\left(2-q\psi(u_{k})\right)\psi(u_{k})u_{k}f_{k}d\mu_{g}=\\
=\int_{\text{supp}f}\left(2-q\bar{\psi}_{k}\right)\bar{\psi}_{k}w_{k}f|g_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon z)|^{1/2}dz\rightarrow0\label{eq:conv0}\end{gathered}$$ while $k\rightarrow\infty$ because $\bar{\psi}_{k}\rightarrow0$ strongly in $L_{\text{loc}}^{p}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$ for any $2\le p<2^{*}$. Thus, by (\[eq:conv0\]), (\[eq:stella\]) and (\[eq:Iprimouk-1\]) and because $w_{k}\rightharpoonup w$ in $H^{1}$ we deduce that, for any $f\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$, it holds $$\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}\nabla w\nabla f+(a-\omega^{2})wf-(w^{+})^{p-1}f=0.$$ Thus, $w$ is a weak solution of $-\Delta w+(a-\omega^{2})w=w^{p-1}$ on $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}$ with Neumann boundary condition. Since $u_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon_{k}}\cap I_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta_{k}}$ we have $$\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{2}\le I_{\varepsilon_{k}}(u_{k})\le m_{e}^{+}+\delta_{k},$$ hence $$\|w\|_{a}^{2}\le\liminf_{k}\|w_{k}\|_{a}^{2}\le\frac{2p}{p-2}m_{e}^{+}\label{eq:normaa}$$ where $\|w\|_{a}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}|\nabla w|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})u^{2}$. Set $$\mathcal{N}_{\infty}=\left\{ v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})\smallsetminus\left\{ 0\right\} \ :\ \|v\|_{a}^{2}=|v|_{p}^{p}\right\} ,$$ we have that $w\in\mathcal{N}_{\infty}\cup\left\{ 0\right\} $. Since $P_{k}\cap\partial M\neq\emptyset$, we can choose $T>0$ such that $$P_{k}\subset I_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon_{k}T,\varepsilon_{k}T)\text{ for }k\text{ large enough.}$$ for $\xi_{k}\in P_{k}\cap\partial M$ . By definition of $w_{k}$ and by Lemma \[lemmagamma\] there exist a $\xi_{k}$ such that, for $k$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
\left\vert \left\vert w_{k}^{+}\right\vert \right\vert _{L^{p}(B_{n-1}(0,T)\times[0,T])} & = & \int_{B_{n-1}(0,T)\times[0,T]}\left\vert \chi_{R}(\varepsilon_{k}|\bar{z}|)\chi_{\rho}(\varepsilon_{k}z_{n})u_{k}^{+}\left(\psi_{q_{k}}^{\partial}(\varepsilon_{k}z)\right)\right\vert ^{p}dz=\label{eq:contogamma}\\
& = & \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{B_{n-1}(0,\varepsilon_{k}T)\times[0,\varepsilon_{k}T]}\left\vert u_{k}^{+}\left(\psi_{q_{k}}^{\partial}(y)\right)\right\vert ^{p}dy\geq\nonumber \\
& \geq & \frac{c}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{B_{n-1}(0,\varepsilon_{k}T)\times[0,\varepsilon_{k}T]}\left\vert u_{k}^{+}\left(\psi_{q_{k}}^{\partial}(y)\right)\right\vert ^{p}\left\vert g_{q_{k}}(y)\right\vert ^{1/2}dy=\nonumber \\
& \geq & \frac{c}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{I_{q_{k}}(\varepsilon_{k}T,\varepsilon_{k}T)}\left\vert u_{k}^{+}\right\vert ^{p}d\mu_{g}\geq c\gamma>0.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Since $w_{k}$ converge strongly to $w$ in $L^{p}(B_{n-1}(0,T)\times[0,T])$, we have $w\neq0$, so $w\in\mathcal{N}_{\infty}$. Hence, by (\[eq:normaa\]) we obtain that $$\|w\|_{a}^{2}=|w|_{p}^{p}=\frac{2p}{p-2}m_{e}^{+}\label{eq:wa}$$ and that $w_{k}\rightarrow w$ strongly in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$. From this we derive the contradiction. Indeed, since $|g_{q}(\varepsilon_{k}z)|^{1/2}=1+O(\varepsilon_{k}|z|)$, fixed $T$, by (\[eq:tesi9\]), for $k$ large it holds $$\int_{B(T)_{+}}\left(w_{k}^{+}\right)^{p}dz\le\left(1-\frac{\eta}{2}\right)\frac{2p}{p-2}m_{\infty}.\label{eq:wk9}$$ Moreover, by (\[eq:wa\]) there exists a $T>0$ such that $\int_{B(T)_{+}}w^{p}dz>\left(1-\frac{\eta}{8}\right)\frac{2p}{p-2}m_{\infty}$ and, since $w_{k}\rightarrow w$ strongly in $L_{\text{loc}}^{p}(\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n})$, $\int_{B(T)_{+}}\left(w_{k}^{+}\right)^{p}dz>\left(1-\frac{\eta}{4}\right)\frac{2p}{p-2}m_{\infty}$, that contradicts (\[eq:wk9\]).
**Second case:** $P_{k}^{\varepsilon}\cap\partial M=\emptyset$. In this case we choose a point $\xi_{k}$ interior to $P_{k}^{\varepsilon}$ and we consider the normal coordinates at $\xi_{k}$. We set $w_{k}(z)$ as $$u_{k}(x)\chi_{R}(\exp_{\xi_{k}}^{-1}(x))=u_{k}(\exp_{\xi_{k}}(y))\chi_{R}(y)=u_{k}(\exp_{\xi_{k}}(\varepsilon_{k}z))\chi_{R}(\varepsilon_{k}z)=w_{k}(z).$$ Arguing as in the previous case, we can establish that $w_{k}$ is bounded in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and converges to some $w\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ weakly in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and strongly in $L_{\text{loc}}^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$. Moreover $w\neq0$ and is a solution of $-\Delta w+(a-\omega^{2})w=w^{p-1}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Thus $\|w\|_{a}^{2}=|w|_{p}^{p}=2\frac{2p}{p-2}m_{e}^{+}$ and $w_{k}\rightarrow w$ strongly in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and from this follows the contradiction.
**Conclusion:** We have proved the claim for $u_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon_{k}}\cap I_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta_{k}}\cap I_{\varepsilon_{k}}^{m_{\varepsilon}+2\delta_{k}}$. We prove now the claim in the general case. For $u_{k}$ it holds $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\varepsilon_{k}}(u_{k}) & = & \left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)|u_{k}^{+}|_{p,\varepsilon_{k}}^{p}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega^{2}q^{2}}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n\grave{\imath}}}\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi^{2}(u_{k})d\mu_{g}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega^{2}q}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}\\
& \ge & (1-\eta)m_{e}^{+}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega^{2}q}{\varepsilon_{k}^{3}}\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}\end{aligned}$$ By compactness of $M$ there exists $\xi_{1},\dots,\xi_{m}\in M\smallsetminus\partial M$ and $\xi_{m+1},\dots,\xi_{l}\in\partial M$ such that $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}\le\sum_{i=1}^{m}\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{B_{g}(\xi_{i},r)}u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}+\sum_{i=m+1}^{l}\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{I_{\xi_{i}}(r)}u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}$$ For any $\xi_{i}$, $i=1,\dots,m$, arguing as above, we can introduce two sequences of functions $w_{k}^{i}$ and $\bar{\psi}_{k}$ such that $w_{k}^{i}\rightarrow w^{i}$, strongly in $H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$, $w^{i}$ solution of $-\Delta w+(a-\omega^{2})w=w^{p-1}$, and that $\bar{\psi}_{k}^{i}\rightarrow0$ strongly in $L_{\text{loc}}^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ for any $2\le p<2^{*}$. We thus have that, for any $\xi^{i}$ $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{B_{g}(\xi^{i},r)}u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}\le\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\left(w_{k}^{i}\right)^{2}\bar{\psi}_{k}^{i}dx\rightarrow0.$$ It follows identically, for $i=m+1,\dots,l$, $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{k}^{n}}\int_{I_{\xi^{i}}(r)}u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}\le\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}\left(w_{k}^{i}\right)^{2}\bar{\psi}_{k}^{i}dx\rightarrow0.$$ Thus $\limsup_{k}m_{\varepsilon_{k}}\ge m_{e}^{+}$, and, in light of Remark \[remlimsup\], $\lim_{k}m_{\varepsilon_{k}}=m_{e}^{+}$. Hence, when $\varepsilon,\delta$ are small enough, we have ${\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}\subset{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{\varepsilon}+2\delta}$ and the general claim follows.
\[sec:beta\]The map $\beta$
===========================
For any $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ with we can define its center of mass as a point $\beta(u)\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ by $$\beta(u)=\frac{{\displaystyle \int_{M}x|u^{+}(x)|^{p}d\mu_{g}}}{{\displaystyle \int_{M}|u^{+}(x)|^{p}d\mu_{g}}}.$$
The application is well defined on $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$, since $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ implies $u^{+}\neq0$ (it follows immediatly by Lemma \[lem:nehari\]). In the following we will show that if $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}$ then $\beta(u)$ belong to a tubular neighborhood of $\partial M$, provided $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$ sufficiently small.
\[propbar1\]For any $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}$, with $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$ small enough, it holds $$\beta(u)\in(\partial M)_{3\rho},$$ being $(\partial M)_{r}=\left\{ x\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\ d(x,\partial M)<r\right\} $ a neighborhood of $\partial M$ in the space $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ where the manifold $M$ is embedded. Moreover the composition $$\beta\circ\Phi_{\varepsilon}:\partial M\rightarrow(\partial M)_{3\rho}$$ is well defined and homotopic to the identity of $\partial M$.
Since $m_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow m_{e}^{+}$ and by Proposition \[propconc\] we get that for any $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}$ there exists $\xi\in\partial M$ such that $$(1-\eta)m_{e}^{+}\leq\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}|u^{+}|_{L^{p}\left(I_{\xi}(\rho,R)\right)}^{p}.\label{bar1}$$ Since $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}\cap J^{m_{e}^{+}+\delta}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{e}^{+}+\delta & \ge I_{\varepsilon}(u)=\left(\frac{p-2}{2p}\right)|u^{+}|_{p,\varepsilon}^{p}+\frac{\omega^{2}q^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}u^{2}\psi^{2}(u)d\mu_{g}-\frac{\omega^{2}q}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}u^{2}\psi(u)d\mu_{g}\ge\\
& \ge\left(\frac{p-2}{2p}\right)|u^{+}|_{p,\varepsilon}^{p}-\frac{\omega^{2}q}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}u^{2}\psi(u)d\mu_{g}\end{aligned}$$ Now, arguing as in Lemma \[lem:w-psi\] we have that, by Holder inequality that $\|\psi(u)\|_{H}\le\left(\int_{M}u^{12/5}\right)^{5/6}$, and, in the same way, that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi(u)u^{2} & \le & \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\|\psi\|_{H}\left(\int_{M}u^{12/5}\right)^{5/6}\le C\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\left(\int_{M}u^{12/5}\right)^{5/3}\\
& \le & C\varepsilon^{\frac{2}{3}n}|u|_{12/5,\varepsilon}^{4}\le C\varepsilon^{\frac{2}{3}n}\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{4}\le C\varepsilon^{\frac{2}{3}n},\end{aligned}$$ since $\|u\|_{\varepsilon}$ is bounded because $u\in{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}\cap I_{\varepsilon}^{m_{\infty}+\delta}$.
So, provided we choose $\varepsilon(\delta_{0})$ small enough, we have $$\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}|u^{+}|_{p,g}^{p}<m_{e}^{+}+2\delta.\label{bar2}$$ By (\[bar1\]) and (\[bar2\]) we get $$\int_{I_{\xi}(\rho,R)}\frac{|u^{+}|^{p}}{|u^{+}|_{p,g}^{p}}d\mu_{g}\geq\frac{1-\eta}{1+\frac{2\delta}{m_{e}^{+}}}.$$ By definition of $\beta$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\beta(u)-q| & \leq & \left\vert \int_{I_{\xi}(\rho,R)}(x-q)\frac{|u^{+}|^{p}}{|u^{+}|_{p,g}^{p}}d\mu_{g}\right\vert +\left\vert \int_{M\smallsetminus I_{\xi}(\rho,R)}(x-q)\frac{|u^{+}|^{p}}{|u^{+}|_{p,g}^{p}}d\mu_{g}\right\vert \leq\\
& \leq & 2\rho+D\left(1-\frac{1-\eta}{1+\frac{\delta}{m_{e}^{+}}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $D$ is the diameter of the manifold $M$ as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Here we supposed, without loss of generality that $R<\rho$. Choosing $\eta$ and $\delta$ small enough we get the first claim. The second claim is standard.
\[sec:Profile-description\]Profile description
==============================================
Let $u_{\varepsilon}$ a low energy solution. By regularity theory (see [@Che84 Th. 1])we can prove that $u_{\varepsilon}\in C^{\infty}(\bar{M})$. So there exists at least one maximum point of $u_{\varepsilon}$ on $M$. We can prove that, for $\varepsilon$ small, $u_{\varepsilon}$ has a unique local maximum point $P_{\varepsilon}\in\partial M$ and we can describe the profile of $u_{\varepsilon}$.
Let $(u_{\varepsilon},\psi(u_{\varepsilon}))$ be solution of (\[eq:kgms\]) such that $I_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})\le m_{e}^{+}+\delta<2m_{e}^{+}$. Then, for $\varepsilon$ small, $u_{\varepsilon}$ is not constant on $M$.
At first we notice that if $u_{\varepsilon}$ is constant, also $\psi(u_{\varepsilon})$ is constant. Moreover, by (\[eq:kgms\]) the values of $u_{\varepsilon}$ and $\psi(u_{\varepsilon})$ depend only on $a,\omega,q$ and $p$. Let $u_{\varepsilon}=u_{0}$ and $\psi(u_{\varepsilon})=\psi_{0}$. Immediatly we have $$\begin{gathered}
I_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})=\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{3}}\int_{M}(a-\omega^{2})u_{0}^{2}d\mu_{g}\\
+\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{p}\right)\frac{\omega^{2}q}{\varepsilon^{3}}\int_{M}u_{0}^{2}\psi_{0}d\mu_{g}+\frac{\omega^{2}q^{2}}{\varepsilon^{3}p}\int_{M}u_{0}^{2}\psi_{0}^{2}d\mu_{g}\rightarrow+\infty\end{gathered}$$ which leads us to a contradiction.
Since $u_{\varepsilon}$ is not constant and continuous on $\bar{M},$ then there exists at least a maximum point $P\in\bar{M}$. Proceeding as in [@GMkg], it is easy to see that if $P\in M\smallsetminus\partial M$ then $I_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})\ge m_{\infty}=2m_{\varepsilon}^{+}$ where $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\infty}= & \inf\left\{ E(v):v\in\mathcal{N}(E)\right\} =E(U)\text{ with }U\text{ defined in }(\ref{eq:U})\\
E(v)= & \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}\frac{1}{2}|\nabla v|^{2}+\frac{(a-\omega^{2})}{2}|v|^{2}-\frac{1}{p}|v^{+}|^{p}dx;\\
\mathcal{N}(E)= & \left\{ v\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n})\smallsetminus\{0\}\ :\ E(v)v=0\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $P\in\partial M$. Now, since $u_{\varepsilon}$ is regular and $\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}=0$ on $\partial M$, $P$ is also a critical point for $\left.u_{\varepsilon}\right|_{\partial M}$ and $\Delta_{g}u_{\varepsilon}(x_{0})\le0$. We have the following result.
Let $P\in\partial M$ be a maximum point for $u_{\varepsilon}$ solution of (\[eq:kgms\]). Then $$\left(u_{\varepsilon}(P)\right)^{p-2}>a-\omega^{2}\label{eq:maxval}$$
We have just pointed out that $\Delta_{g}u_{\varepsilon}(P)\le0$. Then $$0\ge\varepsilon^{2}\Delta_{g}u_{\varepsilon}(P)=u_{\varepsilon}(P)\left[a-\left(u_{\varepsilon}(P)\right)^{p-2}-\omega^{2}\left(q\psi(u_{\varepsilon})(P)-1\right)^{2}\right]$$ and, since $|q\psi(u_{\varepsilon})-1|<1$, $$a\le\left(u_{\varepsilon}(P)\right)^{p-2}+\omega^{2}\left(q\psi(u_{\varepsilon})(P)-1\right)^{2}\le\left(u_{\varepsilon}(P)\right)^{p-2}+\omega^{2}.$$ This ends the proof.
\[lem:duemax\]Let $u_{\varepsilon}$ be a solution of (\[eq:kgms\]) such that $I_{\varepsilon}(u_{\varepsilon})\le m_{e}^{+}+\delta<2m_{e}^{+}$. Then, when $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small, $u_{\varepsilon}$ has a unique maximum point $P\in\partial M$.
We argue by contradiction. Suppose that $u_{\varepsilon}$ has two maximum points $P_{\varepsilon}^{1},P_{\varepsilon}^{2}\in\partial M$. We first prove that $d_{g}(P_{\varepsilon}^{1},P_{\varepsilon}^{2})\rightarrow0$.
Otherwise, we can find a sequence of vanishing positive numbers $\varepsilon_{j}$ and for each $\varepsilon_{j}$ a solution $u_{\varepsilon_{j}}$ with (at least) two maximum points $P_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{1}\rightarrow P^{1}$ and $P_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{2}\rightarrow P^{2}$ as $j\rightarrow\infty$ with $P^{1}\neq P^{2}$.
We define $Q_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ such that $$P_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{i}=\exp_{P^{i}}^{\partial}(Q_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{i})\ \ i=1,2.$$ and we can define a sequence $v_{j}^{1}$ as $$v_{j}^{1}(z)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
u_{\varepsilon_{j}}\left(\psi_{P^{1}}^{\partial}(Q_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{1}+\varepsilon_{j}z)\right) & \text{ for }z_{n}\ge0\\
\\
u_{\varepsilon_{j}}\left(\psi_{P^{1}}^{\partial}(Q_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{1}+\varepsilon_{j}z^{\tau})\right) & \text{ for }z_{n}<0
\end{array}\right.$$ where $z^{\tau}=(z_{1},\dots,z_{n-1},-z_{n})$, and $z\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ sufficiently small such that the Fermi coordinates $\psi_{P^{1}}^{\partial}$ are well defined. In the same way we define $v_{j}^{2}$. At this point we can proceed as in [@GMkg] and we can prove that for any bounded set $B$ eventually $v_{j}^{i}\in C^{2}(B)$ and $v_{j}^{i}\xrightarrow{j}U$ in $C^{2}(B)$, where $U$ is the positive, radially symmetric least energy solution of (\[eq:U\]). Now choose $\bar{R}$ such that $$\int_{B(0,\bar{R})}|\nabla U|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})U^{2}>\frac{2p}{p-2}\cdot\frac{m_{\infty}+2\delta}{2}.$$ For $\varepsilon_{j}$ sufficiently small, we have that $\varepsilon_{j}\bar{R}\le\frac{d_{g}(P^{1},P^{2})}{2}$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2minfty}
2I_{\varepsilon_{j}}(u_{\varepsilon_{j}}) \ge &
2\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\|u_{\varepsilon_{j}}\|_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{2}\nonumber\\
\ge& 2\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{j}^{n}}
\int_{I_{P^{1}}(\varepsilon_{j}\bar{R})\cup I_{P^{2}}(\varepsilon_{j}\bar{R})}\varepsilon^{2}|\nabla_{g}u_{\varepsilon_{j}}|^{2}
+(a-\omega^{2})u_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{2} \nonumber\\
\ge & 2\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\int_{B(0,\bar{R})\cap z_{n}\ge0}|\nabla v_{j}^{1}(z)|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})(v_{j}^{1})^{2}
\nonumber \\
&+2\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\int_{B(0,\bar{R})\cap z_{n}\ge0}|\nabla v_{j}^{2}(z)|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})|v_{j}^{2}|^{2} +o(1)\\
=& \left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\int_{B(0,\bar{R})}|\nabla v_{j}^{1}(z)|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})|v_{j}^{1}|^{2}
\nonumber \\
&+\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\int_{B(0,\bar{R})}|\nabla v_{j}^{2}(z)|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})|v_{j}^{2}|^{2}+o(1)\nonumber \\
\rightarrow & 2\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\int_{B(0,\bar{R})}|\nabla U|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})U^{2}>m_{\infty}+2\delta\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and thus $I_{\varepsilon_{j}}(u_{\varepsilon_{j}})>m_{e}^{+}+2\delta$ that is a contradiction.
Now we have that $d_{g}(P_{\varepsilon}^{1},P_{\varepsilon}^{2})\rightarrow0$. With the same technique we can prove also that $$\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\varepsilon_{j}}d_{g}(P_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{1},P_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{2})=0\label{eq:limmax}$$
To conclude the proof we have to show that (\[eq:limmax\]) raises to a contradiction. In fact suppose that $d_{g}(P_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{1},P_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{2})\le c\varepsilon_{j}$ for some $c>0$ and consider the sequence of functions $$w_{\varepsilon_{j}}=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
u_{\varepsilon_{j}}\left(\psi_{P^{1}}^{\partial}(Q_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{1}+\varepsilon_{j}z)\right) & \text{ for }z_{n}\ge0\\
\\
u_{\varepsilon_{j}}\left(\psi_{P^{1}}^{\partial}(Q_{\varepsilon_{j}}^{1}+\varepsilon_{j}z^{\tau})\right) & \text{ for }z_{n}<0
\end{array}\right.\text{ with }|z|\le c.\label{eq:weps}$$ For any $j$, $w_{\varepsilon_{j}}$ has two maximum points in $B(0,c)$. Moreover, we can argue, as in the previous steps, that $w_{\varepsilon_{j}}\rightarrow U$ in $C^{2}(B(0,c))$ and this is a contradiction.
\[lem:stime\]Write $u_{\varepsilon}=Z_{\varepsilon,P_{\varepsilon}}+\Psi_{\varepsilon}$ where $Z_{\varepsilon,P_{\varepsilon}}$ is defined in (\[zeq\]) and $P_{\varepsilon}\in\partial M$ is the unique maximum point. It holds that $\|\Psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{L^{\infty}(M)}\rightarrow0$.
By the $C^{2}$ convergence proved in Lemma \[lem:duemax\] we have that, given $\rho>0$, and defined $w_{\varepsilon}$ as in (\[eq:weps\]), we get, as before, $$2\|u_{\varepsilon}-Z_{\varepsilon,P_{\varepsilon}}\|_{C^{0}(I_{P_{\varepsilon}}(\varepsilon\rho))}
=\|w_{\varepsilon}(z)-U(z)\|_{C^{0}(B(0,\rho))}+o(1)\rightarrow0$$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$. Moreover, since $u_{\varepsilon}$ has a unique maximum point by Lemma \[lem:duemax\], we have that, for any $\rho>0$, $$\max_{x\in M\smallsetminus I_{P_{\varepsilon}}(\varepsilon\rho)}u_{\varepsilon}(x)=\max_{x\in\partial I_{P_{\varepsilon}}(\varepsilon\rho)}u_{\varepsilon}(x)=\max_{|z|=\rho}U(z)+\sigma(\varepsilon)\le ce^{-\alpha\rho}+\sigma_{1}(\varepsilon)$$ for some constant $c,\alpha>0$ and for some $\sigma_{1}(\varepsilon)\rightarrow0$ for $\varepsilon\rightarrow0$. This proves the claim.
\[sec:Proof-of-technical\]Proof of technical results
====================================================
Here we collect some technical result which has been used in the proof of the main result.
If $u\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$, , by (\[eq:gprimo\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
0=N_{\varepsilon}(u) & = & \|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}-|u^{+}|_{\varepsilon,p}^{p}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\left(2-q\psi(u)\right)\psi(u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}\nonumber \\
& = & \|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}-|u^{+}|_{\varepsilon,p}^{p}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\left(2\psi(u)+\psi'(u)[u]\right)u^{2}d\mu_{g}.\label{eq:N(u)}\end{aligned}$$ The functional $N_{\varepsilon}$ is of class $C^{2}$ for $2<p<2^{*}$ because $\psi$ is of class $C^{2}$. Also, for $4\le p<2^{*}$ we have $N'_{\varepsilon}(u)[u]<0$ for all $u\in{\mathcal{N}}_{\varepsilon}$. In fact by (\[eq:N(u)\]) we have
$$\begin{aligned}
N'_{\varepsilon}(u)[u] & = & 2\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}-p|u^{+}|_{\varepsilon,p}^{p}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\left(2-q\psi(u)\right)\psi'(u)[u]u^{2}d\mu_{g}\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{2q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\left(2-q\psi(u)\right)\psi(u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}-\frac{q^{2}\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi'(u)[u]\psi(u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}=\nonumber \\
& = & (2-p)\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}[4-p-2q\psi(u)]\psi(u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\left[2-\frac{p}{2}-2q\psi(u)\right]\psi'(u)[u]u^{2}d\mu_{g}<0\text{ for }p\ge4,\label{eq:nehari}\end{aligned}$$
thus $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ is a $C^{2}$ manifold.
Now, assume by contradiction that there exists a sequence $\left\{ u_{k}\right\} _{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ with $\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow0$ while $k\rightarrow+\infty$. Thus, using that $N_{\varepsilon}(u)=0$ and that $0\le\psi(u_{k})\le1/q$ we have $$\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}\le\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}[2-q\psi(u_{k})]u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})d\mu_{g}=|u_{k}^{+}|_{p,\varepsilon}^{p}\le C\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}^{p},$$ so $1\le C\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}^{p-2}\rightarrow0$ that gives us a contradiction, so claim 1 is proved.
To prove claim 2, first, we show that if $\left\{ u_{k}\right\} _{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ is a Palais-Smale sequence for the functional $I_{\varepsilon}$ constrained on $\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$, then $\left\{ u_{k}\right\} _{k}$ is a is a Palais-Smale sequence for the free functional $I_{\varepsilon}$ on $H_{\varepsilon}$
Indeed, let $\left\{ u_{k}\right\} _{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$\begin{array}{cc}
I_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})\rightarrow c\\
\left|I'_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})[\varphi]-\lambda_{k}N'(u_{k})[\varphi]\right|\le\sigma_{k}\|\varphi\|_{\varepsilon} & \text{ with }\sigma_{k}\rightarrow0
\end{array}$$ In particular $I'_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})\left[\frac{u_{k}}{\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}}\right]-\lambda_{k}N'(u_{k})\left[\frac{u_{k}}{\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}}\right]\rightarrow0$. Thus, since $u_{k}\in\mathcal{N}_{\varepsilon}$, $$\lambda_{k}N'(u_{k})\left[\frac{u_{k}}{\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}}\right]\rightarrow0.$$ By (\[eq:nehari\]), if $\inf|\lambda_{k}|\ne0$, we have that $\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow0$ that contradicts Lemma \[lem:nehari\].Thus $\lambda_{k}\rightarrow0$. Moreover, since $$I_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})=\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{p}\right)\frac{\omega^{2}q}{\varepsilon^{3}}\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi_{k}d\mu_{g}+\frac{\omega^{2}q^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}p}\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi_{k}^{2}d\mu_{g}\rightarrow c,$$ we have that $\|u_{n}\|_{\varepsilon}$ is bounded. By Remark \[rem:Vh\] we have that $|N'(u_{n})[\varphi]|\le c\|\varphi\|_{\varepsilon}$. Thus $\left\{ u_{k}\right\} _{k}$ is a PS sequence for the free functional $I_{\varepsilon}$.
To conclude the proof of claim 2, we prove that $I_{\varepsilon}$ safisfies the PS condition on the whole space $H_{\varepsilon}$. Let $\left\{ u_{k}\right\} _{k}\in H_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})\rightarrow c & & \left|I'_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})[\varphi]\right|\le\sigma_{k}\|\varphi\|_{\varepsilon}\text{ where }\sigma_{k}\rightarrow0\end{aligned}$$ We have that $\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}$ is bounded. Indeed, by contradiction, suppose $\|u_{n}\|_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow\infty$. Then, by PS hypothesis $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{pI_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})-I'_{\varepsilon}(u_{k})[u_{k}]}{\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}}=\\
\left(\frac{p}{2}-1\right)\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\left[\frac{p}{2}-2+q\psi(u_{k})\right]\frac{u_{k}^{2}\psi(u_{k})}{\|u_{k}\|_{\varepsilon}}d\mu_{g}\rightarrow0\end{gathered}$$ Since $p\ge4$ and $\psi(u_{n})\ge0$ this leads to a contradiction. At this point, up to subsequence $u_{k}\rightharpoonup u$ in $H_{\varepsilon}$, then by Lemma \[lem:w-psi\] we have, up to subsequence, $\psi(u_{k}):=\psi_{k}\rightharpoonup\bar{\psi}=\psi(u)$.
We have that $$u_{k}-i_{\varepsilon}^{*}[(u_{k}^{+})^{p-1}]-\omega^{2}qi_{\varepsilon}^{*}\left[\left(q\psi_{k}^{2}-2\psi_{k}\right)u_{k}\right]\rightarrow0$$ where the operator $i_{\varepsilon}^{*}:L_{g}^{p'},|\cdot|_{\varepsilon,p'}\rightarrow H_{\varepsilon}$ is the adjoint operator of the immersion operator $i_{\varepsilon}:H_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow L_{g}^{p},|\cdot|_{\varepsilon,p}$. Since $u_{k}\rightarrow u$ in $L^{p'}$, to get $H_{g}^{1}$ strong convergence of $\{u_{k}\}_{k}$ it is sufficient to show that $\left(q\psi_{k}^{2}-2\psi_{k}\right)u_{n}\rightarrow\left(q\bar{\psi}^{2}-2\bar{\psi}\right)u$ in $L_{g}^{p'}$. We have $$|\psi_{k}u_{k}-\bar{\psi}u|_{p',g}\le|(\psi_{k}-\bar{\psi})u|_{p',g}+|\psi_{k}(u_{k}-u)|_{p',g}.\label{eq:1}$$ and $$|\psi_{k}^{2}u_{k}-\bar{\psi}^{2}u|_{p',g}\le|(\psi_{k}^{2}-\bar{\psi}^{2})u|_{p',g}+|\psi_{k}^{2}(u_{k}-u)|_{p',g}.\label{eq:2}$$ For the first term of (\[eq:1\]) we have, by Holder inequality $$\int_{M}|\psi_{k}-\bar{\psi}|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}|u|^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\le\left(\int_{M}|\psi_{k}-\bar{\psi}|^{p}\right)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\left(\int_{M}|u|^{\frac{p}{p-2}}\right)^{\frac{p-2}{p-1}}\rightarrow0,$$ and for the other terms we proceed in the same way.
To prove claim 3, define, for $t>0$ $$H(t)=I_{\varepsilon}(tu)=\frac{1}{2}t^{2}\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}t^{2}\int_{M}\psi(tu)u^{2}d\mu_{g}-\frac{t^{p}}{p}.$$ Thus, by (\[eq:gprimo\]) $$\begin{aligned}
H'(t) & = & t\left(\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}[2-q\psi(tu)]\psi(tu)u^{2}d\mu_{g}-t^{p-2}\right)\nonumber\\
& = & t\left(\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi(tu)u^{2}d\mu_{g}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}t\int_{M}\psi'(tu)[u]u^{2}d\mu_{g}-t^{p-2}\right)\label{eq:Hprimo} \\
H''(t) & = & \|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}[2-q\psi(tu)]\psi(tu)u^{2}d\mu_{g}\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}t\int_{M}[1-q\psi(tu)]\psi'(tu)[u]u^{2}d\mu_{g}-(p-1)t^{p-2}\label{eq:Hsec} \end{aligned}$$ By (\[eq:Hprimo\]) there exists $t_{\varepsilon}>0$ such that $H'(t_{\varepsilon})=0$, because, for small $t$, $H'(t)>0$ and, since $p\ge4$, it holds $H'(t)<0$ for $t$ large. Moreover, $$t_{\varepsilon}^{p-2}=\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi(t_{\varepsilon}u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}t_{\varepsilon}\int_{M}\psi'(t_{\varepsilon}u)[u]u^{2}d\mu_{g}$$ then, by Lemma \[lem:e1\] $$\begin{aligned}
H''(t_{\varepsilon}) & = & (2-p)\|u\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\left[2-p-\frac{q}{2}\psi(t_{\varepsilon}u)\right]\psi(t_{\varepsilon}u)u^{2}d\mu_{g}\\
& & +\frac{q\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}[3-p-2q\psi(t_{\varepsilon}u)]\psi'(t_{\varepsilon}u)[t_{\varepsilon}u]u^{2}d\mu_{g}<0,\end{aligned}$$ so $t_{\varepsilon}$ is unique. The continuity of $t_{\varepsilon}$ is standard.
We now prove the last claim. We have $$\begin{gathered}
t_{\varepsilon}^{p-2}|Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}|_{\varepsilon,p}^{p}=\|Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}\|_{\varepsilon}^{2}+\frac{q\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi(t_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}d\mu_{g}\\
-\frac{q^{2}\omega^{2}}{2\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi^{2}(t_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}d\mu_{g}\label{eq:teps1-1}\end{gathered}$$ where $t_{\varepsilon}=t_{\varepsilon}(Z_{\varepsilon,q})$. It holds $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}t_{\varepsilon}^{2}}\int_{M}\psi(t_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}d\mu_{g}=0\label{eq:lim1}\\
& & \lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}t_{\varepsilon}^{4}}\int_{M}\psi^{2}(t_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi})Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}d\mu_{g}=0\label{eq:lim2}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, set $\psi(t_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}):=\psi_{\varepsilon}$. We have, by Remark \[remark:Zeps\] and by definition of $\psi_{\varepsilon}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{H}^{2} & \le & \|\psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{H}^{2}+q^{2}\int_{M}\psi_{\varepsilon}^{2}t_{\varepsilon}^{2}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}d\mu_{g}=t_{\varepsilon}^{2}q\int_{M}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}\psi_{\varepsilon}d\mu_{g}\le\\
& \le & ct_{\varepsilon}^{2}|\psi_{\varepsilon}|_{6,g}\left(\int_{M}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{12/5}d\mu_{g}\right)^{5/6}\le ct_{\varepsilon}^{2}\|\psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}\varepsilon^{\frac{5n}{6}}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi_{\varepsilon}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}d\mu_{g}\le\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\|\psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}\left(\int_{M}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{12/5}d\mu_{g}\right)^{5/6}\le ct_{\varepsilon}^{2}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\varepsilon^{\frac{10n}{6}}=ct_{\varepsilon}^{2}\varepsilon^{\frac{2n}{3}},$$ and $$\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\int_{M}\psi_{\varepsilon}^{2}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{2}d\mu_{g}\le\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\left(\int\psi_{\varepsilon}^{6}d\mu_{g}\right)^{1/3}\left(\int_{M}Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}^{3}d\mu_{g}\right)^{2/3}\le\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{n}}\|\psi_{\varepsilon}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}^{2}\varepsilon^{\frac{2n}{3}}\le t_{\varepsilon}^{4}\varepsilon^{\frac{4n}{3}}.$$ This proves (\[eq:lim1\]) and (\[eq:lim2\]). For any sequence $\varepsilon_{k}\rightarrow0$, by (\[eq:teps1-1\]), (\[eq:lim1\]) and (\[eq:lim2\]) and by Remark \[remark:Zeps\] we have that $t_{\varepsilon_{k}}$ is bounded. Then, up to subsequences $t_{\varepsilon_{k}}\rightarrow\bar{t}$. By (\[eq:teps1-1\]) and Remark \[remark:Zeps\] we have $\bar{t}^{p-2}|V|_{p}^{p}=\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}|\nabla V|^{2}+(a-\omega^{2})V^{2}dx$. By (\[eq:V\]) we complete the proof.
\[lem:w-psi\]Let $u_{k}\rightharpoonup u$ in $H_{g}^{1}(M)$. Then, up to subsequence, $\psi(u_{k})\rightharpoonup\psi(u)$ in $H_{g}^{1}(M)$.
We set $\psi_{k}:=\psi(u_{k})$. By (\[eq:ei-N\]), it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\|\psi_{k}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}^{2} & \le & \|\psi_{k}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}^{2}+\int_{M}q^{2}u_{k}^{2}\psi_{k}^{2}d\mu_{g}=q\int_{M}u_{k}^{2}\psi_{k}d\mu_{g}\le c\|u_{k}\|_{L_{g}^{4}}^{2}\|\psi_{k}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}\end{aligned}$$ then $\|\psi_{k}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}\le c\|u_{k}\|_{L_{g}^{4}}^{2}$, thus $\|\psi_{k}\|_{H_{g}^{1}}$ is bounded and, up to subsequence, $\psi_{k}\rightharpoonup\bar{\psi}$ in $H_{g}^{1}(M)$. We recall that $\psi_{k}$ solves (\[eq:ei-N\]), thus passing to the limit we have that $\bar{\psi}$ also solves (\[eq:ei-N\]). Since (\[eq:ei-N\]) admits a unique solution, we get $\bar{\psi}=\psi(u)$. If $\psi(u_{k})$ solves (\[eq:ei-D\]) the proof follows in the same way if we use on $H_{0,g}^{1}$ the equivalent norm $\|u\|_{H_{0,g}^{1}}=\|\nabla u\|_{L_{g}^{2}}$.
\[rem:Vh\]We have that $\|V_{u}(h)\|_{H}\le c|h|_{3,g}|u|_{3,g}$. In fact, by Lemma \[lem:e1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\|V_{u}(h)\|_{H}^{2} & \le & \|V_{u}(h)\|_{H}^{2}+\int_{M}q^{2}u^{2}V_{u}^{2}(h)d\mu_{g}\le\\
& \le & \int_{M}2qu(1-q\psi(u))hV_{u}(h)d\mu_{g}\le c\|V_{u}(h)\|_{H}|h|_{3,g}|u|_{3,g}.\end{aligned}$$
\[remark:Zeps\]the following limits hold uniformly with respect to $q\in\partial M$. $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\left\vert \left\vert Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}\right\vert \right\vert _{2,\varepsilon}^{2}=\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}V^{2}(y)dy\label{eql2-1}$$ $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\left\vert \left\vert Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}\right\vert \right\vert _{p,\varepsilon}^{p}=\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}V^{p}(y)dy\label{eqlp-1}$$ $$\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow0}\varepsilon^{2}\left\vert \left\vert \nabla Z_{\varepsilon,\xi}\right\vert \right\vert _{2,\varepsilon}^{2}=\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}}\left\vert \nabla V\right\vert ^{2}(y)dy\label{eqgrad-1}$$
[10]{}
Antonio Azzollini and Alessio Pomponio, *Ground state solutions for the nonlinear klein-gordon-maxwell equations*, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. **35** (2010), 33–42.
Vieri Benci and Donato Fortunato, *Solitary waves of the nonlinear [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon equation coupled with the [M]{}axwell equations*, Rev. Math. Phys. **14** (2002), no. 4, 409–420.
Daniele Cassani, *Existence and non-existence of solitary waves for the critical [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon equation coupled with [M]{}axwell’s equations*, Nonlinear Anal. **58** (2004), no. 7-8, 733–747.
Pascal Cherrier, *Problèmes de [N]{}eumann non linéaires sur les variétés riemanniennes*, J. Funct. Anal. **57** (1984), no. 2, 154–206.
Tea D’Aprile and Juncheng Wei, *Layered solutions for a semilinear elliptic system in a ball*, J. Differential Equations **226** (2006), 269–294.
Tea D’Aprile and Juncheng Wei, *Clustered solutions around harmonic centers to a coupled elliptic system*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire **226** (2007), 605–628.
Teresa D’Aprile and Dimitri Mugnai, *Solitary waves for nonlinear [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon-[M]{}axwell and [S]{}chrödinger-[M]{}axwell equations*, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A **134** (2004), no. 5, 893–906.
P. d’Avenia, L. Pisani, and G. Siciliano, *Dirichlet and [N]{}eumann problems for [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon-[M]{}axwell systems*, Nonlinear Anal. **71** (2009), no. 12, e1985–e1995.
Pietro d’Avenia and Lorenzo Pisani, *Nonlinear [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon equations coupled with [B]{}orn-[I]{}nfeld type equations*, Electron. J. Differential Equations (2002), No. 26, 13.
Pietro d’Avenia, Lorenzo Pisani, and Gaetano Siciliano, *Klein-[G]{}ordon-[M]{}axwell systems in a bounded domain*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. **26** (2010), no. 1, 135–149.
Olivier Druet and Emmanuel Hebey, *Existence and a priori bounds for electrostatic [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon-[M]{}axwell systems in fully inhomogeneous spaces*, Commun. Contemp. Math. **12** (2010), no. 5, 831–869.
Marco Ghimenti and Anna M. Micheletti, *Positive solutions of singularly perturbed nonlinear elliptic problem on [R]{}iemannian manifolds with boundary*, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. **35** (2010), no. 2, 319–337.
Marco Ghimenti and Anna Maria Micheletti, *Number and profile of low energy solutions for singularly perturbed [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon-[M]{}axwell systems on a [R]{}iemannian manifold*, J. Differential Equations **256** (2014), no. 7, 2502–2525.
Emmanuel Hebey and Trong Tuong Truong, *Static [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon-[M]{}axwell-[P]{}roca systems in 4-dimensional closed manifolds*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **667** (2012), 221–248.
Emmanuel Hebey and Juncheng Wei, *Resonant states for the static [K]{}lein-[G]{}ordon-[M]{}axwell-[P]{}roca system*, Math. Res. Lett. **19** (2012), no. 4, 953–967.
Dimitri Mugnai, *Coupled klein-gordon and born-infeld-type equations: Looking for solitary waves*, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. **460** (2004), 1519–1527.
[^1]: The authors were partially supported by 2014 GNAMPA project: “Equazioni di campo non-lineari: solitoni e dispersione”.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The increasing observational evidence of galactic outflows is considered as a sign of active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback in action. However, the physical mechanism responsible for driving the observed outflows remains unclear, and whether it is due to momentum, energy, or radiation is still a matter of debate. The observed outflow energetics, in particular the large measured values of the momentum ratio ($\dot{p}/(L/c) \sim 10$) and energy ratio ($\dot{E}_k/L \sim 0.05$), seems to favour the energy-driving mechanism; and most observational works have focused their comparison with wind energy-driven models. Here we show that AGN radiation pressure on dust can adequately reproduce the observed outflow energetics (mass outflow rate, momentum flux, and kinetic power), as well as the scalings with luminosity, provided that the effects of radiation trapping are properly taken into account. In particular, we predict a sub-linear scaling for the mass outflow rate ($\dot{M} \propto L^{1/2}$) and a super-linear scaling for the kinetic power ($\dot{E}_k \propto L^{3/2}$), in agreement with the observational scaling relations reported in the most recent compilation of AGN outflow data. We conclude that AGN radiative feedback can account for the global outflow energetics, at least equally well as the wind energy-driving mechanism, and therefore both physical models should be considered in the interpretation of future AGN outflow observations.'
author:
- |
W. Ishibashi$^{1}$[^1], A. C. Fabian$^{2}$ and R. Maiolino$^{3,}$$^{4}$\
$^{1}$Physik-Institut, Universitat Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland\
$^{2}$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA\
$^{3}$Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 19 J. J. Thomson Ave., Cambridge CB3 0HE\
$^{4}$Kavli Institute of Cosmology Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: 'Accepted 2018 January 24. Received 2017 December 31; in original form 2017 November 7'
title: 'The energetics of AGN radiation pressure-driven outflows'
---
=4
\[firstpage\]
black hole physics - galaxies: active - galaxies: evolution
Introduction
============
Active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback is widely invoked in galaxy evolutionary scenarios, e.g. to reproduce the observed black hole-host galaxy correlations, but direct observational evidence has not been always clear-cut [@Fabian_2012 and references therein]. In recent years, a growing body of observational work has revealed the existence of powerful outflows on galactic scales, which are thought to provide the physical link connecting the small scales of the central black hole to the large scales of the host galaxy [@Sturm_et_2011; @Maiolino_et_2012; @Veilleux_et_2013; @Spoon_et_2013; @Cicone_et_2014; @Carniani_et_2015; @Feruglio_et_2015; @Tombesi_et_2015; @Gonzalez-Alfonso_et_2017; @Fiore_et_2017]. These galactic outflows, often observed to extend on $\sim$kpc-scales, are typically characterised by high velocity ($v \sim 1000$km/s), high momentum flux ($\dot{p} \gtrsim 10 L/c$) and large kinetic power ($\dot{E}_k \sim 0.05 L$). The associated mass outflow rates can be quite high ($\dot{M} \sim 10^3 \mathrm{M_{\odot}/yr}$), implying short depletion timescales [@Sturm_et_2011; @Cicone_et_2014]. The occurrence of such powerful outflows on galactic scales has often been interpreted as an observational proof of AGN feedback in action.
However, the physics of the driving mechanism(s) remains unclear, and whether the observed outflows are powered by momentum, energy, or radiation is still a source of much debate [e.g. @King_Pounds_2015 and references therein]. One way of driving large-scale outflows is via quasi-relativistic winds launched from the vicinity of the central black hole, which generate shockwaves propagating into the host galaxy [@King_et_2011; @Zubovas_King_2012; @Faucher-Giguere_Quataert_2012]. In this scenario, two distinct regimes can be recognized, depending on whether the shocked wind can cool efficiently or not: ‘momentum-driving’ at small radii and ‘energy-driving’ at large radii. In the latter energy-driven regime, the large-scale AGN outflows are predicted to have momentum rates of $\dot{p} \sim 20 L/c$ and kinetic energy rates of $\dot{E}_k \sim 0.05 L$ [@Zubovas_King_2012]. A different mechanism for driving large-scale feedback is via radiation pressure on dust [@Fabian_1999; @Murray_et_2005; @Thompson_et_2015]. In this case, as the dust absorption cross section is much larger than the Thomson cross section ($\sigma_d/\sigma_T \sim 10^3$), the resulting coupling between AGN radiation field and the surrounding dusty gas can be greatly enhanced.
At first sight, the observed outflow energetics, and in particular the large measured values of the momentum ratio ($\dot{p}/(L/c) \gtrsim 10$) and energy ratio ($\dot{E}_k/L \sim 0.05$), seem to favour the energy-driving mechanism, and apparently rule out direct radiation pressure-driving. We have previously argued that AGN radiation pressure on dust can potentially drive high-velocity outflows on $\sim$kpc scales, similar to the observed ones, provided that the effects of radiation trapping are taken into account [@Ishibashi_Fabian_2015]. Here we wish to compute the full energetics of AGN radiation pressure-driven outflows, by analysing the dependence on the underlying physical parameters, and compare our model results with the most up-to-date observational data reported in recent studies [e.g. @Fiore_et_2017].
The paper is structured as follows. We first recall the basics of AGN radiative feedback and the significance of the effective Eddington limit (Section \[Sec\_radiative\_feedback\]). We next compute the resulting outflow energetics: mass outflow rate, momentum flux, and kinetic power; alongside the derived quantities, momentum ratio and energy ratio; and analyse their dependence on the underlying physical parameters (Section \[Sec\_outflow\_energetics\]). In Section \[Sec\_comparison\], we compare our model predictions with observations available in the literature, and in particular the newly reported observational scaling relations. Finally, we consider the relation to other physical models (e.g. the wind energy-driving mechanism), and discuss the physical implications of AGN radiative feedback in the broader context of co-evolutionary scenarios (Section \[Sec\_discussion\]).
AGN radiative feedback: radiation pressure on dust {#Sec_radiative_feedback}
==================================================
We consider AGN feedback driven by radiation pressure on dust, which sweeps up the surrounding material into an outflowing shell. We recall that the general form of the equation of motion is given by: $$\frac{d}{dt} [M_{sh}(r) v] = \frac{L}{c} (1 + \tau_{IR} - e^{-\tau_{UV}} ) - \frac{G M(r) M_{sh}(r)}{r^2}$$ where $L$ is the central luminosity, $M(r)$ is the total mass distribution, and $M_{sh}(r)$ is the shell mass [@Thompson_et_2015; @Ishibashi_Fabian_2015]. Here we consider the simple case of an isothermal potential ($M(r) = \frac{2 \sigma^2}{G} r$, where $\sigma$ is the velocity dispersion) and fixed-mass shell ($M_{sh}(r) = M_{sh}$), for which analytical limits can be derived, allowing us to gain some physical insight into the problem. The infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) optical depths are given by: $$\tau_{IR}(r) = \frac{\kappa_{IR} M_{sh}}{4 \pi r^2}$$ $$\tau_{UV}(r) = \frac{\kappa_{UV} M_{sh}}{4 \pi r^2}$$ where $\kappa_{IR}$=$5 \, \mathrm{cm^2 g^{-1} f_{dg, MW}}$ and $\kappa_{UV}$=$10^3 \, \mathrm{cm^2 g^{-1} f_{dg, MW}}$ are the IR and UV opacities, with the dust-to-gas ratio normalised to the Milky Way value (i.e. $\kappa_{IR}$=$5 \, \mathrm{cm^2 g^{-1}}$ and $\kappa_{UV}$=$10^3 \, \mathrm{cm^2 g^{-1}}$ for the Milky Way dust-to-gas ratio). Three distinct physical regimes can be identified according to the optical depth of the medium: optically thick to both IR and UV, optically thick to UV but optically thin to IR (single scattering limit), and optically thin to UV. The optical depth falls off with increasing radius as $\tau \propto 1/r^2$, and the corresponding IR and UV transparency radii are respectively given by: $R_{IR} = \sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{IR} M_{sh}}{4 \pi}}$ and $R_{UV} = \sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{UV} M_{sh}}{4 \pi}}$.
A critical luminosity is obtained by equating the outward force due to radiation pressure to the inward force due to gravity, which can be considered as a generalised form of the Eddington luminosity ($L_E'$). The corresponding Eddington ratio is defined as: $$\Gamma = \frac{L}{L_E'} = \frac{L r^2}{c G M(r) M_{sh}(r)} (1 + \tau_{IR} - e^{-\tau_{UV}})$$ In the case of the isothermal potential and fixed-mass shell, we recall that the Eddington ratios in the three optical depth regimes are respectively given by [cf. @Ishibashi_Fabian_2016b]: $$\Gamma_{IR} = \frac{\kappa_{IR} L}{8 \pi c \sigma^2 r}
\label{Eq_Gamma_IR}$$ $$\Gamma_{SS} = \frac{L r}{2 c \sigma^2 M_{sh}}
\label{Eq_Gamma_SS}$$ $$\Gamma_{UV} = \frac{\kappa_{UV} L}{8 \pi c \sigma^2 r}
\label{Eq_Gamma_UV}$$ We observe that the luminosity appears in all three regimes, while the dust opacity (or equivalently, dust-to-gas ratio) appears in the IR-optically thick and UV-optically thin regimes, but not in the single scattering limit. We also note that $\Gamma_{IR}$ and $\Gamma_{UV}$ are independent of the shell mass configuration, which is only relevant in the single scattering regime. The dependence of the effective Eddington ratio on the different physical parameters can be summarised as follows: $$\Gamma_{IR} \propto \kappa_{IR} L \propto f_{dg} L
\label{Eq_Gamma_IR_bis}$$ $$\Gamma_{SS} \propto L/M_{sh}
\label{Eq_Gamma_SS_bis}$$ $$\Gamma_{UV} \propto \kappa_{UV} L \propto f_{dg} L
\label{Eq_Gamma_UV_bis}$$
Solving the equation of motion (with a number of approximations), we obtain the analytic expression for the radial velocity profile of the outflowing shell: $$v(r) = \sqrt{\frac{2 L r}{c M_{sh}} + \frac{\kappa_{IR} L}{2 \pi c R_0}} \, ,
\label{Eq_v}$$ where $R_0$ is the initial radius. As the shell is accelerated outwards, the shell velocity will exceed the local escape velocity, and the outflowing shell can in principle escape the galaxy (but the actual outcome will depend on the details of the sweeping-up of ambient material and the temporal evolution of the central luminosity, cf Discussion).
Outflow energetics {#Sec_outflow_energetics}
==================
The basic physical quantities used in characterising the observed outflows are: the mass outflow rate, the momentum flux, and the kinetic power. In the observational works, the outflow energetics can be estimated as: $$\dot{M}_{out} = \frac{M_{out}v}{R}$$ $$\dot{P}_{out} = \dot{M}_{out} v$$ $$\dot{E}_{out} = \frac{1}{2} \dot{M}_{out} v^2$$ where $M_{out}$ is the mass of the outflowing gas. These values are computed in the so-called thin-shell approximation [@Gonzalez-Alfonso_et_2017 and references therein]; while in other studies a factor of 3 higher values are obtained by assuming a spherical geometry [e.g. @Maiolino_et_2012; @Fiore_et_2017]. Two derived quantities, the momentum ratio and the energy ratio, are often used to compare the observational measurements with model predictions: $\dot{P}_{out}/(L/c)$ and $\dot{E}_{out}/L$.
It should be noted that $\dot{M}_{out}$, $\dot{P}_{out}$, and $\dot{E}_{out}$ are convenient snapshot parametrizations of a time-dependent process. In our calculations, $M_{out} = M_{sh}$ which is constant over time. Where $v$ is approximately constant at large times Êand radii, the definition of $\dot{M}_{out}$ means that it drops with increasing radius, similarly with the other parameters. The velocity $v$ is an integral Êresult Êof the earlier flow and this is lost in our snapshot definitions.
Mass outflow rate, momentum flux, and kinetic power {#subsec_3energetics}
---------------------------------------------------
By analogy with the observational works, we compute the corresponding model quantities characterising the outflow energetics: mass outflow rate ($\dot{M}$), momentum flux ($\dot{p}$), and kinetic power ($\dot{E}_k$): $$\dot{M} = \frac{M_{sh}}{t_{flow}} = \frac{M_{sh} v}{r}
\label{Eq_Mdot}$$ $$\dot{p} = \dot{M} v = \frac{M_{sh} v^2}{r}
\label{Eq_pdot}$$ $$\dot{E}_k = \frac{1}{2} \dot{M} v^2 = \frac{1}{2} \frac{M_{sh} v^3}{r}
\label{Eq_Edot}$$ We recall that here we simply follow the evolution of a single outflowing shell, and estimate the outflow energetics (i.e. the three quantities $\dot{M}, \dot{p}, \dot{E}_k$) in the thin-shell approximation, as adopted in the observational studies [e.g. @Gonzalez-Alfonso_et_2017].
![Mass outflow rate vs. radius. $L = 10^{46}$erg/s, $M_{sh} = 10^8 M_{\odot}$, $f_{dg} = 1/150$, $R_0 = 50$pc (black solid). Variations: $L = 5 \times 10^{46}$erg/s (cyan dashed), $f_{dg} = 1/30$ (magenta dash-dotted), $M_{sh} = 2 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ (blue dotted). []{data-label="Fig_Mdot_r"}](plot_Mdot_r.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
![Momentum flux vs. radius. $L = 10^{46}$erg/s, $M_{sh} = 10^8 M_{\odot}$, $f_{dg} = 1/150$, $R_0 = 50$pc (black solid). Variations: $L = 5 \times 10^{46}$erg/s (cyan dashed), $f_{dg} = 1/30$ (magenta dash-dotted), $M_{sh} = 2 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ (blue dotted). []{data-label="Fig_pdot_r"}](plot_pdot_r.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
![Kinetic power vs. radius. $L = 10^{46}$erg/s, $M_{sh} = 10^8 M_{\odot}$, $f_{dg} = 1/150$, $R_0 = 50$pc (black solid). Variations: $L = 5 \times 10^{46}$erg/s (cyan dashed), $f_{dg} = 1/30$ (magenta dash-dotted), $M_{sh} = 2 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ (blue dotted). []{data-label="Fig_Edot_r"}](plot_Edot_r.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
In Figures \[Fig\_Mdot\_r\], \[Fig\_pdot\_r\], and \[Fig\_Edot\_r\], we plot the mass outflow rate, momentum flux, and kinetic power, as a function of radius. Here the exact radial velocity profile, resulting from the full numerical integration, is used when computing the outflow parameters shown in the plots. The following values are taken as fiducial parameters of the model (black solid curve): $L = 10^{46}$erg/s, $M_{sh} = 10^8 M_{\odot}$, $f_{dg} = 1/150$, $R_0 = 50$pc, $\sigma = 200$km/s. We also consider variations by a factor of 5 in the physical parameters, by modifying one single parameter at a time while keeping the others fixed, in order to see which one has the major impact on the outflow energetics: enhanced luminosity (cyan dashed), reduced shell mass (blue dotted), and enhanced dust-to-gas ratio (magenta dash-dotted).
In all three plots, we observe that the luminosity has the major effect in determining the outflow energetics, followed by the dust-to-gas ratio, and finally the shell mass. This trend may be qualitatively explained in terms of the dependence of the effective Eddington ratio on the underlying physical parameters (cf. Eqs. \[Eq\_Gamma\_IR\_bis\]-\[Eq\_Gamma\_UV\_bis\]): the luminosity appears in all three optical depth regimes, the dust-to-gas ratio in the IR-optically thick and UV-optically thin regimes, and $M_{sh}$ only in the single scattering regime. The exact location of the IR and UV transparency radii depend on the dust opacity and shell mass, being typically located around a hundred pc and a few kpc, respectively.
Based on the definitions given in Eqs. (\[Eq\_Mdot\]-\[Eq\_Edot\]), we can derive the analytic limits for the mass outflow rate, momentum flux, and kinetic power: $$\dot{M}
= \left( \frac{2 L M_{sh}}{c r} + \frac{\kappa_{IR} L M_{sh}^2}{2 \pi c R_0 r^2} \right)^{1/2}$$ $$\dot{p}
= \frac{2 L}{c} + \frac{\kappa_{IR} L M_{sh}}{2 \pi c R_0 r}$$ $$\dot{E}_k
= \frac{M_{sh}}{2r} \left( \frac{2 L r}{c M_{sh}} + \frac{\kappa_{IR} L}{2 \pi c R_0} \right)^{3/2}$$
We note that the mass outflow rate scales with luminosity as $\dot{M} \propto L^{1/2}$, while the kinetic power scales with luminosity as $\dot{E}_k \propto L^{3/2}$.
Momentum ratio and energy ratio {#subsec_xi_K}
-------------------------------
We next consider the two derived quantities, the momentum ratio ($\zeta$) and the energy ratio ($\epsilon_k$), which can also be used to quantify the outflow energetics: $$\zeta = \frac{\dot{p}}{L/c}$$ $$\epsilon_k = \frac{\dot{E}_k}{L}$$
Figures \[Fig\_xi\_r\] and \[Fig\_K\_r\] show the radial profiles of the momentum ratio and energy ratio corresponding to the shell models presented in Sect. \[subsec\_3energetics\]. As before, we can derive the analytic limits for the momentum ratio and the energy ratio: $$\zeta = 2 + \frac{\kappa_{IR} M_{sh}}{2 \pi R_0 r}
\label{Eq_xi}$$ $$\epsilon_k = \frac{M_{sh}}{2Lr} \left( \frac{2 L r}{c M_{sh}} + \frac{\kappa_{IR} L}{2 \pi c R_0} \right)^{3/2}$$ We see that the momentum ratio is independent of the luminosity, whereas the energy ratio scales with luminosity as $\epsilon_k \propto L^{1/2}$. The latter scaling implies that the energy ratio should be higher in more luminous sources. As previously mentioned, variations in the luminosity and dust-to-gas ratio can have a major effect on the outflow energetics, while the shell mass seems to be the less influential parameter. In fact, a larger shell mass implies a lower velocity but also a higher mass outflow rate, and the resulting momentum and energy ratios are broadly similar.
![Momentum ratio vs. radius. $L = 10^{46}$erg/s, $M_{sh} = 10^8 M_{\odot}$, $f_{dg} = 1/150$, $R_0 = 50$pc (black solid). Variations: $L = 5 \times 10^{46}$erg/s (cyan dashed), $f_{dg} = 1/30$ (magenta dash-dotted), $M_{sh} = 2 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ (blue dotted). []{data-label="Fig_xi_r"}](plot_xi_r.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
![Energy ratio vs. radius. $L = 10^{46}$erg/s, $M_{sh} = 10^8 M_{\odot}$, $f_{dg} = 1/150$, $R_0 = 50$pc (black solid). Variations: $L = 5 \times 10^{46}$erg/s (cyan dashed), $f_{dg} = 1/30$ (magenta dash-dotted), $M_{sh} = 2 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ (blue dotted). []{data-label="Fig_K_r"}](plot_K_r.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
Compared to Figure \[Fig\_xi\_r\], we note that the analytic limit of the momentum ratio given in Eq. (\[Eq\_xi\]) tends to over-estimate the actual numerical values, since the analytic expression of the velocity provides an upper limit (e.g. the logarithmic term is neglected in Eq. \[Eq\_v\]). On the other hand, the second term dominates at small radii in Eq. (\[Eq\_xi\]), and for $r \sim R_{IR}$: $$\zeta_{IR} \sim \frac{\kappa_{IR} M_{sh}}{2 \pi R_0 R_{IR}}
\approx \sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{IR} M_{sh}}{\pi R_0^2}} = 2 \sqrt{\tau_{IR,0}} \, ,$$ which is equivalent to the relation $\zeta_{IR} = \frac{M_{sh} v_{IR}^2}{R_{IR} L/c}$, where $v_{IR} = \sqrt{\frac{\kappa_{IR} L}{2 \pi c R_0}}$ is the velocity near the IR transparency radius [cf @Thompson_et_2015]. Thus the momentum ratio is primarily determined by the initial IR optical depth, and large values can only be obtained if the optical depth to the reprocessed IR radiation is much larger than unity at the launch radius ($\tau_{IR,0} \gg 1$). Similarly, the energy ratio on small scales can be approximated as: $$\epsilon_{k,IR} \approx \sqrt{\tau_{IR,0}} \frac{v_{IR}}{c} \, .$$ Therefore, both the momentum ratio and the energy ratio are mainly governed by the efficiency of radiation trapping, scaling as $\propto \sqrt{\tau_{IR,0}}$.
Comparison with observations {#Sec_comparison}
============================
As mentioned in the Introduction, increasing observational evidence is emerging for galactic outflows, detected in ionised, neutral, and molecular gas phases [@Cicone_et_2014; @Carniani_et_2015; @Feruglio_et_2015; @Tombesi_et_2015; @Gonzalez-Alfonso_et_2017; @Fiore_et_2017]. Molecular outflows are of particular interest, as they carry the bulk of the outflowing mass and comprise the medium from which stars ultimately form. Observations of molecular outflows indicate that the mass outflow rates are typically in the range $\dot{M} \sim (10-10^3) \mathrm{M_{\odot}/yr}$, the momentum rates in the $\dot{p} \sim (10^{35}-10^{37})$ gcm$s^{-2}$ range, and the kinetic luminosities in the $\dot{E}_k \sim (10^{42}-10^{45})$ erg/s range [@Cicone_et_2014; @Carniani_et_2015; @Fiore_et_2017]. The model results shown in Figs. \[Fig\_Mdot\_r\]-\[Fig\_Edot\_r\] are broadly consistent with the observed numerical ranges, suggesting that AGN radiative feedback is potentially able to reproduce the global outflow energetics (a more detailed comparison is presented below). The most recent compilation of AGN outflows, obtained by collecting all available data from the literature, has been recently presented in @Fiore_et_2017. In the following, we focus our comparison with the energetics of molecular outflows reported in their sample, recalling that the quoted values should be divided by a factor of 3 to account for the difference in the assumed geometry.
Observations indicate that molecular outflows typically have momentum ratios in the range $\zeta \sim (3-100)$, with half of the sources having momentum loads $> 10$ [@Fiore_et_2017]. Dividing by a factor of 3, the momentum ratio would be in the range $\zeta \sim (1-30)$, with typical values of a $\sim$few. From Figure \[Fig\_xi\_r\], we see that the predicted values of the momentum ratios are somewhat lower than the observed range, and in particular we cannot account for the highest $\zeta$ values. Concerning the energy ratio, molecular outflows are reported to have values in the range $\epsilon_k \sim (1-10) \%$, with an average ratio of $\sim 2.5\%$. Again dividing by a factor of 3, this implies that the energy ratio is typically in the range $\epsilon_k \sim (0.3-3) \%$, with an average value of $\sim 0.8\%$. Comparing with Figure $\ref{Fig_K_r}$, we note that the model energy ratios may account for the lower end of the observed range, but values exceeding $\epsilon_k > 0.01$ cannot be reproduced.
![Momentum ratio vs. radius for variations in the initial IR optical depth: $\tau_{IR,0} = 10$ (blue dotted), $\tau_{IR,0} = 30$ (cyan dashed), $\tau_{IR,0} = 50$ (green dash-dotted). []{data-label="Fig_xi_r_var"}](plot_xi_r_varTauIR.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
![Energy ratio vs. radius for variations in the initial IR optical depth: $\tau_{IR,0} = 10$ (blue dotted), $\tau_{IR,0} = 30$ (cyan dashed), $\tau_{IR,0} = 50$ (green dash-dotted). $\epsilon_{tot} = \epsilon_k + \epsilon_g$ (yellow solid), corresponding to the highest $\tau_{IR,0}$ model. []{data-label="Fig_K_r_var"}](plot_KT_r_varTauIR.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
From the analysis in the previous section (Sect. \[subsec\_xi\_K\]), it follows that the key parameter governing the outflow energetics is the initial IR optical depth. In order to evaluate the quantitative importance of this parameter, we plot the momentum ratio and energy ratio for enhanced IR optical depths (Figures \[Fig\_xi\_r\_var\] and \[Fig\_K\_r\_var\]). Large optical depths (due to high densities and large dust content) may be easily reached in the nuclear regions of obscured AGNs and ULIRG-like systems. As expected, we see that significantly higher values of the momentum ratio ($\zeta \gtrsim 10$) and energy ratio ($\epsilon_k > 0.01$) can now be obtained, which better reproduce the upper end of the observed range. Moderate values of $\zeta \sim 5$ and $\epsilon_k \lesssim 0.01$ are obtained on $\sim$kpc scales, consistent with the observational values, typically measured at radii $R \lesssim 1$kpc in molecular outflows [@Cicone_et_2014; @Fiore_et_2017]. In our picture, the maximal values of the momentum and energy ratios are attained at small radii ($r \lesssim R_{IR}$), where the shell is optically thick to the reprocessed IR radiation. Thus efficient radiation trapping is required in order to account for the highest values of the momentum and energy ratios. In fact, the observed outflow energetics can potentially allow us to put some constraints on the physical conditions of the innermost regions of AGNs.
For completeness, we also include the contribution of the work done against gravity: $W_g = \int \frac{G M(r) M_{sh}(r)}{r^2} dr = 2 \sigma^2 M_{sh} \ln \frac{r}{R_0}$, with the resulting gravitational ratio defined as $\epsilon_g = \dot{W}_g/L = 2 \sigma^2 M_{sh} v/ Lr$ (yellow solid curve in Figure \[Fig\_K\_r\_var\]). We see that the gravitational contribution seems to be unimportant in this particular case. Similarly, we can consider the effects of varying the velocity dispersion $\sigma$. Figures \[Fig\_xi\_r\_varMsigma\] and \[Fig\_K\_r\_varMsigma\] show the radial profiles of the momentum ratio and energy ratio, assuming a $M_{BH} - \sigma$ relation [e.g. @McConnell_Ma_2013], for two black holes of mass $M_{BH} \sim 10^8 M_{\odot}$ (blue dotted) and $M_{BH} \sim 10^9 M_{\odot}$ (cyan dashed), radiating at their respective Eddington luminosities. We recall that the effective acceleration is given by $a = \frac{L}{c M_{sh}} \left( 1 + \tau_{IR} - e^{-\tau_{UV}} \right) - \frac{2 \sigma^2}{r}$, which may be written as $a = a_{rad} + a_{grav}$. In general, the outflow propagation is facilitated in shallower potential wells. However, we note that for high enough luminosities, the acceleration is entirely dominated by the driving term ($a_{rad}$), and variations in the velocity dispersion (within a plausible $\sigma$ range) have not much influence on the outflow energetics (the cyan dashed and yellow solid curves almost overlap in Figs. \[Fig\_xi\_r\_varMsigma\] and \[Fig\_K\_r\_varMsigma\]).
Observations also indicate that the mass outflow rate and kinetic power are well correlated with the AGN luminosity [@Fiore_et_2017]. The observational scalings for molecular outflows are given by: $$\dot{M} \propto L^{0.76\pm0.06}$$ $$\dot{E}_k \propto L^{1.27\pm0.04}$$ In our picture, we naturally expect a correlation between the outflow properties and the central luminosity (as the luminosity is the main parameter governing the effective Eddington ratio). More precisely, we derive that the mass outflow rate and kinetic power scale with luminosity as $\dot{M} \propto L^{1/2}$ and $\dot{E}_k \propto L^{3/2}$, respectively (Section \[subsec\_3energetics\]). We note that the theoretical scalings derived from the analytical limits are quite close to the observational scaling relations (also given the large uncertainties in the observational measurements). In particular, we predict a sub-linear scaling for the mass outflow rate and a super-linear scaling for the kinetic power, in agreement with the observational results. The latter scaling also implies that the energy ratio should scale with luminosity as $\epsilon_k \propto L^{1/2}$ (Sect. \[subsec\_xi\_K\]). We further note that the energy ratio at small radii increases with increasing shell mass and decreasing initial radius (roughly scaling as $\propto M_{sh}^{1/2} R_0^{-3/2}$).
![Momentum ratio vs. radius for variations in luminosity and velocity dispersion: $L = 10^{46}$erg/s and $\sigma = 170$km/s (blue dotted), $L = 10^{47}$erg/s and $\sigma = 260$km/s (cyan dashed), $L = 10^{47}$erg/s and $\sigma = 170$km/s (yellow solid). []{data-label="Fig_xi_r_varMsigma"}](plot_xi_r_varMsigma.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
![Energy ratio vs. radius. Same parameters as in Fig. \[Fig\_xi\_r\_varMsigma\]. []{data-label="Fig_K_r_varMsigma"}](plot_K_r_varMsigma.jpg){width="40.00000%"}
Discussion {#Sec_discussion}
==========
Model assumptions
-----------------
Here we assume spherical symmetry (with high gas covering fraction), which should be a valid approximation, especially in the heavily enshrouded nuclei of buried quasars and ULIRG-like systems. In realistic situations, the reprocessed radiation may tend to leak out through lower density channels, and the rate of momentum transfer may be reduced. Nonetheless, radiative transfer calculations, including multi-dimensional effects, indicate that values of several times $L/c$ can still be reached [@Roth_et_2012]. Even if the radiation-matter coupling is somewhat reduced, compared to the case of a smooth spherical gas distribution, AGN radiative feedback due to the partial trapping of IR photons must still play a crucial role in initiating the outflow at early times. The actual efficiency of radiation trapping has been probed via different numerical simulations (see Section \[Subsec\_radiation\_trapping\]).
Substantial momentum and energy boosts can be obtained, provided that the optical depth to the reprocessed IR radiation is much larger than unity at the launch radius ($\tau_{IR,0} \gg 1$). Observations of ULIRGs indicate that huge amounts of gas, with very high column densities, are concentrated in the inner $\lesssim 100$pc region [@Aalto_et_2015 and references therein]. Such compact, buried nuclei can be optically thick to IR and even submm wavelengths. In principle, a constraint on the initial radius can be derived from the observational measurements of the outflow energetics. We have previously tried such a test for the particular case of Mrk 231, obtaining a rather small initial radius of $R_0 \sim 10$pc [@Ishibashi_Fabian_2015]. However, major uncertainties are involved, especially in cases when the central AGN luminosity varies over time. A strict lower limit to the initial radius is only set by the dust sublimation radius, $R_{sub} = \sqrt{\frac{L}{16 \pi \sigma_{SB} T_{sub}^4}}$, which is of the order of $R_{sub} \sim 1$pc for typical parameters.
Comparison with other forms of driving mechanisms
-------------------------------------------------
The large observed values of the momentum ratio ($\zeta \sim 10$) and energy ratio ($\epsilon_k \sim 5\%$) have been interpreted as an indication that the outflows are in the energy-driven regime. Indeed, the outflow energetics apparently seems to favour ‘energy-driving’ over ‘radiation pressure-driving’, and most observational works have focused their comparisons with wind energy-driving models [e.g. @Zubovas_King_2012]. Here we explicitly show that AGN radiation pressure on dust is capable of driving powerful outflows on galactic scales, and that high momentum and energy ratios can be reproduced, provided that the reprocessed radiation is efficiently trapped in the inner regions. Moreover, the observational scalings of the mass outflow rate and kinetic power can be naturally accounted for in our radiative feedback scenario. Hence, by properly taking into account the effects of radiation trapping, AGN radiative feedback is able to explain the observed outflow energetics, at least equally well as wind energy-driven models.
In the case of the wind outflow model, the inner wind is assumed to be launched from the immediate vicinity of the central black hole, with a mass rate comparable to the Eddington rate (with $\dot{m} = \dot{M}_w/\dot{M}_E \sim 1$) [@Zubovas_King_2012; @King_Pounds_2015]. The resulting large-scale outflows are expected to have kinetic luminosities of $\dot{E}_k \sim \frac{\eta}{2 \dot{m}} L \sim 0.05 L$, where $\eta \sim 0.1$ is the standard accretion efficiency. The quoted value of $\sim 5\%$ is often compared with the observational measurements of galactic outflows [e.g. @Cicone_et_2014]. If taken at face value, this would imply a fixed coupling efficiency, with the energy ratio being basically set by the accretion efficiency (but see below for a potential dependence on $\dot{m}$). Since the accretion efficiency is determined by the black hole spin parameter, it then follows that the energy ratio should be a monotonic function of black hole spin (which may not have a straightforward physical interpretation). Actually, the global change in internal energy is given by the energy injection rate minus the rate of PdV work and the work against gravity, and the overall coupling efficiency may be further reduced in the case of leaky shells [@King_Pounds_2015 and references therein].
The fact that the observed $\epsilon_k$ values are close to the predicted $\sim 5\%$ has often been taken as evidence for the energy-driving mechanism. But a closer inspection suggests that the observational values mostly tend to lie below the canonical $\sim 5\%$ line [@Cicone_et_2014; @Carniani_et_2015; @Fiore_et_2017]. Within the wind outflow scenario, it has been argued that lower values of the momentum and energy loading factors might be preserved, if the AGN luminosity evolution follows a power-law decay [@Zubovas_2018]. On the other hand, lower values of $\epsilon_k$ can be obtained by assuming $\dot{m} > 1$, for a given standard accretion efficiency. This would require some form of super-Eddington ejection. Although super-Eddington flows may occur in stellar-mass black holes in binary systems (observed as ULXs), they may not hold for super-massive black holes, which tend to stay near-Eddington [@King_Muldrew_2016]. Moreover, it is also possible that most ULXs[^2] are powered by accreting neutron stars rather than black holes.
In contrast, in our AGN radiative feedback scenario, the energy ratio explicitly depends on the different physical parameters of the source, such as the luminosity and the optical depth of the medium, leading to a range of possible $\epsilon_k$ values. We also expect that the coupling efficiency should be higher in high-luminosity systems, consistent with the observed super-linear correlation. Furthermore, we would naturally expect lower $\epsilon_k$ values for moderate radiation trapping (Fig. \[Fig\_K\_r\]).
Interestingly, recent observational studies of molecular outflows suggest that discriminating between energy-driving and momentum-driving is not always trivial. For instance, re-analysis of the nearby ULIRG (F11119+3257) with new ALMA data, indicates that the large-scale CO outflow is not inconsistent with momentum-driving, and thus AGN radiation pressure cannot be ruled out [@Veilleux_et_2017]. Another example is the recently discovered UFO/BAL quasar at $z \sim 3.9$ (APM08279+5255), which presents momentum boosts also consistent with momentum-driven flows [@Feruglio_et_2017]. Furthermore, ongoing analysis of molecular outflows, selected in an unbiased way from the ALMA archive data, suggest on average lower momentum and kinetic rates than in previous works (Flutsch et al. in preparation). Therefore, the most recent observations tend to indicate lower values of the momentum and energy ratios, even more easily compatible with AGN radiative feedback, without the need to require extreme optical depths. On the other hand, a few sources present much higher values, with $\zeta \gg 10$ and $\epsilon_k \gg 0.05$, which cannot be easily accounted for, even in the energy-driven scenario.
In reality, the central luminosity varies with time, and if $L$ has dropped over time (between the initial launching of the shell and the current shell location), the inferred momentum and energy ratios may be over-estimated [as previously discussed in @Ishibashi_Fabian_2015]. This could explain the very large values observed in some sources, which may be interpreted as signs of a past powerful AGN episode that has since faded. On the other hand, the shell may sweep up mass as it expands outwards, and the amount of swept-up material will determine the fate of the outflow: either the outflowing shell may completely escape the galaxy, or remain trapped in the outer halo and later fall back.
The importance of radiation trapping {#Subsec_radiation_trapping}
------------------------------------
An important aspect of the AGN radiative feedback model is the strength of the radiation-matter coupling, which depends on the degree of radiation trapping. The actual efficiency of radiation trapping has been investigated in numerical simulations, including radiation pressure on dust in extreme environments. Early results, based on the flux limited diffusion (FLD) approximation, suggested that the rate of momentum transfer cannot reach values much exceeding the single scattering limit, due to the development of radiative Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instabilities [@Krumholz_Thompson_2013]. But this conclusion has been challenged by subsequent simulations, based on the more accurate variable Eddington tensor (VET) method, which indicate that there can be continuous acceleration of dusty gas, despite the development of RT instabilities in the flow [@Davis_et_2014]. This has been confirmed by updated studies comparing the different numerical schemes: indeed, the dusty gas can be accelerated to large scales, and the momentum transfer can be considerably amplified with respect to the single scattering value [@Tsang_Milosavljevic_2015; @Zhang_Davis_2017]. Most recently, radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of radiation pressure-driven shells find that the boost factor is roughly equal to the IR optical depth as predicted (except at the highest optical depths), largely confirming our analytic picture (@Costa_et_2018, see also @Costa_et_2017). Therefore, we should be slowly moving towards a consensus recognising the importance of AGN radiation pressure on dust in driving large-scale outflows.
From the observational perspective, we recall that most outflow measurements are based on samples of local ULIRGs and QSOs [@Cicone_et_2014; @Gonzalez-Alfonso_et_2017; @Fiore_et_2017]. The nuclear regions of dense starbursts and obscured AGNs are characterised by high densities and large dust content [e.g. @Aalto_et_2015], implying high IR optical depths. Such ULIRG-like systems should form particularly favourable conditions for AGN radiative feedback. In fact, we have previously shown that even dense gas can potentially be disrupted in the IR-optically thick regime, and that an increase in the dust-to-gas ratio facilitates the shell ejection [@Ishibashi_Fabian_2016b]. Indeed, large amounts of dust imply heavy obscuration, but also powerful feedback. We have further discussed how our radiation pressure-driven shell models may be applied to the recently discovered populations of dusty quasars [@Ishibashi_et_2017]. These sources ‘in transition’ are likely observed in the short-lived blow-out phase, transitioning from dust-obscured starbursts to unobscured luminous quasars [e.g. @Banerji_et_2015]. In a broader context, we have proposed how such radiative feedback, which directly acts on the obscuring dusty gas, may provide a natural physical interpretation for the observed co-evolutionary sequence [@Ishibashi_Fabian_2016b]. Therefore AGN radiative feedback naturally fits in the global picture of ‘black hole-host galaxy co-evolution’ scenarios.
Conclusion
==========
Summarising, galactic outflows are now starting to be commonly observed, but the physical mechanism(s) responsible for their driving is still a matter of debate. Here we show that AGN radiation pressure on dust can account for the global outflow energetics (including large momentum and energy ratios) and the recently reported observational scaling relations. Furthermore, AGN radiation pressure on dust provides a physical mechanism for removing the obscuring dust cocoon, leading to a natural interpretation of the observed co-evolutionary path. Accordingly, AGN radiative feedback must be considered as a viable mechanism for driving galactic outflows, along with the wind energy-driving mechanism. We thus encourage future observations to compare the outflow measurements with both models to try to better understand the physical nature of galactic outflows.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
=================
WI acknowledges support from the University of Zurich. ACF acknowledges support from ERC Advanced Grant 340442 and RM acknowledges Advanced Grant 695671.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: We note that no ULX has yet been confirmed as a black hole, whereas several are found to be neutron stars [@Walton_et_2018 and references therein].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We study the pre-explosion outbursts (PEOs) of massive stars that might result from a rapid expansion of the massive star in the presence of a close companion. We assume that activity in the core of the massive star, an initial mass of $15 M_\odot$, about two years before explosion energizes the envelope, and with the stellar evolutionary code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mesa</span> follow the inflated envelope as a result of energy deposition to the envelope. We examine the conditions for a companion star to accrete mass from the inflated envelope. We find that for the general conditions that we assume, bright PEOs require a neutron star companion at an orbital separation of $\approx 1000-2000 R_\odot$. We assume that the mass-accreting neutron star launches jets. These jets shape the circumstellar matter to highly non-spherical structures, such that the explosions of core collapse supernovae (CCSNe) that follow PEOs might lack an axial (cylindrical) symmetry. In some case main sequence star companions can also energize PEOs, but much weaker ones. This study adds another scenario by which neutron stars can power the radiation of PEOs. Another scenario is the common envelope jets supernova (CEJSN) impostor where a neutron star enters the envelope of the massive star.\
**Keywords:** supernovae: general — binaries: close — stars: jets — stars: winds, outflows
author:
- 'Barak Danieli, & Noam Soker'
title: 'Pre-supernova outbursts of massive stars in the presence of a neutron star companion'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
Some massive stars undergo pre-explosion outbursts (PEOs) tens of years to days before they terminally explode as a core collapse supernova (CCSN; e.g., @Foleyetal2007 [@Pastorelloetal2007; @Smithetal2010; @Mauerhanetal2013; @Ofeketal2013; @Pastorelloetal2013; @Marguttietal2014; @Ofeketal2014; @SvirskiNakar2014; @Fraseretal2015; @Moriya2015; @Goranskijetal2016; @Ofeketal2016; @Tartagliaetal2016; @BoianGroh2017; @Marguttietal2017; @Liuetal2017; @Nyholmetal2017; @Pastorelloetal2017; @Yaronetal2017]). The outburst is accompanied by mass ejection that forms a dense circumstellar matter (CSM). After explosion the supernova ejecta collides with the CSM, turning kinetic energy to radiation. Some of the PEOs are observed to be non-spherical. [@Reillyetal2017] deduce from their spectropolarimetry observations of the 2012 PEO of SN 2009ip, that was a major outburst of a luminous blue variable (LBV), that the CSM that was formed from the PEO is compatible with a disk-like geometry. In some cases enhanced mass loss rate episodes might occur as early as the core carbon-burning phase (e.g., @Moriyaetal2014 [@Marguttietal2017]).
Since standard stellar evolutionary simulations do not lead to PEOs, researchers have introduced extra mechanisms to trigger and power PEO of CCSNe. Some mechanisms attribute the instability to the envelope of the massive star, such as the radiation-driven instabilities (e.g., @BlaesSocrates2003) that might occur in some LBVs (e.g., @Kiriakidisetal1993 [@Kashietal2016]). Other mechanisms start from the very high power of the nuclear burning in the core that triggers vigorous core convection. Energy that is carried from the convective zones to the envelope, e.g., by waves [@QuataertShiode2012; @ShiodeQuataert2014], causes the envelope to either eject mass (e.g., @QuataertShiode2012 [@ShiodeQuataert2014]), or to expand [@Soker2013; @ShiodeQuataert2014; @SmithArnett2014], or both. [@Fuller2017] find that waves triggered by the core mainly cause envelope expansion, and by themselves unbind only a small amount of envelope mass (@FullerRo2018, however, claim that this mechanism can drive mass-loss in some hydrogen-deficient massive stars).
[@SokerGilkis2017b] propose that the vigorous convection amplifies magnetic fields in the core, and magnetic flux tubes that buoy from the core to the envelope carry the energy to the envelope and cause envelope expansion. To trigger a powerful PEO this scenario requires the presence of a close binary companion that accretes mass from the inflated envelope.
Because PEOs occur in only about 10 per cent of all CCSNe (e.g., @Bilinskietal2015 [@Marguttietal2017]), the mechanism for PEOs must include a rare ingredient. [@ShiodeQuataert2014] estimate that about $20 \%$ of the CCSN progenitors might excite outward propagating waves with $10^{46}-10^{48} {{~\rm erg}}$ that trigger PEOs. In the scenario of magnetic activity the rare ingredient is a minimum core rotation that is required to form a strong dynamo. If a close binary companion is required for a powerful PEO, the requirement for its presence further reduces the probability for PEOs.
Whether PEOs require the presence of a binary companion or not is an open question (e.g., @Levesqueetal2014 [@Marguttietal2017]). While single-star PEO processes exist (e.g., @Shaviv2000 [@Shaviv2001; @Owockietal2004; @Quataertetal2016; @Moriya2014]), in the present study we adopt the view that powerful PEOs require the presence of a secondary star that orbits the massive star at a close distance and accretes mass from the inflated envelope (e.g., @KashiSoker2010 [@Soker2013; @McleySoker2014]). We do emphasize that even PEO binary models require that the massive star first experiences some kind of unstable phase that triggers a strong binary interaction.
[@McleySoker2014] run the stellar evolutionary code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mesa</span> and find that energy deposited to the envelope is likely to lead to its expansion rather than to large mass ejection (also @Fuller2017). We here continue their study and calculate the properties of the possible binary companion that can accrete mass, and the energy that the companion might release by the accretion process from the inflated envelope. We find that for the specific instability we use for the primary star a very energetic outburst requires the companion to be a neutron star (NS), and hence in this study we consider mainly a NS companion.
In section \[sec:inflated\] we discuss PEOs in cases where the supernova progenitors suffers instability and inflates its envelope. We describe the inflation of the envelope because of the energy we inject into it (section \[sec:evolution\]), we examine the possible mass of the secondary star (section \[sec:companion\]), we estimate the accretion power of the secondary star during the pre-explosion outburst (section \[sec:accretion\]), and we discuss the emission from the PEO (section \[sec:bump\]). In section \[sec:CSM\] we study the case of an expanding shell that might be powered in part by a companion. We summarize in section \[sec:summary\].
Accretion from an inflated envelope {#sec:inflated}
===================================
Envelope inflation {#sec:evolution}
------------------
We run the stellar evolution code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mesa</span> (version 10000; @Paxtonetal2011 [@Paxtonetal2013; @Paxtonetal2015]) and follow the evolution of a star with an initial mass of $M_{1,0}=15 M_\odot$ and metallicity of $Z=0.02$. Just before core collapse the mass of the star is $M_1=13.55 M_\odot$ and its radius is $R_1=861 R_\odot$. Since we are aiming to present the basic characteristics of the scenario, rather than to explain a specific object or conduct a study of the parameter space, we take these initial mass and metallicity because many studies take these values to represent general CCSNe.
To mimic core activity that powers the envelope, by waves or by magnetic activity, we inject energy to the envelope and follow the evolution of the structure of the inflated envelope. The energy injection scheme is similar, but not identical, to that of [@McleySoker2014]. About two years before core collapse we start to inject energy with a power of $L_{\rm wave}=3.2 \times 10^{5} L_\odot$, which is much more than the stellar luminosity at that stage, $L=8.1 \times 10^4 L_\odot$. The wave power is taken from table 2 of [@ShiodeQuataert2014] for a non-rotating red supergiant model during core neon burning. We inject the energy inside one numerical shell at the driven radius $r_{d}$ where the wave luminosity equals the maximum luminosity that can be carried by convection $L_{\rm wave}=L_{\rm max,conv} (r_{d}) $. The maximum energy that can be carried by convection is $L_{\rm max,conv} = 4 \pi \rho r^2 c_s^3$, where $c_s$ is the local sound speed and $\rho$ is the density. The driven radius $r_d$ is calculated at each time step. At the beginning of the injection phase the driven radius is $r_d=845 R_\odot$ where the density is $\rho(r_d) = 2.5 \times 10^{-9} {{~\rm g}}{{~\rm cm}}^{-3}$, while at the end of the injection phase the driven radius is $r_d=1255 R_\odot$ and the density there is $\rho(r_d) = 5 \times 10^{-10} {{~\rm g}}{{~\rm cm}}^{-3}$. Namely, at the end of the energy-injection phase the shell into which we inject the energy is in the inflated envelope. Along the entire evolution the injection takes place in a convective zone.
We start to inject energy at an age of $1.2704215\times 10^7 {{~\rm yr}}$ which we take as $t=0$, and end it at $t=2.3 {{~\rm yr}}$ (an age of $1.27042173\times10^7 {{~\rm yr}}$). The envelope inflates from an initial radius of $R_1=861 R_\odot$ to a large radius as we present in Fig. \[fig:Radius15\]. In our simulation the star expands without an impulsive mass loss episode. Although [@ShiodeQuataert2014] argue that energy deposition as we simulate here leads to an implosive mass loss, [@McleySoker2014] and [@Fuller2017] already argued that the main effect of the energy deposition is stellar expansion rather than mass loss. In Fig. \[fig:Density15\] we present the density at six different radii, all were outside the star before inflation started.
![The outer radius of the inflated envelope as function of time during the energy injection phase that last for $2.3 {{~\rm yr}}$. The star explodes at the end of that phase. []{data-label="fig:Radius15"}](BarakSokerRadius.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
![ The density as function of time during the envelope inflation phase at several radii, all outside the stellar envelope before inflation starts. Density is in units of $10^{-9} {{~\rm g}}{{~\rm cm}}^{-3}$. []{data-label="fig:Density15"}](BarakSokerDensity.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The companion {#sec:companion}
-------------
The scenario we study in this paper starts with two main sequence massive stars. The more massive star evolves and experiences a CCSN explosion that leaves a NS at an orbital separation of several astronomical units. If at this stage the initially less massive star has a mass of $\ga 9 M_\odot$ the system evolves to a second CCSN. Note that the initial main sequence mass of the less massive star might be below the lower limit for supernova explosion as long as it gains enough mass from the initially more massive star to become a CCSN progenitor, i.e., has a mass of $\ga 9 M_\odot$ after the first CCSN event.
We study the few years before the second CCSN takes place. During that phase the system composed of a giant star, that we called the primary star, and a secondary star which is a NS. The orbital separation is several astronomical units. We assume that the primary giant star experiences an internal instability that deposits energy to its envelope and causes it to expand. In section \[sec:evolution\] we presented the envelope inflation phase. We now turn to discuss the role of the secondary star.
To survive outside the envelope of the primary star the secondary star should obey two conditions as follows. (1) Not to be too massive to cause the primary star to overflow its Roche lobe. (2) Be massive enough to maintain Darwin stability against rapid spiraling-in evolution towards the primary envelope. Although we present the results when the first condition is included, it is not necessary at all cases. In cases when Roche lobe overflow (RLOF) takes place and the secondary star accretes mass at a high rate, the secondary star might spiral-in into the envelope of the primary star. However, in many cases RLOF will proceed on a slow rate, and even if the secondary star spirals-in it might be on a slow rate, such that it survives until the envelope inflation phase. Therefore, in what follows we underestimate the allowed parameter space for the secondary star to accrete mass during the envelope inflation phase. Namely, in many cases more massive secondary stars than what condition (1) allows can also exist. These more massive stars can be massive neutron stars or even black holes.
The effective radius of the Roche lobe of the primary star, as we take from [@Eggleton1983], should obey $$R_{\rm L} = \frac{0.49q^{2/3}}
{0.6q^{2/3} + \ln \left( 1+q^{1/3} \right)} a > R_1(t=0),
\label{eq:RL1}$$ where $q=M_1/M_2$ in this case. In our single star evolutionary model $R_1=861 R_\odot$ just before the inflation phase, and $M_1=13.55 M_\odot$. Condition (\[eq:RL1\]) implies that the system should be below the blue line in Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\]. As we discussed above, in many cases a more massive secondary star can also survive until explosion. The upper limit on the secondary mass depends also on the response of the primary star to mass loss. Namely, if the primary expands to large radii as a result of mass loss it might engulf the secondary star.
![ The interesting region in the plane of the mass of the secondary (companion) star versus the final orbital separation for the specific case we simulate here of a primary star with an initial mass of $15 M_\odot$, an initial metallicity of $Z=0.02$, and a wave power of $L_{\rm wave}=3.2 \times 10^{5} L_\odot$ that we inject into the envelope during the $2.3$ years before explosion. We plot in green the allowed region for the secondary star to survive before the envelope inflation phase and accrete mass during the inflation phase. The blue line is for the equality sign in equation (\[eq:RL1\]), and the red line is for the equality sign in equation (\[eq:Darwin\]). The upper boundary of the green zone is the maximum radius the envelope reach during the inflation phase. []{data-label="fig:Darwin15"}](BarakSokerM2.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The moment of inertia of the star when we start the energy injection is $I_1=1.4 \times 10^6 M_\odot R^2_\odot$. Darwin stability, i.e., stability against a rapid spiraling-in process, reads $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
M_2 > & \frac{3 I_1 (M_1 + M_2)}{M_1 a^2} = 4.2
\left( \frac{I_1}{1.4 \times 10^6 M_\odot R^2_\odot} \right)
\\ & \times
\left( \frac{a}{1000 R_\odot} \right)^{-2}
\frac{M_1 + M_2}{M_1} M_\odot
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Darwin}\end{aligned}$$ Condition (\[eq:Darwin\]) implies that the system should be above the red line in Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\].
Another condition for the companion to accrete mass during he envelope inflation phase is that it will be within the inflated envelope during some portion of the envelope inflated phase. Namely, the orbital separation should be smaller than the maximum radius of the inflated envelope. In the present case this condition is $a<1690 R_\odot$, as marked by the vertical line in Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\]. The allowed region in the mass-orbital separation plane for a companion to accrete mass from the inflated envelope in our specific case is marked by green in Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\].
The above case does not imply that the presence of an appropriate companion is very rare. In case of a massive enough companion, even if a RLOF does take place, the companion can remove enough mass from the primary envelope to cause it to shrink in a way that the primary gets back inside its Roche lobe. As well, in many cases the wave power can be larger and the expansion can be to a larger radius.
Accretion energy {#sec:accretion}
----------------
The allowed companion domain as we present in Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\] fits a NS. Another possibility is that the secondary star is a low mass main sequence star if the primary star is the first star to become a CCSNe. A low mass main sequence star will at most lead to a small increase in luminosity. If it is limited to its Eddington luminosity, then the total accretion power will be $\simeq 5 \times 10^{4} L_\odot$, which is about the primary stellar luminosity. If all the mass as given by the accretion rate (see below) is accreted, then the total gravitational power for a low mass main sequence star is $\simeq 3 \times 10^{6} L_\odot$. Even if all the energy is transferred to radiation (unlikely), this is still much below typical supernova luminosity. Over all, at best a small bump lasting several months might be observed in such cases, but only for objects that are in the nearby Universe.
Because of the small influence of a main sequence secondary star, in section \[sec:companion\] and below we consider a NS that orbits the primary star and accretes mass from the inflated envelope. The typical relative velocity of the NS and the extended envelope is about the Keplerian velocity of the NS and the primary star $v_{r} \simeq 44 [(M_1+M_2)/15M_\odot]^{1/2} (a/1500R_\odot)^{-1/2} {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. The Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion rate is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
& \dot M_2 = \pi \rho v_{r} \left(\frac{2GM_2}{v^2_{r}} \right)^2
= 0.08 \left( \frac{\rho}{10^{-9} {{~\rm g}}{{~\rm cm}}^{-3}} \right)
\\ & \times
\left( \frac{M_1+M_2}{15M_\odot} \right)^{-3/2}
\left( \frac{M_2}{1.4 M_\odot} \right)^{2}
\left( \frac{a}{1500 R_\odot} \right)^{3/2}
M_\odot {{~\rm yr}}^{-1}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:BHLaccretion}\end{aligned}$$ We take the scaling of the density according to the results presented in Fig. \[fig:Density15\].
The accretion rate as given by equation (\[eq:BHLaccretion\]) is about two orders of magnitude above the threshold for neutrino cooling to operate ($10^{-3} M_\odot {{~\rm yr}}^{-1}$; @HouckChevalier1991), and hence such an accretion rate is allowed despite being supper Eddington according to the usual definition. Consider that the NS accretes less than this value and power the inflated envelope with an energy of about $\eta_{\rm p} \simeq 0.1-0.01$ times the BHL accretion rate as given by equation (\[eq:BHLaccretion\]). For an accretion phase that lasts for about one month, $t_{\rm acc} \simeq 0.1 {{~\rm yr}}$, from the moment the inflated envelope reaches the secondary to explosion (see Fig. \[fig:Density15\]), the total pre-explosion accretion energy liberated by the NS, as jets and radiation, is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm acc} \simeq 10^{50} \left( \frac{\eta_{\rm p}}{0.1} \right)
\left( \frac{\dot M_2}{0.08 M_\odot {{~\rm yr}}^{-1}} \right)
\left( \frac{t_{\rm acc}}{0.1 {{~\rm yr}}} \right)
{{~\rm erg}}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:BHLenergy}\end{aligned}$$
We point out the following properties of the proposed interaction. (1) Most of the accretion energy is carried by neutrinos. Most of the rest by jets. Typically, when compact objects launch jets, e.g., young stellar objects and black holes, about 10 per cent of the accreted mass is launched at a terminal velocity equals to the escape velocity. For that, the jets carry about 10 per cent of the accretion energy. As well, the accretion mass can be somewhat lower than that given by equation (\[eq:BHLaccretion\]). This is the reason for the parameter of $\eta_p=0.01-0.1$ that we assume in equation (\[eq:BHLenergy\]). Namely, it is possible that the energy carried by the jets is only $\approx 10^{49} {{~\rm erg}}$ for the scaling we use here. Radiation carries negligible amount from near the NS as the inflow is optically thick. (2) As the jets collide with the inflated envelope and after they break-out from the envelope they interact with the previously blown wind. This interaction converts some kinetic energy to radiation and the process becomes visible. We cannot estimate the fraction of kinetic energy that is channeled to radiation as this is very sensitive to the distribution of the ambient gas with which the jets collide. (3) Since the inflated envelope grows to only about several times the initial radius of the star and there is not much mass available for accretion, the constraints on the companion are such that a NS companion will make much larger effects than what a main sequence stellar companion will make. (4) The interaction time is shorter than the orbital time. For the specific parameters that we are using here the orbital time at $a=1600 R_\odot$ is about $5 {{~\rm yr}}$, while the phase of jets’ launching at that radius lasts for less than half a year (right-most line in Fig. \[fig:Density15\]). During that times the NS moves a distance of about $D \simeq 600 (t_{\rm acc}/0.3 {{~\rm yr}}) R_\odot$. We speculate that the outcome of the interaction will be a highly distorted flow in that part of the inflated envelope where the NS resides, as the jets that the NS launches will expel the inflated envelope from that region only. We expect that the jets distort the structure of the envelope much as jets distort the envelope and winds of asymptotic giant branch stars that are progenitors of some planetary nebulae (e.g., as in the hydrodynamical numerical simulation of [@GarciaArredondoFrank2004] and [@Shiberetal2017]). If this interaction leads indeed to a distorted envelope, then the ejecta from the explosion that follows will interact with highly distorted inflated envelope and/or a shell. Such a geometry should be considered when fitting light curve of some CCSNe that are preceded by PEOs.
Pre-explosion emission bump {#sec:bump}
---------------------------
Let us elaborate on the interaction of the jets with the inflated envelope by conducting some simple estimates. Consider a NS at an orbital separation of $a= 1600 R_\odot$ that accretes mass from the inflated envelope for a time of $t_{\rm acc} \simeq 0.3 {{~\rm yr}}$. During that time it moves a distance of about $D \simeq 600 R_\odot$ and accretes a mass of $M_{\rm acc} \simeq 0.026 M_\odot$ (by equation \[eq:BHLaccretion\]). Assume the NS launches jets with a total energy of $E_{\rm jets} = 3 \times 10^{49} {{~\rm erg}}$, i.e., $\eta_p = 0.01$ in equation (\[eq:BHLenergy\]). This comes, for example, from a mass of $M_{\rm jets} = 3 \times 10^{-4} M_\odot$ in the two jets that is launched at a velocity of about $v_j \simeq 10^5 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. Since the radius of the inflated envelope is $\simeq 1690 R_\odot$, the jets have a distance of $h \simeq 500 R_\odot$ to move perpendicular to the equatorial plane before they exist the inflated envelope.
During the interaction phase the two jets interact with an envelope mass of $M_{a} \approx 2 Dh^2 \tan \alpha_j \rho \simeq 0.03M_\odot$, where for the half opening angle of each jet we take $\alpha_j=30^\circ$, and we take the density of the inflated envelope $\rho(a=1600 R_\odot) \simeq 10^{-9} {{~\rm g}}{{~\rm cm}}^{-3}$ from Fig. \[fig:Density15\]. Note that the location of the jets’ axis constantly changes as the NS moves along its orbit, much like in simulations of a secondary star that launches jets in the wind or envelope of an asymptotic giant branch star (e.g. @GarciaArredondoFrank2004 [@Shiberetal2017]). Momentum conservation gives the approximate average velocity of the head of the jets $v_{\rm head} \approx v_j M_{\rm jet}/M_a \simeq 1000 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. The jets break out from the envelope in a time of $t_{\rm break} \approx h/v_{\rm head} \simeq {\rm several \, day}$. Namely, the jets break out from the envelope, and the hot envelope gas in the outer interaction zones is exposed and radiates part of its thermal heat. This will lead to a transient event.
The breakout of the jets from the envelope will lead to X-ray emission as in a shock breakout from a wind in supernova explosion (e.g., @Svirskietal2012 [@Ohtanietal2018]). Unlike the case with a supernova where jets are launched from the center, here the jets move with the secondary star in its orbit. The duration of the X-ray emission lasts for about the duration of jets-launching phase. The physics is somewhat more complicated than that in supernova explosions and requires a separate study which is beyond the scope of the present paper. The jets shock the envelope gas they encounter and heat it. The heated gas cools by photon diffusion. The distance for the photons to diffuse out in the shortest way is $\Delta R \la 100 {{~\rm AU}}$ for our case. The optical depth is $\tau \simeq \Delta R \kappa \rho \approx 2 \times 10^3$, where $\kappa$ is the opacity which we take to be of electron scattering. The photon diffusion time is $t_\gamma \approx 3 \tau \Delta R/c \approx 15~$day. As the expansion time of the shocked inflated envelope gas is several days (the motion of the jets’ head from origin to breakout $t_{\rm break}$), the gas suffers adiabatic losses. The fraction of the energy that is radiated away for our case is $E_{\rm rad} \approx t_{\rm break}/(t_{\rm break}+t_\gamma) \approx 0.2.$ The average luminosity over the $0.3 {{~\rm yr}}$ is $L_{\rm rad} \approx 0.2 L_{\rm jets} \simeq 6 \times 10^{41} {{~\rm erg}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. For an emitting area of $A \approx h^2 \simeq (500 R_\odot)^2$, and a black body emission, the temperature is $5 \times 10^4 {{~\rm K}}$. This is a strong UV source, but also strong in the visible, that lasts for several weeks.
Over all, our proposed scenario leads to a several weeks long blue PEO that is a strong UV source and that is accompanied by X-ray emission.
Accretion from an expanding shell {#sec:CSM}
=================================
The scenario {#subsec:scenario}
------------
An accretion from an inflated envelope is not the only way to form a pre-explosion transient by a mass-accreting companion. Consider the model that [@Restetal2018] present for the fast-evolving luminous transient KSN 2015K. In that model a massive star at the end of its evolution lost a mass of $M_{\rm CSM} = 0.15M_\odot$ that at the time of explosion was a CSM shell with a radius of $R_{\rm CSM}=4\times 10^{14} {{~\rm cm}}$ and a width of $\Delta R_{\rm CSM} = 1 \times 10^{14} {{~\rm cm}}$. The supernova ejecta in that model has a mass of $M_{\rm ej}= 10 M_\odot$, a velocity of $v_{\rm ej} =8500 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$, and a kinetic energy of $E_{\rm ej} = 7 \times 10^{51}$. We note that neutrino-driven explosion cannot supply this energy (e.g. @Ebingeretal2018), and another mechanism exploded the star. It is our view that this supernova was exploded by jets, as we think all CCSNe are (e.g. @SokerGilkis2017a).
Let us consider such a shell ejection in a case where a NS companion orbits the supernova progenitor. If such a CSM shell is ejected at the escape speed from the surface of the primary star $v_{\rm CSM}=(2GM_1/R_1)^{1/2}$, and the companion is not too close to the surface, then the relative velocity of the shell and the companion is $v_r \simeq v_{\rm CSM}$. The fraction of the mass that is accreted by the secondary star is $f_{\rm acc} \simeq \pi R^2_{\rm acc} /4 \pi a^2$, where $R_{\rm acc}$ is the accretion radius and $a$ is the orbital separation. We find for the accreted mass $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
M_{\rm acc-CSM} & \simeq \frac{1}{4}
\left( \frac{M_2}{M_1} \right)^2
\left( \frac{R_1}{a} \right)^2 M_{\rm CSM} = 4 \times 10^{-5}
\\ &
\left( \frac{M_2}{0.1 M_1} \right)^2
\left( \frac{a}{3 R_1} \right)^{-2}
\left( \frac{M_{\rm CSM}}{0.15 M_\odot} \right) M_\odot .
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Macccsm}\end{aligned}$$ [@Restetal2018] consider two possibilities, that the star was a hydrogen poor progenitor with a radius of no more than several solar radii or that it was a giant. In the first case the shell velocity is $v_{\rm CSM} \simeq 1000 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$ and in the second it is $v_{\rm CSM} \simeq 100 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. The accretion phase lasts for a time of $$t_{\rm acc-CSM} \simeq 0.3
\left( \frac{\Delta R_{\rm CSM}}{10^{14} {{~\rm cm}}} \right)
\left( \frac{v_{\rm CSM}}{100 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}} \right)^{-1} {{~\rm yr}}.
\label{eq:tcsm}$$
Unlike the classical Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion flow, here the flow deviates from a pure axi-symmetrical flow because the density of the shell changes with radius and the secondary star has an orbital (transverse to the density gradient) velocity. As a result of that the accreted gas has a net angular momentum. Because of the very small radius of the NS, a very plausible outcome is the formation of an accretion disk. We assume below that an accretion disk forms and that it launches jets.
Stripped-envelope supernova progenitors {#subsec:StrippedEnvelope}
---------------------------------------
For a hydrogen deficient progenitor of a small radius the duration will be 10 times shorter than that given by equation (\[eq:tcsm\]), namely $t_{\rm acc-CSM} \simeq 0.03 {{~\rm yr}}$. For the parameters used in equation (\[eq:Macccsm\]) the accretion rate onto a NS close to a small massive star would be about $M_{\rm acc-CSM}/t_{\rm acc-CSM} \approx 10^{-3} M_\odot {{~\rm yr}}^{-1}$, hence neutrino cooling is efficient. Let us take the fraction of accretion energy on to the NS that goes into radiation, directly or first to kinetic energy and then radiation, to be $\eta_{\rm p} =0.1$. For the parameters used in equation (\[eq:Macccsm\]) and for the potential well of a NS of $(10^5 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1})^2$, we find the emitted radiation from the NS and its jets interaction with the shell to be $E_{\rm rad-CSM} \simeq 10^{48} (\eta_p/0.1) {{~\rm erg}}$. The accretion phase lasts for about one to two weeks for the above parameters. However, the region is optically thick, and most of this energy will not escape from the system as radiation.
In a case of a NS at a separation of $ \la \Delta R_{\rm CSM}$, which is definitely the case here where $a < 100 R_\odot$, the typical optical depth of a spherical shell is $\tau > M_{\rm CSM} \kappa /[4 \pi (\Delta R_{\rm CSM})^2] \simeq 10^3$, where we take electron scattering opacity and the CSM mass $M_{\rm CSM} = 0.15M_\odot$ as in section \[subsec:scenario\]. The photon diffusion time out is $$t_\gamma \approx 3 \tau \Delta R_{\rm CSM}/c \approx 100~{\rm day},
\label{eq:tgamma}$$ which is about ten times longer than the flow time $t_f \simeq \Delta R_{\rm CSM} /10^3 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1} \simeq 10$ day. As the expansion time is about 0.1 times the photon diffusion time, most of the energy that is released by the accretion process is doing work on the gas during the adiabatic expansion, and only about 10 per cent of the energy escapes as radiation.
However, the energy carried by the jets can shape the shell. If about ten per cent of the accreted mass is ejected in jets at the escape speed from a NS of $10^5 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$, then the energy carried by the two jets is $$E_{\rm jets, NS} \simeq 0.1 M_{\rm acc-CSM} v^2_j/2 \approx {\rm few} \times 10^{47} {{~\rm erg}}.
\label{eq:Ejets}$$ This energy is of the order of tens of per cent of the kinetic energy of the shell $E_{\rm CSM,1000} \simeq 1.5 \times 10^{48} {{~\rm erg}},$ for the parameters used here and a shell velocity of $v_{\rm CSM}=1000 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. The jets will open two opposite small lobes (‘ears’), along which the optical depth will be much lower. We might then have a transient event. Since the radius is small, it will be a blue event lasting for about days to few weeks, i.e., the flow time $t_f$ calculated above which is the time the shell pass the NS. If a fraction of $\simeq t_f/(t_f+t_\gamma) \approx 0.1$, of the kinetic energy of the jets is transferred to radiation, the typical luminosity of the event would be $L_{\rm rad-CSM} \approx 0.1 E_{\rm jets, NS}/t_f \approx 10^{40} - 10^{41}{{~\rm erg}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$.
Giant progenitors {#subsec:Giants}
-----------------
### A NS companion {#subsubsec:NS}
Let us then consider a massive giant star of a radius of $\simeq 2-4 {{~\rm AU}}$ that ejects such a shell at a velocity of $\simeq 100 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. The acccretion rate according to the parameters used here is $\simeq M_{\rm acc-CSM}/t_{\rm acc-CSM} \approx 10^{-4} M_\odot {{~\rm yr}}^{-1}$. This does not allow an efficient neutrino cooling. But if we consider a somewhat denser shell and/or more massive one, and the jets can also carry energy out of the accretion flow (e.g., @Chamandyetal2018 for a main sequence star or a white dwarf accretor), then we might consider an accretion at this accretion rate on to a NS. The radiation diffusion time is $t_\gamma \approx 3~{\rm months}$ by equation (\[eq:tgamma\]), and the expansion time is $t_f \simeq \Delta R_{\rm CSM} /100 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1} \approx 3$ months. The equality $t_\gamma \approx t_f$ implies that about half of the energy is radiated away. Over all, the outcome might be a transient event lasting several months with a typical luminosity of $L_{\rm rad-CSM} \approx 0.5 E_{\rm jets, NS}/t_f \approx 10^{40} {{~\rm erg}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$, where the jets’ energy is from equation (\[eq:Ejets\]) and for the giant star $t_f \approx 3~$months.
### A main sequence companion {#subsubsec:MainS}
A comment is in place here. Consider the formation of the shell in the model of [@Restetal2018] in the case of a giant. The shell was ejected $\simeq 4\times 10^{14} {{~\rm cm}}/ v_{\rm CSM} \simeq 1.3 {{~\rm yr}}$ before explosion. Consider a case where there is no NS companion, but rather a main sequence companion instead of a NS. If the envelope is inflated as in our study in section \[sec:evolution\], but for a longer duration of several years, then a companion of $2 M_\odot$ at an orbital separation of $\simeq 1600 R_\odot$ could have accreted mass from the inflated envelope. We estimate that during the inflation time of about one year such a companion accretes a mass of $\simeq 0.1 M_\odot$ (see equation \[eq:BHLaccretion\]).
As the radius of a main sequence star is much larger than that of a NS, the accreted gas must have a larger specific angular momentum to form an accretion disk compared with the case of a NS companion. We assume that the density gradient in the extended envelope is large enough that the flow is highly asymmetrical and the gas has indeed a sufficient specific angular momentum to form an accretion disk. This can be the case at least when the extended envelope first reaches the main sequence companion, and the density gradient is much steeper than $\rho(r) \propto r^{-2}$.
If about 10 per cent of the accreted mass of $\simeq 0.1 M_\odot$ is ejected in jets at the escape speed from the main sequence star, then the jets carry an energy of $E_{\rm jets} \approx {\rm several} \times 10^{46} {{~\rm erg}}$. The kinetic energy of the shell is $E_{\rm CSM,100} \simeq 1.5 \times 10^{46} {{~\rm erg}}$ for a shell velocity of $v_{\rm CSM}=100 {{~\rm km}}{{~\rm s}}^{-1}$. This implies that if the shell in the model studied by [@Restetal2018] was ejected by a giant, it could have been power by a main sequence binary companion (e.g., @McleySoker2014). This speculative chain of processes requires a more detail study.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
We examined some aspects of the binary scenario for PEOs. We inflated an envelope of a giant star about two years before core collapse by injecting energy to the envelope (section \[sec:evolution\]). This energy injection mimics the effect of waves or magnetic activity from the core of the pre-collapse star (section \[sec:intro\]).
We found that for the general conditions that we have used, bright PEOs that occur months before explosion require a NS companion at an orbital separation of $\approx 1000-2000 R_\odot$. At larger separations the accretion rate is too low or does not exist, while for much shorter separations the orbit is unstable (Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\]). The constraints on the companion mass (green area in Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\]) allow for a NS, and possibly for main sequence stars above the blue line in Fig. \[fig:Darwin15\]. Because of the low density of the inflated envelope (Fig. \[fig:Density15\]), only mass accretion on to a NS can lead to a very energetic PEO.
Based on preliminary simulations we estimate that calculations with a more consistent binary evolution will increase the parameter space allowed for the orbital separation and mass of the companion, particularly if the primary giant star is smaller in size. The primary star might be smaller if the companion removes large amount of mass from its envelope (e.g., the progenitor of SN 1987A). This is the subject of a future study.
We assume that the radiation of the event is energized by jets that the mass-accreting NS launches for a time period of about weeks to months (section \[sec:accretion\]). The jets collide with the inflated envelope and after they exit the inflated envelope they interact with the older wind. This interaction converts kinetic energy to radiation (section \[sec:bump\]).
As the jet-launching episode lasts for a time shorter than the orbital time in the cases we studied, the jets distort the inflated envelope and the CSM. The explosion will lose spherical symmetry and axial symmetry after the shock breaks out from the inflated envelope. The explosion of CCSNe that follow PEOs might lack an axial (cylindrical) symmetry.
Main sequence star companions can also energize PEOs, but much weaker ones (section \[sec:accretion\]). The typical energy of the jets can be $E_{\rm jets,MS} \approx 10^{46} {{~\rm erg}}$ for the typical parameters that we use in this study rather than $E_{\rm jets,NS} \approx 10^{48}-10^{50} {{~\rm erg}}$ for NS companions (section \[sec:accretion\]). Such jets can shape the CSM of CCSNe. In section \[subsubsec:MainS\] we discussed the possibility that a main sequence companion accretes mass from an inflated envelope and launches jets that influence the structure of an expanding shell. The shell in the model of [@Restetal2018] for the fast-evolving luminous transient KSN 2015K could have been shaped by such jets.
This study adds to the cases where NS can power PEOs. [@Gilkisetal2018] discuss the case where a NS enters the envelope itself and power a very strong outburst, termed a common envelope jets supernova (CEJSN) impostor.
The main findings of this study is that companions, in particular NS companions, but not only NS, can energize the radiation of PEOs and shape the CSM to acquire highly asymmetrical structure lacking even axisymmetrical geometry.
We thank an anonymous referee for very detailed and useful comments that substantially improved the manuscript. We acknowledge support from the Israel Science Foundation and a grant from the Asher Space Research Institute at the Technion.
Bilinski, C., Smith, N., Li, W., Li, W., Williams, G. G., Zheng, W., & Filippenko, A. V. 2015, , 450, 246
Blaes, O., & Socrates, A. 2003, , 596, 509
Boian, I., & Groh, J. 2017, arXiv:1708.05380
Chamandy, L., Frank, A., Blackman, E. G., et al. 2018, arXiv:1805.03607
Ebinger, K., Curtis, S., Fr[ö]{}hlich, C., Hempel, M., Perego, A., Liebendörfer, M., & Thielemann, F.-K. 2018, arXiv:1804.03182
Eggleton, P. P. 1983, , 268, 368
Foley, R. J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., Chornock, R., & Filippenko, A. V. 2007, , 657, L105
Fraser, M., Kotak, R., Pastorello, A., et al. 2015, , 453, 3886
Fuller, J. 2017, , 470, 1642
Fuller, J., & Ro, S. 2018, , 476, 1853
Garc[í]{}a-Arredondo, F., & Frank, A. 2004, , 600, 992
Gilkis, A., Soker, N., & Kashi, A. 2018, arXiv:1802.08669
Goranskij, V. P., Barsukova, E. A., Valeev, A. F., Tsvetkov, D. Yu., Volkov, I. M., Metlov, V. G., & Zharova, A. V. 2016, Astrophysical Bulletin, 71, 422
Houck, J. C., & Chevalier, R. A. 1991, , 376, 234
Kashi, A., Davidson, K., & Humphreys, R. M. 2016, , 817, 66
Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2010, , 723, 602
Kiriakidis, M., Fricke, K. J., & Glatzel, W. 1993, , 264, 50
Levesque, E. M., Stringfellow, G. S., Ginsburg, A. G., Bally, J., & Keeney, B. A. 2014, , 147, 23
Liu, L.-D., Wang, L.-J., Wang, S.-Q., & Dai, Z.-G. 2017, arXiv:1706.01783
Margutti, R., Kamble, A., Milisavljevic, D., et al. 2017, , 835, 140
Margutti, R., Milisavljevic, D., Soderberg, A. M., et al. 2014, , 780, 21
Mauerhan, J. C., Smith, N., Filippenko, A. V., et al. 2013, , 430, 1801
Mcley, L., & Soker, N. 2014, , 445, 2492
Moriya, T. J. 2014, , 564, A83
Moriya, T. J. 2015, , 803, L26
Moriya, T. J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Blinnikov, S. I., Sorokina, E. I. 2014, , 439, 291
Nyholm, A., Sollerman, J., Taddia, F., et al. 2017, , 605, A6
Ofek, E. O. et al. 2013, 494, 65
Ofek, E. O., Cenko, S. B., Shaviv, N. J., et al. 2016, , 824, 6
Ofek, E. O., Sullivan, M., Shaviv, N. J., et al. 2014, , 789, 104
Ohtani, Y., Suzuki, A., Shigeyama, T., & Tanaka, M. 2018, , 853, 52
Owocki, S. P., Gayley, K. G., & Shaviv, N. J. 2004, , 616, 525
Pastorello, A., Cappellaro, E., Inserra, C., et al. 2013, , 767, 1
Pastorello, A., Kochanek, C. S., Fraser, M., et al. 2017, arXiv:1707.006
Pastorello, A., Smartt, S. J., Mattila, S., et al. 2007, , 447, 829 11
Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, , 192, 3
Paxton, B., Cantiello, M., Arras, P., et al. 2013, , 208, 4
Paxton, B., Marchant, P., Schwab, J., et al. 2015, , 220, 15
Quataert, E., Fern[á]{}ndez, R., Kasen, D., Klion, H., & Paxton, B. 2016, , 458, 1214
Quataert, E., & Shiode, J. 2012, , 423, L92
Reilly, E., Maund, J. R., Baade, D., Wheeler, J. C., Höflich, P., Spyromilio, J., Patat, F., & Wang, L. 2017, , 470, 1491
Rest, A., Garnavich, P. M. Khatami, D., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy,
Shaviv, N. J. 2000, , 532, L137
Shaviv, N. J. 2001, , 326, 126
Shiber, S., Kashi, A., & Soker, N. 2017, , 465, L54
Shiode, J. H., & Quataert, E. 2014, , 780, 96
Smith, N., & Arnett, W. D. 2014, , 785, 82
Smith, N., Miller, A., Li, W., et al. 2010, , 139, 1451
Soker, N. 2013, [arXiv:1302.5037](http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5037)
Soker, N., & Gilkis, A. 2017a, , 851, 95
Soker, N., & Gilkis, A. 2017b, , 464, 3249
Svirski, G., & Nakar, E. 2014, , 788, L14
Svirski, G., Nakar, E., & Sari, R. 2012, , 759, 108
Tartaglia, L., Pastorello, A., Sullivan, M., et al. 2016, , 459, 1039
Yaron, O., Perley, D. A., Gal-Yam, A., et al. 2017, Nature Physics, 13, 510
\[lastpage\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Many researchers have identified robotics as a potential solution to the aging population faced by many developed and developing countries. If so, how should we address the cognitive acceptance and ambient control of elderly assistive robots through design? In this paper, we proposed an explorative design of an ambient SuperLimb (Supernumerary Robotic Limb) system that involves a pneumatically-driven robotic cane for at-home motion assistance, an inflatable vest for compliant human-robot interaction, and a depth sensor for ambient intention detection. The proposed system aims at providing active assistance during the sit-to-stand transition for at-home usage by the elderly at the bedside, in the chair, and on the toilet. We proposed a modified biomechanical model with a linear cane robot for closed-loop control implementation. We validated the design feasibility of the proposed ambient SuperLimb system including the biomechanical model, our result showed the advantages in reducing lower limb efforts and elderly fall risks, yet the detection accuracy using depth sensing and adjustments on the model still require further research in the future. Nevertheless, we summarized empirical guidelines to support the ambient design of elderly-assistive SuperLimb systems for lower limb functional augmentation.'
author:
- |
Xia Wu$^{1}$, Haiyuan Liu$^{1}$, Ziqi Liu$^{1}$, Mingdong Chen$^{1}$, Fang Wan$^{2}$,\
Chenglong Fu$^{1}$, Harry Asada$^{3}$, Zheng Wang$^{1}$, and Chaoyang Song$^{1,*}$ [^1][^2][^3][^4][^5]
bibliography:
- 'IEEEexample.bib'
title: '**Robotic Cane as a Soft SuperLimb for Elderly Sit-to-Stand Assistance\*** '
---
Soft Robot Materials and Design, Wearable Robots, Physical Human-Robot Interaction, Supernumerary Robotic Limbs, Design-for-the-Elderly
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Low fertility rates and progressive lengthening of life expectancy keep exacerbating the population aging problem among the developed and even developing countries [@WB:2019]. A growing demand emerges for the need for elderly care for those who have difficulties in daily activities. Literature survey shows that social robots as a companion provide a positive influence with reduced stress and an improved sense of security among people with aging and dementia [@Alonso2019Social]. Robotic solutions for the elderly need to take both physical and cognitive consideration into the design process of intelligent and interactive agents [@Cynthia2019Designing]. While the elderly are becoming more open to social robotic solutions, it remains a challenge to integrate novel solutions such as wearable technologies with active assistance for elderly users.
The sit-to-stand movement is closely related to the falls of the elderly, which is the leading cause of injury and the primary etiology of accidental deaths among the elderly over 65 years of age, which accounts for 70 percent of accidental deaths in persons 75 years of age and older [@Tinetti2003Preventing]. The sit-to-stand test is a widely adopted metric for activities of daily lives (ADLs) to measure the necessary mobility skills of the elderly [@Podsiadlo1991Timed; @Beauchet2011Timed]. It is commonly practiced when trying to leave the seat, such as the bed, chair, or toilet, during the transition between sitting and walking [@Isaacs1985Clinical].
The supernumerary robotic limbs (SuperLimbs) emerge in recent research exploring the cognitive boundary of brain-machine interaction for wearable robotics [@Asada2017Independent], [@Gonzalez2018Design]. Much of the SuperLimbs research focuses on healthy subjects with normal brain and motor functions, with SuperLimbs as an augmentation system for collaborative assistance in certain work conditions [@Gonzalez2019Loop]. However, there remains a research gap exploring the potential daily assistance of SuperLimbs for elderly users with degraded brain and motor functions in the ADLs, which is the focus of this paper. In particular, we propose the design of a robotic cane system with pneumatic actuation, inflatable vest, and privacy-safe range sensing to explore the use of SuperLimbs for elderly assistive care during the sit-to-stand transition at home, shown in Fig. \[fig:PaperOverview\].
Related Work
------------
### The Sit-to-Stand Motion Transition
The literature classifies the sit-to-stand movement into three phases, namely trunk flexion, hip lift-off, and the knee-hip extension [@Millington1992Biomechanical]. Trunk flexion results in forward shifting, transforming the support to only feet [@Hughes1994Chair]. Hip lift-off is the key event in transforming the forward motion in an upward direction. After that, the maximum vertical ground reaction force occurs. Knee-hip extension lifts the body weight in the vertical direction until full standing [@Scarborough2007Chair].
### Robot Design for the Elderly
Existing literature on the robot design guidelines for the elderly is mainly focused on social robots for cognitive care, such as stress relief and mental support [@Broekens2009Assistive]. While it is generally accepted that robot designs should take the user needs of the elderly into considerations, yet the task is still more complicated in practice [@Pape2002Shaping]. The adoption of agents of artificial intelligence is considered as a potential solution to address the individual characteristics of the elderly user [@Cynthia2019Designing], but further developed is required to integrate these agents with active physical support for elderly usage.
### Motion Detection for Elderly Care
The traditional elderly care mainly depends on human labor, which is costly. The researchers have been searching for effective methods to offer autonomous and round-the-clock caring for the growing aging communities. Some wearable devices installed with biosensors and inertial sensors have been developed for the elderly health-monitoring [@pantelopoulos2009survey] and activity recognition [@avci2010activity]. However, these intrusive wearable devices need to be worn all day round. Due to the limitations of measuring range, users may need to wear multiple sensors when a large range of daily activities are monitored [@chen2017survey].
On the other hand, the researchers have been actively searching for non-intrusive approaches to detect the daily life activities with minimal effect to the users. RGB-video based action recognition provides an economical solution [@foroughi2008intelligent; @rougier2011fall]. However, since this method requires the RGB-video sequence to be recorded, it has the potential of violating the user’s privacy. With the emergence of a low-cost depth sensor, the researchers have begun to utilize depth information for elderly activity detection [@presti20163d]. Depth cameras, in particular, provide cost-effective real-time 3D body movement data. Without recording the raw depth-image, depth cameras, which only records the desired body joint data, is privacy-preserving, comparing to the previous approaches. Furthermore, the vision system indicates the potential to empower the intelligent around-the-clock ambient interaction in the elderly healthcare with little labor cost, as demonstrated in [@YeungA] and [@3d_point_cloud_icu_care]. With the unprecedented development of 3D technology, the depth-sensor will be able to detect various activities and serves for other purposes, such as fall prevention and long-term health monitoring.
Proposed Method and Contributions
---------------------------------
In this paper, we propose a soft robotic technique to design a robotic cane system, providing sit-to-stand assistance for the elderly usage at home. Through the integration of a pneumatically-driven linear actuator for active lower-limb support, an inflatable vest for compliant interaction between the human body and the robotic cane, and a privacy-safe depth vision for intention detection to compensate for potential issues with cognitive usage by the elderly. The contributions of this paper are listed as the following.
- The design and development of a robotic cane system as a supernumerary robotic limb for the elderly assistance;
- The integration of soft and non-intrusive robotic techniques for active elderly assistance in forms of pneumatic actuation, inflatable vest, and privacy-safe sensing;
- A modified biomechanical model of sit-to-stand movement with an active cane for analysis and control with experimental verification;
- The experimental validation of each component of the proposed robotic cane system;
- Preliminary design guidelines of supernumerary robotic limb system for elderly care.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:Method\] formulates the problem of sit-to-stand transition, followed by the proposal of a modified biomechanical model with a robotic cane attached. In this section, we also introduce the system design of the supernumerary robotic limb system of the robotic cane, inflatable vest, and privacy-safe camera. Section \[sec:ExpResults\] presents the experiment setup, procedure, and results to validate the feasibility of such a robotic cane for sit-to-stand motion transition. Section \[sec:Discussion\] includes the discussion of the experiment results on the soft hardware design for the elderly, as well as the design guidelines for supernumerary robotic limbs for the elderly care. The conclusions and limitations of this paper are enclosed in the final section, which ends the paper.
Robotic Cane as Soft SuperLimbs for Elderly {#sec:Method}
===========================================
Problem Formulation & Biomechanical Modeling
--------------------------------------------
In order to better adjust the output force and control travel distance of the robotic cane during the sit-to-stand process, it is important to formulate the biomechanical model. The proposal of an active robotic cane with linear motion modifies the original model with an extra “leg”. As shown in Fig. \[fig:ModifiedModel\], the human is modeled as a kinematic chain of four-linked rigid mechanism with three degrees of freedom in the sagittal plane. The body segments included are feet, shanks, thighs, and head-arms-trunk as a rigid bar named HAT [@Sibella2003Obese]. Anthropocentric values are calculated based on [@Leva1996Adjustments]. The sit-to-stand movement of the elderly is slow, and the acceleration is relatively small compared to the weight.
Here are the assumptions for the biomechanical model: 1) The sit-to-stand movement symmetric in frontal and horizontal plane; 2) The feet fix to the ground during the whole movement; 3) Inertial of lower limbs not significant.
The external force is anchored at the body, noted as $F_s$ fixed at $S$ point. In the process of natural stand-up, $F_s$ is zero. Point $S$ varies with the real situation. Therefore, the case that the subject stands up and stands assisted actively by the robotic cane system ware both described in one model, indicated as Fig. \[fig:ModifiedModel\].
For the HAT segment, $$\tau_{1} + \overrightarrow{AG_{1}}\cdot\overrightarrow{G_{1}} + \overrightarrow{AG_{1}}\cdot{(m_{1}\cdot{\overrightarrow{a}})} - J_{1}\cdot{\ddot{\alpha}} + \overrightarrow{AS}\cdot\overrightarrow{F_{s}} = 0
\label{eq:EyeOnBase}$$ $$\overrightarrow{F_{s}} + \overrightarrow{G_{1}} + \overrightarrow{F_{t}} = m_{1}\cdot\overrightarrow{a}
\label{eq:EyeOnBase}$$ where $\tau_{1}$ is the unknown hip moment, $\overrightarrow{G_{1}}$ is the mass vector of the HAT, $\overrightarrow{AG_{1}}$ is the vector from the hip to the HAT mass center. $m_{1}\cdot{\overrightarrow{a}}$ is the inertial vector, $J_{1}\cdot{\ddot{\alpha}}$ is the mass inertial moment with respect to the perpendicular from the sagittal plane, both calculated from the sensing data. $\overrightarrow{AS}$ is the vector pointing from the hip to the location of support force contact point and $\overrightarrow{F_{s}}$ is the support force on $S$. By Newton’s second law, the force from thigh $\overrightarrow{F_{t}}$ is calculated.
For the thigh segment, $$\tau_{2} + (-\tau_{1}) + \overrightarrow{BG_{2}}\cdot\overrightarrow{G_{2}} + \overrightarrow{BA}\cdot(\overrightarrow{-F_{t}}) = 0
\label{eq:EyeOnBase}$$ $$\overrightarrow{F_{l}} + \overrightarrow{G_{2}} + \overrightarrow{-F_{t}} = 0
\label{eq:EyeOnBase}$$ where $\tau_{2}$ is the unknown knee moment, $\overrightarrow{G_{2}}$ is the mass vector of the thigh, $\overrightarrow{BG_{2}}$ is the vector from the knee to the thigh mass center, $\overrightarrow{BA}$ is the vector from the knee to the hip. $\overrightarrow{F_{l}}$ is the unknown reaction force from the shank.
For the shank segment, $$\tau_{3} + (-\tau_{2}) + \overrightarrow{CG_{3}}\cdot\overrightarrow{G_{3}} + \overrightarrow{CB}\cdot(\overrightarrow{-F_{l}}) = 0
\label{eq:EyeOnBase}$$ $$\overrightarrow{F_{a}} + \overrightarrow{G_{3}} + \overrightarrow{-F_{l}} = 0
\label{eq:EyeOnBase}$$ where $\tau_{3}$ is the unknown ankle moment, $\overrightarrow{G_{3}}$ is the mass vector of the shank $\overrightarrow{CG_{3}}$ is the vector from the ankle to the shank mass center. $\overrightarrow{CB}$ is the vector from the ankle to the knee. $\overrightarrow{F_{a}}$ is the unknown reaction force from the foot.
For the foot segment, $$-\tau_{3} + \overrightarrow{CG_{4}}\cdot\overrightarrow{G_{4}} + \overrightarrow{CP}\cdot\overrightarrow{F_{g}} + M= 0
\label{eq:EyeOnBase}$$ where $\overrightarrow{G_{4}}$ is the mass vector of the foot, $\overrightarrow{CG_{4}}$ is the vector from the ankle to the foot mass center. $P$ is the pressure center, $M$ is the total moment from the force plate, $\overrightarrow{CP}\cdot\overrightarrow{F_{g}}$, denoted as $M_{c}$, is the moment by ground reaction force $F_{g}$. $M_{c}$ is the key component that needs to be compared.
System Overview of Robotic Cane as a SuperLimb
----------------------------------------------
The proposed SuperLimb system is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:RoboticCane-ControlSystem\], where soft and non-intrusive techniques are adopted to accommodate the elderly need in ADLs. A pneumatically-driven linear cylinder is used for lower limb support, which provides a reasonably large and compliant thrust force within a safe operating pressure. The overall shape of the pneumatic cylinder is redesigned as a cane that is commonly used by the elderly for body weight support. Considering the reaction force from the cylinder to the human body during physical support, such force may be too much for the elderly to carry. Therefore, an inflatable vest is added to the system, which can be a regular vest with customized design patterns on the outside, as long as individual air-bag arrays are embedded within to provide distributed support during motion. The depth camera is used to collect depth images that are privacy-safe even at home environment to detect the intention from the cane users during motion transition. Data collected from the depth cameras are then transmitted to the controllers of the robotic cane and inflatable vest, so that the elderly users may not need to worry about the operational control of the valves during motion transition, reducing the stress and complexities in manual control and valve adjustment.
The robotic cane is to be used in the home environment at places such as the bedside, toilet, or the chairs in the living room, as shown in Fig. \[fig:PaperOverview\]. The assumption is that the elderly user will have the vest put on at first. Then, when moving towards the edge of the seat with the robotic cane in hand, the depth camera will capture the movement and detect the intentions after that. The processed data on user intention will then be transmitted to the on-board controller of the robotic cane to feed the modified biomechanical model with a robotic cane. Prior model tuning is required during the initial installation of the whole system to adjust the individual need of the elderly user. Once a sit-to-stand intention is detected, the inflatable vest will be pressurized, and then the robotic cane will start to move, providing axial thrust to assist the elderly user in completing the sit-to-stand process.
The adoption of “soft” hardware is a crucial design feature of the overall system. The pneumatically-driven cylinder in the robotic cane aims at providing a gradual and compliant, yet powerful, thrust while providing lower limb support. The inflatable vest is used as a soft interface between the cane and the wearer, where a flexible joint will be used to connect the vest with the cane. In this way, the thrust force provided by the cane will be distributed through the vest to act on the wearer to avoid impact or hard push. The depth-camera is a much less intrusive sensing solution, providing more detailed information to detect whole-body user intention. After providing the assistance, the vest will deflate, and the cane will be adjusted to a locked position, so that the elderly user may use the robotic cane usually as a cane for walking assistance.
Design of the Robotic Cane
--------------------------
Assistive cane or walking stick is a common type of crutch device used by the elderly for weight redistribution, improved stability, and tactile information about the ground [@Kaye2000Mobility]. Ten percent of US adults over 65 years use a cane[@Bradley2011Geriatric]. However, there remains a limited design to robotize the cane for elderly usage. A potential drawback for a robotic cane would be an increase in weight and size, which may cause discomfort by the elderly users. Engineering design issues on this problem may be solved by using more advanced material and a light-weight power source. In this paper, we propose a pneumatically-driven robotic cane to explore the potential design issues related to sit-to-stand assistance for the elderly usage.
Before establishing a proof-of-concept prototype, we should first consider requirements especially length, travel distance, and bearing capacity. Mean height and mean weight of elderly men are 173.4$cm$ and 88.3$kg$, used as references [@MeanWeight2018]. The upper limb accounts for approximate 53% of total height [@Leva1996Adjustments]. With the assumption that hip height change before and after sit-to-stand is equal to the thigh length, the travel distance is roughly 30% [@Leva1996Adjustments]. Consequently, the major design requirements can be summarized as Table \[tab:designRequirements\].
We modified a pneumatic cylinder of 32$mm$ cross-sectional diameter with 500$mm$ travel distance and 0.8$Mpa$ maximum pressure by adding a handle on top with controllers and connectors inside, as shown in Fig. \[fig:RoboticCane-MechDesign\](a). The maximum thrust force of a single cylinder is about 644$N$, meaning that a double-cane design can provide a lifting force for an object of about 130$kg$, which satisfy the requirement. As our intentional use is for assistive support, a single cane design is sufficiently powerful to help an elderly with reasonably motor functions for sit-to-stand purposes.
A 3D printed T-shape handle is designed and assembled to the air cylinder. The current version is still manually actuated, and a button is placed on top of the handle to operate the valve. The L-shaped air connectors reroute the tubes along the cylinder. The wires from the button together with tubes go through the handle to the back for connection. The electromagnetic valve controlled by the button is to switch the inlet tube. The hook under the handle is useful during attachment to the vest. Since the cane is not rigidly attached to the body, there remains certain flexibility from the cane when providing the thrust force to adjust to the human posture during sit-to-stand.
Elderly Wearable using an Inflatable Vest
-----------------------------------------
An inflatable vest is also added to the system to distribute the thrust force provided by the robotic cane evenly. The outer and inner layers of the vest are regular clothes, while the middle layer is air inflatable. As a proof-of-concept, an inflatable swimming jacket is sewed to the inside of the vest. When deflated, the vest is almost the same as a regular vest. Once inflated, the vest will pop up and conform to the shape of the body, forming a tight fit between the body and the vest. Attachment rings are sewed on to the side of the vest under the arm, above the waist line, which are to be connected with the hook on the cane during usage. When the cane is pressurized, the cane will push the rings on the vest, and the thrust force will be evenly distributed through the inflatable swimming jacket inside to achieve compliant support. As a result, the vest is able to hold the human body while the thrust force from the cane increases.
Privacy-safe System for Intention Detection
-------------------------------------------
The pattern of human motion can be described by the temporal and spatial movement of their skeleton. The development of the 3D depth camera has made it possible to trace human body skeleton joints economically. Microsoft Kinect for Azure released its body tracing software development kit [@shotton2013real-time], by which the temporal-spatial positions of 32 human body skeleton joints are available. For privacy consideration, only the 3D position of each joint is recorded, rather than RGB-video. Firstly, the body skeleton joints are projected on the sagittal plane. The angles of ankle, knee, and hip are then calculated. As shown in Fig. \[fig:RoboticCane-ControlSystem\], by importing the joint information of the current state, the controller is able to calculate the error using the biomechanical model and adjust the robotic cane output force.
Experiments {#sec:ExpResults}
===========
Two experiments are designed to investigate (1) the feasibility of the robotic cane and inflatable vest to provide sit-to-stand assistance; (2) the rationality of the biomechanical model; and (3) the posture recognition during sit-to-stand against motion capture system for intention detection.
Experiment Setup
----------------
Eight force plates (1200Hz, Bertec) were embedded in each step of a stair. In this experiment, at most three force plates were needed. Therefore, two tables were manufactured for elevation so that we could have a flat plane with three sets of independent force data collected, as shown in Fig \[fig:ExpSetup\](a). A depth camera (60Hz, Kinect for Azure) and a twelve-camera motion capture system (120Hz, Motion Capture) recorded the whole process synchronously, as shown in Fig \[fig:ExpSetup\] (b), (c). The chair with 40cm in height was used in the experiments.
Experiment Procedure
--------------------
Each subject was required to finish two trials of the experiments, standard control group and experimental group. In the standard control group, the subject was expected to perform sit-to-stand with arms folded over the chest and without any external assistance. While in the experimental group, the subject stood up with robotic cane system assisted. Initially, the subject was seated on the chair on the middle force plate. The feet were placed on the front in parallel while the cane placed on the back one in the cane experiment. Nothing else contributed to the applied forces. In the initial position, the subject’s buttocks should be right at the back of the chair seat. Hands did not push off when starting. The first head and trunk orientations were not controlled. Subjects did not change the feet position once the initial state was established.
Each trail of experiments was repeated six times. For the control group, the rising process should follow the beat of a metronome, 60 beats per minute. The purpose was to restrict two trails of experiments within the similar time frame. Subjects were able to rest if needed. Force plates, the depth camera, and the motion capture system recorded the experiments synchronously.
Results
-------
Fig. \[fig:ExpResult\] shows the mean vertical ground reaction force on each trial. More detailed values, mean and standard deviations, of ten ground reaction force parameters are shown in Table \[tab:ExperimentResult\], which characterized the process associated with falling risks of the elderly [@Yamada2005Parameters; @Yamada2009Relationships]. $F1$ was the force magnitude at hip lift-off, while $F2$ was the peak ground reaction force. $T1$ started from beginning to hip lift-off, $T2$ started from hip lift-off to peak reaction force and $T3$ started from peak reaction force to completion of the sit-to-stand movement. $P1$, $P2$, $P3$ were impulse during $T1$, $T2$, $T3$, respectively. The last two parameters were velocity, describing the change rate of ground reaction force, $V1$ between hip lift-off to peak ground reaction force, and $V2$ during knee-hip extension.
Fig. \[fig:ModelCompare\] (a) shows the torque acting on the ankle of real ground reaction force and calculation result from the biomechanical model. Fig. \[fig:ModelCompare\] (b) shows the detected joint angles from the depth camera against the motion capture system. The black lines were both ground truth values, while the red lines were calculated or detected results.
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
“Soft” Hardware for the Elderly Care
------------------------------------
### The Inflatable Vest as the Wearable
In the proposed system, the soft wearable, inflatable vest is a key component, which builds a bridge between the human and robot. Instead of popular applications as actuation, here we present “support” for the soft robot application. It works to support the operator’s upper body with comfort as well as safety and prevent stress concentration considering narrow contact area like a belt. Besides, a two-step setup is as simple as wear a normal jacket for the elderly, indicated in Fig \[fig:SitToStand\].
However, what we are curious about is that besides supporting, what else can the wearable do? The depth camera observes and detects the sit-to-stand movement from a side view currently. At least three cameras are needed in different locations of a home environment. The wearable gives an alternative for sensor integration. Used every day, the wearable, which is embedded with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a camera in the front, may be one of the simple ways for sensing. No other device is required for extra wear. The IMU is capable of body posture detection, while the camera “sees” the environment, considering bedside, chair, and toilet, which is level 2 in Fig. \[fig:ThreeLevelGuidlines\], a different design level from the proposed system. Apart from enabling the robot to sense the human intention, the wearable serves as a feedback intermediate between the robot and the human. Disney research put forward a force jacket that used airbags for feel effects in the virtual reality entertainment [@Effectofmusclestrength]. Inspired by it, some of the inflatable parts of the wearable can be used as feedback signals. Thus, both forward and backward sensing from the human to the robot are achievable.
### The Pneumatic Cylinder as the Robotic Cane
Fluidically driven, the robotic cane is another critical hardware in the system. The sit-to-stand mechanism assisted by the robotic cane can be analyzed by comparing three sets of ground reaction force data in Fig. \[fig:ExpResult\] and Table \[tab:ExperimentResult\]. For the human-robot interaction in the experimental group, there was a noticeable time delay in the motion between the robotic cane and the subject. The robotic cane moved first and gradually transmitted the force to the human body. Thus, the subject took longer both in $T1$ and $T2$ than the robotic cane. Before the subject reached the peak value of $F2$, the force on cane had started to decrease. Almost when the subject started to perform knee-hip extension, indicated as the valley of red dash line, the force on cane decreased to its weight.
The advantages of using the robotic cane system are fewer efforts for lower limbs and lower fall risk when we compare the force on subject of standard control group and experimental group. Force, $F1$ and $F2$, and velocity absolute values of the operator, $V1$ and $V2$, are good reflection. The experimental group showed smaller values of all the mentioned parameters than the standard control group. Thus, the force curve using the robotic cane was smoother and flatter. More importantly, the overshoot showing in the control group disappeared in the experimental one, which means that the robotic cane successfully compensates the portion of the force larger than the body weight. Thus less muscle strength and fewer efforts are required by the operator shortly after the hip lift-off phase. We can also conclude from $F2$ of the robotic cane that an external force of 52% of body weight is sufficient for sit-to-stand assistance. Hip lift-off and Knee-hip extension phases are useful in predicting falling risks [@Sittostandfromprogressively]. The shorter these phases cost, the easier for the elderly to keep balance when standing up. When standing up assisted by the robotic cane, both $T1$ and $T3$ had smaller values than that of the control group. Therefore, the robotic cane shows good performances in supporting the user and reducing potential fall risks.
### The Biomechanical Model with Depth Camera as a Non-Intrusive Sensor
In order to verify the theoretical model, the torques of actual and calculated ground reaction force from the biomechanical model acting on the ankle were compared. From Fig. \[fig:ModelCompare\] we can tell that there was a phase shift during the hip lift-off phase and some differences in the torque magnitude due to the assumptions for simplification, which were not exactly true. One possible reason was that the ankle position shook a lot during each cycle and its error could not be neglected compared to its change within centimeter range. Another possible explanation was that the error of each phase was independent from the others. Consequently, to improve the model, further calibration on with standard posture is needed for error reducing.
We used the Kinect Azure SDK to detect the human skeleton information in the sit-to-stand action. The algorithm performed well when the range of the movement was big while the detection precision was not good enough when the range of the movement is small. Since the change in the ankle data was relatively small, within 10 degrees in a cycle, little disturbance and error would lead to the oscillation and detection damages. Many other approaches based on deep learning can offer a robust understanding of the human activities [@YeungA]. It is possible to use the biomechanical model to retrieve the human activities from the depth images adjusting the output force of the robotic cane.
Design Guidelines for the SuperLimbs
------------------------------------
A critical question of the SuperLimbs is the communication between the human and extra limbs. As shown in Fig. \[fig:ThreeLevelGuidlines\], different brain-muscle conditions can be categorized into three classes. The corresponding demands for design are shown on the right. Here, the proposed robotic cane system is used as an example. For those whose brain performs well while the muscle undergoes minor degeneration, for instance, the healthy elderly and the climbers, a regular cane with environmental perceiving sensors is sufficient. The SuperLimbs of this level augments human capabilities, [@Gonzalez2018Design] is an excellent representative. For those who undergo a significant decline in physical condition while mild in cognitive, for instance, the elderly suffer from motor ability lost and the disabled, additional actuation besides sensors is necessary. The SuperLimbs of this level can help the user to regain normal abilities. For those who suffer from severe brain and muscle disable, a more advanced system with the fusion of multi-modality sensors is significant. The SuperLimbs of this level compensates both cognitive and physical capacities.
Based on different requirements, different levels of brain and muscle function can be remixed in other ways. We focus on the elderly of the second-level while providing an integrated system of the highest level for the entire home assistance in our proposed system.
Conclusion {#sec:Conclusion}
==========
The soft robot system, which focuses on bed, chair, and toilet as three main places at home, aims at assisting the elderly during the sit-to-stand process. Three components are included in the design, the 1-DOF pneumatically-driven robotic cane, the inflatable vest as the soft human-robot interface, and the non-intrusive depth camera as an ambient sensor. Once the human intention is detected, the system will work automatically, inflating the vest and transmitting force in the stand-up direction, which is under real-time control. The proof-of-concept prototype performed well in compensation of ground reaction force during both the hip-lift-off and knee-hip extension phases according to the experiment. It eliminated the overshoot and results in relatively smooth and flat ground reaction force on feet, which reduces fall risks and requires fewer efforts for the elderly. Finally, we summarize a three-level design guideline, providing a reference to SuperLimbs as the assistive robot design corresponding to the demanding community with different brain-muscle conditions.
However, some issues need to be further addressed and worked on, like power source, which would be either in portable size or fixed on a specific location, friction with the ground. Therefore, the next steps for the soft robot system include calibration and modification on both model and image identification algorithm, implementation of closed-loop control on the pneumatic cylinder, testing with more human users, especially the elderly users, and improvements on design details.
[^1]: \*This work was supported by Southern University of Science and Technology, National Students’ Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program (No. 201914325006), and SUSTech-MIT Joint Center for Mechanical Engineering Education and Research.
[^2]: $^{1}$Xia Wu, Haiyuan Liu, Ziqi Liu, Mingdong Chen, Chenglong Fu, Zheng Wang and Chaoyang Song are with Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055, China. [{11612026, 11510872, 11712526, 11711903}@mail.sustech.edu.cn, {fucl, wangz, songcy}@sustech.edu.cn]{}
[^3]: $^{2}$Fang Wan is a Visiting Scholar with the SUSTech Institute of Robotics, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055, China. [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: $^{3}$Harry Asada is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. [[email protected]]{}
[^5]: $^{*}$Chaoyang Song is the corresponding author.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Here we show that in the case when double peaked emission lines originate from outer parts of accretion disk, their variability could be caused by perturbations in the disk emissivity. In order to test this hypothesis, we introduced a model of disk perturbing region in the form of a single bright spot (or flare) by a modification of the power law disk emissivity in appropriate way. The disk emission was then analyzed using numerical simulations based on ray-tracing method in Kerr metric and the corresponding simulated line profiles were obtained. We applied this model to the observed H$\beta$ line profiles of 3C 390.3 (observed in the period 1995-1999), and estimated the parameters of both, accretion disk and perturbing region. Our results show that two large amplitude outbursts of the H$\beta$ line observed in 3C 390.3 could be explained by successive occurrences of two bright spots on approaching side of the disk. These bright spots are either moving, originating in the inner regions of the disk and spiralling outwards by crossing small distances during the period of several years, or stationary. In both cases, their widths increase with time, indicating that they most likely decay.'
author:
- 'P. Jovanović, L. Č. Popović, M. Stalevski'
- 'A. I. Shapovalova'
title: 'Variability of the H$\beta$ line profiles as an indicator of orbiting bright spots in accretion disks of quasars: a case study of 3C 390.3'
---
Introduction
============
The huge amount of Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) energy is released through accretion onto super-massive black hole (BH), supposed to exist in the center of AGN. The emission of the accretion disk is not only in the continuum, but also in the emission lines (e.g. in Fe K$\alpha$ line) and in low ionization lines, as e.g. in broad Balmer emission lines which are seen as double peaked (DP). DP Balmer lines are found in 20% of radio loud AGN at $z <
0.4$ [@eh94; @eh03] and 4% of the Sloan digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasars at $z < 0.33$ [@st03].
Broad, double-peaked emission lines of AGN provide dynamical evidence for presence of an accretion disk feeding a supermassive black hole in the center of AGN. But in some cases, the variability of these lines shows certain irregularities which could not be explained just by standard model of accretion disk.
The DP line profiles are often used to extract the disk parameters [see e.g. @ch89; @ch90; @eh94; @eh03; @st08; @er09]. In a series of papers Dumont & Collin-Souffrin [see @cs87; @csd90; @dcs90a; @dcs90b; @dcs90c and references therein] investigated the radial structure and emission of the outer regions of the optically thin accretion disks in AGN and calculated detailed grid of photoionisation models in order to predict the relative strengths of low-ionization lines emitted from the disk. They obtained integrated line intensities and line profiles emitted at each radius of the disk, for its different physical parameters. They also studied the influence of the external illumination on the structure of the disk, considering the point source model, where a compact source of non-thermal radiation located at a given height illuminates the disk and the diffusion model, where the radiation of a central source is scattered back towards the disk by a hot diffusing medium. One of the first methods for calculating the profiles of optical emission lines from a relativistic accretion disk was proposed by @ch89. The limitation to this method is that the accretion disk structure required to explain the variability of the line profiles cannot be axi-symmetric, i.e. very often the red peak is higher than blue one and that cannot be explained by this model. It is not possible in a circular disk, in which the blue peak is always Doppler boosted to be stronger than the red peak. Therefore, @er95 adapted the circular accretion disk model to elliptical disks in order to fit the profiles of double-peaked emitters with a red peak stronger than the blue one. This model introduced eccentricity and phase angle parameters to the circular model described above, and the pericenter distance of the elliptical orbits [see @er95].
Spectroscopic monitoring of double-peaked emitters [see e.g. @sh01; @ge07; @sh09] has revealed that a ubiquitous property of the double-peaked broad emission lines is variability of their profile shapes on the timescales of months to years. DP line profiles are observed to vary on timescales of months to years, i.e. on timescales of the order of the dynamical time or longer [e.g. @vz91; @zh91; @ma93; @ro98; @se00; @sh01; @sb03; @ge07].
This slow, systematic variability of the line profile is on the timescale of dynamical changes in an accretion disk, and has been shown to be unrelated to the shorter timescale variability seen in the overall flux in the line, due to reverberation of the variable ionizing continuum. Patterns in the variability of the broad Balmer lines are often a gradual change and reversal of the relative strengths of the blue-shifted and red-shifted peaks [see e.g. @ne97].
Periodic variability of the red and blue peak strengths has also been attributed to a precessing elliptical disk, a precessing single-armed spiral (as e.g. 3C 332, 3C 390.3: @gi99; NGC 1097: @sb03), and a precessing warp in the disk. For instance, @wu08 computed the profiles of Balmer emission lines from a relativistic, warped accretion disk in order to explore the certain asymmetries in the double-peaked emission line profiles which cannot be explained by a circular Keplerian disk. Elliptical disks and spiral waves have been detected in cataclysmic variables [@shh97; @bc00], and a radiation induced warp has been detected in the large-scale disk of the AGN NGC 4258 [@mbp96].
Spiral waves are a physically desirable model since they can be produced by instability in the vicinity of a black hole. They can play an important role in accretion disks, because they provide a mechanism for transporting angular momentum outward in the disk, allowing the gas to flow inwards, towards the central black hole. Long-term profile variability is thus a useful tool for extracting information about the structure and dynamics of the accretion disk most likely producing the double-peaked emission lines.
In this paper, we present an investigation of the disk line variations due to instability in accretion disk. First we developed a model, assuming that instability in the accretion disk affects disk emissivity. This model and some simulations of expected line profile variability are presented in §2. In §3 we compare the model with observations taken from long-term monitoring of 3C 390.3 [@sh01] in order to obtain parameters of perturbations. In §4 we discuss our results in the light of possible physical mechanisms which could cause such perturbations, and finally, in §5 we outline our conclusions.
The model of perturbation in the accretion disk
===============================================
Here we introduce the model and some approximations used in the simulations of accretion disk perturbation.
Long term variation of DP line profiles: some assumptions and problems
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As we mentioned above, the DP line profile variability does not appear to correlate with changes in the line and/or continuum flux, and consequently one can assume that the changes in line profile are likely caused by changes in the accretion disk structure. There are several examples of the long-term variability (on timescales of several years) of the DP line profile of some objects which has been successfully modeled by the precession of a non-axisymmetric accretion disk, such as an elliptical disk or a disk with a spiral arm [@ge07; @sb03; @sh01; @gi99 and references therein]. These models, however, fail to explain the long-term variability of some objects and the short-term variability (on timescales from several months to a year) of all objects [@le05; @le10]. For instance, @le10 found that the two simple models, an elliptical accretion disk and a circular disk with a spiral arm, are unable to reproduce all aspects of the observed variability, although both account for some of the observed behaviors. Therefore, these authors suggest that many of the observed variability patterns could be reproduced assuming a disk with one or more fragmented spiral arms.
Other attempts to explain the DP line profile variability through perturbations of the disk structure introduced bright spots over an axisymmetric accretion disk. As an example @ne97 successfully modeled the variation of the H$\alpha$ peak intensity ratio of Arp 102B with a single spot rotating within the disk, but @ge07 were not able to apply the same model to the same object at a different time period.
In the case of Fe K$\alpha$ variability @tu06 used the spot model to explain the variability of the iron line profile of Mrk 766 in the X-ray band. Also, @do08 studied variations of the iron line due to an orbiting spot which arise by reflection on the surface of an accretion disk, following its illumination by an X-ray flare in form of an off-axis point-like source just above the accretion disk. Besides the spots in accretion disk, the Fe K$\alpha$ line of some AGN could be also significantly affected by highly-ionized fast accretion disk outflows. For instance, @sm10 found that the major features in the observed 2 – 10 keV spectrum of the bright quasar PG1211+143 can be well reproduced by their Monte Carlo radiative transfer simulations which include a variety of disk wind (outflow) models.
To explain the short-timescale variability of the DP line profiles @fe08 constructed stochastically perturbed accretion disk models and calculated H$\alpha$ line profile series as the bright spots rotate, shear and decay. They ruled out spot production by star/disk collisions and favor a scenario where the radius of marginal self-gravity is within the line emitting region, creating a sharp increase in the radial spot distribution in the outer parts.
The model of bright spot–like perturbing region
-----------------------------------------------
We model the emission from accretion disk using numerical simulations based on ray-tracing method in Kerr metric [see e.g. @pj09a and references therein]. Although this method was developed for studying the X-ray radiation which originates from the inner parts of the disk close to the central black hole [see e.g. @pj08a], it can be also successfully applied for modelling the UV/optical emission which originates from the outer regions of the disk[^1].
Surface emissivity of the disk is usually assumed to vary with radius as a power law [e.g. @lcp03]: $\varepsilon (r) =
\varepsilon _0 \cdot r^q,$ where $\varepsilon _0$ is an emissivity constant and $q$ – emissivity index. Total observed flux is then given by: $$F_{obs} (E_{obs} ) = \int\limits_{image} {\varepsilon (r) \cdot g^4 e^{ - \dfrac{1}{2}\left(\dfrac{E_{obs} -
gE_0}{\sigma} \right)^2}} d\Xi ,
\label{eq1}$$ where $g$ is the energy shift due to the relativistic effects: $g =
\dfrac{{\nu _{obs} }}{{\nu _{em} }}$, $E_0$ is the rest energy of the line, $\sigma$ is the local turbulent broadening and $d\Xi$ is the solid angle subtended by the disk in the observer’s sky.
In this paper we adopt the following modification of the power-law disk emissivity, in order to introduce a bright spot–like perturbing region in the disk [@pj08b; @pj09a; @pj09b; @ms08]: $$\begin{array}{lll}
\varepsilon_1 (x,y) &= \varepsilon (r(x,y))& \\
&\cdot \left( {1 + \varepsilon _p
\cdot e^{ - \left( {\left( {\dfrac{{x -x_p}}{{w_x }}} \right)^2 + \left( {\dfrac{{y - y_p }}{{w_y }}} \right)^2 }
\right)} } \right),&
\end{array}
\label{eq2}$$ where $\varepsilon_1 (x,y)$ is the modified disk emissivity at the given position $(x,y)$ expressed in gravitational radii $R_g$, $\varepsilon (r(x,y))$ is the ordinary power-law disk emissivity at the same position, $\varepsilon_p$ is emissivity of the perturbing region (i.e. amplitude of the bright spot), $(x_p,y_p)$ is the position of perturbing region with respect to the disk center (in $R_g$) and $(w_x, w_y)$ are its widths (also in $R_g$). A 3D plot of above expression for modified emissivity law is given in Fig. \[fig1\].
![A 3D plot of modified disk emissivity given by Eq. (\[eq2\]) for $200\ \mathrm{R_g}\le r(x,y) \le 1200\ \mathrm{R_g}$, $q=-2.5$ and for the following parameters of perturbing region: $\varepsilon_p=5$, $x_p=700\ \mathrm{R_g}$, $y_p=-150\ \mathrm{R_g}$ and $w_x = w_y = 100\ \mathrm{R_g}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](f1.eps){width="40.00000%"}
This simple model is suitable for our purpose because it allows us to change amplitude, width and location of bright spot in respect to the disk center. In that way we are able to simulate displacement of bright spot along the disk, its widening and amplitude decrease with time (decay). Moreover, the above bright spot model can be successfully applied for studying the variations of accretion disk emission in different spectral bands, from X-rays to optical band [see e.g. @pj08b; @pj09b; @ms08].
Results: Model vs. observations
===============================
Perturbation in the accretion disk: modeled profiles
----------------------------------------------------
In order to test how this model of bright spot affects the H$\beta$ line profile, we performed several numerical simulations of perturbed emission of an accretion disk in Kerr metric for different positions of bright spot along $x$ and $y$-axes in both, positive and negative directions. For these simulations we adopted the following parameters of the disk: inclination $i=30^o$, inner and outer radii $R_{in}=200$ and $R_{out}=1200\ R_g$, power law emissivity with index $q=-1$, local turbulent broadening $\sigma=2000\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ and normalized angular momentum of black hole $a=0.5$. The corresponding results are presented in Fig. \[fig2\]. As it can be seen from this figure, when the bright spot moves along the positive direction of $x$-axis (receding side of the disk) it affects only “red” wing of the line (Fig. \[fig2\], top right), but when it moves along the negative direction of $x$-axis (approaching side of the disk) it affects only “blue” wing of the line (Fig. \[fig2\], top left). In both cases, the other wing and the line core stay nearly constant, and therefore almost unaffected by bright spot. The situation is quite opposite when the bright spot moves in both directions along the $y$-axis, because then it affects only the line core, while the both of its wings stay almost intact (see the bottom panels of Fig. \[fig2\]).
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}\
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
We also performed the corresponding simulations for different positions of a bright spot which moves from the inner radius of the accretion disk towards its outer parts along the $y=x$ direction, and found similar behavior of the simulated line profiles (see Fig. \[fig3\]). As one can see from Fig. \[fig3\], for certain positions of perturbing region along $y=x$ direction we obtained the line profile with almost symmetrical wings, while in other cases either the “blue” peak is brighter than the “red” one, or the “red” peak is stronger than the “blue” one.
The next step in our analysis was to use our numerical simulations for fitting the observed spectra of 3C 390.3 in order to study the variability of its H$\beta$ spectral line due to emissivity perturbations in its accretion disk.
Observations of 3C 390.3
------------------------
To test the model, we used 22 spectra of 3C 390.3 observed from November 1995 until June 1999 [see Fig. 8 in @sh01].
Spectra of 3C 390.3 were taken with the 6 m and 1 m telescopes of the SAO RAS (Russia, 1995–2001) and at INAOE’s 2.1 m telescope of the “Guillermo Haro Observatory” (GHO) at Cananea, Sonora, México (1998–1999) in monitoring regime in 1995-1999. They were obtained with long slit spectrographs, equipped with CCD detector arrays. The typical wavelength interval covered was that from 4000Å to 7500Å, the spectral resolution varied between 5 and 15 Åand the S/N ratio was $>$ 50 in the continuum near H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$. Spectrophotometric standard stars were observed every night. The spectrophotometric data reduction was carried out either with software developed at SAO RAS or with the IRAF package for the spectra obtained in México. The image reduction process included bias, flat-field corrections, cosmic ray removal, 2D wavelength linearization, sky spectrum subtraction, addition of the spectra for every night, and relative flux calibration based on standard star observations. Spectra were scaled by the \[\] $\lambda\lambda$4959+5007 integrated line flux under the assumption that the latter did not change during the time interval covered by our observations (1995–2001). A value of 1.7$\times$10$^{-13}$ ergs s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ [@vz91] for the integrated \[\] line flux was adopted. In order to calculate a normalization coefficient, the continuum was determined in two 30Å wide clean –line free– windows centered at 4800Å and 5420Å. After continuum subtraction, blend separation of the H$\beta$ and \[\] components was carried out by means of a Gaussian fitting procedure, applied to the following: H$\beta$ — broad blue, broad red and central narrow; \[\] $\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 — broad and narrow components. The forbidden lines are represented by two Gaussian curves with an intensity ratio I(5007)/I(4959)=2.96.
Comparisons between mean and rms spectra of the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ broad line profiles of 3C 390.3 during 1995-2007 (including the H$\beta$ spectra from this paper) are given in Fig. 12 of @sh10. It can be seen that these profiles are similar, and moreover, the corresponding H$\alpha$ profiles of 3C 390.3 from @sh10 and @ge07 are also similar. These comparisons indicate that the \[\] $\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 narrow lines subtraction in H$\beta$ region was performed correctly.
The flux of H$\beta$ and the broad component profile was obtained from scaled spectra after continuum subtraction and removal of the \[\] doublet and narrow H$\beta$ component. Then the observed continuum fluxes were corrected for the aperture effects using scheme by @pe95. The mean error (uncertainty) in our flux determinations for the continuum and H$\beta$ flux is $<$3%. More details can be found in paper @sh01.
Perturbation in the accretion disk of 3C 390.3
----------------------------------------------
Radial velocities of the blue and red peaks of the H$\beta$ and H$\alpha$ broad lines of 3C 390.3 vary with time [see e.g. @ga96; @er97; @sh10]. @sh01 obtained the H$\beta$ difference profiles by subtracting the average spectrum corresponding to the minimum activity state (September 9, 1997) from the individual spectra (see their Fig. 11). These authors found (see their Table 7) that the radial velocity of the blue peak increased from -3200 km s$^{-1}$ in 1995-1996 to -5200 km s$^{-1}$ in 1999. At the same time the radial velocity of the red peak increased from +4900 km s$^{-1}$ in 1995-1996 to +7000 km s$^{-1}$ in 1999. Here we analyze the possibility that the velocities, corresponding to the peak shifts in the H$\beta$ integral and difference profiles, vary with time due to perturbations in disk emissivity.
In order to fit the spectral H$\beta$ line shapes of 3C 390.3, we first estimated the disk parameters from several profiles. We found following parameters of the disk: inclination $i=20^o$, inner and outer radii $R_{in}=100$ and $R_{out}=1300\ R_g$, broken power law emissivity with index $q=-1$ for $R_{in}<r<R_{br}$ and $q=-3$ for $R_{br}<r<R_{out}$, radius at which slope of emissivity changes $R_{br}=500\ R_g$, emissivity of perturbing region $\varepsilon
_p=1$, local turbulent broadening $\sigma=2000\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ and normalized angular momentum of black hole $a=0.5$. These values of parameters are in accordance with the corresponding parameters for 3C 390.3 obtained by @fe08, who found the following values: $i=27^o$, $R_{in}=450$, $R_{out}=1400\ R_g$ and $\sigma=1300\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$. In all our simulations we held emissivity of perturbing region fixed at $\varepsilon
_p=1$, but nevertheless, the brightness of perturbing region varies with time due to its changeable area (i.e. its widths are taken as free parameters which vary with time), as well as due to power law emissivity of the disk which decreases with radius. We studied stationary and moving perturbing regions, and in the latter case their coordinates are also assumed as free parameters.
The fitting of the observed H$\beta$ line shapes of 3C 390.3 is performed separately in the case of moving and stationary perturbing regions in the following three steps: (i) the simulated H$\beta$ line profiles are calculated for some initial set of values of free parameters; (ii) the corresponding root mean square (RMS) of residuals between the observed and simulated line profiles is calculated; (iii) the values of free parameters are varied and the procedure (i)-(iii) is repeated until the RMS deviations (RMSD) between the observed and fitted H$\beta$ profiles become as small as possible.
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\
{width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"} {width="32.00000%"}\
{width="32.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig4\]. shows comparisons between all 22 observed spectra (black solid line) and the obtained best fits assuming the moving (red solid line) and stationary (blue dashed line) perturbing regions, while the corresponding positions of the perturbing regions are presented in Fig. \[fig5\]. As it can be seen from Fig. \[fig5\], the obtained positions of the moving perturbing regions are distributed in the form of two spiral arms, indicating that these perturbations originate in the inner regions of the disk and spiral away towards its outer parts, moving faster in the azimuthal direction as they get further away from the center of the disk.
{width="65.00000%"}
Table \[tab1\]. contains the obtained values of the fitted parameters, as well as the corresponding RMSD in the case of both, moving and stationary perturbing regions. We first studied the moving perturbations, but after examining the obtained results we found that, during a period of a few years, such perturbations move only by small distances which are comparable to their widths (see Table \[tab1\]). Therefore, in order to test whether the obtained displacements are reliable, we repeated the fitting, but this time assuming the stationary perturbing regions with variable widths. In this case we obtained the best fits for two perturbations positioned at $x=-100\ R_g$, $y=220\ R_g$ and at $x=-220\ R_g$, $y=125\ R_g$, respectively (denoted by crosses in Fig. \[fig5\]). As one can see from Fig. \[fig4\]. and Table \[tab1\], regardless the significant variations of the H$\beta$ line profile during the analyzed period, both models of perturbing region resulted in similar fits for the most of these spectra, except for the spectra observed during 1999, where the moving perturbing region achieved better fits. The latter result should be taken with caution because the observations from 1999 were performed after a large gap of $\approx$ 1 year. Therefore, the displacements of the perturbing regions cannot be considered as indisputably confirmed, but on the contrary, their widths almost certainly vary with time. The last conclusion is valid for both, moving and stationary perturbing regions, since neither of them can provide satisfactory fits with fixed widths.
The obtained best fit positions of both, moving and stationary perturbations are located on the approaching side of the accretion disk (see Fig. \[fig5\]) and these perturbations can be most likely attributed to successive occurrences of two different bright spots. This assumption is in good agreement with observations, since two large amplitude outbursts of H$\beta$ line are observed during the analyzed period [@sh01], and therefore each bright spot can be assigned to one of them: the bright spot which positions are denoted by squares corresponds to October 1994 - July 1997 outburst while the other one, which positions are denoted by triangles, corresponds to July 1997 - June 1999 outburst. Using the time differences between two successive observed spectra we were able to estimate the speeds of both moving bright spots (see Table \[tab1\]). For an average velocity of the first bright spot we obtained the value of 7298 $\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ and for the second one 6575 $\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$. As it can be seen from Table \[tab1\], widths of bright spots are increasing with time, indicating that they decay until they completely disappear. It should be noted that, inevitably, there is a certain degree of degeneracy in the parameter space, since similar results could be obtained with somewhat different combinations of perturbing region positions and widths.
[lccccccccc]{} 1995 Nov 17 & 50039.156& -30 & 175 & 100 & 100 & & &0.09730 &0.09460\
1996 Feb 14 & 50127.602& -40 & 200 & 105 & 130 &26.93& 5203.24&0.09680 &0.09900\
1996 Mar 20 & 50162.580& -50 & 208 & 106.5& 140 &12.81& 6257.63&0.08476 &0.09138\
1996 Jul 12 & 50276.567& -75 & 230 & 110 & 180 &33.3 & 4993.36&0.08518 &0.08178\
1996 Jul 17 & 50281.434& -76.3 & 231.3 & 110 & 180 & 1.84& 6456.24&0.08820 &0.08249\
1996 Aug 10 & 50305.489& -90 & 235 & 112 & 190 &14.19&10082.9 &0.09435 &0.09201\
1996 Sep 11 & 50338.309& -115 & 238 & 120.5& 200 &25.18&13112.6 &0.12337 &0.12426\
1997 Mar 04 & 50511.622& -165 & 245 & 130 & 260 &50.49& 4978.94&0.11448 &0.12082\
1997 Aug 30 & 50691.463& -160 & 100 & 100 & 100 & & &0.13717 &0.13593\
1997 Sep 10 & 50701.576& -165 & 105 & 105 & 110 & 7.07 &11950.55 &0.12034 &0.11905\
1997 Dec 30 & 50813.195& -205 & 120 & 145 & 175 &42.72 &6541.48 &0.09499 &0.09398\
1998 Jan 22 & 50835.631& -215 & 122.5 & 155 & 195 &10.31 &7852.39 &0.10690 &0.10949\
1998 Feb 23 & 50867.560& -225 & 125 & 165 & 215 &10.31 &5517.75 &0.09825 &0.09618\
1998 May 06 & 50940.354& -245 & 129 & 185 & 265 &20.40 &4788.88 &0.08867 &0.08965\
1998 Jun 25 & 50990.302& -265 & 132 & 205 & 285 &20.22 &6920.32 &0.07229 &0.07387\
1998 Jul 16 & 51010.719& -275 & 134 & 210 & 295 &10.20 &8537.04 &0.06809 &0.07141\
1998 Jul 25 & 51019.723& -278 & 134.5 & 212 & 300 & 3.04 &5773.22 &0.06548 &0.06615\
1998 Aug 30 & 51055.551& -285 & 135.5 & 215 & 320 & 7.07 &3373.22 &0.07590 &0.07638\
1998 Sep 26 & 51082.429& -293 & 136 & 218 & 340 & 8.01 &5097.09 &0.07948 &0.07788\
1999 Aug 19 & 51410.309& -500 & 140 & 250 & 400 &207.04&10792.43 &0.10645 &0.11163\
1999 Sep 04 & 51426.208& -505 & 140 & 252 & 400 & 5 &5375.06 &0.09147 &0.09232\
1999 Oct 03 & 51455.172& -510 & 140 & 254 & 400 & 5 &2950.49 &0.09977 &0.10270\
Discussion
==========
Several physical mechanisms could be responsible for perturbations in accretion disk emissivity, i.e. for bright spot formations. The most plausible candidates for such mechanisms are: disk self-gravity, baroclinic vorticity, disk-star collisions [@fe08 and references therein], tidal disruptions of stars by central black hole [@sq09 and references therein] and fragmented spiral arms [@le10 and references therein].
The disk self-gravity, driven by Jeans instability, could cause production of clumps in the disk which have typical sizes in the range from 10 to 1000 gravitational radii for a $10^8\ M_\odot$ central black hole. Such clumps do not shear with differential rotation and they have high brightness that varies very little over time. Since the obtained results indicate that bright spots decay by time and spiral along the disk, it is not likely that these bright spots could be identified as clumps created by self-gravity, although their sizes are comparable.
Baroclinic vorticity appears in the accretion disk due to its differential rotation in combination with the radial temperature gradient, causing the material in the disk to spiral around the center of vortex. Such a vortex would have higher density, and hence higher brightness, causing the formation of a bright spot. The typical sizes of such spots, as well as their shearing with differential rotation of the disk, are still unknown since different numerical simulations gave contradictory results [for more details see e.g. @fe08 and references therein]. Therefore, in the case of 3C 390.3, this mechanism still cannot be neither ruled out, nor accepted.
Disk-star collisions are assumed to be very frequent events which happen on daily timescales and which could increase disk surface temperature in the region of collision, and thus, create a bright spot. Such bright spots shear with differential rotation of the disk and decay as the material cools down. However, the typical size of a such bright spot immediately after collision is close to the size of the star, which is very small when expressed in gravitational radii. Therefore, neither this mechanism could be accepted as a potential cause of two bright spots, detected in the case of quasar 3C 390.3.
The tidal disruption of stars by central black hole [@sq09 and references therein] happens when a star passes the tidal radius of the black hole, i.e. when the black hole’s tidal gravity exceeds the star’s self-gravity. Gas of a disrupted star falls back to the black hole at a super-Eddington rate, releasing a flare of energy which then blows away a significant fraction of the falling gas as an outflow. Such super-Eddington flares and outflows could induce instabilities in accretion disk in form of bright spots. However, this mechanism is an unlikely candidate for a potential cause of the bright spots in the case of 3C 390.3 due to the following weaknesses: (i) super-Eddington outflows are short living ($\sim 10$ days); (ii) frequency of star disruptions in a typical elliptical galaxy is very low, between $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-4}$ per year, and in the case of the black hole of 3C 390.3 which mass is $\sim 5 \times 10^8 M_\odot$ [@le06], it is near the low end of this range [see e.g. @wa04; @mt99]; (iii) any stellar debris could be hardly released in the case of 3C 390.3 since the main sequence stars are disrupted within the innermost stable orbit around a non-rotating black hole as massive as that in 3C 390.3; (iv) it is unclear how the bright spots produced by this mechanism should evolve with time.
Spiral arms in AGN disks could be formed spontaneously due to self-gravity instabilities [see e.g. @fe08 and references therein] or could be triggered by close passage of some massive object such as another supermassive black hole or a star cluster [see e.g. @le10 and references therein]. Spiral arms increase flux variability of AGN on timescales of a year to several years, but as noted before, they are unable to reproduce all aspects of the observed variability. However, they are also subjected to fragmentation, causing small variations in the flux on timescales of several months. The fragments in spiral arms can be due to sub-structures in a non-uniform accretion disk, such as isolated clumps which could pass through the arm and dominate in its emissivity, causing the discrete “lumps” of excess emission [@le10]. The observed variability on timescales from few months to several years in the difference spectra of some AGN is probably caused by such lumps. It is quite possible that some of these lumps are long-living and that they do not vary significantly in strength, shape, or position over a period of several years [@le10]. As the obtained results show, it is the same case with the large bright spots which are responsible for amplitude outbursts of the 3C 390.3 H$\beta$ line, because they have constant emissivity and they are either stationary or spiralling over small distances during the period of several years. The only feature which significantly varies with time is their width. Therefore, these bright spots could be most likely explained by the emissivity lumps, caused by fragments in spiral arms of the accretion disk.
Conclusions
===========
We developed a model of the disk perturbing region in the form of a single bright spot (or flare) by a modification of the power law disk emissivity and used this model to simulate the disk line profiles. This model has been used to fit the observed H$\beta$ line of 3C 390.3 observed from 1995 to 1999. From this investigation we can point out the following results:
1. The model which includes perturbation (bright spot) in the accretion disk can successfully explain difference in double peaked line profiles, as e.g. higher red peak even if we have the standard circular disk. The position of a bright spot has a stronger influence on one particular part of spectral line profiles (such as e.g. its core if the spot is in the central part of the disk, or “red” and “blue” wings if the spot is located on receding and approaching part, respectively).
2. Using the model for perturbing region we were able to successfully model and reproduce the observed variations of the H$\beta$ line profile in the case of 3C 390.3, including the two large amplitude outbursts observed during the analyzed period. Therefore, the observed variations of the 3C 390.3 H$\beta$ line could be caused by perturbations in the disk emissivity.
3. We found that two outbursts referred by @sh01 could be explained by successive occurrences of two different bright spots on approaching side of the disk which are either moving, originating in the inner regions of the disk and spiralling outwards, or stationary. Both bright spots decay by time until they completely disappear.
4. Our results support hypothesis that the perturbations in accretion disk emissivity are probably caused by fragments in the spiral arms of the disk.
The results presented above show that a circular disk with perturbations (bright spots) can be applied to explain different double peaked line profiles, and can be also used to trace perturbations (as well as their characteristics) from the broad double peaked line shapes.
This work is supported by the Ministry of Science of Serbia through project (146002) “Astrophysical Spectroscopy of Extragalactic Objects” and with studentship for M. Stalevski. It is also supported by INTAS (grant N96-0328), and RFBR (grants N97-02-17625, 09-02-01136). The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for very valuable and helpful comments and suggestions.
Baptista, R. & Catal[á]{}n, M. S. 2000, , 44, 1P Chen, K., Halpern, J. P. & Filippenko, A. V. 1989, , 339, 742 Chen, K. & Halpern, J. P. 1990, , 354, L1 Collin-Souffrin, S. 1987, , 179, 60 Collin-Souffrin, S., & Dumont, A. M. 1990, , 229, 292 Dovčiak, M., Karas, V., Matt, G., Goosmann, R. W. 2008, , 384, 361 Dumont, A. M., & Collin-Souffrin, S. 1990, , 229, 302 Dumont, A. M., & Collin-Souffrin, S. 1990, , 229, 313 Dumont, A. M., & Collin-Souffrin, S. 1990, , 83, 71 Eracleous, M. & Halpern, J. P. 1994, , 90, 1 Eracleous, M., Livio, M., Halpern, J. P. & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 1995, , 438, 610 Eracleous, M., Halpern, J. P., Gilbert, A. M., Newman, J. A., & Filippenko, A. V. 1997, , 490, 216 Eracleous, M. & Halpern, J. P. 2003, , 599, 886 Eracleous, M., Lewis, K. T. & Flohic, H. M. L. G. 2009, New Astronomy Review, 53, 133 Flohic, H. M. L. G., Eracleous, M. 2008, , 686, 138 Gaskell, C. M. 1996, , 464, L107 Gezari, S., Halpern, J. P., Eracleous, M. 2007, , 169, 167 Gilbert, A. M., Eracleous, M., Filippenko, A. V. & Halpern, J. P. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 175: Structure and Kinematics of Quasar Broad Line Regions, ed. Gaskell, C. M., Brandt, W. N., Dietrich, M., Dultzin-Hacyan, D. & Eracleous, M. (San Francisco: ASP), 189 Jovanovi' c, P., Popovi' c, L. Č. 2009a, arXiv:0903.0978v1 \[astro-ph.GA\] (to appear as a chapter in the book “Black Holes and Galaxy Formation” by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Jovanovi' c, P., Popovi' c, L. Č. 2009b, PASRB, 9, 45 Jovanovi' c, P., Popovi' c, L. Č. 2008, Fortschritte der Physik, 56, 456 Jovanovi' c, P., Popovi' c, L. Č. 2008, POBeo, 84, 467 Lewis, K. T. 2005, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 37, 1240 Lewis, K. T., & Eracleous, M. 2006, , 642, 711 Lewis, K. T., Eracleous, M., & Storchi-Bergmann, T. 2010, , 187, 416 Magorrian, J., & Tremaine, S. 1999, , 309, 447 Maloney, P. R., Begelman, M. C. & Pringle, J. E. 1996, , 472, 582 Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Calvani, M., Perez, E., Moles, M. & Penston, M. V. 1993, , 410, 56 Newman, J. A., Eracleous, M., Filippenko, A. V. & Halpern, J. P. 1997, , 485, 570 Peterson, B. M., Pogge, R. W., Wanders, I., Smith, S. M., Romanishin, W. 1995, , 107, 579 Popovi' c, L. Č., Mediavilla, E. G., Jovanovi' c, P., Muñoz, J. A. 2003, , 398, 975 Romano, P., Marzianii, P. & Dultzin-Hacyan, D. 1998, , 495, 222 Sergeev, S. G., Pronik, V. I. & Sergeeva, E. A. 2000, , 356, 41 Shapovalova, A. I. et al. 2001, , 376, 775 Shapovalova, A. I. et al. 2009, New Astronomy Review, 53, 191 Shapovalova, A. I., et al. 2010, arXiv:1003.2098. Sim, S. A., Miller, L., Long, K. S., Turner, T. J., Reeves, J. N. 2010, arXiv:1002.0544v1 \[astro-ph.HE\] Stalevski, M., Jovanovi' c, P., Popovi' c, L. Č. 2008, POBeo, 84, 491 Steeghs, D., Harlaftis, E. T. & Horne, K. 1997, , 290, L2 Strateva, I. V. et al. 2003, , 126, 1720 Strateva, I. V. Brandt, W. N., Eracleous, M., Garmire, G. 2008, , 687, 869S Storchi-Bergmann, T. et al. 2003, , 598, 956 Strubbe, L. E., Quataert, E. 2009, , 400, 2070 Turner, T. J., Miller, L., George, I. M., Reeves, J. N. 2006, , 445, 59 Veilleux, S. & Zheng, W. 1991, , 377, 89 Wang, J., & Merritt, D. 2004, , 600, 149 Wu, S.-M., Wang, T.-G., & Dong, X.-B. 2008, , 389, 213 Zheng, W., Veilleux, S. & Grandi, S. A. 1991, , 381, 41
[^1]: As shown in @pj08a, the effects of strong gravitational field and angular momentum of rotating black hole are significant only in the innermost parts of accretion disk, in vicinity of the central supermassive black hole, up to the several dozens of gravitational radii. In the outer parts of the disk, such as those where H$\beta$ line originates, these effects are negligible and Kerr metric with zero angular momentum, i.e. Schwarzschild metric, is a very good approximation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recent surveys have detected Ly$\alpha$ emission from $z=4.5-6.5$ at luminosities as low as $10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$. There is good evidence that low numbers of AGN are among observed faint Ly$\alpha$ emitters. Combining these observations with an empirical relation between the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ and B-band luminosities of AGN, we obtain an upper limit on the number density of AGN with absolute magnitudes $M_B \in [-16,-19]$ at $z=4.5-6.5$. These AGN are up to two orders of magnitude fainter than those discovered in the Chandra Deep Field, resulting in the faintest observational constraints to date at these redshifts. At $z=4.5$, the powerlaw slope of the very faint end of the luminosity function of AGN is shallower than the slope observed at lower redshifts, $\beta_l <1.6$, at the 98% confidence level. In fact, we find marginal evidence that the luminosity function rises with luminosity, corresponding to a powerlaw slope $\beta_l <0 $, at magnitudes fainter than $M_B\sim -20$ (75% confidence level). These results suggest either that accretion onto lower mass black holes is less efficient than onto their more massive counterparts, or that the number of black holes powering AGN with $M_B\gsim-20$ is lower than expected from the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation by one-two orders of magnitude. Extrapolating from reverberation-mapping studies suggests that these black holes would have $M_{\rm BH}=10^6-10^7 M_{\odot}$. To facilitate the identification of AGN among observed Ly$\alpha$ emitters, we derive observational properties of faint AGN in the Ly$\alpha$ line, as well as in the X-ray and optical bands.'
author:
- |
Mark Dijkstra[^1] and J. Stuart B. Wyithe\
School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, 3010, Australia
title: 'Ly$\alpha$ Constraints on Very Low Luminosity AGN'
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmology: theory-quasars: general-galaxies: high redshift
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The quasar luminosity function (QLF) describes the space density of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) as a function of luminosity and redshift. The QLF encodes information on quantities like the black hole number density per unit mass, and the gas accretion efficiency. It therefore constrains physical models of AGN and of super massive black hole formation. The optical (B-band) QLF at $z \lsim 4$ has been determined accurately for luminosities[^2] exceeding $L_B \gsim 10^{11}L_{B,\odot}$ from the 2dF quasar survey (which corresponds to absolute magnitudes $M_B<-22$, Boyle et al. 2000; Croom et al. 2004). At higher redshifts the optical luminosity function of luminous quasars has been determined from quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [@Fan01] at $M_B\sim-27$. In addition, deep [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM*]{} imaging has constrained the X-ray QLF at X-Ray luminosities as low as $L_X=10^{42}-10^{44}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ [@Barger03; @Cowie03; @Hasinger05]. Following @Haiman98, @Wyithe03 have used the X-Ray QLF to constrain the B-band QLF down to fainter optical luminosities ($M_B
\sim -22$) at $z \gsim 4$. At these redshifts, no observational constraints exist on the optical QLF at fainter luminosities. However, the details of the existence and evolution of low luminosity AGN is crucial for our understanding of the growth of low mass black holes, and of their role in the formation of super massive black holes.
In this paper we demonstrate how existing Ly$\alpha$ surveys may be used to constrain the B-Band QLF at absolute magnitudes as low as $M_B =-16$. Existing wide-field narrow-band surveys [e.g. @Rhoads00] are optimised to detect Ly$\alpha$ line emission from high-redshift galaxies, and in order to maximise their detection rate, deeply image fields as large as 1 deg$^{2}$ on the sky [e.g. @Taniguchi05]. The combination of wide field and deep images, together with concentration on a strong emission line, rather than continuum, allows these wide-field narrow-band surveys to put stringent constraints on the number density of AGN with $M_B\sim -19$. Constraints on even fainter AGN are derived from deep spectroscopic surveys of regions around intermediate redshift clusters of galaxies, which offer an ultra-deep view into the high redshift universe (z=4.5-6.7) through strong gravitational lensing (with magnification factors of 10-1000, Santos et al, 2004).
Throughout this paper, the terms AGN and quasar are interchangeable and refer to broad lined active galactic nuclei, also known as ’Type I’ AGN. The outline of this paper is as follows: In § \[sec:lum\] we relate the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity of a quasar to its B-band luminosity. In § \[sec:lya\] we summarise constraints on the number density of Ly$\alpha$ emitters at high redshift, and discuss the abundance of quasars among these sources. We show how this existing data constrains the faint end of the quasar luminosity function. In § \[sec:phys\] we calculate the observable Ly$\alpha$ properties of AGN and use these to physically interpret our results. We also model the appearance of faint AGN in the optical and X-ray bands. Finally, in § \[sec:discuss\] we discuss the possible cosmological implications of our work, before presenting our conclusions in § \[sec:conclusion\]. We use the [*WMAP*]{} cosmological parameters: $(\Omega_m, \Omega_{\Lambda}, \Omega_b, h,
Y_{\rm He})$ =$(0.3,0.7,0.044,0.7,0.24)$ [@Spergel03] throughout the paper.
The Relation between Ly$\alpha$ and B-band Luminosities in AGN. {#sec:lum}
===============================================================
There is a very simple relation between the Ly$\alpha$ and B-band luminosities of a quasar. The continuum flux density of a quasar may be denoted either by $F_E$ ( in units of erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ erg $^{-1}$) or $F_\lambda$ ( in units of erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Å$^{-1}$). These quantities are related by the equality $\lambda F_{\lambda}=EF_E$, where $E=h_p c/\lambda$ is the photon energy and $h_p$ is Planck’s constant. Assuming the Ly$\alpha$ line has an equivalent width EW, the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity of a quasar becomes $$L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}={\rm EW} {\hspace{1mm}}F_{\lambda}|_{\lambda=1200\AA}=\Big{(}\frac{{\rm EW}}{1200 {\hspace{1mm}}\AA}\Big{)}[\lambda F_{\lambda}]_{\lambda=1200 \AA}.
\label{eq:llya1}$$ The B-band luminosity can be estimated from
$$L_B={\rm BW} {\hspace{1mm}}F_{\lambda}|_{\lambda=4400\AA}=\Big{(}\frac{800}{4400}\Big{)}[\lambda F_{\lambda}]_{\lambda=4400 \AA},$$
where we assumed the B-band filter to be centered on $\lambda=4400$ Åwith a width of BW$=800$ Å. The ratio of $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}$ and $L_B$ becomes
$$\frac{L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}}{L_B}=5.5\Big{(}\frac{{\rm EW}}{1200{\hspace{1mm}}\AA}\Big{)}\frac{[E F_{E}]_{\lambda=1200 \AA}}{[E F_E]_{\lambda=4400 \AA}}.
\label{eq:lyalb}$$
@Sazonov04 have computed the characteristic angle-averaged, broad-band spectral energy distribution of the typical quasar. They show that in the range $E=1-10$ eV, $EF_E \propto E^{\gamma}$, with $\gamma=0.4$. The exact value of $\gamma$ varies between individual objects. @Fan01 found that at $z\sim 4.5$ the spread in $\gamma$ could be represented by a Gaussian with $\sigma_\gamma \sim 0.3$ in their sample of 39 quasars.
The intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width for AGN is uncertain. @Charlot93 showed that AGN which are completely surrounded by neutral hydrogen gas have Ly$\alpha$ EWs of $827
\alpha^{-1}(3/4)^{\alpha} $ Å, where $\alpha$ is the spectral index blueward of the Ly$\alpha$ line. According to the template of @Sazonov04, $\alpha=1.7$, which yields EW $\sim 300$ Å. However, the observed Ly$\alpha$ EWs of bright AGN are typically in the range 50-150 Å, which could be attributed to dust attenuation of the Ly$\alpha$ line [see @Charlot93 and references therein] and/or scattering in the IGM (see § \[sec:lyaagn\]). @Fan01 represent the distribution of observed EW by a Gaussian centered on EW$=50$ Å, with $\sigma_{\rm EW}=14$ Å. [^3] In § \[sec:lyaagn\] and Appendix \[app:trans\] we have argued in detail that $\sim 50\%$ of all Ly$\alpha$ photons emitted by AGN is transmitted through the IGM (at $z < 6$; at $z=6.5$ this number is $\sim 30-40 \%$). If half of the emitted Ly$\alpha$ photons are scattered in the IGM, then the intrinsic distribution of EW should be centered on EW$=100$ Åwith $\sigma_{\rm EW}=30$ Å. The distribution of the ratio $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}/L_B$ was obtained via Monte-Carlo, under the assumption that: 1) the slope $\gamma$ follows a Gaussian distribution with $\gamma=0.4 \pm 0.3$; and 2) the Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width follows a Gaussian distribution with EW=$100 \pm 30$ Å, which is truncated at EW$=0$ and 600 Å. The ratio $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}/L_B$ and it’s $95\%$ confidence interval are found to be
$$\frac{L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}}{L_B}=0.7^{+1.2}_{-0.4}.
\label{eq:key}$$
Thus, within the uncertainties we may approximate [*the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity of an AGN as being equal to its B-band luminosity*]{}.
It is important to stress that the results that are derived in this paper assume that this ratio does not change toward lower AGN luminosity. This effectively means that we assume the AGN’s Ly$\alpha$ EW is independent of luminosity. However, observations of both high and low redshift quasars and Seyfert I galaxies revealed that the EW of the CIV 1549 line increased toward lower luminosities. The increase of the EW in certain emission lines in spectra of AGN toward lower AGN luminosities is known as the ’Baldwin-Effect’. This effect, however, has not been observed for the Ly$\alpha$ line [@Baldwin]. We point out that even if the Baldwin-Effect were applicable, then this would increase the ratio $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}/L_B$. For a fixed Ly$\alpha$ luminosity, we would then be able to probe AGN with fainter $L_B$, which would strengthen the main results presented in this paper.
Constraining the Faint end of QLF using Ly$\alpha$ Surveys. {#sec:lya}
===========================================================
The Number Density of AGN at $z=4.5-6.5$. {#sec:numden}
-----------------------------------------
Several Ly$\alpha$ surveys have derived the number density, $n_{{\rm
Ly}\alpha}$, of Ly$\alpha$ emitters brighter than a minimum detectable Ly$\alpha$ luminosity, $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm,c}}$. Examples include surveys at $z=4.5$ [@Dawson04], $z=5.7$ [e.g. @Hu04; @Ouchi05; @Shima06], $z=6.5$ [@Taniguchi05; @Kashi06] and $z>4.5$ [@Santos04lens]. Results from surveys that were used for this paper are summarised in columns 1-4 in Table \[table:numden\].
[|lcccccc|]{} z & $f_{\rm min}$ & $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm,c}}$ & $n_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}$ & $n_{\rm AGN}$ & $L_{\rm B,min}$ & $\Psi(L_{\rm B,min},z)$\
&($10^{-18}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) &($10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$) & ($10^{-4}$ Mpc$^{-3}$) & ($10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$) & $10^9L_{B,\odot} $&($10^{-6}$ Gpc$^{-3}$ L$_B^{-1}$)\
$4.5^{1}$ & 16 & 6& 1.6 & $<2$ & 20 & $<0.08$ ($\beta=1.1$)\
$5.7^2$ & 6& 4& 3.9& $< 58$ & 14 & $<2.6$ ($\beta=1.6$)\
$6.6^{3}$ & 4.1& 6& 1.2& $< 35$ & 20 & $< 1.1$ ($\beta=1.6$)\
$>4.5^{4}$& 0.1& 0.06 & $10^{2.0}$& $< 10^{4.8}$ & 0.7 & $< 10^{4.9}$ ($\beta=1.6$)\
$>4.5^{4}$ & 0.3& 0.2& $10^{1.5}$& $< 10^{4.1}$& 2.2 & $< 10^{3.7}$ ($\beta=1.6$)\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Since the detected Ly$\alpha$ emitters are generally identified as galaxies, the number density of quasars with $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}>$ $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm,c}}$ must be smaller than $n_{{\rm
Ly}\alpha}$. @Dawson04 find that no AGN are among the Ly$\alpha$ emitters in their sample in a total comoving volume of $1.5
\times 10^6$ Mpc$^3$. This finding was based on the absence of broad line emitters in both their narrow band survey[^4] and in follow-up high resolution spectra of 18 confirmed $z=4.5$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters. Furthermore, these objects lacked high–ionization state UV emission lines, symptomatic of AGN activity. Additionally, deep X-Ray observations of 101 Ly$\alpha$ emitters by Wang et al. (2004, also see Malhotra et al. 2003), revealed no X-ray emission from any individual source at a $3-\sigma$ detection limit of $F_{0.5-10.0{\rm
keV}}=6.6 \times 10^{-16}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ (but this may not be that surprising as we discuss in § \[sec:Xray\]). The absence of AGN in the survey volume yields an upper limit on the number of AGN, $N_{\rm AGN} \leq 3$ at the $95\%$ confidence level.[^5]
Similarly, @Ouchi05 found 515 objects within their survey volume of $1.3 \times 10^6$ Mpc$^3$ that are probable $z=5.7$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters. Follow-up spectroscopy of 19 emitters revealed that their spectra are too narrow ($v_{\rm FWHM} \lsim 500$ km s$^{-1}$) to be AGN. If the sample of 515 detections contains a fraction of AGN, $f_{\rm AGN}\lsim 0.15$, then the probability that a random sample of 19 contains no AGN is $(1-f_{\rm AGN})^{19}\gsim 0.05$. This yields a $2-\sigma$ upper limit on the number of AGN, $N_{\rm AGN} \lsim 515f_{\rm AGN}=75$.
@Taniguchi05 and @Kashi06 found 53 candidate $z=6.5$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters within their survey volume of $2 \times 10^5$ Mpc$^3$ centered on the Subaru Deep Field. Follow-up spectroscopy of 22 candidates revealed a combined 17 objects that are likely to be $z=6.5$ Ly$\alpha$ emitters. The line widths of their objects lie in the range 180-480 km s$^{-1}$. This, in combination with the lack of NV $\lambda=1640$ Åemission, strongly suggests no AGN are in their sample. Following the discussion above, if the sample of 53 candidate Ly$\alpha$ emitters contains a fraction of AGN, $f_{\rm AGN}\lsim 0.12$, then the probability that a random sample of 22 contains no AGN is $(1-f_{\rm AGN})^{22}\gsim 0.05$. This yields a $2-\sigma$ upper limit on the number of AGN, $N_{\rm AGN} \lsim 53f_{\rm AGN}=7$.
In their deep, blind, spectroscopic survey of regions that utilized strong-lensing magnification by $z=0.2$ clusters of galaxies, @Santos04lens found 3-5 Ly$\alpha$ emitting objects at $z>4.5$ at unlensed flux levels as low as $\sim 3 \times 10^{-19}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. The line widths of these sources are not reported, but @Ellis01 found the line width of one $z=5.6$ Ly$\alpha$ emitter to be $\lsim 100$ km s$^{-1}$, and is therefore unlikely an AGN. However, to be conservative, our upper limits are derived under the assumption that all these Ly$\alpha$ emitters could be AGN.
For each survey, we obtain upper limits on the number density of AGN from $n_{\rm AGN}\lsim N_{\rm AGN} V_{\rm survey}^{-1}$. The detection limit of each survey, $f_{\rm min}$, is converted to its minimum Ly$\alpha$ detectable Ly$\alpha$ luminosity, $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm, c}}$, using $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm, c}}$= $4\pi d_L^2(z){\hspace{1mm}}f_{\rm lim}/(\mathcal{T})$. Here, $d_L(z)$ is the luminosity distance to redshift z and $\mathcal{T}$ is the mean transmitted Ly$\alpha$ flux from the AGN through the IGM. As will be discussed in § \[sec:lyaagn\], we assume that for AGN $\mathcal{T}=0.5$ when $z < 6$ and $\mathcal{T}=0.3$ when $z = 6.5$. Values of $f_{\rm lim}$ are given in Table \[table:numden\]. For the survey performed by @Santos04lens, the calculation of $n_{\rm AGN}$ is far more complicated, since both the detection limit and survey volume are functions of the position on the sky and of redshift. Fortunately, @Santos04lens fully account for this and provide number densities of Ly$\alpha$ emitters with $L>L_{\rm crit}$, for several values of $L_{\rm crit}$. We obtain upper limits on $n_{\rm QSO}$ from the upper boundary of the 95% confidence levels on their quoted $n_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}(L>L_{\rm crit})$ for $\log[L_{\rm crit}]=40.5$ and $41$ (their Figure 12. Our $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm, c}}=2L_{\rm crit}$ because we account for 50% loss of flux in the IGM). Because the Ly$\alpha$ emission lines of AGN are expected to be much broader than those of galaxies (typically by a factor of $\sim 10$, see § \[sec:lyaagn\]), these are more difficult to detect in spectroscopic surveys, in which the AGN’s Ly$\alpha$ flux would be spread out over $\sim 10$ times as many frequency bins. This would increase the total noise by a factor of $\sim \sqrt(10)$. To represent the decreased sensitivity to Ly$\alpha$ emission lines emitted by AGN, the value of $L_{\rm B,min}$ shown in Table \[table:numden\] was obtained from $L_{\rm B,min}=\sqrt(10) L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm ,c}}/0.7$.
A summary of the minimum detectable Ly$\alpha$ luminosity, $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm, c}}$ and our constraints on the number densities of AGN at $z=4.5$, $5.7$ and $6.5$ is given in Table \[table:numden\]. By converting $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm,c}}$ to a minimum B-band luminosity $L_{\rm B,min}$ (Eq. \[eq:key\]), we are able to constrain the B-band QLF. This process is described in the following subsections.
Using the Number Density of AGN at $z=4.5-6.5$ to Constrain the QLF. {#sec:psi}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The luminosity function $\Psi(L_B,z)dL_B$ is defined as the number of quasars per unit comoving volume having rest-frame B-band luminosities in the range between $L_B$ and $L_B + dL_B$ at redshift z. The number density of AGN with $L_B$ $>$ $L_{\rm B,min}$ is then given by $$n_{\rm AGN}(L_{B}>L_{\rm B,min};z)=\int_{L_{\rm B,min}}^{\infty}\Psi(L_B,z)dL_B
\label{eq:nqso}$$ To constrain the luminosity function at $L_{\rm B,min}$ we must know the functional form of $\Psi(L_B,z)$, which is not constrained observationally at the redshift range of interest, $z \in
[4.5,6.5]$. We first constrain $\Psi(L_B,z)$ at $L_{\rm B,min}$ at $z > 5$ under the assumption that the faint end of the quasar luminosity function observed at lower redshifts applies here as well. This is followed by a self-consistent constraint on $\Psi(L_B,z)$ and its slope at $z=4.5$.
### Constraints on $\Psi(L_B,z)$ at $z>5$.
The following double power law provides a good representation of the observed quasar luminosity function at $z \leq 3$ [@Boyle00] $$\Psi(L_B,z)=\frac{\Psi_*/L_{*}(z)}{\big{(}\frac{L_B}{L*(z)} \big{)}^{\beta_h}+\big{(} \frac{L_B}{L*(z)}\big{)}^{\beta_l}}.
\label{eq:psiobs}$$ The slope at the bright and faint end of the luminosity function is $\beta_h=3.52$ and $\beta_l=1.66$, respectively. All redshift dependence lies in the transition luminosity $L_*(z)$. If the same parameterization holds at $z> 5$ and $L_{\rm B,min} \ll L_*(z)$, then the integral in Eq (\[eq:nqso\]) is dominated by the faint end of the luminosity function and the $\beta_h-$term may be omitted. Eq (\[eq:nqso\]) then becomes $$n_{\rm AGN}(L_{B}>L_{\rm B,min};z)=\frac{L_{\rm B,min}}{\beta_l-1}\Psi(L_{\rm B,min},z),
\label{eq:psinum}$$ which shows that the upper limit on $n_{\rm AGN}(L_{B}>L_{\rm
B,min};z)$ translates directly to an upper limit on $\Psi(L_{\rm
B,min},z)$. These constraints are summarised in the last column of Table \[table:numden\] (at $z=5.7$ and $z=6.5$).
In Figure \[fig:lumfunc\] we compare the above constraint on the quasar B-band luminosity function (denoted by the [*filled circles*]{} at log$[L_B/L_{\rm B,\odot}]\lsim 10$ in central and right panel), with data at higher luminosities. Each panel corresponds to the redshift printed in the upper right corner of the figure. The [*open triangles*]{} at log$[L_B/L_{\rm B,\odot}]>13$ represent data from Fan et al (2001b). The [*open squares*]{} are derived from the X-Ray data presented by @Barger03, who plot the number density of AGN as a function of redshift in the rest frame soft X-Ray (E=0.5-2.0 keV) luminosity range $L_X=10^{43}-10^{44}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (hereafter, the ’faint bin’) and $L_X=10^{44}-10^{45}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ (hereafter, the ’bright bin’). For the @Sazonov04 template spectrum, the ratio of the rest frame soft X-Ray (denoted by $L_X$) to blue band luminosity is $L_X/L_B\sim
0.5$. The faint and bright bins of @Barger03 therefore constitute the range $L_B=5\times 10^{10}-5\times 10^{11}L_{B,\odot}$ and $L_B=5\times 10^{11}-5\times 10^{12}L_{B,\odot}$, respectively. To convert the X-Ray number density to the luminosity function, $\Psi(L_B,z)$, we simply divided $n_{\rm faint}$ by the total luminosity width of the bin. We use $n_{\rm faint}=(1.0^{+3.0}_{-0.8}) \times 10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ in both bins. The error-bars on our constraints reflect the uncertainty in the exact ratio of $L_B/L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}$ (Eq. \[eq:key\]) and denote the $95\%$ confidence levels. Note that upper limits on $\Psi(L_{\rm B,min},z)$ as a function of $L_{\rm B,min}$ have power law slopes of $-1$ (see Eq. \[eq:psinum\]). The constraints from the wide field surveys lie on or slightly below the model predictions of @Wyithe03 (shown as the [*solid lines*]{}). This implies that the absence of $z=5.7$ and $z=6.5$ AGN in wide-field narrow-band surveys rules out this model at $\geq 95\%$ confidence levels at both redshifts, at these low luminosities.
### Constraints on $\Psi(L_B,z)$ at $z=4.5$. {#sec:selcon}
The above constraints at $z>5$ assumed that $\beta_l=1.66$. However, as will be discussed below, at $z=4.5$, extrapolation of this powerlaw from the X-Ray constraint at log$[L_{B}/L_{B,\odot}\sim 11]$ to $L_{\rm B,min}$, would have resulted in a number density of AGN that lies above the implied upper limit. To better constrain the luminosity function, $\Psi(L_{\rm B.min},z)$, and its slope at $z=4.5$, we combine the upper limit on the AGN number density from the Ly$\alpha$ survey with the AGN number densities derived from X-ray data [@Barger03; @Cowie03]. We use $n_{\rm bright}=(1.0 \pm 0.5) \times 10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ and $n_{\rm faint}=(3.3 \pm 1.3) \times 10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, which we obtained by interpolating between the $z=3.5$ and $z=5.7$ data points of @Barger03.
We assume the luminosity function, $\Psi(L_B,z)$ to be of the form $k L^{-\beta_l}$. The number density of AGN in the faint X-ray bin, $n_{\rm faint}$, fixes $k$ as a function of $\beta_l$. Extrapolating this luminosity function to lower luminosities, gives us the expected number density of AGN in the Ly$\alpha$ bin, $n_{\rm AGN}=$ $k\int_{L_{\rm B,min}}^{L_{\rm B, max}}dL{\hspace{1mm}}L^{-\beta_l}$. One of the selection criteria @Dawson04 use to select $z=4.5$ Ly$\alpha$ emitter candidates states that a $z=4.5$ candidate must not be detected in the $B_W$ band of the NOAO deep wide-field survey [@Malhotra02]. We show in § \[sec:broadagn\] that this implies that $L_{\rm B,max}\sim 2 \times 10^{11}L_{B,\odot}$. For a fixed $\beta_l$, we obtain a unique $n_{\rm AGN}$. Since $n_{\rm AGN}$ is only known as an upper limit, this allows us to put an upper limit on $\beta_l$ as follows.
In the absence of AGN within the volume probed by the Ly$\alpha$ survey, the probability that the true number lies between $\mu$ and $\mu+d\mu$ is given by $dP=$exp$(-\mu)d\mu$ (where we have assumed a Poisson distribution). This may be recast as
$$P(<\mu)=1-{\rm e}^{-\mu},$$
which gives the probability that the expected number of AGN within the survey volume is less than $\mu$. The expected number of AGN is given by
$$\mu=V_{\rm survey }\int_{L_{\rm B,min}}^{L_{\rm B,max}} dL {\hspace{1mm}}\Psi(L,z).$$
For a fixed $L_{\rm B,max}$, we find that $\mu$ is a function of $L_{\rm B,min}$, $n_{\rm faint}$ and $\beta_l$ only. In the [*left panel*]{} of Figure \[fig:dPdB\] the [*thin black solid line*]{} shows the probability $P(< \beta_l)$ as a function of $\beta_l$, for the fiducial values of $L_{\rm B,min}=L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm,c}}$ and $n_{\rm faint}=3.3 \times
10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$. In this case $P(< 0.72)=0.95$, i.e. the slope is $\beta_l \lsim 0.72$ at the $95 \%$ confidence level. To illustrate the dependence of $P(< \beta_l)$ on $L_{\rm B,min}$, and $n_{\rm faint}$, we have also plotted $P(< \beta_l)$ for $(n_{\rm
faint}, L_{\rm B,min})=(2.0 \times 10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, $L_{{\rm
Ly}\alpha{\rm,c}})$ ([*red dotted line*]{}) and $(3.3 \times 10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, $0.5 L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha{\rm,c}})$ ([*blue dashed line*]{}). The $2-\sigma$ upper limit on $\beta_l$ increases with decreasing $n_{\rm faint}$ and increasing $L_{\rm B,min}$. To eliminate the dependence of $P(< \beta_l)$ on $L_{\rm B,min}$ and $n_{\rm faint}$, we marginalise over these parameters
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{\rm marg}(< \beta_l)=\int dn_{\rm faint}\int dL_{\rm B,min}\frac{dP}{dn_{\rm faint}}\frac{dP}{dL_{\rm B,min}} \times \nonumber \\
\times [1-{\rm e}^{-\mu(n_{\rm faint},L_{\rm B,min},\beta_l})],\end{aligned}$$
where $dP/dn_{\rm faint}$ and $dP/dL_{\rm B,min}$ are the probability distributions for $n_{\rm faint}$ and $L_{\rm B,min}$, respectively. We choose $dP/dn_{\rm faint}$ to be Gaussian with $n_{\rm faint}=(3.3 \pm 1.3)\times 10^{-6}$ Mpc$^{-3}$, and $dP/dL_{\rm
B,min}$ to be log normal with log$(L_{\rm B,min}/L_{B,\odot})=10.3 \pm
0.2$ (this range is motivated by the distribution in the ratio $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha}/L_B$, found from Eq. \[eq:key\] in § \[sec:lum\]). The marginalised constraint is given by the [*thick solid line*]{} in Figure \[fig:dPdB\], which shows that $\beta_l
\lsim 1.1$ at the $95 \%$ confidence level. The [*right panel*]{} of Figure \[fig:dPdB\] shows the expected value of $\Psi(L_{\rm
B,min},z)$ as a function of $\beta_l$. The constraint $\beta_l < 1.1$ yields log$[\Psi(L_{\rm B,min},z)]$ $<-7.1$ and is shown as the [*filled circle*]{}.
This $2-\sigma$ upper limit on $\Psi(L_{\rm B,min},z)$ at $z=4.5$ is also shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig:lumfunc\] as the [*filled circle*]{}. The [*open triangles*]{} at log$[L_B/L_{\rm B,\odot}]>13$ represent data from Fan et al (2001) and the [*open squares*]{} represent the X-ray constraints derived from the data presented by Barger et al. (2003) and Cowie et al. (2003). Figure \[fig:lumfunc\] implies that at $z=4.5$, the QLF flattens below log$(L_B/L_{B,\odot})\sim 11$, as may also be seen via the model quasar luminosity function from Wyithe & Loeb 2002 and 2003 (plotted as the [*black solid line*]{} in Fig. \[fig:lumfunc\]). It is worth pointing out how the exact marginalised constraint on $\beta_l$ depends on the assumed survey sensitivity. If we decrease/increase $f_{\rm lim}$ by a factor of 2 then $\beta_l < 0.8/1.4$ at the $95\%$ confidence level, respectively. The value of $\mathcal{P}_{\rm marg}(< 0.0)$ barely depends on $f_{\rm min}$. The decreased sensitivity corresponds approximately to the sensitivity limit reported by @Dawson04, while the increased sensitivity corresponds to the sensitivity derived from their actual faintest Ly$\alpha$ detections.
The constraints obtained so far only used the non-detection of broad line emitters in the narrow band survey. @Dawson04 also obtained spectra of 25 of their candidate LAEs. Below, we constrain $\Psi(L_{\rm B},z)$ using this spectroscopic data.
Constraints on $\Psi(L_B,z)$ at $z=4.5$ from Spectroscopic Follow-Up. {#sec:spec}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
@Dawson04 obtained follow-up high resolution spectra for 25 candidate LAEs. Of these 25 candidates, 18 were genuine $z=4.5$ objects and the other 7 were either not detected (6) or a lower redshift \[O II\] emitter (1). All 18 $z=4.5$ objects were identified as galaxies, based on 1) the observed narrow physical line widths of the Ly$\alpha$ lines ($\Delta v \lsim 500$ km s$^{-1}$, also see § \[sec:lyaagn\]), and 2) the lack high–ionization state UV emission lines, symptomatic of AGN activity, in their spectra. If the sample of 350 detections contains less than 10% AGN, $f_{\rm AGN}\lsim 0.1$, then the probability that a random sample of 25 contains no AGN is $\sim(1-f_{\rm AGN})^{25}\gsim 0.05$ (In § \[sec:Xray\] we show that $f_{\rm AGN}\lsim 0.1$ is consistent with the constraints imposed by the X-Ray observations of Wang et al. 2004). From the spectroscopic data alone, we can therefore put a $2-\sigma$ upper limit on the number of AGN within the original survey volume ($1.5 \times 10^6$ Mpc$^3$) at $N_{\rm AGN} \lsim 350f_{\rm AGN}=35$ down to a Ly$\alpha$ flux of $1.1 \times 10^{-17}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. Using Eq (\[eq:psinum\]) we obtain an upper limit on $\Psi(L_B,z)$, which is shown as the [*open circle*]{} in Figure \[fig:lumfunc\]. This constraint on $\Psi(L_{\rm B},z)$ is weaker than our original constraint, but still rules out the model luminosity function at $> 95\%$.
The Nature of Very Faint AGN and Their Observable Properties. {#sec:phys}
=============================================================
We have demonstrated how Ly$\alpha$ surveys may be used to constrain the (very) faint end of the quasar luminosity function. This constraint is purely empirical and we stress that so far no details of the process of gas accretion onto black holes have been assumed. The following discussion focuses on the nature of faint AGN (with log$[L_B/L_{\rm B,\odot}]\lsim 10$). First, we present a more general calculation of the observable Ly$\alpha$ properties of AGN. The result of this calculation allows us to determine the range of black hole masses probed by Ly$\alpha$ surveys and may be used to identify AGN among known Ly$\alpha$ emitters, especially in combination with our estimates for the observable properties of these faint AGN in the optical (§ \[sec:broadagn\]) and X-ray (§ \[sec:Xray\]) bands.
Observable Ly$\alpha$ Properties of Faint AGN {#sec:lyaagn}
---------------------------------------------
First we discuss the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ properties of AGN. The Kaspi relation [@Kaspi00; @Peterson04] relates the mass of the black hole powering the quasar, $M_{\rm BH}$, to its continuum luminosity at 5100 Å$$M_{\rm BH}=7.6\pm 1.3 \times 10^7 \Big{(} \frac{\lambda F_{\lambda}
(5100\AA)}{10^{44} {\rm erg} {\hspace{1mm}}{\rm s}^{-1}}\Big{)}^{0.79}{\hspace{1mm}}M_{\odot}.
\label{eq:kaspi}$$ We define the ratio $\mathcal{R} \equiv [\lambda F_{\lambda}$(1200 Å)\]/$[\lambda F_{\lambda}$(5100 Å)\]= $[E F_{E}$(1200 Å)\]/$[E
F_{E}$(5100 Å)\] (see § \[sec:lum\]). The template given by @Sazonov04 yields $\mathcal{R}=1.8$. For a given Ly$\alpha$ EW, the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity is therefore uniquely determined by $M_{\rm
BH}$ through $$L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha,43}=1.6 {\hspace{1mm}}\Big{(}\frac{{\rm EW}}{100 {\rm \AA}} \Big{)}\Big{(}\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{7.6 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}}\Big{)}^{1.3},
\label{eq:lyalum}$$ where $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha,43}$ is in units of $10^{43}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. The Ly$\alpha$ emission lines from AGN are broader than those of galaxies. @Kaspi00 and @Peterson04 found the Half Width at Half Maximum (HWHM) of the Balmer lines to be related to the continuum luminosity at 5100 Å. If the same relation holds for the Ly$\alpha$ line, then its HWHM is given by $$v_{\rm HWHM}=2 \times 10^{3}\Big{(}\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{7.6 \times 10^7 M_{\odot}}\Big{)}^{-0.34} {\hspace{1mm}}{\rm km}{\hspace{1mm}}{\rm s}^{-1}.
\label{eq:vfwhm}$$ Note that the observations presented in @Kaspi00 (their Figure 7) suggest that $v_{\rm HWHM}$ does not increase beyond $v_{\rm
HFHM}\sim 3 \times 10^3$ km s$^{-1}$ at low masses.
To obtain the AGNs’ observed properties in the Ly$\alpha$ line from the above relations, we require knowledge of the fraction of transmitted Ly$\alpha$-flux through the IGM as a function of frequency. We first focus on the observed Ly$\alpha$ properties of AGN at $z=4.5$ and $z=5.7$. Although the universe is fully reionised at $z < 6$ [e.g. @Fan02], a trace quantity of neutral hydrogen is sufficient to scatter Ly$\alpha$ blueward of the Ly$\alpha$ line center out of our line of sight. For this reason the IGM, to first order, erases the blue half of the Ly$\alpha$ line, so that the IGM transmission is $\mathcal{T}=0.5$. Various refinements of this scenario are possible. Infall of the IGM around massive objects causes the IGM to erase a part of the red side of the Ly$\alpha$ line as well [@Barkana04], which reduces $\mathcal{T}$. On the other hand, the proximity effect around these fainter AGN increases $\mathcal{T}$. These two effects counteract each other, and ignoring both does not add a significant error to our estimate of $\mathcal{T}$. This is especially true when considering the large width of the Ly$\alpha$ line emitted by AGN. When the IGM erases the blue half of the Ly$\alpha$ line, the observed $v_{\rm HWHM}$ is reduced by a factor of 2 relative to the value in Eq (\[eq:vfwhm\]). Note that $v_{\rm HWHM}=1500$ km s$^{-1}$ corresponds to an observed FWHM of $(1+z)2v_{\rm HWHM}/c \sim 66\AA$ at $z=4.5$ (this value was used in § \[sec:numden\]). Note that one has to be careful not to confuse the observed FWHM of the Ly$\alpha$ line with its EW (it may be particularly confusing since the observed rest-frame EW of AGN are $50$ Å, comparable to the value of the observed FWHM here).
At $z=6.5$, the IGM is believed to contain a significant fraction of neutral hydrogen [@Wyithe04; @Mesinger04; @Fan06]. For Ly$\alpha$ sources embedded in a neutral IGM, the damping wing of the Gunn-Peterson trough can extend to the red side of the line and erase a significant fraction of the total Ly$\alpha$ flux. However, this effect is reduced when the Ly$\alpha$ source is surrounded by an HII region [@CenHaiman00; @MadauRees00]. Moreover, sources with sufficiently broad emission lines ($v_{\rm HWHM}>300$ km s$^{-1}$) can remain detectable even in the absence of such an HII region [@Haiman02]. In Appendix \[app:trans\] we show that a representative number for the IGM transmission $\mathcal{T}$ for faint AGN embedded in a neutral IGM at $z=6.5$ is $\mathcal{T}=0.3$ and that the observed $v_{\rm HWHM}$ is reduced, again by a factor of $\sim$2 relative to the value in Eq (\[eq:vfwhm\]). Furthermore, we show that the Gunn Peterson damping wing may cause the observed line center of AGN at $z=6.5$ to be redshifted by up to $\sim 2000$ km s$^{-1}$ relative to other emission lines (see Appendix \[app:trans\]).
Next, we write the total detectable Ly$\alpha$ flux of AGN as $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\alpha}&=&\frac{L_{\alpha}}{4 \pi d_L^2(z)}\mathcal{T}\nonumber\\
&\approx& 4 \times 10^{-17}\Big{(}\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{7.6 \times 10^7} \Big{)}^{1.3}
\nonumber \\
&\times& \Big{(}\frac{\mathcal{T}}{0.5}\Big{)}\Big{(}\frac{{\rm EW}}{100 \AA} \Big{)} \Big{(}\frac{1+z}{6} \Big{)}^{-2.8} {\hspace{1mm}}{\rm erg} {\hspace{1mm}}{\rm s}^{-1} {\hspace{1mm}}{\rm cm}^{-2}
\label{eq:fa}\end{aligned}$$ in which $\mathcal{T}\sim 0.5$ for $z < 6$ and $\mathcal{T}\sim 0.3$ for $z=6.5$. To allow $f_{\alpha}$ to be written as a simple function of $(1+z)$, we approximated the luminosity distance by $d_L(z)=$ $3.6 \times 10^{4}([1+z]/5)^{1.4}$ Mpc, which is within $< 6\%$ of its actual value in the range $z=3-10$. Eq (\[eq:fa\]) shows that existing Ly$\alpha$ surveys could have detected AGN powered by black holes with masses of $M_{\rm
BH}\sim 10^6-10^7 M_{\odot}$ at $z=4.5-6.5$.
Equation (\[eq:fa\]) assumed that the Kaspi-relations derived from observations of luminous AGN also relate the black-hole mass to the Ly$\alpha$ luminosity for low luminosity AGN. Alternatively, if we assume that faint AGN are powered by less massive black holes accreting at their Eddington limit, then these black-holes are up to $\sim 5$ orders of magnitude less massive than those of the observed SDSS quasars, yielding $M_{\rm BH}\sim$ a few $10^4
M_{\odot}$. Combined with the above argument, we therefore conclude that existing Ly$\alpha$ surveys could have detected AGN powered by black holes with masses in the range $M_{\rm BH}=10^4-10^7 M_{\odot}$ at $z=4.5-6.5$. Here, the lower end of this mass range is probed only by the spectroscopic surveys of gravitationally lensed regions.
{width="8cm"}
AB-magnitudes of Faint AGN {#sec:broadagn}
--------------------------
Using the template spectrum for AGN given by @Sazonov04, we calculate the apparent AB-magnitude of faint AGN as a function of observed wavelength. The AB-magnitude of an object with flux density $F_{\nu}$ (in ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Hz$^{-1}$) is $$m_{AB}=-48.6-2.5\log(F_{\nu}).$$ At rest frame energies $E < 10$ eV and $E > 10$ eV, the AGN continuum follows the power-laws $F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-0.6}$ and $F_{\nu}
\propto \nu^{-1.7}$, respectively [@Sazonov04]. For an AGN whose Ly$\alpha$ flux is $f_{\alpha,17}\times 10^{-17}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, the apparent magnitude may then be written as $$m_{AB}(\lambda)=26.4-2.5\Big{[}\log\Big{(}\frac{5.5}{1+z} \Big{)}+\log
\mathcal{K}(\lambda)\Big{]}, \nonumber$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal K}(\lambda)&=&
\Big{(}\frac{f_{\alpha,17}}{2} \Big{)}
\Big{(}\frac{100 \AA}{{\rm EW}} \Big{)}
\Big{(}\frac{0.5}{\mathcal{T}} \Big{)}
\Big{(}\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{\alpha,z}}\Big{)}^{0.6} {\hspace{1mm}}\lambda > \lambda_{\alpha,z}, \nonumber\\
&=&\langle {\rm e}^{-\tau} \rangle
\Big{(}\frac{f_{\alpha,17}}{2} \Big{)}
\Big{(}\frac{100 \AA}{{\rm EW}} \Big{)}
\Big{(}\frac{0.5}{\mathcal{T}} \Big{)}
\Big{(}\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_{\alpha,z}}\Big{)}^{1.7}
{\hspace{1mm}}\lambda < \lambda_{\alpha,z}.\nonumber\\
\label{eq:broadagn}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\lambda_{\alpha,z}$ is the redshifted Ly$\alpha$ wavelength ($\lambda_{\alpha,z}=1216[1+z]$ Å).
In Figure \[fig:mab\] we plot $m_{AB}$ as a function of observed wavelength, $\lambda$ in the range $\lambda=2000-10000$ Åfor three values of the total flux in the Ly$\alpha$ line, $f_{\alpha,17}=14$ ([*black solid line*]{}), $2$ ([*red dashed line*]{}) and $0.4$ ([*blue dotted line*]{}), all at $z=4.5$. We assumed the Ly$\alpha$ equivalent width to be EW$=140$ Å. The break at $\lambda=6700$ Åis the Lyman break caused by the IGM; the Ly$\alpha$ forest reduces the mean flux blueward of the Ly$\alpha$ line by a factor of $\langle {\rm e}^{-\tau} \rangle$. This factor has been determined observationally and is $\langle {\rm
e}^{-\tau} \rangle=0.25$ at $z=4.5$ [e.g. @Fan02]. Figure \[fig:mab\] (and Eq. 18) shows that AGN with $f_{\alpha} \gsim f_{\rm max}= 1.4 \times 10^{-16}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ have a $B_W$ apparent magnitude of $m_{AB}\lsim
26.6$ ($\lambda \sim 4400$ Å). These AGN would have been detected at the $\gsim 5-\sigma$ level in the $B_W$ band of the NOAO deep wide-field survey [@Januzzi99 this detection limit is indicated by the [*thick horizontal line*]{} at $m_{AB}=26.6$]. Since one of the selection criteria @Dawson04 use to select $z=4.5$ Ly$\alpha$ emitter candidates states that a $z=4.5$ candidate must not be detected in the $B_W$ band of the NOAO deep wide-field survey [@Malhotra02], AGN with $f_{\alpha} \gsim f_{\rm max}=1.4 \times 10^{-16}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ would not have made it into the sample. Therefore, with the current selection criteria, the Ly$\alpha$ survey performed by @Dawson04 only probes AGN in the luminosity range $L_{\rm B} \in [L_{\rm B,min},L_{\rm B,max}]$, with $L_{\rm B,max}\sim 2 \times 10^{11}L_{B,\odot}$ (this luminosity was used in § \[sec:selcon\]).
X-Ray Emission from Faint AGN {#sec:Xray}
-----------------------------
X-Rays provide a reliable pointer to AGN activity. Using the @Sazonov04 template, we calculate the ratio of detectable Ly$\alpha$ and X-Ray flux (in the observed 0.5-10.0 keV band) $$\frac{f_{\alpha}}{f_X}\sim 0.05 \Big{(}\frac{\mathcal{T}}{0.5}\Big{)}\Big{(}\frac{{\rm EW}}{100{\hspace{1mm}}\AA}\Big{)}.$$ This ratio changes by less than $\sim 10\%$ between $z=4.5-6.5$. The total X-Ray flux in the observers’ 0.5-10.0 keV band is $\sim 20$ times higher than the total Ly$\alpha$ flux. For example, an AGN with a detected Ly$\alpha$ flux of $2 \times 10^{-17}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ is expected to have an X-ray flux of $\sim 4 \times 10^{-16}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. This lies slightly below the quoted 3$-\sigma$ detection limit in the X-ray observations of individual Ly$\alpha$ emitter candidates presented by @Wang04 ($\sim 6.6 \times 10^{-16}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the 0.5-10.0 keV band). Therefore, even if AGN were in the sample, these X-ray observations would not necessarily have revealed them (§ \[sec:numden\]). Also, provided the fraction of AGN is $f_{\rm AGN} \lsim 0.1$ (§ \[sec:spec\]), these would not have appeared in the stacked X-ray image, since stacking 101 images increases the noise by $101^{1/2}$, whereas the X-Ray signal from AGN would increase by $f_{\rm AGN}\times 100\lsim 10$. The signal–to–noise ratio would thus be conserved at best.
Similarly, the total X-Ray flux in the observers’ 0.5-2.0 keV band is $\sim 4$ times higher than the total Ly$\alpha$ flux. It may come as a surprise then, that our constraints are fainter than those inferred from the [*Chandra Deep Field*]{}. The X-Ray detection threshold in the [*Chandra Deep Field North*]{} in the 0.5-2.0 keV band is $\sim
1.5 \times 10^{-17}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, which would correspond to a Ly$\alpha$ flux of $\sim 3\times 10^{-18}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, well below the sensitivity limit of $f_{\rm lim}\sim 1.1
\times 10^{-17}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the survey performed by @Dawson04. However, estimates of the photometric redshifts for the X-Ray sources require that they be bright enough to be detected in the Subaru Sloan z’ band (which is centered on $\lambda\sim 9000$ Å). This imposes a flux limit corresponding to AB magnitudes of the X-Ray sources in the Sloan z’ band that are below $\lsim 25.2$. Using the quasar template, we find that this excludes AGN with B-Band luminosities less than $6 \times 10^{10} L_{B,\odot}$, which agrees very well with the lower luminosity bound of the ’faint’ X-ray bin in § \[sec:selcon\].
The previous discussion demonstrates an observational bias against identification of high redshift faint AGN in deep X-Ray observations. Within narrow redshift windows, this bias could be alleviated by combining X-Ray observations with deep Ly$\alpha$ observations, since the detection of a Ly$\alpha$ line would determine the AGN’s redshift. Similarly, the bias against identifying bright AGN in wide field Ly$\alpha$ surveys (§ \[sec:broadagn\]) could be alleviated in combination with deep X-ray observations. These points illustrate the utility of combining deep X-Ray and Ly$\alpha$ observations to identify faint AGN, provided the sensitivities in each observation probe the same population of AGN.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
We have shown that at $z=4.5$ and below $M_{\rm B}\sim-20$, the quasar B-band luminosity function rises more slowly towards lower luminosities, [$\partial \log \Psi/\partial \log L_B$]{}$\gsim -1.1$ (95% confidence level), than has been observed at higher luminosities and lower redshifts, where [$\partial \log \Psi/\partial \log L_B$]{}$\sim -1.6$ [@Pei95; @Boyle00]. This flattening of the faint end of the luminosity function towards higher redshift is consistent with the recent work by @Hunt04, who found that [$\partial \log \Psi/\partial \log L_B$]{}$=-1.24 \pm 0.07$ at $z=3$. We find marginal evidence ($75\%$ confidence level) that, in fact, the luminosity function falls towards lower luminosities below $M_{\rm B}\sim-20$. This finding is in contrast to observations at higher luminosities. Moreover the observed number counts lie well below the model predictions of Wyithe & Loeb 2003 (Fig. \[fig:lumfunc\]). This may be explained in three ways:
1\) Our work has focused on the luminosity function of broad-lined AGN (Type I), which in the unified model for AGN are the same as Type II AGN (e.g. Norman et al, 2002), but unobscured by the thick absorbing torus. @Simpson05 has shown that the fraction of type I AGN increases with luminosity, which is supported theoretically by the ’receding torus’ model [e.g. @Lawrence91]. This would imply that a luminosity function that incorporates both type I and II AGN does not flatten as much at $z=4.5$ as shown in Figure \[fig:lumfunc\]. However, to fully explain the observed flattening of the luminosity function requires the fraction of type 1 AGN to decrease by $\sim 1-2$ orders of magnitude between log$[L_B/L_{B,\odot}]=10$ and $\sim 11.5$ . Since this luminosity dependence of the type I AGN fraction is much stronger than has been observed, this is very unlikely.
2\) Gas accretion onto black holes in the mass-range $M_{\rm BH}=10^6-10^7 M_{\odot}$ is suppressed. One origin of this suppression may be negative AGN feedback. AGN with log$[L_B/L_{\rm B,\odot}]=10.5$ are typically powered by black holes in the mass range $M_{\rm BH}\sim
10^{6} M_{\odot}$ to a few $10^{7} M_{\odot}$ (§ \[sec:lyaagn\]). According to the relation between $M_{\rm BH}$ and the circular velocity $v_{\rm circ}$ of the dark matter halo that hosts the black hole \[@Ferrarese00 [@Ferrarese02]\], this corresponds to $v_{\rm circ}=100-250$ km s$^{-1}$. For comparison, suppression of accretion due to a photoionised IGM at $z=4.5-6.5$ only occurs at $v_{\rm circ}=40-60$ km s$^{-1}$ [e.g. @Feedback]. However, @Dekel86 have shown that supernova driven gas loss as a result of the first burst of star formation becomes significant in halos with $v_{\rm circ} \lsim 100$ km s$^{-1}$. The latter feedback mechanism would therefore provide a more plausible explanation for the reduced gas accretion efficiency onto black holes in the mass range $M_{\rm
BH}\sim 10^{6} M_{\odot}-$ a few $10^{7} M_{\odot}$.
3\) The number of black holes in the range $M_{\rm BH}=10^5-10^7
M_{\odot}$ is lower than expected from the $M_{\rm BH}-v_{\rm
circ}$-relation by $\sim$ two orders of magnitude. @Haiman04 used the rareness of black holes with masses $M_{\rm BH} \lsim 10^7M_{\odot}$ as a possible explanation for their model of the luminosity function of radioloud quasars to overpredict the abundance of faint radio sources, by one-two orders of magnitude. The possible reduction in the number of black holes with masses $M_{\rm BH} \lsim 10^7M_{\odot}$, may reflect the existence of a minimum super massive black hole mass, as envisioned in some formation scenarios [e.g. @Haehnelt98 in which the minimum black hole mass would be $M_{\rm BH}=10^6M_{\odot}$].
Our finding that at $z=4.5$ the QLF flattens more than previously believed for log$[L_B/L_{B,\odot}]\lsim 11$ also implies that faint AGN contribute less photons to the ionising background than previously thought. However, this is only a small effect since the total ionising photon output from AGN per unit volume is $\propto \int
L\Psi(L,z)dL\propto \int L^{-\beta_l+1}dL$. For $\beta_l < 2$, this integral is dominated by luminous AGN. A more intriguing implication concerns miniquasars, which are quasars powered by black holes in the mass range $M_{\rm BH}=10-10^5 M_{\odot}$. It has been suggested that miniquasars could contribute significantly to the ionising background at high redshift [@Madau04; @Ricotti04]. However, if quasar activity decreases with decreasing black hole mass (as our results suggest), and if this trend continues into the miniquasar-realm, then it follows that miniquasars would not be efficient producers of ionizing radiation and would not have contributed significantly to the ionizing background. It is worth emphasising that this miniquasar-realm may be accessible with existing deep spectroscopic surveys of gravitationally lensed regions [@Santos04lens]. In these surveys, black holes with masses of $M_{\rm BH}\sim 10^4M_{\rm BH}$ can be detected, provided these are accreting at their Eddington limit (§ \[sec:lyaagn\]). Currently, the only observational constraints on the abundance of high redshift miniquasars are derived from the cosmic X-Ray and infrared backgrounds (Dijkstra et al. 2004b, Salvaterra et al. 2005).
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
Recent Ly$\alpha$ surveys have detected Ly$\alpha$ emitting objects from redshifts as high as $z=6.5$, and at luminosities as low as $10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ [e.g. @Santos04lens]. No evidence of AGN activity exists among these several hundred Ly$\alpha$ emitters [@Dawson04; @Wang04; @Taniguchi05]. Wide field Ly$\alpha$ surveys are designed to deeply image wide fields on the sky, yielding survey volumes in a narrow shell of redshift space as large as $10^5-10^6$ Mpc$^3$, while deep spectroscopic surveys of gravitationally lensed regions probe deeper into smaller volumes. The absence of AGN within these fields can place a tight upper limit on the number density of AGN with Ly$\alpha$ luminosities exceeding the surveys detection thresholds, $L_{{\rm Ly}\alpha,{\rm
c}}$.
In § \[sec:lum\] we have shown empirically that the Ly$\alpha$ luminosities of AGN equal their B-band luminosities to within a factor of a few (Eq. \[eq:key\]). As a result, deep Ly$\alpha$ surveys can be used to obtain upper limits on the number density of AGN with B-Band luminosities exceeding $L_{\rm B,min}\sim 1.4 L_{{\rm
Ly}\alpha,{\rm c}}$. When expressed in B-band solar luminosities, $L_{\rm B,min}$ is $\sim10^{8.5}L_{\rm B,\odot}$ (which corresponds to an absolute magnitude of $M_B=-16$). In § \[sec:lyaagn\] we demonstrated that such AGN are expected to be powered by black holes with masses in the range $M_{\rm BH}=10^4-10^7 M_{\odot}$ at $z=4.5-6.5$.
We derive upper limits on AGN number densities and constrain the quasar B-band luminosity function $\Psi(L_{\rm B,min},z)$ at a luminosity $L_{\rm
B,min}$. The non-detection of AGN among $z=4.5-6.5$ LAEs rules out the model predictions by Wyithe & Loeb (2003), which succesfully reproduce the brighter end of the observed quasar luminosity function at $z=2-6$, at $\geq 95\%$ confidence levels at all redshifts. At $z=4.5$, we find that $\partial$log$\Psi/\partial$log$L_B \geq -1.6$, the value observed at lower redshifts, for log$[L_B/L_{B,\odot}] \lsim 11$ at the $98\%$ confidence level (Fig \[fig:dPdB\]). We find marginal evidence that at these luminosities, the luminosity function rises with luminosity, corresponding to a powerlaw slope $>0$ (75% confidence level). In other words, the QLF may increase with $L_B$ at these faint luminosities, in contrast to observations of more luminous AGN. These results represent the faintest observational constraints on the quasar luminosity function at these redshifts to date.
We have found that models of the quasar luminosity function which are successful in reproducing the bright end of the quasar luminosity function predict more AGN to be present than are observed, by up to two orders of magnitude (Fig. \[fig:lumfunc\]) at $z\sim4.5$. These results imply either that accretion onto lower mass black holes is less efficient than onto their more massive counterparts, or that the number of black holes powering AGN with $M_B\gsim-20$ is lower than expected from the $M_{\rm BH}-\sigma$ relation by one-two orders of magnitude. Extrapolating from reverberation-mapping studies suggests that these black holes would have $M_{\rm BH}=10^6-10^7 M_{\odot}$.
Our work has demonstrated the effectiveness of Ly$\alpha$ surveys in constraining the faint end of the quasar B-band luminosity function. Deeper and larger surveys will allow for a better determination of its slope, and whether indeed the quasar luminosity function rises with luminosity for $M_B\gsim-20$ at $z=4.5$, and at other redshifts. These constraints will offer new insights on the growth of low mass black holes and their relation to the known super massive black holes. To help identify AGN among observed Ly$\alpha$ emitters, we have modeled the observable properties of the Ly$\alpha$ line for high redshift, faint AGN. Using the empirical Kaspi-relations, we estimate that the observable Ly$\alpha$ line widths (Half Width at Half Maximum) of faint AGN will be $\sim 1500$ km s$^{-1}$. For AGN embedded in a neutral medium the peak of the Ly$\alpha$ line is redshifted up to $2000$ km s$^{-1}$ relative to the true line center (§ \[sec:lyaagn\]). To facilitate the identification of these faint AGN, we have estimated their observable properties in the visible (§ \[sec:broadagn\], Fig \[fig:mab\]) and X-Ray bands (§ \[sec:Xray\]). We caution that selection criteria used in Ly$\alpha$ surveys to select candidate high redshift Ly$\alpha$ emitters currently introduce a bias against detecting AGN with log$[L_B/L_{B,\odot}] \gsim 11.3$ (§ \[sec:broadagn\]), corresponding to the faintest AGN identified in the Chandra Deep Fields.
[**Acknowledgments**]{} Our research is supported by the Australian Research Council. The authors would like to thank Colin Norman for helpful discussions and Zoltán Haiman for useful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
A. J., [Cowie]{} L. L., [Capak]{} P., [Alexander]{} D. M., [Bauer]{} F. E., [Brandt]{} W. N., [Garmire]{} G. P., [Hornschemeier]{} A. E., 2003, [ApJL]{}, 584, L61
R., 2004, [MNRAS]{}, 347, 59
B. J., [Shanks]{} T., [Croom]{} S. M., [Smith]{} R. J., [Miller]{} L., [Loaring]{} N., [Heymans]{} C., 2000, [MNRAS]{}, 317, 1014
R., [Haiman]{} Z., 2000, [ApJL]{}, 542, L75
S., [Fall]{} S. M., 1993, [ApJ]{}, 415, 580
Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., Bautz, M. W., Brandt, W. N., & Garmire, G. P. 2003, [ApJL]{}, 584, L57
S. M., [Smith]{} R. J., [Boyle]{} B. J., [Shanks]{} T., [Miller]{} L., [Outram]{} P. J., [Loaring]{} N. S., 2004, [MNRAS]{}, 349, 1397
S., [Rhoads]{} J. E., [Malhotra]{} S., [Stern]{} D., [Dey]{} A., [Spinrad]{} H., [Jannuzi]{} B. T., [Wang]{} J., [Landes]{} E., 2004, [ApJ]{}, 617, 707
Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, [ApJ]{}, 303, 39
M., [Haiman]{} Z., [Rees]{} M. J., [Weinberg]{} D. H., 2004, [ApJ]{}, 601, 666
Dijkstra, M., Haiman, Z., & Loeb, A. 2004b, [ApJ]{}, 613, 646
Ellis, R., Santos, M. R., Kneib, J.-P., & Kuijken, K. 2001, [ApJL]{}, 560, L119
Fan, X., et al. 2001, [AJ]{}, 121, 54
Fan, X., et al. 2001b, [AJ]{}, 122, 2833
X., [Narayanan]{} V. K., [Strauss]{} M. A., [White]{} R. L., [Becker]{} R. H., [Pentericci]{} L., [Rix]{} H.-W., 2002, [AJ]{}, 123, 1247
Fan, X., et al. 2005, AJ in press, arXiv:astro-ph/0512082
L., [Merritt]{} D., 2000, [ApJL]{}, 539, L9
L., 2002, [ApJ]{}, 578, 90
J. E., [Peterson]{} B. A., 1965, [ApJ]{}, 142, 1633
Haehnelt, M. G., Natarajan, P., & Rees, M. J. 1998, [MNRAS]{}, 300, 817
Z., [Loeb]{} A., 1998, [ApJ]{}, 503, 505
Z., 2002, [ApJL]{}, 576, L1
Z., [Cen]{} R., 2002, [ApJ]{}, 578, 702
Haiman, Z., Quataert, E., & Bower, G. C. 2004, [ApJ]{}, 612, 698
Hasinger, G., Miyaji, T., & Schmidt, M. 2005, [A&A]{}, 441, 417
Hu, E. M., Cowie, L. L., Capak, P., McMahon, R. G., Hayashino, T., & Komiyama, Y. 2004, [AJ]{}, 127, 563
Hunt, M. P., Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., & Shapley, A. E. 2004, [ApJ]{}, 605, 625
Jannuzi, B. T., & Dey, A. 1999, ASP Conf. Ser. 191: Photometric Redshifts and the Detection of High Redshift Galaxies, 191, 111
Kashikawa, N., et al. 2006, accepted for [ApJ]{}, astro-ph/0604149
S., [Smith]{} P. S., [Netzer]{} H., [Maoz]{} D., [Jannuzi]{} B. T., [Giveon]{} U., 2000, [ApJ]{}, 533, 631
Lawrence, A. 1991, [MNRAS]{}, 252, 586
P., [Rees]{} M. J., 2000, [ApJL]{}, 542, L69
P., [Rees]{} M. J., [Volonteri]{} M., [Haardt]{} F., [Oh]{} S. P., 2004, [ApJ]{}, 604, 484
S., [Rhoads]{} J. E., 2002, [ApJL]{}, 565, L71
Malhotra, S., Wang, J. X., Rhoads, J. E., Heckman, T. M., & Norman, C. A. 2003, [ApJL]{}, 585, L25
A., [Haiman]{} Z., 2004, [ApJL]{}, 611, L69
Mushotzky, R., & Ferland, G. J. 1984, [ApJ]{}, 278, 558
Norman, C., et al. 2002, [ApJ]{}, 571, 218
M., et al. 2005, [ApJL]{}, 620, L1
Pei, Y. C. 1995, [ApJ]{}, 438, 623
Peterson, B. M., et al. 2004, [ApJ]{}, 613, 682
J. E., [Malhotra]{} S., [Dey]{} A., [Stern]{} D., [Spinrad]{} H., [Jannuzi]{} B. T., 2000, [ApJL]{}, 545, L85
M., [Ostriker]{} J. P., 2004, [MNRAS]{}, 352, 547
Salvaterra, R., Haardt, F., & Ferrara, A. 2005, [MNRAS]{}, 362, L50
Santos, M. R., Ellis, R. S., Kneib, J.-P., Richard, J., & Kuijken, K. 2004, [ApJ]{}, 606, 683
S. Y., [Ostriker]{} J. P., [Sunyaev]{} R. A., 2004, [MNRAS]{}, 347, 144
Shimasaku, K., et al. 2006, [PASJ]{}, 58, 313
Simpson, C. 2005, [MNRAS]{}, 360, 565
D. N., et al., 2003, [ApJS]{}, 148, 175
Y., et al., 2005, [PASJ]{}, 57, 165
J. X., [Rhoads]{} J. E., [Malhotra]{} S., [Dawson]{} S., [Stern]{} D., [Dey]{} A., [Heckman]{} T. M., [Norman]{} C. A., [Spinrad]{} H., 2004, [ApJL]{}, 608, L21
Wyithe, J. S. B., & Loeb, A. 2002, [ApJ]{}, 581, 886
J. S. B., [Loeb]{} A., 2003, [ApJ]{}, 595, 614
J. S. B., [Loeb]{} A., 2004, [[*Nature*]{}]{}, 427, 815
Transmission of Ly$\alpha$ Photons from AGN {#app:trans}
===========================================
For a source of UV radiation embedded in a neutral IGM the emission blueward of the Ly$\alpha$ line center is suppressed by a factor of $\langle e^{-\tau_{\rm GP}}\rangle$. Here, the Gunn-Peterson optical depth, $\tau_{\rm GP}$ is given by $$\tau_{\rm GP}=\frac{3n(z)A_{\alpha}\lambda_{\alpha}^3}{8\pi H(z)}=6.4 \times 10^5 \Big{(}\frac{\Omega_b h^2}{0.022}\Big{)}\Big{(} \frac{0.15}{\Omega_m h^2}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big{(}\frac{1+z}{7.5}\Big{)}^{\frac{3}{2}},$$ where $A_{\alpha}=6.25 \times 10^8$ s$^{-1}$ is the Einstein A coefficient, $\lambda_{\alpha}=1216$ Åis the Ly$\alpha$ wavelength, and $n(z)$ and $H(z)$ are the number density of neutral hydrogen atoms and the Hubble constant at redshift $z$, respectively [@Gunn65]. For photons initially redward of the Ly$\alpha$ line center, the Gunn-Peterson optical depth reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{\rm GP}(x)=\tau_{\rm GP}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_x^{\infty}\phi(x')dx' \approx-\tau_{\rm GP}\frac{a}{\pi x} \nonumber \\
\approx 10 \Big{(}\frac{1+z}{7.5}\Big{)}^{3/2}
\Big{(}\frac{300{\rm K}}{T_{\rm gas}}\Big{)}^{1/2}\Big{(}\frac{-38}{x}\Big{)}.
\label{eq:taugpx}\end{aligned}$$ Here we have expressed the frequency $\nu$ in terms of $x\equiv
(\nu-\nu_0)/\Delta \nu_D$, where $\Delta \nu_D=v_{th}\nu_0/c$, and $v_{th}=\sqrt{2k_BT/m_p}$ is the thermal velocity of the hydrogen atoms in the gas, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $T$ the gas temperature, $m_p$ the proton mass and $\nu_0=2.47 \times 10^{15}$ Hz is the central Ly$\alpha$ frequency. Note that $x<0$ for photons redward of the line center. To obtain the simple expression in Eq. (\[eq:taugpx\]), we approximated the Voigt function $\phi(x)$ in the line wing as $\phi(x)=a/[\sqrt{\pi}x^2]$, where $a$ is the Voigt parameter and $a=A_{\alpha}/4 \pi \Delta \nu_D$ $=4.7\times 10^{-4}$ $(13
{\hspace{1mm}}{\rm km {\hspace{1mm}}s}^{-1}/v_{th})$ is the ratio of the Doppler to natural line width.
Another way to write the Gunn Peterson damping wing optical depth is in terms of a velocity offset, $\Delta$v. For a photon initially redshifted by $\Delta$v relative to the line center, the total Gunn-Peterson optical depth reduces to: $$\tau_{\Delta \rm v}\approx 10 \Big{(}\frac{1+z}{7.5}\Big{)}^{3/2}\Big{(}\frac{85 {\hspace{1mm}}{\rm km} {\hspace{1mm}}{\rm s}^{-1}}{\Delta {\rm v}}\Big{)}.$$ Note that this expression is independent of the gas temperature.
Assuming the intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ spectrum of an AGN to be Gaussian of width $\sigma_{\rm v}=v_{\rm HWHM}$ (Eq. \[eq:vfwhm\]) with a central flux that is $N$ times the continuum[^6]. The intrinsic flux density (in arbitrary units) becomes $$F(x)=1+\frac{N-1}{\sigma_x\sqrt{2 \pi}}{\rm exp}\big{[}\frac{-x^2}{2\sigma_x^2}\big{]},
\label{eq:flux}$$ where $\sigma_x=\sigma_v/v_{\rm th}$. The IGM transmission is given by
$$\mathcal{T}=\frac{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx [F(x)-1]e^{-\tau(x)}}
{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx [F(x)-1]},$$
where $F(x)$ and $\tau(x)$ are given by Eq. (\[eq:flux\]) and Eq. (\[eq:taugpx\]). The transmission $\mathcal{T}$ is plotted as a function of $\sigma_v$ in Figure \[fig:transmission\] as the [*black solid line*]{}.
The other lines represent the IGM transmission in the presence of a cosmological HII region with a radius of $0.1$ ([*red–dotted line*]{}), $0.5$ ([*green–dashed line*]{}) and 1.0 Mpc ([*blue–long–dashed dotted line*]{}) surrounding the AGN. The radius of the HII region surrounding a quasar of age $t_Q$ powered by a black hole of mass $M_{\rm BH}$ shining at Eddington luminosity is given by [@CenHaiman02] $$R_{\rm HII, edd}=0.74 \Big{(}\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{10^7 M_{\odot}} \Big{)}^{1/3}\Big{(}\frac{t_Q}{2 \times 10^7{\rm yr}} \Big{)}^{1/3}\Big{(} \frac{1+z}{7.5}\Big{)}{\hspace{1mm}}{\rm Mpc}.$$ This relation assumes the total ionizing luminosity of AGN, $L_{\rm
ion}$, to scale as $L_{\rm ion}\propto M$. Alternatively, the Kaspi relation shows that the continuum luminosity at $\lambda=5100$ Åscales as $ \propto M^{1.3}$ (Eq. \[eq:kaspi\]). If the brightest $z>6$ AGN accrete at the Eddington luminosity, and we assume that the total ionizing luminosity emitted by an AGN also scales as $M^{1.3}$, we get $$R_{\rm HII, kas}=0.44 \Big{(}\frac{M_{\rm BH}}{10^7 M_{\odot}} \Big{)}^{0.43}\Big{(}\frac{t_Q}{2 \times 10^7{\rm yr}} \Big{)}^{1/3}\Big{(} \frac{1+z}{7.5}\Big{)}{\hspace{1mm}}{\rm Mpc}.$$
The size of the HII region is also determined by the uncertain value of the escape fraction of ionizing photons, $f_{\rm esc}$. Accounting for these uncertainties, Figure \[fig:transmission\] shows that for $\sigma_v=3000$ km s$^{-1}$, $\mathcal{T}$ lies in the range $0.3-0.45$ given $R_{HII}=0-500$ kpc. The range of $\mathcal{T}$ increases towards lower $\sigma_v$. However we find that an IGM transmission of $\mathcal{T}=0.3$ is accurate to within a factor of 2 for a wide range of the parameters $\sigma_v$, $f_{\rm
esc}$ and total ionizing luminosity.
In Figure \[fig:qso\] the [*black solid line*]{} shows the theoretical spectrum of a $z=6.5$ AGN embedded in a neutral IGM (i.e. no cosmological HII region is present). We assume the black hole mass to be $10^7M_{\odot}$, which according to Eq. (\[eq:vfwhm\]) should yield $v_{\rm HWHM}=4 \times 10^{3}$ km s$^{-1}$. However, at low luminosities, and therefore low black hole masses, $v_{\rm
HWHM}\rightarrow 3\times 10^{3}$ km s$^{-1}$ [@Kaspi00]. The intrinsic Ly$\alpha$ spectrum (the [*red dotted line*]{}) is described by Eq. (\[eq:flux\]), in which we assumed $\sigma_v=3\times 10^3$ km s$^{-1}$ and $N=10$ (which yields an Ly$\alpha$ EW of 200 Å).
We note that the observed line center lies redward of the true line center by $\sim 60$ Å, which translates to $\sim 2000$ km s$^{-1}$. Furthermore, the observed $v_{\rm HWHM}$ is $\sim 2$ times lower than the emitted value.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: One solar B-Band luminosity, denoted by $L_{B,\odot}$, corresponds to $4 \times
10^{32}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.
[^3]: @Fan01 actually measure the sum of the Ly$\alpha$ and NV equivalent width to be EW$=70\pm 20$ Å. The Ly$\alpha$ line makes up $\sim 70\%$ of the total EW.
[^4]: The survey volume of @Dawson04 is determined by 5 overlapping filters each of width $80$ Å, yielding a total wavelength coverage of $240$ Å. As will be demonstrated in § \[sec:lyaagn\], the observed FWHM of the Ly$\alpha$ line of AGN at this redshift is typically $\sim 60-70$ Å, which implies that AGN would have been detected in more than two filters. From narrow-band imaging alone, @Dawson04 find no evidence for the presence of broad line emitters. If we represent the filter transmission curves with top hats of width $80 \AA$, and an AGN’s Ly$\alpha$ emission line with a Gaussian with a FWHM of $65\AA$, then on average $\sim 70\%$, $60\%$ and $40\%$ of the AGN’s total Ly$\alpha$ flux is detected by three adjacent filters. This implies that 1) for an AGN to be detected in 1 filter at the 5-$\sigma$ detection threshold, requires its Ly$\alpha$ flux to be 1/0.7$\sim 1.4$ times higher than the surveys detection threshold, and 2) for an AGN to be detected in 3 adjacent filters requires its peak flux to lie within the inner three narrow band filters. This reduces the survey volume in which these AGN can be identified by a factor of $(240-2\times 40)/240=2/3$.
[^5]: This is because for a Poisson distribution $P(n,\mu)=e^{-\mu} \mu^n/n!$ with an expected number of events $\mu=3.0$, the probability of having more than 0 events occur is $95\%$.
[^6]: This corresponds to a Ly$\alpha$ EW of $N\times [2v_{\rm HWHM}/c]\times
\lambda_{\alpha}$ Å=$200 \times (N/10) \times (v_{\rm HWHM}/[3000
{\hspace{1mm}}{\rm km {\hspace{1mm}}s}^{-1}])$ Å.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on the benchmarks, participants and results of the third reactive synthesis competition (2016). The benchmark library of 2016 has been extended to benchmarks in the new LTL-based *temporal logic synthesis format* (TLSF), and $2$ new sets of benchmarks for the existing AIGER-based format for safety specifications. The participants of 2016 can be separated according to these two classes of specifications, and we give an overview of the $6$ tools that entered the competition in the AIGER-based track, and the $3$ participants that entered the TLSF-based track. We briefly describe the benchmark selection, evaluation scheme and the experimental setup of 2016. Finally, we present and analyze the results of our experimental evaluation, including a comparison to participants of previous competitions and a legacy tool.'
author:
- Swen Jacobs
- Roderick Bloem
- Romain Brenguier
- Ayrat Khalimov
- Felix Klein
- Robert Könighofer
- Jens Kreber
- Alexander Legg
- Nina Narodytska
- 'Guillermo A. Pérez'
- 'Jean-François Raskin'
- Leonid Ryzhyk
- Ocan Sankur
- Martina Seidl
- Leander Tentrup
- Adam Walker
bibliography:
- 'synthesis.bib'
title: 'The 3rd Reactive Synthesis Competition (2016): Benchmarks, Participants & Results'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In nanophotonics, multipole approach has become an indispensable theoretical framework for analyzing subwavelength meta-atoms and their radiation properties. Thus far, induced multipole moments have frequently used to illustrate the radiating properties of the meta-atoms, but they are excited at a specific illumination and do not fully represent anisotropic meta-atoms. On the other hand, dynamic polarizability ($\boldsymbol{\alpha}$) tensors contain complete scattering information of the meta-atoms, but have not often been considered due to complicated retrieval procedures. In this study, we suggest that exact higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor can be efficiently obtained from $\mathbf{T}$-matrix using simple basis transformation. These higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors are necessary to describe recently reported coupled plasmonic and high-refractive-index particles, which we demonstrate from their retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors. Finally, we show that description of meta-atoms using $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors incorporated with multiple-scattering theory vastly extends the applicability of the multipole approach in nanophotonics, allowing accurate and efficient depiction of complicated, random, multi-scale systems.
Usage
: Preprint.
author:
- Jungho Mun
- Sunae So
- Jaehyuck Jang
- Junsuk Rho
bibliography:
- 'apssamp.bib'
title: 'Describing meta-atoms using the exact higher-order polarizability tensors'
---
Introduction
============
Under the paradigm of metamaterial, its constituent meta-atoms and their configurations determine the material properties. The meta-atoms have been efficiently analyzed using the multipole decomposition technique [@Muhlig2011; @Grahn2012], because a few low-order multipole moments efficiently reconstruct the electromagnetic radiation and the relevant physics from a subwavelength localized current-charge source. Due to this feature, the multipole approach has become an useful and indispensable tool for nanophotonics [@Liu2017]. Manipulation of light in the nanoscale has been facilitated by interference of multipole radiations, which provides the underlying principles behind many optical phenomena and relevant applications. Notably, the multipole approach has given insights on directional scattering [@Liu2018], lattice Kerker effects [@Babicheva2017], non-radiating anapoles [@Gurvitz2019; @Baryshnikova2019], lattice invisiblity effects [@Terekhov2019], Fano-like resonances [@Gallinet2011a; @Suryadharma2019], optical anti-ferromagnetism [@Liu2017], optical nonlinearity [@Smirnova2016], radiative heat transfer, weak localization [@Mishchenko2008], photonic topological insulators [@Pocock2018], and bound states in the continuum [@Sadrieva2019].
Formulation of multipole radiation is a textbook problem [@Jackson1999], but given the importance of the multipole approach, expressions for multipoles are still under research [@Alaee2018; @Fruhnert2017; @Grahn2012] with possibility on toroidal multipoles as an extra multipole family [@Savinov2019; @Gurvitz2019]. In general, the multipoles under discussion are excited at a specific illumination, but they do not provide complete information of highly anisotropic meta-atoms. On the other hand, dynamic polarizability $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ tensor (or transition $\mathbf{T}$ matrix) maps the induced multipole modes at arbitrary incident fields, and has been used to treat scattering objects in many different fields including optics, acoustics, and astrophysics [@DeVries1998; @Mishchenko2008; @Mishchenko2010]. In nanophotonics, analysis of meta-atoms based on their $\mathbf{T}$-matrix started to become remarked rather recently [@Fruhnert2017; @Suryadharma2017]. It has been pointed out that complicated coupled configurations involving multiple meta-atoms can be efficiently studied by describing the meta-atoms in terms of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor (or $\mathbf{T}$-matrix) and using the multiple-scattering theory (MST) [@Fruhnert2017]. Electromagnetically coupled discrete scattering objects can be self-consistently treated to describe for collective responses of multiple particles [@DeAbajo1999; @Stout2008; @Stout2011] and periodic particle arrays [@DeAbajo2007; @Baur2018; @Evlyukhin2010; @Babicheva2018; @Babicheva2019; @MahdiSalary2017; @Watson2017], and this approach significantly reduces the calculation loads for complicated, random [@Rahimzadegan2019; @Jenkins2018], or multi-scale systems [@Pattelli2018; @Govorov2010; @Wu2015].
In the following work, we first discuss induced multipoles in different expressions: approximate Cartesian, exact Cartesian, and spherical multipoles, where exact Cartesian and spherical multipoles are essentially identical with different choice of basis [@Alaee2018]. In the next section, we present expression of local fields and field gradients in terms of spherical multipoles. This naturally leads us to obtain transformation between $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor and $\mathbf{T}$-matrix. This basis transformation is used to analyze meta-atoms based on their $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors, whose properties can be intuitively interpreted due to the Cartesian basis. Finally, we show that the MST allows efficient and accurate description of electromagnetically coupled meta-atoms, and that analytic scattering objects can be implemented under the multipole approach.
Exact Cartesian multipoles
==========================
In standard electrodynamic textbooks, the spherical multipoles appear from the multipole decomposition of electromagnetic fields using the vector spherical wave functions (VSWFs) as the basis [@Jackson1999]. Because the VSWFs span the vector fields satisfying the transverse Helmholtz type equations, the electromagnetic fields in a homogeneous media can be exactly reconstructed, and the renowned Mie theory is also based on this expansion. Because of the difficulty in interpreting the spherical basis, the spherical multipoles are not directly analyzed per se, but their associated scattering power or radiation fields are.
Therefore, multipole approach in nanophotonics most frequently utilizes the approximate expressions for localized charge-current density multipoles in the Cartesian basis, which are sufficiently straightforward and resemble the expressions in electrostatics and magnetostatics. Despite their popularity, the approximate Cartesian multipoles cannot *exactly* reconstruct the electrodynamic radiation fields and the related scattering phenomena [@Alaee2018]. Scattering from subwavelength nanoparticles with moderate refractive-index generally shows good agreement, but the error grows for larger particles and high-refractive-index particles. This error has been corrected by toroidal multipoles, which appear from multipole decomposition of the localized current sources [@Gurvitz2019; @Talebi2018; @Baryshnikova2019; @Evlyukhin2016]. However, it has been pointed out that the radiation fields from toroidal multipoles do not have independent (orthogonal) basis to those from electric and magnetic multipoles [@Alaee2018]. Therefore, it is controversial whether to treat the toroidal multipoles as the third multipole family [@Savinov2019], or as a correction to the basic Cartesian multipoles.
Recently, exact expressions for the localized charge-current density multipoles in the Cartesian basis up to MQ were developed without relying on the toroidal multipoles [@Alaee2018; @Fernandez-Corbaton2015]. For completeness, we present expressions of the exact Cartesian multipoles up to MO as
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} d^E_\alpha &=
-\frac{1}{i\omega}
\int{{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}\Bigg\{
J_\alpha j_0(kr)
+\frac{k^2}{2}\Big[3 {\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\alpha-r^2J_\alpha\Big]
\frac{j_2(kr)}{(kr)^2}
\Bigg\}}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} d^M_\alpha &=
\frac{3}{2}
\int{{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha \frac{j_1(kr)}{kr}}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} Q^E_{\alpha\beta} &=
-\frac{3}{i\omega}
\int{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}{\Bigg\{}
\Big[r_\alpha J_\beta + r_\beta J_\alpha
-\frac{2}{3}\delta_{\alpha\beta}{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}\Big]
\frac{j_1(kr)}{kr}\\
&\hspace{5mm}
+2k^2\Big[5{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\alpha r_\beta
-r^2(r_\alpha J_\beta+r_\beta J_\alpha)
-r^2\delta_{\alpha\beta}{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}\Big]
\frac{j_3(kr)}{(kr)^3}
{\Bigg\}}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} Q^M_{\alpha\beta} &= 5
\int{{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}{\Big[}
r_\alpha {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\beta + r_\beta {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha
{\Big]}
\frac{j_2(kr)}{(kr)^2}
}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} O^E_{\alpha\beta\gamma} &=
-\frac{10}{i\omega}
\int{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}{\Bigg\{}
\Big[r_\alpha r_\beta J_\gamma +r_\beta r_\gamma J_\alpha +r_\gamma r_\alpha J_\beta \\
&\hspace{10mm}
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\alpha\beta}(r^2J_\gamma+2{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\gamma)
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\beta\gamma}(r^2J_\alpha+2{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\alpha)
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\gamma\alpha}(r^2J_\beta+2{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\beta)\Big]
\frac{j_2(kr)}{(kr)^2}\\
&\hspace{5mm}
+\frac{3k^2}{4}
\Big[7{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\alpha r_\beta r_\gamma
-r^2(r_\alpha r_\beta J_\gamma +r_\beta r_\gamma J_\alpha +r_\gamma r_\alpha J_\beta)\\
&\hspace{10mm}
+\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\alpha\beta}r^2(r^2J_\gamma+5{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\gamma)
+\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\beta\gamma}r^2(r^2J_\alpha+5{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\alpha)
+\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\gamma\alpha}r^2(r^2J_\beta+5{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\beta)\Big]
\frac{j_4(kr)}{(kr)^4}
{\Bigg\}}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} O^M_{\alpha\beta\gamma} &=
\frac{35}{2}
\int{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}{\Big[}
r_\alpha r_\beta {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\gamma
+r_\beta r_\gamma {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha
+r_\gamma r_\alpha {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\beta\\
&\hspace{5mm}
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\alpha\beta}r^2{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\gamma
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\beta\gamma}r^2{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\gamma\alpha}r^2{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\beta
{\Big]}
\frac{j_3(kr)}{(kr)^3}
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma = x, y, z$, and the multipoles are symmetrical and traceless [@Gurvitz2019]. The familiar approximate Cartesian multipoles and toroidal multipoles can be readily obtained by taking the long wavelength limit [@Alaee2018]. See Appendix \[appendix:multipoles\] for more details on Cartesian multipoles.
An important result from Ref. [@Alaee2018] is that the exact Cartesian multipoles can be expressed from the spherical multipoles. They have identical physical meaning, but are expressed in different basis, which can be systematically transformed to each other as
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \mathbf{d}^E&=\frac{\sqrt{3 \pi} E_0}{\eta \omega k^2} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1\mathbf{b}^E_1
\end{split}&
\begin{split} \mathbf{d}^M&=\frac{\sqrt{3 \pi} E_0}{i \eta k^3} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1\mathbf{b}^M_1
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} \mathbf{Q}^E&=\frac{\sqrt{20 \pi} E_0}{\eta \omega k^3} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{2}\mathbf{b}^E_2
\end{split}&
\begin{split} \mathbf{Q}^M&=\frac{\sqrt{20 \pi} E_0}{i \eta k^4} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{2}\mathbf{b}^M_2
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} \mathbf{O}^E&=\frac{\sqrt{105 \pi} E_0}{\eta \omega k^4} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{3}\mathbf{b}^E_3
\end{split}&
\begin{split} \mathbf{O}^M&=\frac{\sqrt{105 \pi} E_0}{i \eta k^5} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{3}\mathbf{b}^M_3
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
\[eqn:multipole\]
where $\mathbf{d}^p = [d^p_x, d^p_y, d^p_z]^\top$, $\mathbf{Q}^p = [Q^p_{xx}, Q^p_{xy}, Q^p_{xz}, Q^p_{yy}, Q^p_{yz}]^\top$, $\mathbf{O}^p = [O^p_{xxx}, O^p_{xxy}, O^p_{xxz}, O^p_{xyy}, O^p_{xyz}, O^p_{yyy}, O^p_{yyz}]^\top$, $\mathbf{b}^{p}_{n} = [b^{p}_{n,-n},b^{p}_{n,-n+1},\cdots,b^{p}_{n,n-1},b^{p}_{n,n}]^\top$ with superscript $p$ = $E$ or $M$ denoting electric or magnetic multipoles, respectively. The basis transformation matrices are introduced as
$$ \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1
=\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & -1 \\
-i & 0 & -i \\
0 & \sqrt{2} & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$
$$ \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_2=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & -\sqrt{2/3} & 0 & 1 \\
-i & 0 & 0 & 0 & i \\
0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & -\sqrt{2/3} & 0 & -1 \\
0 & -i & 0 & -i & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$ \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_3=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & -\sqrt{3/5} & 0 & \sqrt{3/5} & 0 & -1 \\
-i & 0 & i\sqrt{1/15} & 0 & i\sqrt{1/15} & 0 & -i \\
0 & \sqrt{2/3} & 0 & -\sqrt{4/5} & 0 & \sqrt{2/3} & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & -\sqrt{1/15} & 0 & \sqrt{1/15} & 0 & 1 \\
0 & -i\sqrt{2/3} & 0 & 0 & 0 & i\sqrt{2/3} & 0 \\
i & 0 & i\sqrt{3/5} & 0 & i\sqrt{3/5} & 0 & i \\
0 & -\sqrt{2/3} & 0 & -\sqrt{4/5} & 0 & -\sqrt{2/3} & 0
\end{bmatrix}$$
The transformation relations for ED, MD, EQ cases (Eqns. \[eqn:multipole\]a–c) can be found in previous work [@Muhlig2011; @Grahn2012], although the expression for exact Cartesian multipoles has only been published recently [@Alaee2018; @Fernandez-Corbaton2015].
Finally, the farfield radiated fields from the multipoles are
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \mathbf{E} &=
\frac{k^2}{4\pi\epsilon} \frac{e^{ikr}}{r}
{\Bigg[}
\mathbf{n} \times (\mathbf{d}^E \times \mathbf{n})
-\frac{ik}{2} \mathbf{n} \times(\hat{Q}^E \times \mathbf{n})
-\frac{k^2}{4} \mathbf{n} \times(\hat{O}^E \times \mathbf{n})
{\Big]}\\
&\hspace{5mm}
+\frac{\eta k^2}{4\pi} \frac{e^{ikr}}{r}
{\Bigg[}
\mathbf{d}^M \times \mathbf{n}
-\frac{ik}{2} (\hat{Q}^M \times \mathbf{n})
-\frac{k^2}{4} (\hat{O}^M \times \mathbf{n})
{\Big]}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} \mathbf{H} &=
-\frac{\omega k}{4\pi} \frac{e^{ikr}}{r}
{\Bigg[}
\mathbf{d}^E \times \mathbf{n}
-\frac{ik}{2} (\hat{Q}^E \times \mathbf{n})
-\frac{k^2}{4} (\hat{O}^E \times \mathbf{n})
{\Big]}\\
&\hspace{5mm}
+\frac{k^2}{4\pi} \frac{e^{ikr}}{r}
{\Bigg[}
\mathbf{n} \times (\mathbf{d}^M \times \mathbf{n})
-\frac{ik}{2} \mathbf{n} \times (\hat{Q}^M \times \mathbf{n})
-\frac{k^2}{4} \mathbf{n} \times (\hat{O}^M \times \mathbf{n})
{\Big]}
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
\[eqn:radiationfield\]
where $\hat{Q}^p_\alpha = Q^p_{\alpha\beta}n_\beta$ and $\hat{O}^p_\alpha = O^p_{\alpha\beta\gamma}n_\beta n_\gamma$. Total radiation power by multipoles is $$ \begin{split}
P &=
\frac{\omega k^3}{12 \pi \epsilon} \sum_{\alpha}{|d^E_\alpha|^2}
+ \frac{\omega k^5}{160 \pi \epsilon} \sum_{\alpha\beta}{|Q^E_{\alpha\beta}|^2}
+ \frac{\omega k^7}{1680 \pi \epsilon} \sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma}{|O^E_{\alpha\beta\gamma}|^2}\\
&\hspace{5mm}
+ \frac{\eta k^4}{12 \pi} \sum_{\alpha}{|d^M_\alpha|^2}
+ \frac{\eta k^6}{160 \pi} \sum_{\alpha\beta}{|Q^M_{\alpha\beta}|^2}
+ \frac{\eta k^8}{1680 \pi} \sum_{\alpha\beta\gamma}{|O^M_{\alpha\beta\gamma}|^2}
\end{split}
\label{eqn:power}$$ Note that the proportionality constants in Eqns. \[eqn:radiationfield\] and \[eqn:power\] are different from previous work [@Evlyukhin2016], but the reconstructed scattered fields satisfying the Maxwell’s equations should be identical regardless of the choice of the notations. Also, the notations of the spherical multipoles and VSWFs differ by publications, and our expression is given in Appendix \[appendix:proportionality\].
Extended point polarizability and T-matrix
==========================================
Many optical phenomena have been successfully resolved from induced multipoles, but they are given at a specific illumination. In general, the induced moments are not invariant under the interaction with other particles or under different external excitation fields. Considering that meta-atoms generally have strong anisotropy and can therefore exhibit different induced multipoles depending on its environment and excitation fields, the induced moments obtained from a specific situation do not consistently represent the inherent properties of the meta-atoms.
Hence, a different quantity is required to consistently describe an identical particle in an isolated state, nearby other particles, or in a lattice, and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor serves for this purpose. $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor is defined as a response tensor linearly relating the local fields to the induced multipoles, so it is irrelevant of excitation conditions and allows us to calculate the induced moments at arbitrary incident fields. This feature allows us to calculate the collective responses of coupled particles using MST, which we discuss in later sections. However, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor is usually truncated at dipole order [@Arango2013; @Asadchy2014; @Liu2016], and higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor, which includes higher-order multipole moments and field gradients [@Arango2014], is rarely utilized due to the complicated retrieval process if not for spheres with isotropic responses [@Babicheva2019].
These higher-order multipole transitions have been systematically treated using $\mathbf{T}$-matrix, which linearly relates the spherical multipoles of incident field to those of scattered field and is expressed in matrix form as
$$\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{b}^E \\ \mathbf{b}^M
\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{T}^{E}_{E} & \mathbf{T}^{M}_{E} \\
\mathbf{T}^{E}_{M} & \mathbf{T}^{M}_{M}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{a}^E \\ \mathbf{a}^M
\end{bmatrix}$$
$$\mathbf{T}^{p}_{p'}
=\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{T}^{p1}_{p'1} & \mathbf{T}^{p1}_{p'2} & \cdots \\
\mathbf{T}^{p2}_{p'1} & \mathbf{T}^{p2}_{p'2} & \\
\vdots & & \ddots
\end{bmatrix}$$
where $\mathbf{T}^{np}_{n'p'}$ is a $(2n+1) \times (2n'+1)$ matrix corresponding to the transition from multipole order $n$ of mode $p$ to $n'$ of $p'$. $\mathbf{a}^p$ and $\mathbf{b}^p$ are vectors containing spherical multipoles of incident and scattered fields, respectively [@Mishchenko1996].
Analogous to the exact Cartesian multipoles and the spherical multipoles, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor and $\mathbf{T}$-matrix are identical but with different choice of basis. To transform between them, we additionally need to express the local fields and field gradients in terms of spherical multipoles, which we present using the same transformation matrices as
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} \mathbf{E}
&=\frac{i E_0}{\sqrt{12 \pi}}
\bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1
\mathbf{a}^E_1
\end{split}&
\begin{split} \mathbf{H}
&=\frac{E_0}{\eta \sqrt{12 \pi}}
\bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1
\mathbf{a}^M_1
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} \frac{1}{k}\Diamond\mathbf{E}
&=\frac{i E_0}{\sqrt{80 \pi}}
\bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{2}
\mathbf{a}^E_2
\end{split}&
\begin{split} \frac{1}{k}\Diamond\mathbf{H}
&=\frac{E_0}{\eta \sqrt{80 \pi}}
\bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{2}
\mathbf{a}^M_2
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} \frac{1}{k^2}\Diamond^2\mathbf{E}&=\frac{i E_0}{\sqrt{420 \pi}} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{3}\mathbf{a}^E_3
\end{split}&
\begin{split} \frac{1}{k^2}\Diamond^2\mathbf{H}&=\frac{E_0}{\eta \sqrt{420 \pi}} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{3}\mathbf{a}^M_3
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
\[eqn:field\]
where $\mathbf{E} = [E_x, E_y, E_z]^\top$, $\Diamond\mathbf{E} = [\partial_xE_x, (\partial_xE_y+\partial_yE_x)/2, (\partial_xE_z+\partial_zE_x)/2, \partial_yE_y, (\partial_yE_z+\partial_zE_y)/2]^\top$, and $$\Diamond^2\mathbf{E}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\partial_x^2E_x -\frac{1}{5}\nabla^2E_x \\
\frac{1}{3}(\partial_x^2E_y+2\partial_x\partial_yE_x) -\frac{1}{15}\nabla^2E_y \\
\frac{1}{3}(\partial_x^2E_z+2\partial_x\partial_zE_x) -\frac{1}{15}\nabla^2E_z \\
\frac{1}{3}(\partial_y^2E_x+2\partial_x\partial_yE_y) -\frac{1}{15}\nabla^2E_x \\
\frac{1}{3}(\partial_x\partial_yE_z + \partial_y\partial_zE_x + \partial_z\partial_xE_y) \\
\partial_y^2E_y -\frac{1}{5}\nabla^2E_y \\
\frac{1}{3}(\partial_y^2E_z+2\partial_y\partial_zE_y) -\frac{1}{15}\nabla^2E_z
\end{bmatrix}$$
Now, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor and $\mathbf{T}$-matrix can be transformed to each other. However, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor is expressed in SI units if Eqns. \[eqn:field\] and \[eqn:multipole\] are directly used. Because $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor in SI units have different units per components and are difficult to be compared, we use $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor in units of volume defined as $$\alpha^{pn}_{p'n'} = \frac{6\pi}{ik^3} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{n'} \mathbf{T}^{pn}_{p'n'} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{n}^{-1}
\label{eqn:T2a}$$ Note that similar expressions for isotropic (scalar) dipolar [@Arango2013; @Liu2016] and quarupolar objects [@Babicheva2019] can be found in literature. $\mathbf{T}$-matrix is inversely obtained from $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor as $$\mathbf{T}^{pn}_{p'n'} = \frac{ik^3}{6\pi} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{n'}^{-1} \alpha^{pn}_{p'n'} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{n}
\label{eqn:a2T}$$ Eqns. \[eqn:T2a\] and \[eqn:a2T\] are the central results of this study, which we use to express exact higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors in units of volume (see Appendix \[appendix:units\] for more details).
$\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor or $\mathbf{T}$-matrix contains information on particle symmetries and conservation laws, as well as complete information on scattering by a particle. Symmetry refers to the invariance upon certain operations, and includes rotational symmetry, mirror symmetry, parity and time-reversal symmetry, and reciprocity. $N$-fold rotational symmetry and mirror symmetry can be confirmed by checking if $\mathbf{T}$-matrix or $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor is invariant under the transformation. For Onsager reciprocal system, $\mathbf{T}$-matrix elements satisfy the following relationship: $(T^{pn}_{p'n'})^{m}_{m'}=(-1)^{m+m'}(T^{p'n'}_{pn})^{-m'}_{-m}$. This expression has been used to check the accuracy of numerically calculated $\mathbf{T}$-matrix in literature [@Mishchenko1996]. $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor of reciprocal dipolar particles satisfy: $\alpha_{e1}^{e1} = (\alpha_{e1}^{e1})^\top$, $\alpha_{m1}^{m1} = (\alpha_{m1}^{m1})^\top$, and $\alpha_{e1}^{m1} = (\alpha_{m1}^{e1})^\top$ [@Sersic2011]. The parity operation is given as $\mathbf{r}\rightarrow-\mathbf{r}$. Upon the parity operation, $\mathbf{E}\rightarrow-\mathbf{E}$, $\mathbf{H}\rightarrow\mathbf{H}$, $\nabla\rightarrow-\nabla$. Also, electric multipoles ($a^E_{nm}$ and $b^E_{nm}$) have parity of $(-1)^n$, and magnetic multipoles ($a^M_{nm}$ and $b^M_{nm}$) have $(-1)^{n-1}$. From which, we see that $\mathbf{T}^{En}_{En'}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{Mn}_{Mn'}$ have parity of $(-1)^{n+n'}$, and $\mathbf{T}^{En}_{Mn'}$ and $\mathbf{T}^{Mn}_{En'}$ has $(-1)^{n+n'+1}$. The corresponding $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor components have the same parity. Also, parity is closely related to the concept of true chirality, or reciprocal parity-odd [@Barron1986]. Note that chirality of chiral molecules have been embedded in the magneto-electric coupling term [@Govorov2010], which attributes to the reciprocal parity-odd property. By breaking the reciprocity, it is possible to undergo false chirality, which is nonreciprocal, parity-odd [@Barron1986; @Asadchy2014; @Asadchy2019]. A lossless particle has no intrinsic absorption, so its extinction equals to scattering. For a lossless particle, $\mathbf{T}^{\dag}\mathbf{T}=-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{T}^{\dag}+\mathbf{T})$, where the superscript ${\dag}$ denotes Hermitian conjugate [@Waterman1971]. This expression has also been used to check the accuracy of $\mathbf{T}$-matrix for lossless particles in literature [@Mishchenko1996]. $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor of lossless dipolar particles satisfy: $\frac{k^3}{6\pi} \alpha^\dag \alpha = \frac{1}{2i}(\alpha^\dag - \alpha)$, which reduces to the optical theorem $\frac{k^3}{6\pi}|\alpha|^2 = \mathrm{Im}(\alpha)$ for dipolar scalar $\alpha$ [@Sersic2011]. Studies on properties of higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor is currently lacking and remains future research.
Meta-atoms and metaphotonics
============================
In metamaterials and metaphotonics, manipulation of light at the nanoscale utilizes optically resonant subwavelength meta-atoms, whose properties have generally been analyzed by dipolar $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor [@Arango2013; @Asadchy2014; @Liu2016]. However, recently emerged high-refractive-index particles [@Kuznetsov2012; @Evlyukhin2010; @Babicheva2017; @Babicheva2018; @Terekhov2019] and coupled plasmonic systems [@Fruhnert2017; @Arango2014] often involve higher-order multipole transitions. It should be noted that $\mathbf{T}$-matrix of meta-atoms can be systematically retrieved for arbitrary multipole order [@Fruhnert2017], but detailed analysis on their properties from their $\mathbf{T}$-matrix is difficult due to the spherical basis, while retrieval of higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor can be cumbersome [@Arango2014]. In this section, we analyze several meta-atoms from their $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors, which are transformed from $\mathbf{T}$-matrix using Eqn. \[eqn:T2a\]. We will show that higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor are necessary to describe anisotropic meta-atoms, whose properties can be more intuitively analyzed due to the Cartesian basis. Refer to Fig. \[fig:alpha\] for the interpretation of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor. In addition, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor allows analysis on several particle properties including anisotropy, symmetries, spectral modal resonances, and origin of chirality and optical magnetism.
![Structure of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor. $\alpha_{p'n'}^{pn}$ corresponds to the transition from incident multipole order $n$ of type $p$ to induced multipole order $n'$ of type $p'$, and the incident and induced Cartesian modes are denoted outside the parenthesis. For instance, $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{y}$ relates incident $E_y$ to induced $d_x^E$; $(\alpha_{m2}^{e1})_{yz}^{x}$ relates incident $E_x$ to induced $\Diamond_{yz}^{M} = (\partial_{y}H_{z}+\partial_{z}H_{y})/2$; $(\alpha_{m1}^{m2})_{y}^{xy}$ relates incident $\Diamond_{xy}^{M} = (\partial_{x}H_{y}+\partial_{y}H_{x})/2$ to induced $d_y^M$.[]{data-label="fig:alpha"}](Fig_alpha.pdf)
![Plasmonic double-bars. (a) Schematics. (b) Retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor at $\lambda=530~\text{nm}$. (c) Multipole-decomposed scattering cross-section at x-polarized planewave incidence propagating in y-direction. (d) Spectra of $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$, $(\alpha_{m1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{e2}^{e2})_{xy}^{xy}$, and $(\alpha_{e2}^{m1})_{xy}^{z}$. Geometrical parameters are: radius 20 nm, length 100 nm, and gap distance 20 nm.[]{data-label="fig:PDB"}](Fig_PDB.png)
Hybridized plasmonic structures can exhibit higher-order multipole modes even with subwavelength feature sizes [@Arango2014; @Fruhnert2017]. Among them, plasmonic double bars (PDB) has exhibited strong MD mode even at the visible regime [@Dolling2005]. Multipole-decomposed scattering cross-section exhibits broad ED resonance at 490 nm and sharp EQ and MD resonances at 530 nm (Fig. \[fig:PDB\]c), and the origins of the multipolar modes can be analyzed from retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor (Fig. \[fig:PDB\]b) and spectra of its components (Fig. \[fig:PDB\]d). The broad ED resonance is easily attributed to $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$, and the sharp EQ and MD resonances are spectrally attributed to $(\alpha_{m1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{e2}^{e2})_{xy}^{xy}$, and $(\alpha_{e2}^{m1})_{xy}^{z}$. Analysis from $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor allows us to see that PDB has different origin of optical magnetism from split-ring resonators [@Arango2013; @Liu2016] and high-refractive-index spheres (see Appendix \[appendix:t-matrix\] for more details). Importantly, only a few components are dominant in the retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor, making the analysis easier (Fig. \[fig:PDB\]b). This simplification partly comes from the particle symmetry. Notably, the parity symmetry removes the half of the components: $\alpha_{e1}^{e2}$, $\alpha_{e2}^{e1}$, $\alpha_{e1}^{m1}$, $\alpha_{m1}^{e1}$, $\alpha_{e2}^{m2}$, $\alpha_{m2}^{e2}$, $\alpha_{m1}^{m2}$, and $\alpha_{m2}^{m1}$. Strong anisotropicity of the meta-atom further simplifies the $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor, especially in the Cartesian basis. In addition, the reciprocity enforces $(\alpha_{m1}^{e2})_{z}^{xy}$ = $(\alpha_{e2}^{m1})_{xy}^{z}$. Interestingly, $(\alpha_{m1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{e2}^{e2})_{xy}^{xy}$, and $(\alpha_{e2}^{m1})_{xy}^{z}$ have very similar spectral feature resembling Lorentzian resonances, indicating that some components may additionally be coupled together possibly using singular value decomposition technique [@Suryadharma2019] or modular analysis [@Asadchy2019].
![(a) The schematics of twisted double-bars. (b) Retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor at $\lambda=520~\text{nm}$. (c) Extinction and (d) circular dichroism at planewave incidence propagating in $x$-, $y$-, and $z$-directions. (e) Spectra of $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$, $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{z}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{e2}^{e1})_{xy}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{e1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$, and $(\alpha_{m1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$. Geometrical parameters are: radius 20 nm, length 100 nm, gap distance 20 nm, and twist angle 45$^\circ$.[]{data-label="fig:TDB"}](Fig_TDB.png)
Plasmonic chiral particles have exhibited chiral responses far-exceeding those from natural materials. Among them, a twisted double-bars (TDB) has been widely used to generate exceptionally strong chiral responses [@Auguie2011], which we assess from circular dichroism (CD). Different from PDB, TDB is geometrically chiral, and therefore parity-odd, and $\alpha_{e1}^{m1}$, $\alpha_{m1}^{e1}$, $\alpha_{e2}^{e1}$, and $\alpha_{e1}^{e2}$ transition components are now allowed. An important property of TDB is strongly anisotropic CD, which is only visible for the light propagation parallel to the twist-axis ($\hat{y}$). Interestingly, this anisotropic CD cannot be explained by dipolar $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor alone, because $(\alpha_{e1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$ and $(\alpha_{m1}^{e1})_{z}^{z}$ contribute to chiral response for both $\mathbf{k \parallel x}$ and $\mathbf{k \parallel y}$. We confirmed that $(\alpha_{e2}^{e1})_{xy}^{z}$ and $(\alpha_{e1}^{e2})_{z}^{xy}$ are necessary for this anisotropic CD; they constructively contribute to CD for $\mathbf{k \parallel y}$ (red line, Fig. \[fig:TDB\]d), whereas destructively for $\mathbf{k \parallel x}$ and pretty much eliminating the total CD (black line, Fig. \[fig:TDB\]d). We do not explicitly show this, but we mention that their contributions can be quantified by directly calculating CD from their retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor. Here, TDB clearly shows that higher-order multipole transition is necessary for describing plasmonic meta-atoms and reconstructing ansotropic chiral responses even in far-fields, as well as in near-fields [@Mun2019].
![(a) The schematics of Si quadrumer. (b) The retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor at $\lambda$ = 520 nm. (c) Multipole-decomposed scattering cross-sections at $\mathbf{E}_\mathrm{inc} = \hat{x}e^{ikz}$. (d) Spectra of $(\alpha_{m2}^{m2})_{xx}^{xx}$, $(\alpha_{m2}^{m2})_{xy}^{xy}$, $(\alpha_{m2}^{m2})_{xz}^{xz}$, $(\alpha_{m2}^{m2})_{xz}^{xx}$, and $(\alpha_{e1}^{m2})_{x}^{yz}$.[]{data-label="fig:HDQ"}](Fig_HRI.png)
Finally, we briefly discuss high-refractive-index nanoparticles, which are actively researched topic due to their higher-order multipolar modes. In general, subwavelength plasmonic nanoparticles exhibit dominant ED mode, but high-refractive-index nanoparticles often exhibit dominant higher-order modes. For instance, Si quadrumer exhibits strong MD mode exceeding ED near 520 nm (Fig. \[fig:HDQ\]c). In addition, broad MQ response was observed between 420 and 520 nm. We analyzed the origin of MQ response from the $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor components that can contribute to the MQ mode (Fig. \[fig:HDQ\]b,d). Although the MQ mode shows a broad response, it originates from the sum of many resonances (Fig. \[fig:HDQ\]d). This example shows that deeply fundamental properties of meta-atoms may be analyzed from their higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors.
Multiple-scattering theory and electromagnetically coupled systems
==================================================================
In the previous section, we have shown that higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor is necessary for analyzing isolated meta-atoms and interpreting their interaction with light. Additionally, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor can be used to model interacting meta-atoms for further research. In literature, self-consistent coupled multipole equations have been formulated using the Green’s tensor to illustrate periodic 2D arrays of plasmonic [@DeAbajo2007; @Auguie2008; @Swiecicki2017; @Babicheva2018] and dielectric [@Evlyukhin2010; @Babicheva2019] spheres, and finite [@Martikainen2017; @Draine1994] or random [@Watson2017] systems. In this approach, electromagnetic interactions between scattering objects are taken into account without any approximation, while single scattering objects are described by $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors approximated to low-order multipole orders. This approach is simplified version of superposition $\mathbf{T}$-matrix method (STMM), which has been extensively studied for coupled spheres [@DeAbajo1999; @Stout2008; @Stout2011]. Earlier studies have usually incorporated small spheres, whose $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ can be easily obtained using the quasistatic approximation (see Appendix \[appendix:quasistatic\] for more details), to study their interaction with light and with nearby scattering objects or molecules [@Govorov2010; @Wu2015]. However, meta-atoms with complicated multipolar transitions can also be modelled into $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors, which are then inserted into the MST [@Watson2017], potentially allowing studies on more complicated physics, e.g., Fano resonances [@Gallinet2011a; @Suryadharma2019] and hybridization of particle and lattice resonances in 2D [@MahdiSalary2017; @Baur2018; @Terekhov2019; @Kwadrin2014] and 3D [@Liu2008; @Kim2017] arrays. In this section, we reconstruct several physical phenomena arising in electromagnetically coupled meta-atoms simply by implementing $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors into the MST, and discuss the advantages of this method.
![Reconstructed optically coupled systems using $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors and MST. (a,b) Plasmon-coupling between two coupled nanorods at different coupling configurations, and (c) Fano resonance between dark and bright elements. The nanorods in (a,b) are approximated as $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor with only $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$; the bright element in (c), as $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{y}^{y}$; the dark element in (c), as $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$, $(\alpha_{m1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{m1}^{e2})_{z}^{xy}$, $(\alpha_{e2}^{m1})_{yz}^{z}$, and $(\alpha_{e2}^{e2})_{xy}^{xy}$ (see Fig. \[fig:PDB\]b). The configurations are illustrated in the schematics on the left sides. The scattering cross-sections calculated at different center-to-center distances $g$ are on the right sides. Dashed-lines and cross-marks are the reference solutions calculated using STMM and FEM, respectively. The nanorods in (a,b) and the dark element in (c) have $a$ = 10 nm and $c$ = 40 nm, and the bright element in (c) has $a$ = 13 nm and $c$ = 50 nm.[]{data-label="fig:toymodel"}](Fig_toymodel.png)
First, electromagnetically coupled two plasmonic nanorods are illustrated using MST (Fig. \[fig:toymodel\]a and b), where only $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$ component is considered in their $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors. Such closely situated plasmonic particles are strongly coupled, resulting strong spectral resonance shift. Spectral red-shift (Fig. \[fig:toymodel\]a) and blue-shift (Fig. \[fig:toymodel\]b) can be reconstructed depending on the configuration of the coupled nanorods. This phenomena can be intuitively interpreted by plasmon hybridization theory (PHT) [@Nordlander2004]; the induced charge density configuration in Fig. \[fig:toymodel\]a becomes stable by the hybridization redshifting the resonance, whereas the configuration in Fig. \[fig:toymodel\]b becomes unstable blue-shifting the resonance. However, PHT is based on the quasistatic approximation, so quantitative analysis is difficult for large, complicated systems. Another widely used theoretical framework for interpreting coupled optical systems is the coupled mode theory (CMT), which approximates the scattering objects as harmonic oscillators that are coupled to each other. However, CMT relies on fitting procedure to retrieve the relevant parameters and requires experimental or simulated results to begin with, so the CMT cannot be used to provide new information. In addition, it is of question whether the fitted parameters from the simple coupled harmonic oscillators can reliably represent the vectorial nature of electromagnetic coupling. Another widely studied phenomena arising in electromagnetically coupled systems is Fano-like resonance, where a dark element is coupled to a bright element. The dark element cannot be directly excited by the incident field, but the coupling between the dark mode and the bright mode allows the dark mode to be indirectly excited. To reconstruct this phenomena, we mimicked the dolmen configuration [@Gallinet2011a] using a dark element with two horizontal nanorods and a bright element with a vertical nanorod (Fig. \[fig:toymodel\]c). Only $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{y}^{y}$ component is considered for the bright element, and $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$, $(\alpha_{m1}^{m1})_{z}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{e2}^{m1})_{xy}^{z}$, $(\alpha_{m1}^{e2})_{z}^{xy}$, and $(\alpha_{e2}^{e2})_{xy}^{xy}$ components are considered for the dark element as Fig. \[fig:PDB\]. The calculated scattering cross-section shows a dip near 570 nm, where the dark element has resonance, and this dip grows larger as $g$ becomes smaller due to the stronger coupling between the dark and bright elements.
The spectra calculated using multipole methods using the truncated $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors (solid lines) show excellent quantitative agreement with the reference (dashed-lines and cross-marks), but the error grows larger as $g$ decreases (Fig. \[fig:toymodel\]). This is because multipoles are efficient in describing long-range interactions but not in describing strong coupling between plasmonic particles in near-field [@Park2014], which requires an increasingly large number of multipole order for accurate description [@Stout2008]. Still, the collective responses between plasmonic particles situated in a reasonably far distance and dielectric particles [@DeAbajo1999] can be efficiently and accurately described under the multipole approach.
Importantly, the multipole approach has superior computational efficiency compared to the traditional numerical methods, such as finite-difference time-domain and finite-element methods. Noticeably, this approach has shown significant potentials for rigorously studying electromagnetic problems involving disordered, aperiodic [@Rahimzadegan2019; @Jenkins2018; @Pinheiro2017], and multi-scale systems with a large number of particles ($N$>10,000) over a large volume [@Pattelli2018]. Especially, aperiodic metasurfaces [@MahdiSalary2017; @Rahimzadegan2019; @Jenkins2018] and random media [@Pinheiro2017] could be accurately studied using this method, and optimization [@Forestiere2012] and dataset construction for deep-learning neural networks [@So2019] would significantly benefit from this approach. In addition, the multipole approach can implement localized shaped beams from simple Gaussian beams [@Novotny2009] to highly focused [@AlvaroRanhaNeves2006] and helical beams [@Wu2015; @Wang2017], providing a versatile framework to rigorously study spin-orbit interactions. Therefore, the multipole approach could be used to rigorously study electromagnetic phenomena arising in complex, disordered media consisting of discrete scattering objects.
Toy models
==========
![(a,b) Completely decoupled dipolar dual particles at (a) LCP and (b) RCP incidences. Inset spectra are absorption by LDP (red) and RDP (blue). (c) Randomly dispersed dual particles at LCP incidence. Inset spectra are the sums of absorption by LDP (red) and RDP (blue). The positions of LDPs and RDPs are denoted by circled letters L and R, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:dual"}](Fig_dual.png)
In previous examples, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors of realistic particles were considered, but it is also possible to consider $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors of arbitrary particles without information on their physical geometric parameters. Recently, Fernandez-Corbaton, et al. proposed the concept of dual particles, which are excited by light with one helicity, re-radiates light with the same helicity, and are completely transparent to light with the opposite helicity. They also proposed that two oppositely dual particles are completely uncoupled to each other, and a media consisting of dual particles with a single handedness will be completely transparent to one helicity and opaque to the other helicity [@Fernandez-Corbaton2016]. Demonstration of this concept is difficult, because purely dual particles have not been discovered, although approximately dual particles have been studied [@Fernandez-Corbaton2016; @Fruhnert2017]. Still, we can theoretically investigate the concepts above using $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors and MST, because arbitrary $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors without physical parameters can be devised, which cannot be done using the traditional numerical methods. Dual particles at dipole approximation have $\alpha_{e1}^{e1}$ = $\alpha_{m1}^{m1}$ = $\pm\alpha_{e1}^{m1}$ = $\pm\alpha_{m1}^{e1}$, where $\pm$ corresponds to left- (LDP) and right-dual particles (RDP), which interact with left- (LCP) and right-circularly-polarized lights (RCP), respectively.
In this section, we implemented dual particles using isotropic (scalar), dipolar $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors with Lorentzian resonance. We confirmed that two oppositely dual particles are completely uncoupled with each other, and only LDP is excited at LCP incidence (Fig. \[fig:dual\]a), and RDP is excited at RCP incidence (Fig. \[fig:dual\]b). This is because LDP is excited by LCP and re-radiates LCP, which cannot excite RDP. In a mixture of LDPs and RDPs, RDPs are completely transparent upon LCP incidence, and LDPs are electromagnetically coupled.
This section shows $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors as a powerful method to treat symmetries and conservation laws at the microscopic level (single scattering object) without dealing with the geometrical parameters. In fact, implementation of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors without their relevant geometrical structures has been performed in literature to treat realistic molecules at weak excitations [@Novotny2009], where the molecules were approximated as $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors and implemented in the framework of MST to study plasmon-enhanced circular dichroism [@Govorov2010] and helical dichroism [@Wu2015].
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we have introduced the systematic transformation between $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor in the Cartesian basis and $\mathbf{T}$-matrix in the spherical basis using the basis transformation between the exact Cartesian and the spherical multipoles (Eqn. \[eqn:multipole\]) and between the local fields and field gradients and the spherical multipoles (Eqn. \[eqn:field\]). In general, characterization of meta-atoms using $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor has been limited to dipolar regime, but recent advances in nanophotonics and metamaterials utilize higher-order multipole transitions coming from coupled plasmonic and high-index dielectric nanoantennas. These scattering systems with higher-order multipole transitions can be interpreted at a fundamental level using higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor, which can be easily obtained from $\mathbf{T}$-matrix using the facile basis transformation. Incorporated with the MST, the multipole approach can be a versatile theoretical framework in nanophotonics to rigorously investigate optical phenomena arising in coherently coupled multi-body systems [@Mishchenko2008]. Here, the well-defined symmetries and conservation laws can be treated at the microscopic level (single scattering object) using $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors, and the electromagnetic interaction between them are treated using the Green’s tensors. It is worthwhile to note that the potential applicability of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor (or $\mathbf{T}$-matrix) into the MST has been mentioned in many previous papers, but only spherical particles have been generally considered. By simply taking nonspherical structured meta-atoms into account, the multipole approach can be extended into many different applications.
The multipole approach is especially advantageous for complicated, random, multi-scale problems due to computational efficiency, and analytic scattering objects, such as realistic molecules and dual particles, can also be implemented. We hope this study may serve as a fundamental reference for the multipole approach in nanophotonics. Moreover, the uniquitity of the multipole approach allows this work applicable to other fields including acoustics, astronomy, and remote sensing.
Notes on approximate Cartesian multipoles {#appendix:multipoles}
=========================================
The exact Cartesian multipoles *exactly* reconstruct multipole radiations of the localized current sources with arbitrary sizes, but their expressions (Eqn. 1) are rather unfamiliar. The expressions of the familiar approximate Cartesian multipoles can be obtained by taking the long-wavelenght limit [@Alaee2018] as:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split} d^E_\alpha &=
-\frac{1}{i\omega}
\int{{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}J_\alpha}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} d^M_\alpha &=
\frac{1}{2}
\int{{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} Q^E_{\alpha\beta} &=
-\frac{1}{i\omega}
\int{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}\Big[r_\alpha J_\beta + r_\beta J_\alpha
-\frac{2}{3}\delta_{\alpha\beta}{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}\Big]
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} Q^M_{\alpha\beta} &=
\int{{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}[r_\alpha {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\beta + r_\beta {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha]
}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} O^E_{\alpha\beta\gamma} &=
-\frac{2}{i\omega}
\int{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}\Big[r_\alpha r_\beta J_\gamma +r_\beta r_\gamma J_\alpha +r_\gamma r_\alpha J_\beta \\
&\hspace{5mm}
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\alpha\beta}(r^2J_\gamma+2{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\gamma)
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\beta\gamma}(r^2J_\alpha+2{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\alpha)\\
&\hspace{5mm}
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\gamma\alpha}(r^2J_\beta+2{\mathbf{(r \cdot J)}}r_\beta)\Big]
\end{split}\\
\begin{split} O^M_{\alpha\beta\gamma} &=
\frac{1}{6}
\int{\mathrm{d}^3\mathbf{r}~}{\Big[}
r_\alpha r_\beta {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\gamma
+r_\beta r_\gamma {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha
+r_\gamma r_\alpha {\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\beta\\
&\hspace{5mm}
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\alpha\beta}r^2{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\gamma
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\beta\gamma}r^2{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\alpha
-\frac{1}{5}\delta_{\gamma\alpha}r^2{\mathbf{(r \times J)}}_\beta
{\Big]}
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
Interestingly, toroidal multipoles can also be recovered from the higher-order terms [@Alaee2018].
In addition, we numerically confirmed the transformation between the exact Cartesian multipoles and the spherical multipoles. The exact Cartesian multipoles (solid lines) and the approximate Cartesian multipoles (dashed lines) were calculated numerically using FEM and were compared with the exact Cartesian multipoles transformed from the spherical multipoles that were calculated analytically using the Mie theory. Two cases: a smaller sphere with lower refractive-index (Fig. \[fig:benchmark\]a) and a larger sphere with higher refractive-index (Fig. \[fig:benchmark\]b) were compared. The exact Cartesian multipoles that were numerically calculated (dashed lines) and those transformed from the analytically calculated spherical multipoles (solid lines) agree very well for both smaller and larger spheres. For the larger sphere, the approximate Cartesian multipoles deviate strongly from the exact Cartesian multipoles.
![Induced multipoles of (a) a small dielectric sphere with $R=50~\text{nm}$ and $n=2$ and (b) a large sphere with $R=300~\text{nm}$ and $n=3$. Dashed line: the numerically calculated exact Cartesian multipoles; dot-dashed line: the numerically calculated approximate Cartesian multipoles; solid line: the exact Cartesian multipoles transformed from the analytically calculated spherical multipoles; black: real; red: imaginary.[]{data-label="fig:benchmark"}](Fig_benchmark.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Notes on the proportionality constants {#appendix:proportionality}
======================================
It should be noted that the proportionality constants for multipoles are rather arbitrary, but the reconstructed multipole radiations satisfying the Maxwell’s equations should be identical, for which the proportionality constants are compensated by the expressions for the multipole radiations (Eqn. 4).
Due to the same reason, the proportionality constants for the spherical multipoles are also arbitrary. In general, the spherical multipoles are not expressed explicitly, but the vector spherical wave functions (VSWFs) are given, from which the spherical multipoles are obtained using the orthogonality of the VSWFs. Note that expressions for VSWFs differ by publications, and our expression is
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{M}^{(i)}_{nm}(k\mathbf{r}) &= i\gamma_{nm}z_n^{(i)}(kr)(i\pi_{nm}\hat{e}_\theta-\tau_{nm}\hat{e}_\phi)e^{im\phi}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\mathbf{N}^{(i)}_{nm}(k\mathbf{r}) &= i\gamma_{nm}\Big[n(n+1)\frac{z_n^{(i)}(kr)}{kr}P_n^m(\cos{\theta})\hat{e}_r\\
&+\frac{1}{kr}\frac{d[kr z_n^{(i)}(kr)]}{d(kr)}(\tau_{nm}\hat{e}_\theta+i\pi_{nm}\hat{e}_\phi)\Big]e^{im\phi}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\tau_{nm}(\theta) &= \frac{d}{d\theta} P_n^m(\cos{\theta})
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\pi_{nm}(\theta) &= \frac{m}{\sin{\theta}}P_n^m(\cos{\theta})
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\gamma_{nm} &= \sqrt{\frac{(2n+1)(n-m)!}{4\pi n(n+1)(n+m)!}}
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
where superscripts (1) and (+) refer to the regular and singular spherical waves, respectively; $z_n^{(+)}(kr) = h_n^{(1)}(kr)$ and $z_n^{(1)}(kr) = j_n(kr)$. The spherical multipoles can also be obtained from the localized current sources [@Jackson1999; @Grahn2012]. The incident and scattered fields are reconstructed as
$$ \mathbf{E}_\mathrm{sca} = E_0\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-n}^{n}{[b^E_{nm}\mathbf{N}^{(+)}_{nm}(k\mathbf{r})+b^M_{nm}\mathbf{M}^{(+)}_{nm}(k\mathbf{r})]}$$
$$ \mathbf{E}_\mathrm{inc} = E_0\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-n}^{n}{[a^E_{nm}\mathbf{N}^{(1)}_{nm}(k\mathbf{r})+a^M_{nm}\mathbf{M}^{(1)}_{nm}(k\mathbf{r})]}$$
Units of polarizability tensors {#appendix:units}
===============================
The $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor linearly relates the fields and field gradients at the origin to the induced multipoles as: $$\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{d}^E \\
\mathbf{Q}^E \\
\mathbf{d}^M \\
\mathbf{Q}^M
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}^E} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}^E} & \alpha^{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{d}^E} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{d}^E} \\
\alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^E} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^E} & \alpha^{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{Q}^E} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{Q}^E} \\
\alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}^M} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}^M} & \alpha^{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{d}^M} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{d}^M} \\
\alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^M} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{Q}^M} & \alpha^{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{Q}^M} & \alpha^{\Diamond\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{Q}^M} \\
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{E} \\
\Diamond\mathbf{E} \\
\mathbf{H} \\
\Diamond\mathbf{H}
\end{bmatrix}$$ This definition, however, is expressed in SI units. The $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor in SI units has different units per components as can be seen in the dipolar $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor: $$\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{d}^E \\ \mathbf{d}^M
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}^E} & \alpha^{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{d}^E} \\
\alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}^M} & \alpha^{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{d}^M}
\end{bmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{E} \\ \mathbf{H}
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eqn:alpha_SI}$$ The components of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor in SI unit can differ by several orders, so they cannot be compared directly. Therefore, the normalized $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor in units of volume is used in this work, which at dipole regime is expressed as: $$\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{d}^E/\epsilon \\
\eta \mathbf{d}^M
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha^{e1}_{e1} & i\alpha^{m1}_{e1} \\
-i\alpha^{e1}_{m1} & \alpha^{m1}_{m1}
\end{bmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{E} \\
\eta \mathbf{H}
\end{bmatrix},
\label{eqn:alpha_vol}$$ where $\alpha^{e1}_{e1} = \alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}_e}/\epsilon$, $i\alpha^{m1}_{e1} = \alpha^{\mathbf{H}}_{\mathbf{d}_e}/(\epsilon\eta)$, $-i\alpha^{e1}_{m1} = \eta \alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}_m}$, and $\alpha^{m1}_{m1} = \alpha_{\mathbf{H}}^{\mathbf{d}_m}$. The $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor components in SI units can be easily obtained from Eqn. 2 and 7. For instance, ED–ED transition term can be expressed as $\alpha^{\mathbf{E}}_{\mathbf{d}_e} = (\frac{\sqrt{3\pi}E_0}{\eta\omega k^2}\bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1) \mathbf{T}_{E1}^{E1} (\frac{iE_0}{\sqrt{12\pi}}\bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1)^{-1} = \frac{6\pi\epsilon}{ik^3} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_1 \mathbf{T}^{E1}_{E1} \bar{\bar{\mathrm{O}}}_{1}^{-1} = \epsilon \alpha^{e1}_{e1}$. The other transition components in SI units can also be obtained in a similar manner.
Quasistatic polarizablities {#appendix:quasistatic}
===========================
The multipole approach has been successful in providing simple analytic form for describing small nanoparticles. This allowed modelling small dielectric, plasmonic, or chiral nanospheres for many different phenomena including plasmon-enhanced scattering, optical trapping, and chiral optical forces, to name a few. In this section, we compare quasistatic polarizability expressions with the exact polarizability. The quasistatic expressions can be applied to very small nanoparticles and do not describe higher-order multipole contributions that arise in near-field interactions or larger particles or clusters.
Notably, subwavelength nanospheres have often been expressed by the quasistatic polarizability $$\alpha = 4\pi R^3 \frac{\epsilon_r-1}{\epsilon_r+2},$$ where $\epsilon_r$ is the relative permittivity. Note that the quasistatic expression normalized by the sphere volume is independent of the radius. For a small Ag sphere with $R$ = 10 nm, the quasistatic limit (solid line) shows good agreement with the exact polarizability (dashed line), but for a larger Ag sphere with $R$ = 30 nm, the exact polarizability shows red-shifted and broadened resonance due to the larger radiative damping, which the quasistatic model cannot incorporate (Fig. \[fig:qs\_nanosphere\]).
![Polarizability of a Ag sphere normalized by its volume. Solid line: quasistatic; dashed line: exact, small ($R$ = 5 nm); dot-dashed line: exact, large ($R$ = 30 nm); black: real; red: imaginary.[]{data-label="fig:qs_nanosphere"}](Fig_qs_nanosphere.pdf)
The quasistatic expression for polarizability of subwavelength nanorods was only recently reported as simple analytic form [@Moroz2009; @Majic2017]
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\alpha_{x}^{x} &= 4\pi a^2c \frac{\epsilon_r-1}{3+3L_x(\epsilon_r-1)}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
\alpha_{z}^{z} &= 4\pi a^2c \frac{\epsilon_r-1}{3+3L_z(\epsilon_r-1)}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
L_z &= \frac{1-e^2}{e^2}{\Big[}\frac{1}{2e}\ln{\frac{1+e}{1-e}}-1{\Big]}
\end{split}\\
\begin{split}
L_x &= (1-L_z)/2
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$
where the focal length $f=\sqrt{c^2-a^2}$ and the eccentricity $e=f/c$. Note that the quasistatic expression for nanorod normalized by its volume also is independent of the size, but only depends on the eccentricity. For the short-axis mode, the quasistatic and exact polarizabilities agree well (Fig. \[fig:qs\_nanorod\]a). For the long-axis mode, quasistatic polarizability (solid line) agrees well with the exact polarizability of the small nanorod (dashed line), but the exact polarizability of the larger nanorod shows red-shifted and broadened response due to the larger radiative damping (Fig. \[fig:qs\_nanorod\]b).
![Polarizabilities (a) $\alpha_{xx}$ and (b) $\alpha_{zz}$ of an Ag nanorod. Solid line: quasistatic; dashed line: exact, small ($a$ = 1 nm and $c$ = 5 nm); dot-dashed line: exact, large ($a$ = 10 nm and $c$ = 50 nm); black: real; red: imaginary.[]{data-label="fig:qs_nanorod"}](Fig_qs_nanorod.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Beyond the ED approximation, the quasistatic polarizabilities of a chiral sphere is given as [@Canaguier-Durand2015]
$$\alpha_{e}= 4\pi R^3 \frac{(\epsilon_r-1)(\mu_r+2)-\kappa^2}{(\epsilon_r+2)(\mu_r+2)-\kappa^2}$$
$$\alpha_{m}= 4\pi R^3 \frac{(\mu_r-1)(\epsilon_r+2)-\kappa^2}{(\mu_r+2)(\epsilon_r+2)-\kappa^2}$$
$$\alpha_{c}= 4\pi R^3 \frac{3\kappa}{(\epsilon_r+2)(\mu_r+2)-\kappa^2}$$
where $\mu_r$ and $\kappa$ are relative relative permeability and chirality parameter of the chiral sphere, respectively. The quasistatic and exact polarizabilities of a small nonmagnetic chiral sphere agree very well (Fig. \[fig:qs\_chiral\]).
![Polarizabilities (a) $\alpha_e$ and (b) $\alpha_c$ of a chiral sphere with $R=10~\text{nm}$. Solid line: quasistatic; dashed line: exact; black: real; red: imaginary.[]{data-label="fig:qs_chiral"}](Fig_qs_chiralsphere.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Appendix: T-matrix retrieval {#appendix:t-matrix retrieval}
============================
Up to arbitrary multipole orders, $\mathbf{T}$-matrix of several particle systems can be analytically calculated including notably spheres from Mie coefficients, chiral spheres [@Wu2012], homogeneous anisotropic spheres [@Stout2007], and even nonlocal spheres and coreshells [@David2011], and $\mathbf{T}$-matrix of a system of multiple particles can also be defined [@Mishchenko2010]. In general, $\mathbf{T}$-matrix of nonspherical particles should be calculated numerically using Extended Boundary Condition Method [@Mishchenko2002], Discrete-Sources Null-Field Method [@Doicu2006], or FEM [@Fruhnert2017]. In this work, we used FEM to extract $\mathbf{T}$-matrix of meta-atoms for its convenient implementation. However, it should be noted that FEM is very costly for calculating $\mathbf{T}$-matrix compared to surface-integral methods [@Mishchenko2002; @Doicu2006], because they require only particle surfaces to be discretized, whereas FEM requires larger simulation domains including the PML and the spacer between the particle surface and the PML.
The retrieved $\mathbf{T}$-matrix is then used to obtain exact higher-order $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor. The retrieved $\mathbf{T}$-matrix (or $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor) can be analytically treated to efficiently calculate orientation-averaged optical responses, or inserted in the multiple-scattering theory to calculate coherently coupled optical responses between discrete scattering objects.
T-matrix and polarizability-tensors of meta-atoms {#appendix:t-matrix}
=================================================
Meta-atoms in the main text
---------------------------
![$\mathbf{T}$-matrices of the meta-atoms discussed in the main text: (a) plasmonic double-bar in Fig. 2, (b) twisted double-bar in Fig. 3, and (c) Si quadrumer in Fig. 4.[]{data-label="fig:main"}](Fig_main.png)
Here, we present $\mathbf{T}$-matrices of meta-atoms, whose $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors are presented in the main text. Compared to the $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors with only a few components are visible (Fig. 2b and 3b), $\mathbf{T}$-matrices show more complicated structures, which are difficult to interpret (Fig. \[fig:main\]a,b) because of the spherical basis. On the other hand, meta-atoms with rotational symmetries about $z$-axis show similar level of complexity in their $\mathbf{T}$-matrices and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors (Fig. \[fig:main\]c). In later parts, we demonstrate analysis of meta-atoms from their retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensors.
Plasmonic nanorod
-----------------
![(a) $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$ and (b) $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{z}^{z}$ of a plasmonic nanorod oriented in $x$-direction (shown in inset), and its (c) $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor and (d) $\mathbf{T}$-matrix at $\lambda$ = 660 nm.[]{data-label="fig:nanorod"}](Fig_PNR.png){width="80mm"}
First, we analyze a plasmonic nanorod with strongly anisotropic response, which is excited when the incident electric field is parallel to the nanorod axis. This long-axis mode is also known to be strongly redshifted compared to the short-axis mode. The retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor of a Ag nanorod clearly demonstrates this feature (Fig. \[fig:nanorod\]a,b). ED response in nanorod-axis ($x$) direction is red-shifted and stronger as can be seen from $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$ than in short-axis direction shown in $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{z}^{z}$, which is blue-shifted and far weaker than $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$. In addition, a plasmonic nanorod has only one dominant $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor component (note that the colorbar is in logarithmic scale). This strongly anisotropic response of a plasmonic nanorod allows it to be safely approximated as a point polarizable anisotropic element with $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$ present as in Fig. 5 in the main text.
High-index dielectric spheres
-----------------------------
![(a) Multipole-decomposed scattering cross-sections of a Si sphere with $R=70~\text{nm}$. (b) $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor at $\lambda=580~\text{nm}$, and spectra of (c) $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$ and (d) $(\alpha_{m1}^{m1})_{x}^{x}$.[]{data-label="fig:dielectric_sphere"}](Fig_Si_sphere.png){width="84mm"}
Recently, high-refractive-index dielectric nanoparticles have been noted for their low loss and higher-order multipole modes coming from Mie-like resonances [@Kuznetsov2012]. A small Si sphere with $R=70~\text{nm}$ by planewave incidence shows strong MD radiation at 580 nm (Fig. \[fig:dielectric\_sphere\]a). The ED and MD resonances originates from $\alpha_{e1}^{e1}$ and $\alpha_{m1}^{m1}$, respectively. Due to the isotropic response coming from the spherical symmetry, only diagonal terms appear in $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor (Fig. \[fig:dielectric\_sphere\]b).
Split-ring resonators
---------------------
![Ag split-ring resonator. (a) Multipole-decomposed scattering cross-section at x-polarized planewave incidence propagating in z-direction. (c) Retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor at 480 nm. (b) Extinction = $\sigma_\mathrm{ext}^{+}+\sigma_\mathrm{ext}^{-}$ and Circular dichroism = $\sigma_\mathrm{ext}^{+}-\sigma_\mathrm{ext}^{-}$, where $\sigma_\mathrm{ext}^{\pm}$ are extinction cross-sections at obliquely incident left- and right-circularly-polarized planewaves. (d) Spectra of $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$, $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{y}^{y}$, $(\alpha_{m1}^{e1})_{z}^{x}$, and $(\alpha_{e2}^{e1})_{xy}^{x}$. $R=30~\text{nm}$, $r=10~\text{nm}$, $\theta=60^\circ$.[]{data-label="fig:SRR"}](Fig_SRR.png){width="84mm"}
A split-ring resonator (SRR) is one of the most widely studied elements for achieving optically magnetic responses. Interestingly, the origin of this magnetic dipole mode can be explained from the retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor (Fig. \[fig:SRR\]b). Incident $x$-polarized electric field on SRR generates current loop in $xy$-plane, which corresponds to magnetic dipole moment oriented in z-direction. This transition is visible in the $(\alpha_{m1}^{e1})_{z}^{x}$ component, which shows transition from $E_x$ into $d^m_z$. However, it should be noted that the magnetic response of SRR is rather weak in visible regime due to large Ohmic losses [@Dolling2005], as can be seen from the weak scattering cross-section intensities (Fig. \[fig:SRR\]a).
Another interesting property from SRR is extrinsic chirality, or helicity dependent chiral response from a geometrically achiral structure at obliquely incident field [@Sersic2012]. It is counter-intuitive that an achiral structure can undergo chiral interaction. Extrinsic chirality occurs because incident field has a defined wavevector, which is not included in the mirror plane of the system. At oblique incidence, two resonances at 480 nm and 680 nm are observed (Fig. \[fig:SRR\]c), which corresponds to dominantly $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$ and $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{y}^{y}$, respectively. However, the two modes cannot explain extrinsic chirality at the oblique incidence (Fig. \[fig:SRR\]d). From the retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor, this extrinsic chirality comes from magneto-electric coupling term $(\alpha_{m1}^{e1})_{z}^{x}$ [@Sersic2012; @Hu2016]. It should be noted that this magneto-electric coupling term disappears for asymmetric SRR [@Liu2016] due to even-parity.
Helicoids
---------
![(a) The schematics of Au helicoid with side length 50 nm. (b) The retrieved $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor at 580 nm. (c) Extinction and circular dichorism. (d) Spectra of $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$, $(\alpha_{e1}^{m1})_{x}^{x}$, $(\alpha_{e2}^{e2})_{xx}^{xx}$, and $(\alpha_{e2}^{e2})_{xy}^{xy}$.[]{data-label="fig:helicoid"}](Fig_helicoid.png){width="84mm"}
Finally, we present $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-tensor of an interesting system with 4-fold rotational symmetry without inversion symmetry. Such system was recently demonstrated in Au helicoids synthesized in solution-phase [@Lee2018]. Due to the 4-fold rotational symmetry in 3D space, only diagonal terms appear in dipole order with degenerate $xx$, $yy$, and $zz$ components. Notably, chiral response is preserved even with this high symmetry. Due to the small size of this particle, dipolar order is sufficient to describe both achiral and chiral responses (Fig. \[fig:helicoid\]c) from the imaginary parts of $(\alpha_{e1}^{e1})_{x}^{x}$ and $(\alpha_{e1}^{m1})_{x}^{x}$, respectively (Fig. \[fig:helicoid\]d). Finally, EQ–EQ transition terms also appear and may become nonnegligible at larger sizes [@Lee2018].
Funding {#funding .unnumbered}
=======
This work is financially supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) grants (Grants No. NRF2019R1A2C3003129, No. CAMM-2019M3A6B3030637, No. NRF-2019R1A5A8080290, No. NRF-2018M3D1A1058998, and No. NRF-2015R1A5A1037668) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT), Korea. S.S. acknowledges global Ph.D. fellowship (Grant No. NRF-2017H1A2A1043322) from the NRF-MSIT, Korea. J.J. acknowledges a fellowship from Hyundai Motor Chung Mong-Koo Foundation.
Disclosures {#disclosures .unnumbered}
===========
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Junya <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Otsuki</span>[^1], Hiroaki <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kusunose</span> and Yoshio <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kuramoto</span>'
title: |
Dynamics of the Singlet-Triplet System Coupled with Conduction Spins\
– Application to Pr Skutterudites –
---
Introduction
============
Heavy fermion states have been observed in some Pr skutterudites such as PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$ and PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$. PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$ is the first heavy fermion superconductor discovered in Pr compounds[@Bauer] and, in addition, has quadrupole ordered phase under high magnetic field[@Aoki_OsSb]. PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ exhibits antiferro-quadrupole order at low temperatures[@Aoki_FeP]. In the inelastic neutron scattering experiment of PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$, any CEF excitation peak cannot be detected at temperatures higher than the phase transition, while inelastic peak develops at lower temperatures[@Iwasa_Fe]. On the other hand, the CEF excitations are clearly seen in PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$[@Maple; @kuwahara; @gore]. Taking account of the fact that only PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ exhibits the Kondo effect in Pr skutterudite series[@Sato], we consider that the heavy mass in PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ is caused by the Kondo effect, while another mechanism may be relevant to PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$.
CEF level structures are essential to the properties of $4f$ electrons. The CEF singlet ground state and low lying excited triplet states make clear the origin of the high field ordered phase in PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$[@Kohgi; @shiina-aoki]. The ordered phase in PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ is also ascribed to the quadrupole moment of the CEF singlet-triplet system[@Kiss-Fazekas]. Difference of the actual wave functions of the CEF triplet states should create the diversity of physical properties in Pr skutterudite.
According to the band calculation, main conduction band in Pr skutterudites is formed by the $2p$ orbitals of pnictogens with $a_u$ symmetry, which does not have the orbital degrees of freedom[@Harima]. Considering exchange interaction between $4f^2$ states and $a_u$ orbital, we have revealed the condition for the occurrence of the Kondo effect [@otsuki]. Then the fact that the Kondo effect appears only in PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ is reasonably understood by the difference between the triplet wave functions.
When the Kondo effect occurs in the singlet-triplet system, the Kondo effect competes with the CEF singlet. It is expected that the competition affects the physical quantities, especially their temperature dependence. The Kondo effect in the CEF singlet ground state has been studied theoretically by several authors in relation to URu$_2$Si$_2$[@kuramoto; @shimizu; @yotsuhashi]. However, its dynamics such as dynamical susceptibility has not been derived in spite of its significance.
In this paper, we derive dynamics of the CEF singlet-triplet system, and clarify temperature dependence of dynamical quantities. The competition between the CEF singlet and the Kondo effect is the main issue. Dynamics is derived by the non-crossing approximation (NCA) in §2. Numerical results by the NCA and by the numerical renormalization group are given in §3. Then we discuss application to the real materials. We summarize the results in the last section. Details of the NCA equations for an actual computation are given in Appendices A and B.
Application of the NCA to the Singlet-Triplet System
====================================================
The NCA has been developed as a solver of the Anderson model[@nca1; @bickers]. The NCA enables us to compute dynamical quantities at finite temperature as well as static ones. An equivalent approximation has been applied to the Coqblin-Schrieffer model with CEF splittings, and temperature dependence of dynamical susceptibility has been discussed[@maekawa]. We shall newly apply the NCA to the localized $4f^2$ system with exchange interactions.
Singlet-triplet Kondo model
---------------------------
We have derived the effective exchange interaction in the singlet-triplet system coupled with the $a_u$ conduction spin $\mib{s}_c$ [@otsuki]. The interaction is written in terms of operator $\mib{X}^{\rm t}$ and $\mib{X}^{\rm s}$, or pseudo-spins $\mib{S}_1 =(\mib{X}^{\rm t}+\mib{X}^{\rm s})/2$ and $\mib{S}_2 =(\mib{X}^{\rm t}-\mib{X}^{\rm s})/2$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\text{s-t}} &=
\epsilon_{\rm t} P_{\rm t}+
\epsilon_{\rm s} P_{\rm s}+
\left(
I_{\rm t} \mib{X}^{\rm t} + I_{\rm s} \mib{X}^{\rm s}
\right)\cdot \mib{s}_c \nonumber \\
&=
\Delta_{\rm CEF} \mib{S}_1\cdot \mib{S}_2 +
(J_1\mib{S}_1 + J_2\mib{S}_2)\cdot \mib{s}_c,
\label{eq:st-kondo}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_{\rm s}=-\mib{S}_1 \cdot\mib{S}_2 +1/4$ and $P_{\rm t}=\mib{S}_1 \cdot\mib{S}_2 +3/4$ are the projection operator onto singlet and triplet states, respectively. $J_{1, 2}=I_{\rm t} \pm I_{\rm s}$ and $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=\epsilon_{\rm t}-\epsilon_{\rm s}$ is the CEF splitting. We have chosen the origin of energy so that $3\epsilon_{\rm t} +\epsilon_{\rm s}=0$. In the second order perturbation on hybridization, the coupling constant $J_1$ becomes ferromagnetic and $J_2$ antiferromagnetic, provided the triplet wave functions mainly consist of $|\Gamma_4\rangle$ in the point group $O_h$. On the other hand, both exchange interactions can be negligible if the triplet is almost composed of $|\Gamma_5\rangle$ in $O_h$.
![Operators acting on the singlet-triplet system.[]{data-label="fig:x_operator"}](x_operator.eps){width="5cm"}
The operator $\mib{X}^{\rm t}$ act on the triplet states, and $\mib{X}^{\rm s}$ connect the singlet and the triplet as shown in Fig. \[fig:x\_operator\]. In applying the NCA to the singlet-triplet Kondo model, it is convenient to work in the form of $\mib{X}^{\rm t}$ and $\mib{X}^{\rm s}$ because singlet and triplet are properly distinguished from each other.
Integral equations for resolvents and effective interactions
------------------------------------------------------------
We derive dynamics of the singlet-triplet system adopting the NCA. In applying the NCA to the exchange interactions, we introduce a fictitious $4f^1$ intermediate state with negligible population[@bickers]. We could alternatively introduce a fictitious $4f^3$ interdediate state instead of the $4f^1$ state.
We introduce resolvent $R_{\rm s}(z)$ for the singlet state and $R_{\rm t}(z)$ for the triplet. The effects of the interactions are taken account of as the self-energy $\Sigma_{\alpha}(z)$. Each resolvent $R_{\alpha}(z)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\alpha}(z) = [z-\epsilon_{\alpha} - \Sigma_{\alpha}(z)]^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ denotes configurations of $4f^2$ states. The NCA determines $\Sigma_{\alpha}(z)$ in a self-consistent fashion. Figure \[fig:dyson\_resolv\] shows diagrammatical representation of the equation for the resolvent and self-energy in the NCA.
![Diagrammatical representation of the equation for the resolvent and self-energy in the NCA. Solid, dashed and wavy line denote conduction electron, resolvent and interaction, respectively. Single and double line represent bare and renormalized one, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:dyson_resolv"}](dyson_resolv.eps){width="7cm"}
We obtain the renormalized exchanges $\tilde{I}_{\rm t}(z)$ and $\tilde{I}_{\rm s}(z)$, which are modified from the bare ones $I_{\rm t}$ and $I_{\rm s}$. In addition, an effective potential $\tilde{K}_{\rm t}(z)$ for the triplet and $\tilde{K}_{\rm s}(z)$ for the singlet are generated by higher-order exchange scatterings. The self-energy is given in terms of the effective potentials by the NCA integral equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{\alpha}(z) = -2 \int d\epsilon \rho_c(\epsilon) [1-f(\epsilon)]
\tilde{K}_{\alpha} (z-\epsilon).
\label{eq:self}\end{aligned}$$ In order to derive equations for the renormalized interactions $\tilde{I}_{\alpha}(z)$ and $\tilde{K}_{\alpha}(z)$, we divide the operator $\mib{X}^{\rm s}$ into two parts: $$\begin{aligned}
\mib{X}^{\rm s} = P_{\rm t}\mib{X}^{\rm s}P_{\rm s} + P_{\rm s}\mib{X}^{\rm s}P_{\rm t}.\end{aligned}$$ The first term operates on the singlet state, and second one to the triplet states. Correspondingly, we define effective interactions $\tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\rm (ts)}(z)$ and $\tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\rm (st)}(z)$ for each part. The effective interactions are determined by equations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:dyson\_interaction\]. The simultaneous equations for the effective interactions are given in the matrix form by
![Diagrammatical representations of the equations for the effective interactions in the NCA.[]{data-label="fig:dyson_interaction"}](dyson_interaction.eps){width="15cm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{I}_{\rm t} \\ \tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\text{(ts)}} \\ \tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\text{(st)}} \\
\tilde{K}_{\text{t}} \\ \tilde{K}_{\text{s}}
\end{array} \right) = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
I_{\rm t} \\ I_{\rm s} \\ I_{\rm s} \\ 0 \\ 0
\end{array} \right) - \left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}}/2 & 0 & I_{\rm s} \Pi_{\text{s}}/2 & I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} & 0 \\
0 & I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} & 0 & 0 & I_{\rm s} \Pi_{\text{s}} \\
I_{\rm s} \Pi_{\text{t}} & 0 & 0 & I_{\rm s} \Pi_{\text{t}} & 0 \\
I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}}/2 & 0 & I_{\rm s} \Pi_{\text{s}}/4 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & I_{\rm s} \Pi_{\text{t}} 3/4 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{I}_{\rm t} \\ \tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\text{(ts)}} \\ \tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\text{(st)}} \\
\tilde{K}_{\text{t}} \\ \tilde{K}_{\text{s}}
\end{array} \right),
\label{eq:dyson_interaction}\end{aligned}$$
where auxiliary quantity $\Pi_{\alpha}(z)$ are introduced by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{\alpha}(z) = \int d \epsilon \rho_c (\epsilon) f(\epsilon) R_{\alpha}(z+\epsilon),
\label{eq:pi}\end{aligned}$$ which appears as a bubble diagram in Fig. \[fig:dyson\_interaction\]. In deriving eq. (\[eq:dyson\_interaction\]), we have used the following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{\alpha_1 \sigma_1}
(\mib{X}^{\rm t}_{\alpha \alpha_1} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma_1 \sigma'})
(\mib{X}^{\rm t}_{\alpha_1 \alpha'} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma_1})
= (2 P_{\text{t}} \sigma^0 + \mib{X}^{\rm t} \cdot \mib{\sigma})_{\alpha \alpha', \sigma \sigma'}, \nonumber \\
&\sum_{\alpha_1 \sigma_1}
(\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha \alpha_1} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma_1 \sigma'})
(\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha_1 \alpha'} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma_1})
= (P_{\text{t}} \sigma^0 + 3 P_{\text{s}} \sigma^0
+ \mib{X}^{\rm t} \cdot \mib{\sigma})_{\alpha \alpha', \sigma \sigma'}, \nonumber \\
&\sum_{\alpha_1 \sigma_1}
(\mib{X}^{\rm t}_{\alpha \alpha_1} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma_1 \sigma'})
(\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha_1 \alpha'} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma_1})
= 2P_{\text{t}}\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha \alpha'}P_{\text{s}} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma'}, \nonumber \\
&\sum_{\alpha_1 \sigma_1}
(\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha \alpha_1} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma_1 \sigma'})
(\mib{X}^{\rm t}_{\alpha_1 \alpha'} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma_1})
= 2P_{\text{s}}\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha \alpha'}P_{\text{t}} \cdot\mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma'},
% &\sum_{\alpha_1 \sigma_1}
% (\mib{X}^{\rm t}_{\alpha \alpha_1} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma_1 \sigma'})
% (\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha_1 \alpha'} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma_1})
% + (\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha \alpha_1} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma_1 \sigma'})
% (\mib{X}^{\rm t}_{\alpha_1 \alpha'} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma_1})
% = 2\mib{X}^{\rm s}_{\alpha \alpha'} \cdot \mib{\sigma}_{\sigma \sigma'}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^0$ denotes a unit operator for the conduction spin. Solving eq. (\[eq:dyson\_interaction\]) for the renormalized interactions, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}_{\rm t} &= \frac{4(2I_{\rm t} - I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{s}}) }
{(2-I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}})(4 + 4 I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} - 3I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}})}
\equiv \frac{c_1}{ab}, \nonumber \\
\tilde{I}_{\rm s} &\equiv \tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\text{(ts)}} = \tilde{I}_{\rm s}^{\text{(st)}}
= \frac{ 4I_{\rm s} }{(4 + 4 I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} - 3I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}})}
\equiv \frac{c_2}{b}, \nonumber \\
\tilde{K}_{\text{t}} &= -\frac{4I_{\rm t}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}} + 2I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{s}}
- 3 I_{\rm t} I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}} \Pi_{\text{s}} }
{(2-I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}})(4 + 4 I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} - 3I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}})}
\equiv -\frac{c_3}{ab}, \nonumber \\
\tilde{K}_{\text{s}} &= -\frac{3 I_{\rm s}^2\Pi_{\text{t}}}
{4 + 4 I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} - 3I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}}}
\equiv -\frac{c_4}{b},
\label{eq:renorm_interaction}\end{aligned}$$ where the simplifying notation $a=2-I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}}$, $b=4 + 4 I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} - 3I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}}$, etc. will be utilized in Appendix A. The effective interactions $\tilde{I}_{\alpha}(z)$ are required only by the vertex corrections for the dynamical magnetic susceptibility.
$T$-matrix
----------
In the NCA for the exchange interactions, the impurity $T$-matrix is computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
T(i \epsilon_n) = - \frac{1}{Z_f} \int_C \frac{dz}{2\pi i} e^{-\beta z}
\sum_{\alpha} \tilde{K}_{\alpha}(z) R_{\alpha}(z+i\epsilon_n),
\label{eq:t-matrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_n=(2n+1)\pi T$ is the Matsubara frequency of fermions and the contour $C$ encircles all singularities of the integrand counter-clockwise. We utilize the spectral intensities $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{\alpha}(\omega) &= - \frac{1}{\pi} \text{Im} R_{\alpha}(\omega + i\delta), \\
\xi_{\alpha}(\omega) &= Z_f^{-1} e^{-\beta \omega} \eta_{\alpha}(\omega),
\label{eq:tilde_xi}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ is positive infinitesimal. We further define $\eta_{\alpha}^{\rm (K)}(\omega)$ and $\xi_{\alpha}^{\rm (K)}(\omega)$ for $\tilde{K}_{\alpha}(z)$, and $\eta_{\alpha}^{\rm (I)}(\omega)$ and $\xi_{\alpha}^{\rm (I)}(\omega)$ for $\tilde{I}_{\alpha}(z)$ in a similar fashion. The spectral function $\xi_{\alpha}(\omega)$ should be actually computed by another set of equations to avoid difficulty of the Boltzmann factor at low temperatures. We shall describe the details in Appendix A. Performing analytic continuation $i\epsilon_n \rightarrow \omega +i\delta$ to real frequencies in eq. (\[eq:t-matrix\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{\pi} \text{Im}T(\omega + i \delta)
= \sum_{\alpha} \int d\epsilon [\xi_{\alpha}^{(K)} (\epsilon) \eta_{\alpha}(\epsilon + \omega)
+ \eta_{\alpha}^{(K)} (\epsilon) \xi_{\alpha}(\epsilon + \omega)].\end{aligned}$$ Electrical conductivity is derived from $\text{Im}T(\omega)$ as described later.
Dynamical magnetic susceptibility
---------------------------------
The dynamical magnetic susceptibility is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&\chi(i \nu_m)
% &= \int_0^{\beta} d\tau \langle T_{\tau} M(\tau) M(0) \rangle
% e^{i \nu_m \tau} \nonumber \\
= (g_J \mu_{\text{B}})^2 \sum_{\alpha \alpha' \beta \beta'}
\langle \alpha' | J_z | \beta \rangle \langle \beta' | J_z | \alpha \rangle
\chi (\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta'; i \nu_m), \\
&\chi (\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta'; i \nu_m)
= -\frac{1}{Z_f} \int_C \frac{dz}{2 \pi i} e^{-\beta z}
\Lambda (\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta'; z, z+i \nu_m),
\label{eq:chi_nu}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu_m=2m\pi T$ is the boson Matsubara frequency, and $\Lambda(\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta'; z, z+i \nu_m)$ is the vertex function to be explained below. The operator $J_z$ has non-zero matrix elements for $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \text{t}\pm | J_z | \text{t}\pm \rangle = \pm M_{\rm t},\
\langle \text{s} | J_z | \text{t0} \rangle = M_{\rm s}.
\label{eq:Jz}\end{aligned}$$ Although $M_{\rm t}$ and $M_{\rm s}$ depend on the triplet wave functions in the point group $T_h$ [@shiina-aoki], we take these matrix elements as unity in the following numerical calculations. It is straightforward to reinstate the actual values for particular wave functions.
The vertex part $\Lambda(\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta'; z, z+i \nu_m)$ is diagrammatically represented in Fig. \[fig:vertex\]. It contains infinite pairs of conduction electrons and holes through the Bethe-Salpeter-type equations in the NCA. There are six combinations $(\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta')$ that contribute to the dynamical susceptibility. A combination is symbolically represented by $\lambda$ hereafter. Only three kinds of vertices are independent (see Table \[tab:vertex\]). We note that $\langle \text{t}+ | J_z | \text{t}+ \rangle$ and $\langle \text{t}- | J_z | \text{t}- \rangle$ are completely decoupled owing to cancellation between the processes through the state $|\text{t}0 \rangle$.
![Diagrammatical representation of the dynamical magnetic susceptibility.[]{data-label="fig:vertex"}](suscep.eps){width="6cm"}
$\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta'$ $\langle \alpha' | J_z | \beta \rangle \langle \beta' | J_z | \alpha \rangle$ $\Lambda(\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta'; z, z+i \nu_m)$
-------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
t+t+, t+t+ $|\langle \text{t}+ | J_z | \text{t}+ \rangle |^2$ $\Lambda_{\rm t} (z, z+i \nu_m)$
t$-$t$-$, t$-$t$-$ $|\langle \text{t}- | J_z | \text{t}- \rangle |^2$ $\Lambda_{\rm t} (z, z+i \nu_m)$
s s, t0 t0 $|\langle \text{t}0 | J_z | \text{s} \rangle |^2$ $\Lambda_{\rm sp} (z, z+i \nu_m)$
t0 t0, s s $|\langle \text{t}0 | J_z | \text{s} \rangle |^2$ $\Lambda_{\rm sp'} (z, z+i \nu_m) = \Lambda_{\rm sp} (z+i \nu_m, z)$
s t0, s t0 $\langle \text{t}0 | J_z | \text{s} \rangle ^2$ $\Lambda_{\rm sc} (z, z+i \nu_m)$
t0 s, t0 s $\langle \text{s} | J_z | \text{t}0 \rangle ^2$ $\Lambda_{\rm sc'} (z, z+i \nu_m) = \Lambda_{\rm sc} (z+i \nu_m, z)$
: Combinations $(\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta')$ and relevant quantities for the dynamical magnetic susceptibility.
\[tab:vertex\]
Figure \[fig:vertex\_eq\] shows diagrammatical representation of the equations for the vertices. The equations are analytically given by
![Diagrammatical representation of the equations for the dynamical magnetic susceptibility.[]{data-label="fig:vertex_eq"}](suscep_vertex.eps){width="15cm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{\rm t} (z,z') = R_{\rm t}(z) R_{\rm t}(z')
+ R_{\rm t}(z) R_{\rm t}(z') 2\int d\epsilon \rho_c (\epsilon) [1-f(\epsilon)]
\int d\epsilon' \rho_c (\epsilon') f(\epsilon') \nonumber \\
\times \left[ \frac14 \tilde{I}_{\rm t} (z-\epsilon) \tilde{I}_{\rm t} (z'-\epsilon)
+\tilde{K}_{\rm t} (z-\epsilon) \tilde{K}_{\rm t} (z'-\epsilon) \right]
\Lambda_{\rm t} (z-\epsilon+\epsilon',z'-\epsilon+\epsilon'),
\label{eq:ver_t}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{\rm sp} (z,z') = R_{\rm s}(z) R_{\rm t}(z')
+ R_{\rm s}(z) R_{\rm t}(z') 2\int d\epsilon \rho_c (\epsilon) [1-f(\epsilon)]
\int d\epsilon' \rho_c (\epsilon') f(\epsilon') \nonumber \\
\times [ \tilde{K}_{\rm s} (z-\epsilon) \tilde{K}_{\rm t} (z'-\epsilon)
\Lambda_{\rm sp} (z-\epsilon+\epsilon',z'-\epsilon+\epsilon') \nonumber \\
+ \frac14 \tilde{I}_{\rm s} (z-\epsilon) \tilde{I}_{\rm s} (z'-\epsilon)
\Lambda_{\rm sc} (z-\epsilon+\epsilon',z'-\epsilon+\epsilon') ],
\label{eq:ver_sp}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{\rm sc} (z,z') =
R_{\rm t}(z) R_{\rm s}(z') 2\int d\epsilon \rho_c (\epsilon) [1-f(\epsilon)]
\int d\epsilon' \rho_c (\epsilon') f(\epsilon') \nonumber \\
\times [ \tilde{K}_{\rm t} (z-\epsilon) \tilde{K}_{\rm s} (z'-\epsilon)
\Lambda_{\rm sc} (z-\epsilon+\epsilon',z'-\epsilon+\epsilon') \nonumber \\
+ \frac14 \tilde{I}_{\rm s} (z-\epsilon) \tilde{I}_{\rm s} (z'-\epsilon)
\Lambda_{\rm sp} (z-\epsilon+\epsilon',z'-\epsilon+\epsilon') ].
\label{eq:ver_sc}\end{aligned}$$
The other vertices $\Lambda_{\rm sp'} (z,z')$ and $\Lambda_{\rm sc'} (z,z')$ satisfy the equations with replacement $R_{\rm t} \leftrightarrow R_{\rm s}$, $\tilde{K}_{\rm t} \leftrightarrow \tilde{K}_{\rm s}$, $\Lambda_{\rm sp} \rightarrow \Lambda_{\rm sp'}$, and $\Lambda_{\rm sc} \rightarrow \Lambda_{\rm sc'}$ in eqs. (\[eq:ver\_sp\]) and (\[eq:ver\_sc\]), respectively.
After analytic continuation $i\nu_m \rightarrow \omega +i\delta$ to the real axis in eq. (\[eq:chi\_nu\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{Im} \chi_{\lambda}(\omega +i\delta)
= (1- e^{-\beta \omega})
\frac{1}{Z_f} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\epsilon}{2\pi} e^{-\beta \epsilon} \nonumber \\
&\times \text{Re} [\Lambda_{\lambda}(\epsilon -i\delta, \epsilon +\omega +i\delta)
-\Lambda_{\lambda}(\epsilon +i\delta, \epsilon +\omega +i\delta)].
\label{eq:Im_chi}\end{aligned}$$ The static susceptibility $\chi_{\lambda}(0)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\lambda}(0) =
\frac{1}{Z_f} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\epsilon}{\pi} e^{-\beta \epsilon}
\text{Im} \Lambda_{\lambda}(\epsilon +i\delta, \epsilon +i\delta).
\label{eq:chi0}\end{aligned}$$ In numerical calculations, it is difficult to perform the integration including the Boltzmann factor in eqs. (\[eq:Im\_chi\]) and (\[eq:chi0\]). We avoid the difficulty through transforming eqs. (\[eq:ver\_t\]), (\[eq:ver\_sp\]) and (\[eq:ver\_sc\]) into equivalent and convenient forms (see Appendix B).
Numerical Results for Resistivity and Susceptibility
====================================================
The singlet-triplet Kondo model has two characteristic energy scales, i.e., the Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$ and renormalized CEF splitting $\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$. Provided the CEF singlet has lower energy than the CEF triplet, the Kondo effect and the CEF singlet compete with each other. We shall examine how the competition affects the temperature dependence of dynamical quantities. We first show the phase diagram of the ground state by the numerical renormalization group (NRG), and next dynamical quantities obtained by the NCA.
Numerical renormalization group analysis
----------------------------------------
The singlet-triplet Kondo model has four fixed points, i.e., CEF singlet, CEF triplet, doublet and quartet. They have residual entropies $\ln1 =0$, $\ln3$, $\ln2$ and $\ln4$, respectively. Some explicit results for temperature dependence of the entropy by the NRG have been presented in ref. .
![$J_1$-$J_2$ phase diagram of the ground state with $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=0$.[]{data-label="fig:phase_diagram"}](phase_CEF0_paper.eps){width="7cm"}
Figure \[fig:phase\_diagram\] shows the $J_1$-$J_2$ phase diagram of the ground state of the singlet-triplet Kondo model with the bare CEF splitting $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=0$. Note the symmetry against interchange of $J_1$ and $J_2$. The effective CEF splitting becomes finite by renormalization effect. In the second order perturbation theory, self-energies of the triplet and singlet states are written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{(2)}_{\rm t}(z) &\sim -\frac{1}{2} D\rho_c^2 (2I_{\rm t}^2 + I_{\rm s}^2), \nonumber \\
\Sigma^{(2)}_{\rm s}(z) &\sim -\frac{3}{2} D\rho_c^2 I_{\rm s}^2, \end{aligned}$$ at $T=0$ and $|z| \ll D$. Then we obtain the renormalized CEF splitting $\Delta^{(2)}_{\rm CEF}$ in the second order perturbation theory as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{(2)}_{\rm CEF} = -D \rho_c^2 (I_{\rm s}^2 -I_{\rm t}^2)
= -D \rho_c^2 J_1 J_2.
\label{eq:energy_shift}\end{aligned}$$ It is now clear that with $J_1J_2<0$, the second order exchange stabilize the CEF singlet. On the other hand, higher order exchanges cause the Kondo effect, which makes the CEF splitting obscure. The competition between the Kondo effect and the CEF effect depends on their characteristic energy scales. We find that renormalization of the CEF splitting is larger than the Kondo temperature in the calculated parameter range.
In computing dynamical quantities, we take $J_2=0$ to minimize renormalization of the CEF splitting. Even if $J_2$ equal zero, pseudo-spin $\mib{S}_2$ would interact with conduction electrons indirectly through another pseudo-spin $\mib{S}_1$. The singlet-triplet Kondo model with the additional condition $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=0$ is reduced to the Kondo model where the pseudo-spin $\mib{S}_2$ is decoupled.
Electrical resistivity
----------------------
We discuss how the CEF singlet influences the Kondo effect, comparing with the behavior in the CEF triplet ground state. We take a rectangular model with the band width $2D$ for conduction electrons $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_c(\epsilon) = \theta(D-|\epsilon|)/2D,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta(\epsilon)$ is a step function. We tentatively assume $D=10^4$K and take Kelvin as the unit of energy.
We obtain the electrical conductibity $\sigma(T)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma(T)= A \int d\epsilon \left( -\frac{\partial f(\epsilon)}{\partial \epsilon} \right)
\frac{1}{|\text{Im}T(\epsilon)|},\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ is a constant and $f(\epsilon)$ is the Fermi distribution function. Figure \[fig:resistivity\] shows temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity $\rho(T)=1/\sigma(T)$ with $J_1\rho_c =0.2$. We take $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$ ranging from $-40$K (triplet) to 40K (singlet). In the case of the triplet ground state, resistivity monotonously increases as temperature decreases, corresponding to development of the Kondo resonance peak. The CEF splitting only causes a slight reduction of the slope in comparison with the quartet case $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=0$. On the other hand, the CEF singlet leads to suppression of the enhancement at temperatures below about the third of $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$. The suppression is due to a pseudo-gap of about $2\Delta_{\rm CEF}$ in $\text{Im}T(\omega)$ around Fermi level. Note that the peak temperature of $\rho(T)$ is substantially smaller than $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$.
![The electrical resistivity as a function of temperature for several values of $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$.[]{data-label="fig:resistivity"}](CEF_resistivity_paper.eps){width="7cm"}
Dynamical magnetic susceptibility
---------------------------------
We show typical behaviors of magnetic spectra $\text{Im}\chi(\omega)/(1-e^{-\beta \omega})$ both in the CEF singlet and triplet ground states. Figure \[fig:neutron\_CEF\] shows the temperature dependence of magnetic spectra. In the case of the triplet ground state, quasi-elastic peak develops sharply with decreasing temperature. Excitation to the CEF singlet is also found at $\omega\sim 30$K. In the case of the CEF singlet ground state, quasi-elastic peak is seen at temperatures higher than $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$, and an inelastic peak develops at lower temperatures. The temperature dependence is ascribed to the competition between the CEF singlet and the Kondo effect. Namely, the behavior shows a change from the dominance of the Kondo state at higher temperatures to the CEF singlet at lower temperatures.
![Temperature dependence of the magnetic spectral intensities. $J_1\rho_c=0.2$, $J_2\rho_c=0$, and CEF splittings $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$ are $-40$K (triplet) in (a) and 20K (singlet) in (b).[]{data-label="fig:neutron_CEF"}](neutron_CEF-40.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Temperature dependence of the magnetic spectral intensities. $J_1\rho_c=0.2$, $J_2\rho_c=0$, and CEF splittings $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$ are $-40$K (triplet) in (a) and 20K (singlet) in (b).[]{data-label="fig:neutron_CEF"}](neutron_CEF20.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
The magnetic relaxation rate $\Gamma$ measured by NMR is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\omega \rightarrow 0} \frac{\text{Im}\chi(\omega)}{\omega} = \frac{\chi(0)}{\Gamma}.
\label{eq:relax_rate}\end{aligned}$$ If $\text{Im}\chi(\omega)$ can be approximated by a Lorentzian, $\Gamma$ corresponds to the half-width of a quasi-elastic peak. Figure \[fig:relax\_rate\] shows the temperature dependence of $\Gamma$ for several values of $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$. In the temperature region where the Kondo effect occurs, $\Gamma$ behaves as $T^{a}$ with the exponent $a$ being smaller than unity. In the case $\Delta_{\rm CEF}>0$, the crossover to the CEF singlet from the Kondo effect causes an increase of $\Gamma$ as temperature decreases. It results from the following reason: $\text{Im}\chi(\omega)/\omega\ |_{\omega \rightarrow 0}$ is reduced at lower temperatures while $\chi(0)$ is constant due to the van Vleck susceptibility in eq. (\[eq:relax\_rate\]). The decrease in the case of $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=20$K and 40K below about 5K is caused by the inaccuracy of the NCA at low frequencies, which gives fictitious increase of $\text{Im}\chi(\omega)/\omega$ [@nca3]. It is known that half-width of $\text{Im}\chi(\omega)/\omega$ at zero temperature corresponds to the Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$. We estimate as $T_{\rm K}\sim 1$K for $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=0$ from Fig. \[fig:relax\_rate\].
![The magnetic relaxation rate $\Gamma$ as a function of temperature for several values of $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$.[]{data-label="fig:relax_rate"}](CEF_relax_rate.eps){width="7cm"}
Next we examine the Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$ dependence. Figures \[fig:neutron\_CEF\](b) and \[fig:neutron\_J\] show magnetic spectra with different values for coupling constant $J_1$ but with renormalized CEF splitting $\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$ fixed. These parameters satisfy the condition $T_{\rm K}<\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$, i.e., no residual entropy. In a small coupling case $J_1\rho_c=0.18$, inelastic peak is seen more clearly as compared with the case of $J_1\rho_c=0.20$. On the other hand, a large coupling lowers the crossover temperature from the Kondo effect to the CEF singlet. Inelastic peak does not arise at all temperatures calculated in Fig. \[fig:neutron\_J\](b). The apparent inelastic peak at $\omega\sim 6$K is actually a quasi-elastic scattering whose maximum is shifted from zero by the Bose factor. The crossover temperature depends both on $T_{\rm K}$ and $\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$.
![Temperature dependence of the magnetic spectral intensities with different values for coupling constant $J_1$ but with almost the same value for the renormalized CEF splitting $\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}\sim10$K. $J_1\rho_c=0.18$, $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=16$K and (b) $J_1\rho_c=0.22$, $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=22$K.[]{data-label="fig:neutron_J"}](neutron_J036.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"} ![Temperature dependence of the magnetic spectral intensities with different values for coupling constant $J_1$ but with almost the same value for the renormalized CEF splitting $\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}\sim10$K. $J_1\rho_c=0.18$, $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=16$K and (b) $J_1\rho_c=0.22$, $\Delta_{\rm CEF}=22$K.[]{data-label="fig:neutron_J"}](neutron_J044.eps "fig:"){width="7cm"}
Application to Pr skutterudites
-------------------------------
We discuss the origin of diversity of the magnetic spectra in PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$ and PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ on the basis of results obtained for the singlet-triplet Kondo model. In the case of the CEF level structure for PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$, the $4f^2$ configuration has negligible antiferromagnetic exchange interaction with conduction spins because the low lying triplet consists mainly of $\Gamma_5$ in $O_h$[@otsuki]. We accordingly expect clear CEF excitation, which has actually been observed.
In the inelastic neutron scattering experiment of PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$, on the other hand, only broad quasi-elastic peak is found at temperatures higher than the phase transition. We ascribe the quasi-elastic scattering to the Kondo effect, the occurrence of which is consistent with the temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity[@Sato]. Inelastic peaks are detected only at lower temperatures. The observed inelastic peaks involve a suppression of the Kondo effect. The suppression may be due to either the quadrupole order or formation of the CEF singlet. We conjecture that the former origin is likely for PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$, in view of recently proposed CEF level scheme, i.e., nearly degenerate singlet-triplet levels[@kiss]. The CEF splitting in that scheme is not large as compared with the Kondo temperature. Thus the inelastic neutron scattering experiment can resolve the levels only when the quadrupole order breaks the Kondo effect. Alternatively the level splitting of the triplet by internal fields is observed.
Summary
=======
We have derived dynamics of the CEF singlet-triplet system coupled with conduction spins. Explicit calculation is performed with use of the NCA. The physical quantities are characterized by two energy scales, i.e., the Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$ and renormalized CEF splitting $\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$, which is modified from bare one $\Delta_{\rm CEF}$ due to exchange interactions.
Provided the condition $T_{\rm K}<\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$ is satisfied, ground state is the CEF singlet. Although $4f^2$ configuration forms the CEF singlet at low temperatures, the Kondo coupling can be present at temperatures higher than $\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$. Correspondingly, the electrical resistivity is enhanced with decreasing temperature, while it is suppressed by the CEF splitting eventually. The competition between the Kondo effect and the CEF singlet also leads to peculiar dependence of the magnetic spectra on temperature. As shown in Fig. \[fig:neutron\_CEF\](b), the inelastic peak cannot be resolved from the broad quasi-elastic peak at $T \gtrsim\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$. The inelastic peak, however, may be identified as temperature decreases to $T \lesssim\tilde{\Delta}_{\rm CEF}$.
We have discussed the difference between PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ and PrOs$_4$Sb$_{12}$ in terms of different wave functions of the CEF triplet states. This explains the contrasting behavior observed in the inelastic neutron scattering experiment. In PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$, the first excited CEF triplet is composed mainly of $\Gamma_4$ in $O_h$, and antiferromagnetic coupling between the CEF states and conduction spins becomes significant. Accordingly, PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$ can exhibit the Kondo effect even with the CEF singlet ground state, and the CEF excitation is suppressed. Since our calculation does not include intersite interactions, however, we cannot exclude the possibility that the quadrupole order is responsible for suppression of the Kondo effect and the development of the inelastic feature at low temperatures.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge useful discussions with Prof. K. Iwasa on inelastic neutron scattering results, and with Dr. A. Kiss on the CEF level scheme in PrFe$_4$P$_{12}$.
Equations for the spectral functions
====================================
Physical quantities are conveniently represented by two types of spectral functions, i.e., $\eta_{\alpha}(\omega)$ and $\xi_{\alpha}(\omega)$. Although $\xi_{\alpha}(\omega)$ is related to $\eta_{\alpha}(\omega)$ analytically, it is difficult to compute directly due to the Boltzmann factor at low temperatures. Following ref. , we obtain $\xi_{\alpha}(\omega)$ by numerical iteration as follows. We introduce an operator $\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}$ by $\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}R(\omega) \equiv -Z_f^{-1}e^{-\beta \omega} \text{Im}R(\omega+i\delta)/ \pi$. Operating $\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}$ on eqs. (\[eq:self\]) and (\[eq:pi\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\alpha}(\omega) &\equiv \mathcal{P}^{(\xi)} \Sigma_{\alpha}(\omega)
= -2 \int d\epsilon \rho_c(\epsilon) f(\epsilon) \xi_{\alpha}^{(K)} (\omega-\epsilon), \\
\pi_{\alpha}(\omega) &\equiv \mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}\Pi_{\alpha}(\omega)
= \int d \epsilon \rho_c (\epsilon) [1-f(\epsilon)] \xi_{\alpha}(\omega+\epsilon). \end{aligned}$$ Here $\xi_{\alpha}(\omega)$ are related with the corresponding resolvent as $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{\alpha}(\omega) &\equiv \mathcal{P}^{(\xi)} R_{\alpha}(\omega)
= |R_{\alpha}(\omega+i\delta)|^2 \sigma_{\alpha} (\omega).\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{\text{t}}^{(I)} &\equiv \mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}\tilde{I}_{\rm t}
= \frac{|\tilde{I}_{\rm t} |^2}{|c_1 |^2}
[ (\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}a^*) b^* c_1 + a(\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}b^*) c_1 + ab (\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}c_1) ], \nonumber \\
\xi_{\text{s}}^{(I)} &\equiv \mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}\tilde{I}_{\rm s}
= \frac{|\tilde{I}_{\rm s} |^2}{c_2} (\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}b^*), \nonumber \\
\xi_{\text{t}}^{(K)} &\equiv \mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}\tilde{K}_{\rm t}
= -\frac{|\tilde{K}_{\text{t}} |^2}{|c_3 |^2}
[ (\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}a^*) b^* c_3 + a(\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}b^*) c_3
+ ab (\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}c_3) ], \nonumber \\
\xi_{\text{s}}^{(K)} &\equiv \mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}\tilde{K}_{\rm s}
= -\frac{|\tilde{K}_{\text{s}} |^2}{|c_4 |^2}
[ (\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}b^*) c_4 + b (\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}c_4) ],\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the notations in eq. (\[eq:renorm\_interaction\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
% a &= 2-I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}}, \nonumber \\
% b &= 4 + 4I_{\rm t} \Pi_{\text{t}} - 3 I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}}, \nonumber \\
% c_1 &= 4(2I_{\rm t} - I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{s}}), \nonumber \\
% c_2 &= 4I_{\rm s}, \nonumber \\
% c_3 &= 4I_{\rm t}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}} + 2I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{s}}
% - 3 I_{\rm t} I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}} \Pi_{\text{s}}, \nonumber \\
% c_4 &= 3 I_{\rm s}^2 \Pi_{\text{t}}, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}a^* &= I_{\rm t} \pi_{\text{t}}, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}b^* &= -4I_{\rm t} \pi_{\text{t}}
+ 3 I_{\rm s}^2 (\pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}}+\Pi_{\text{t}}\pi_{\text{s}}), \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}c_1 &= -4I_{\rm s}^2\pi_{\text{s}}, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}c_3 &= 4I_{\rm t}^2 \pi_{\text{t}} + 2I_{\rm s}^2 \pi_{\text{s}}
-3 I_{\rm t} I_{\rm s}^2 (\pi_{\text{t}}\Pi_{\text{s}}+\Pi_{\text{t}}\pi_{\text{s}}), \nonumber \\
\mathcal{P}^{(\xi)}c_4 &= 3 I_{\rm s}^2 \pi_{\text{t}}.\end{aligned}$$ The norms are determined by the following sum rule: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\omega \xi_{\alpha}(\omega) = 1.
\label{eq:sum_rule}\end{aligned}$$ Normalization by eq. (\[eq:sum\_rule\]) is equivalent to determination of the partition function $Z_f$ of $f$ electrons.
Equations for the magnetic susceptibility
=========================================
The formulae of $\text{Im}\chi(\omega)$ in eq. (\[eq:Im\_chi\]) and $\chi(0)$ in eq. (\[eq:chi0\]) include integrations with the Boltzmann factor. To avoid this factor, we rewrite the equations following ref. . For each frequency $\omega$ we introduce the following simplifying notations: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\lambda}(\epsilon) &= \Lambda_{\lambda} (\epsilon + i\delta, \epsilon + \omega+i\delta), \nonumber \\
\tilde{Q}_{\lambda}(\epsilon) &= \Lambda_{\lambda} (\epsilon-i\delta, \epsilon+\omega+i\delta), \nonumber \\
R_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= R_{\alpha} (\epsilon + i\delta)
R_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta), \nonumber \\
\tilde{R}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= R_{\alpha} (\epsilon -i\delta)
R_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta).
% I_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= \tilde{I}_{\alpha} (\epsilon + i\delta)
% \tilde{I}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta), \nonumber \\
% \tilde{I}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= \tilde{I}_{\alpha} (\epsilon -i\delta)
% \tilde{I}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta), \nonumber \\
% K_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= \tilde{K}_{\alpha} (\epsilon + i\delta)
% \tilde{K}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta), \nonumber \\
% \tilde{K}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= \tilde{K}_{\alpha} (\epsilon -i\delta)
% \tilde{K}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta).\end{aligned}$$ $I_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$, $\tilde{I}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$, $K_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ and $\tilde{K}_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ are defined with use of $\tilde{I}_{\alpha}(z)$ or $\tilde{K}_{\alpha}(z)$ in a similar manner. We introduce an operator $\mathcal{P}$ by $\mathcal{P}Q(\epsilon) \equiv Z_f^{-1} e^{-\beta \epsilon} [\tilde{Q}(\epsilon)-Q(\epsilon)]$. In terms of $\mathcal{P}$, eq. (\[eq:Im\_chi\]) is represented by $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Im} \chi_{\lambda}(\omega +i\delta)
= (1- e^{-\beta \omega}) \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\epsilon}{2\pi}
\text{Re} \mathcal{P} Q_{\lambda}(\epsilon),\end{aligned}$$ without the Boltzmann factor. Operating $\mathcal{P}$ on eqs. (\[eq:ver\_t\]), (\[eq:ver\_sp\]) and (\[eq:ver\_sc\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm t}(\epsilon) = \mathcal{P}R_{\rm tt}(\epsilon) \nonumber \\
&+ [\mathcal{P}R_{\rm tt}(\epsilon)] 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') [1-f(\epsilon')]
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
[\frac{1}{4} I_{\rm tt} (\epsilon-\epsilon')+ K_{\rm tt} (\epsilon-\epsilon')] Q_{\rm t}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm tt}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
[\frac{1}{4} \mathcal{P}I_{\rm tt} (\epsilon-\epsilon')+ \mathcal{P}K_{\rm tt} (\epsilon-\epsilon')]
Q_{\rm t}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm tt}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') [1-f(\epsilon'')]
[\frac{1}{4} \tilde{I}_{\rm tt} (\epsilon-\epsilon')+ \tilde{K}_{\rm tt} (\epsilon-\epsilon')] [\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm t}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'')],
\label{eq:pq_t}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm sp}(\epsilon) = \mathcal{P}R_{\rm st}(\epsilon) \nonumber \\
&+ [\mathcal{P}R_{\rm st}(\epsilon)] 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') [1-f(\epsilon')]
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
K_{\rm st} (\epsilon-\epsilon') Q_{\rm sp}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm st}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
[\mathcal{P}K_{\rm st} (\epsilon-\epsilon')]
Q_{\rm sp}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm st}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') [1-f(\epsilon'')]
\tilde{K}_{\rm st} (\epsilon-\epsilon') [\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm sp}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'')] \nonumber \\
&+ [\mathcal{P}R_{\rm st}(\epsilon)] 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') [1-f(\epsilon')]
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
I_{\rm ss} (\epsilon-\epsilon') Q_{\rm sc}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm st}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
[\mathcal{P}I_{\rm ss} (\epsilon-\epsilon')]
Q_{\rm sc}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm st}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') [1-f(\epsilon'')]
\tilde{I}_{\rm ss} (\epsilon-\epsilon') [\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm sc}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'')],
\label{eq:pq_sp}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm sc}(\epsilon) \nonumber \\
&= [\mathcal{P}R_{\rm ts}(\epsilon)] 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') [1-f(\epsilon')]
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
K_{\rm ts} (\epsilon-\epsilon') Q_{\rm sc}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm ts}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
[\mathcal{P}K_{\rm ts} (\epsilon-\epsilon')]
Q_{\rm sc}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm ts}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') [1-f(\epsilon'')]
\tilde{K}_{\rm ts} (\epsilon-\epsilon') [\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm sc}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'')] \nonumber \\
&+ [\mathcal{P}R_{\rm ts}(\epsilon)] 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') [1-f(\epsilon')]
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
I_{\rm ss} (\epsilon-\epsilon') Q_{\rm sp}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm ts}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') f(\epsilon'')
[\mathcal{P}I_{\rm ss} (\epsilon-\epsilon')]
Q_{\rm sp}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'') \nonumber \\
&+ \tilde{R}_{\rm ts}(\epsilon) 2\int d\epsilon' \rho_c(\epsilon') f(\epsilon')
\int d\epsilon'' \rho_c(\epsilon'') [1-f(\epsilon'')]
\tilde{I}_{\rm ss} (\epsilon-\epsilon') [\mathcal{P}Q_{\rm sp}(\epsilon-\epsilon'+\epsilon'')].
\label{eq:pq_sc}\end{aligned}$$ $\mathcal{P}R_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ is given by known quantities as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}R_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= 2\pi i \xi_{\alpha}(\epsilon)
R_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta).
% \mathcal{P}I_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= 2\pi i \xi^{(I)}_{\alpha}(\epsilon)
% \tilde{I}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta), \nonumber \\
% \mathcal{P}K_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon) &= 2\pi i \xi^{(K)}_{\alpha}(\epsilon)
% \tilde{K}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon + \omega+i\delta).\end{aligned}$$ $\mathcal{P}I_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ and $\mathcal{P}K_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ are obtained by analogous equations. After $Q_{\gamma}$ are obtained using eqs. (\[eq:ver\_t\]), (\[eq:ver\_sp\]) and (\[eq:ver\_sc\]), $\mathcal{P}Q_{\gamma}$ are computed by numerical iterations of eqs. (\[eq:pq\_t\]), (\[eq:pq\_sp\]) and (\[eq:pq\_sc\]).
For the static susceptibility, we introduce another operator $\hat{P}$ by $\hat{P}Q(\epsilon)\equiv Z_f^{-1}e^{-\beta \epsilon}\text{Im}Q(\epsilon)$ instead of $\mathcal{P}$. The static susceptibility is given in terms of $\hat{\mathcal{P}}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\gamma}(0) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{d\epsilon}{\pi}
\hat{\mathcal{P}}Q_{\gamma}(\epsilon).\end{aligned}$$ The equations for $\hat{\mathcal{P}}Q_{\gamma}$ are obtained by replacing $\mathcal{P}, \tilde{R}_{\alpha \alpha'}, \tilde{I}_{\alpha \alpha'}, \tilde{K}_{\alpha \alpha'}$ by $\hat{\mathcal{P}}, R^*_{\alpha \alpha'}, I^*_{\alpha \alpha'}, K^*_{\alpha \alpha'}$ in eqs. (\[eq:pq\_t\]), (\[eq:pq\_sp\]) and (\[eq:pq\_sc\]). We also obtain $\hat{\mathcal{P}} R_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{P}} R_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)
&= -\pi [\xi_{\alpha}(\epsilon) R_{\alpha'}(\epsilon+i\delta)
+ R_{\alpha}^{*}(\epsilon+i\delta) \xi_{\alpha'}(\epsilon)].
\label{eq:hat_P_R}
% \hat{\mathcal{P}} I_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)
% &= -\pi [\xi^{(I)}_{\alpha}(\epsilon) \tilde{I}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon+i\delta)
% + \tilde{I}_{\alpha}^{*}(\epsilon+i\delta) \xi^{(I)}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon)], \nonumber \\
% \hat{\mathcal{P}} K_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)
% &= -\pi [\xi^{(K)}_{\alpha}(\epsilon) \tilde{K}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon+i\delta)
% + \tilde{K}_{\alpha}^{*}(\epsilon+i\delta) \xi^{(K)}_{\alpha'}(\epsilon)].\end{aligned}$$ The formulae for $\hat{\mathcal{P}} I_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ and $\hat{\mathcal{P}} K_{\alpha \alpha'}(\epsilon)$ are obtained by analogy of eq. (\[eq:hat\_P\_R\]). $\hat{\mathcal{P}}Q_{\gamma}$ are numerically computed in a way similar to $\mathcal{P}Q_{\gamma}$.
[99]{} E. D. Bauer, N. A. Frederick, P.-C. Ho, V. S. Zapf and M. B. Maple: Phys. Rev. B **65** (2002) 100506(R). Y. Aoki, T. Namiki, S. Ohsaki, S. R. Saha, H. Sugawara and H. Sato: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **71** (2002) 2098. Y. Aoki, T. Namiki, T. D. Matsuda, K. Abe, H. Sugawara and H. Sato: Phys. Rev. B **65** (2002) 064446. K. Iwasa, L. Hao, M. Nakajima, M. Kohgi, H. Sugawara, Y. Aoki, H. Sato and T. D. Matsuda: Acta Physica Polonica B **34** (2003) 1117. M. B. Maple, P.-C. Ho, V. S. Zapf, N. A. Frederick, E. D. Bauer, W. M. Yuhasz, F. M. Woodward and J. W. Lynn: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **71** (2002) Suppl., p. 23. K. Kuwahara, K. Iwasa, M. Kohgi, K. Kaneko, S. Araki, N. Metoki, H. Sugawara, Y. Aoki and H. Sato: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **73** (2004) 1438. E. A. Goremychkin, R. Osborn, E. D. Bauer, M. B. Maple, N. A. Frederick, W. M. Yuhasz, F. M. Woodward and J. W. Lynn: Phys. Rev. Lett. **93** (2004) 157003. H. Sato, Y. Abe, H. Okada, T. D. Matsuda, K. Abe, H. Sugawara and Y. Aoki: Phys. Rev. B **62** (2000) 15125. M. Kohgi, K. Iwasa, M. Nakajima, N. Metoki, S. Araki, N. Bernhoeft, J.-M. Mignot, A. Gukasov, H. Sato, Y. Aoki and H. Sugawara: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **72** (2003) 1002. R. Shiina: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **73** (2004) 2257; R. Shiina and Y. Aoki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **73** (2004) 541. A. Kiss and P. Fazekas: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **15** (2003) S2109. H. Harima and K. Takegahara: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **15** (2003) S2081. J. Otsuki, H. Kusunose and Y. Kuramoto: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **74** (2005) 200. Y. Kuramoto: in *Transport and Thermal Properties of f-Electron Systems*, ed. G. Oomi, H. Fujii and T. Fujita, (Plenum Press, New York, 1993) p. 237. Y. Shimizu, O. Sakai and Y. Kuramoto: Physica B [**206&207**]{} (1995) 135. S. Yotsuhashi, K. Miyake and H. Kusunose: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **71** (2001) 389. Y. Kuramoto: Z. Phys. B **53** (1983) 37. N. E. Bickers: Rev. Mod. Phys. **59** (1987) 845. S. Maekawa, S. Takahashi, S. Kashiba and M. Tachiki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **54** (1985) 1955. A. Kiss: private communication. Y. Kuramoto and H. Kojima: Z. Phys. B **57** (1984) 95. Y. Kuramoto: Z. Phys. B **65** (1986) 29.
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The dynamical density fluctuations around the QCD critical point (CP) are analyzed using relativistic dissipative fluid dynamics, and we show that the sound mode around the QCD CP is strongly attenuated whereas the thermal fluctuation stands out there. We speculate that if possible suppression or disappearance of a Mach cone, which seems to be created by the partonic jets at RHIC, is observed as the incident energy of the heavy-ion collisions is decreased, it can be a signal of the existence of the QCD CP. We have presented the Israel-Stewart type fluid dynamic equations that are derived rigorously on the basis of the (dynamical) renormalization group method in the second part of the talk, which we omit here because of a lack of space.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
- 'Analysis Technology Center, Fujifilm Corporation, Kanagawa 250-0193, Japan'
author:
- 'Teiji Kunihiro$^{(a)}$, Yuki Minami$^{(a)}$ and Kyosuke Tsumura$^{(b)}$'
title: 'Critical Opalescence around the QCD Critical Point and Second-order Relativistic Hydrodynamic Equations Compatible with Boltzmann Equation '
---
Introduction
============
A unique feature of the QCD phase diagram is the existence of a critical point. At the QCD CP, the first order phase transition terminates and turns to a second order phase transition. Around a critical point of a second order transition, we can expect large fluctuations of various quantities, and more importantly there should exist a soft mode associated to the CP. The QCD CP belongs to the same universality class as the liquid-gas phase transition point, and, hence, the density fluctuating mode in the space-like region is a softening mode at the CP: The would-be soft mode of the chiral transition, the $\sigma$ mode, is coupled to the density fluctuation[@Kunihiro:1991qu] and becomes a slaving mode of the density variable[@fujii]; see [@Ohnishi:2005br] for another argument on the fate of the $\sigma$ mode around the CP.
The density fluctuation depends on the transport as well as thermodynamic quantities that show an anomalous behavior around the critical point. In particular, we should note that the density-temperature coupling which was not explicitly taken into account can be important. In fact, the dynamical density fluctuations are analyzed in the non-relativistic case with use of the Navier-Stokes equation, which shows that the Rayleigh peak due to the thermal fluctuation would overwhelm the Brillouin peak due to the sound modes[@reichl].
We apply for the first time relativistic fluid dynamic equations to analyze the spectral properties of density fluctuations, and examine possible critical phenomena. We shall show that even the so called first-order relativistic fluid dynamic equations have generically no problem to describe fluid dynamical phenomena with long wave lengths contrary to naive expectation. In this report[@minami09], we shall show that the genuine and remaining soft mode at the QCD CP is not a sound mode but the diffusive thermal mode that is coupled to the sound mode, and that the possible divergent behavior of the viscosities might not be observed through the density fluctuations because the sound modes are attenuated around the CP and would eventually almost die out at the CP.
Relativistic fluid dynamic equations for a viscous system
=========================================================
The fluid dynamic equations are the balance equations for energy-momentum and particle number, $\partial_\mu T^{\mu \nu}=0$,$\partial_\mu N^\mu =0$, where $T^{\mu \nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor and $N^\mu$ the particle current, respectively. They are expressed as $T^{\mu \nu}=(\epsilon+P)u^{\mu}u^{\nu}-Pg^{\mu\nu}+\tau^{\mu\nu}$ and $N^\mu = n u^\mu+\nu^\mu$, where $\epsilon$ is the energy density, $P$ the pressure, $u^\mu$ the flow velocity, and $n$ the particle density, the dissipative part of the energy-momentum tensor and the particle current are denoted by $\tau^{\mu \nu}$ and $\nu^\mu$, respectively.
The so called first order equations such as Landau[@landau] and Eckart[@eckart] equations are parabolic and formally violates the causality, and are hence called acausal. The causality problem is circumvented in the Israel-Stewart equation[@is], which is a second-order equation with relaxation times incorporated. One should, however, note that the problem of the causality is only encountered when one tries to describe phenomena with small wave lengths beyond the valid region of the fluid dynamics: The phenomena which the fluid dynamics should describe are slowly varying ones with the wave lengths much larger than the mean free path. Indeed, the results for fluid dynamical modes with long wave lengths are qualitatively the same irrespective whether the second-order or first-order equations are used or not[@minami09]. As for the instability seen in the Eckart equation[@hiscock], a new first-order equation in the particle frame constructed by Tsumura, Kunihiro and Ohnishi (TKO) [@tko] has no such a pathological behavior. We employ Landau[@landau], Eckart[@eckart], Israel-Stewart(I-S)[@is] and TKO equation.
Spectral function of the dynamical density fluctuation
======================================================
By linearizing the fluid dynamic equation around the equilibrium, we can obtain the spectral function of the density fluctuation. The calculational procedure is an extension of the non-relativistic case described in the text book [@reichl].
The spectral function derived from the Landau equation is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
S_{n n}({\mbox{{\boldmath $k$}}},\omega )
&=& {\langle}(\delta n({\mbox{{\boldmath $k$}}},t=0))^2{\rangle}[\;(1-\frac{1}{\gamma})
\frac{2\Gamma_{\rm R} k^{2}}{\omega^{2}+\Gamma_{\rm R}^{2}k^{4}}
\nonumber \\
&+& \frac{1}{\gamma}
\{\frac{\Gamma_{\rm B} k^{2}}{(\omega -c_{s}k)^{2}+\Gamma_{\rm B}^{2}k^{4}}
+\frac{\Gamma_{\rm B} k^{2}}{(\omega +c_{s}k)^{2}+\Gamma_{\rm B}^{2}k^{4}}\} \;].
\label{eq:landau}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the first factor represent the static spectral function, which would show a divergent behavior in the forward angle (${\mbox{{\boldmath $k$}}}=0$) at the CP; this is known as the critical opalescence. The first term in the square bracket represents the thermal mode called Rayleigh mode, whereas the second and the third the sound mode or Brillouin mode.
The Eckart equation in the particle frame does not give a sensible result for the dynamical density fluctuation, in accord with its pathological property[@hiscock]. It is noteworthy that newly proposed equation, the TKO equation[@tko], in the particle frame gives a sensible result even thou it is a first-order equation. We have also applied the Israel-Stewart equation[@is] in the particle frame to obtain the spectral function for the dynamical density fluctuation. The result is the same as that of Landau equation; this tells us that the modified part to circumvent the causality problem does not affect the dynamics in the proper fluid dynamic regime.
Critical behavior of the dynamical density fluctuations
=======================================================
We examine the critical behavior of the spectral function of the density fluctuations around the QCD CP. We introduce the static critical exponents $\tilde{\gamma}$ and $\tilde{\alpha}$ which are defined as follows $\tilde{c}_n = c_0 t^{-\tilde{\alpha}}$,$K_T = K_0 t^{-\tilde{\gamma}}$, where $t=\vert (T - T_c) / T_c \vert$ is a reduced temperature, $c_0$ and $K_0$ are constants and $K_T=(1/n_0)(\partial n/\partial P)_T$ is the isothermal compressibility. We also denote the exponent of the thermal conductivity by $a_{\kappa}$, i.e., $\kappa =\kappa_0 t^{-a_{\kappa}}$, where $\kappa_0$ is a constant. It is known that $a_{\kappa} \sim 0.6$ around the liquid-gas phase transition point.
[cc]{}
![The spectral function at $t\equiv (T-T_c)/T_C=0.5$ (left panel) and at $t=0.1$ (right panel) for $k=0.1$\[1/fm\]. The solid line represents the Landau/Israel-Stewart case, while the dashed line the TKO case. The strength of the Brillouin peaks due to the machanical sound mode becomes smaller as $T$ approaches $T_c$ due to the singularity of the ratio of specific heats; the Brillouin peaks eventually die out as seen from the right panel, where the difference between the Landau and TKO cases is not seen anymore. Note that the scale of the vertical line in the right panle is much bigger than that of the left panel.[]{data-label="fig:t5-1"}](t05.eps){width="45mm"}
![The spectral function at $t\equiv (T-T_c)/T_C=0.5$ (left panel) and at $t=0.1$ (right panel) for $k=0.1$\[1/fm\]. The solid line represents the Landau/Israel-Stewart case, while the dashed line the TKO case. The strength of the Brillouin peaks due to the machanical sound mode becomes smaller as $T$ approaches $T_c$ due to the singularity of the ratio of specific heats; the Brillouin peaks eventually die out as seen from the right panel, where the difference between the Landau and TKO cases is not seen anymore. Note that the scale of the vertical line in the right panle is much bigger than that of the left panel.[]{data-label="fig:t5-1"}](t01.eps){width="45mm"}
Unfortunately or fortunately, these singular behaviors of the width of the Brillouin peaks around the QCD CP may not be observed. The strengths of the Rayleigh and the Brillouin peaks are given in terms of $\gamma$ as seen from eq.(\[eq:landau\]), the ratio of the specific heats, which behaves like $\gamma = \tilde{c}_p / \tilde{c}_n \sim t^{-\tilde{\gamma}+\tilde{\alpha}}
\rightarrow \infty$, in the critical region. Then the strength of the Brillouin peaks is attenuated and only the Rayleigh peak stands out in the critical region, as shown in Fig. \[fig:t5-1\].
Let $\xi=\xi_0t^{-\nu}$ be the correlation length which diverges as the critical point is approached. If we write the wave length of the sound mode by $\lambda_s$, the fluid dynamic regime is expressed as $\xi << \lambda_s$, with which condition the sound mode can develop. However, in the vicinity of the critical point, the correlation length $\xi$ becomes very large and eventually becomes infinity, so the above inequality can not be satisfied, and the sound mode can not be developed in the vicinity of the critical point.
From this argument, we can speculate about the fate of the possible Mach cone formation [@Torrieri:2009mv] by the particle passing through the medium with a speed larger than the sound velocity $c_s$. Such a Mach-cone like particle correlations are observed in the RHIC experiment[@star]. Then the disappearance or suppression of the Mach cone according to the lowering of the incident energy by RHIC would be a signal of the existence of the QCD critical point provided that the incident energy is large enough to make parton jets[@minami09].
Concluding remarks
==================
In this report, the density fluctuations is analyzed using the relativistic fluid dynamic equations[@minami09]. We have suggested that a suppression or disappearance of the Mach cone formation with lowering the incident energy at RHIC can be a signal of the detection of the QCD CP. Although we have presented the Israel-Stewart type fluid dynamic equations that are derived rigorously on the basis of the (dynamical) renormalization group method, we omit them here because of a lack of space. For the details, we refer to the submitted paper[@Tsumura:2009vm], where it is shown that the transport coefficients have no frame dependence while the relaxation times are generically frame-dependent in the derived equations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan (No. 20540265), and by the Grant-in-Aid for the global COE program “ The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence ” from MEXT.
[00]{} T. Kunihiro, Phys. Lett. B [**271**]{} (1991), 395. H.Fujii, Phys. Rev .D [**67**]{} (2003),094018; H.Fujii and M.Ohtani, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004), 014016; D.T.Son and M.A.Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004), 056001. K. Ohnishi and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Lett. B [**632**]{} (2006), 252. L. E. Reichl, [*A Modern Course in Statistical Physics*]{}(Wiley-Interscience 1998). Y. Minami and T. Kunihiro, arXiv:0904.2270 \[hep-th\]. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Fluid Mechanics*]{} (Pergamon,New York, 1959) C. Eckart, Phys. Rev. [**58**]{} (1940), 919. W. Israel, J.M.Stewart, Ann.Phys.(N.Y.)[**118**]{}, (1979) 341 W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Phys. Rev. D [**31**]{} (1985), 725. K. Tsumura, T. Kunihiro and K. Ohnishi, Phys. Lett. B [**646**]{} (2007) 134; K. Tsumura, T. Kunihiro; Phys. Lett. B [**668**]{} (2008), 425. J. Casalderrey-Solana et al J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**27**]{} (2005), 22. L. M. Satarov et al, Phys. Lett. B [**627**]{} (2005), 64. J. Adams [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005), 152301; S. S. Adler [*et al.*]{} \[PHENIX Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{} (2006), 052301; B. I. Abelev [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{} (2009), 052302. K. Tsumura and T. Kunihiro, arXiv:0906.0079 \[hep-ph\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In [@HJP] Hyland, Johnstone and Pitts introduced the notion of *tripos* for the purpose of organizing the construction of realizability toposes in a way that generalizes the construction of localic toposes from complete Heyting algebras. In [@Pit99] one finds a generalization of this notion eliminating an unnecessary assumption of [@HJP].
The aim of this paper is to characterize triposes over a base topos ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ in terms of so-called *constant objects* functors from ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ to some elementary topos. Our characterization is slightly different from the one in Pitts’s PhD Thesis [@Pit81] and motivated by the fibered view of geometric morphisms as described in [@Str]. In particular, we discuss the question whether triposes over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ giving rise to equivalent toposes are already equivalent as triposes.
address: |
Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA\
FB4 Mathematik, TU Darmstadt, Schlo[ß]{}gartenstr.7, D-64289, USA
author:
- Jonas Frey and Thomas Streicher
title: |
Triposes as a Generalization of\
Localic Geometric Morphisms
---
Introduction
============
As described in [@Joh] localic geometric morphisms to a topos ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ are given by functors $F$ from ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ to some topos ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ such that
- $F$ preserves finite limits,
- every objects $A\in{{\mathcal{E}}}$ appears as subquotient of some $FI$ and
- $F$ has a right adjoint.
In the appendix of [@Str] one finds a proof of M. Jibladze’s Theorem [@Jib] saying that fibered toposes over ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ having internal sums correspond to finite limit preserving functors from ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ to some topos. In particular, a finite limit preserving functor $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ gives rise to the fibration $P_F = F^*P_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ over ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ obtained by change of base along $F$ from the fundamental (“codomain”) fibration $P_{{\mathcal{E}}}= \mathsf{cod} : {{\mathcal{E}}}^{\mathbbm{2}}\to {{\mathcal{E}}}$ (where $\mathbbm{2}$ is the small category $0 \to 1$ corresponding to the ordinal $2$). But every fibered topos $P : {{\mathcal{X}}}\to{\mathbf{Set}}$ with internal sums is equivalent to $P_\Delta$ where ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is the fiber of $P$ over $1$ and $\Delta : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ sends $I\in{{\mathcal{S}}}$ to $\Delta(I) = \coprod_I 1_I$ in ${{\mathcal{E}}}$.
Moreover, as also shown in [@Str] for terminal object preserving $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ the fibration $P_F$ is locally small iff $F$ has a right adjoint. Thus, as observed by J. Bénabou already in his 1974 Montreal lectures inverse image parts of geometric morphisms correspond to terminal object preserving functors $F$ between toposes such that the fibration $P_F$ has internal sums and is locally small.
Moreover, as also observed in [@Str] for a finite limit preserving functor $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ between toposes condition (2) is equivalent to the requirement that every map $a : A \to FI$ in ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ fits into a commuting diagram
C & \^e & A\
\^[m]{} & & \_a\
FJ & \_[Fu]{} & FI
where $e$ is epic and $m$ is monic. Obviously, this condition entails (2) instantiating $I$ by a terminal object. For the reverse direction choose $m : C {\rightarrowtail}FJ$ and $e : C {\twoheadrightarrow}A$ (which exist by condition (2)) and observe that
& & C & \^e & A\
& \^[m]{} & \_[[m , ae ]{}]{} & & \_a\
FJ & \_[F\_1]{} & F(JI) & \_[F\_2]{} & FI
using the assumption that $F$ preserves finite limits and thus finite products. Thus, condition (2) amounts to the requirement that every object of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ can be covered by a(n internal) sum of subterminals (in the appropriate fibrational sense!). As observed in [@Str] under assumption (3) this is equivalent to the requirement that $g$ in
G & & 1\_\
\^g & & \_[\_]{}\
FU\_& \_[\_[\_]{}]{} & \_
is a generating family for the fibration $P_F$ (where $U$ is right adjoint to $F$).
A fibrational account of triposes
=================================
In [@HJP] Hyland, Johnstone and Pitts have identified a notion of fibered poset $\mathscr{P}$ over a base topos ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ giving rise to a topos ${{\mathcal{S}}}[\mathscr{P}]$ by “adding subquotients” related to the base topos via a *constant object functor* $\Delta_{\mathscr{P}} : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to {{\mathcal{S}}}[\mathscr{P}]$ satisfying conditions (1) and (2) of the previous section. As obvious from the considerations in *loc.cit.* one may get back the fibered poset $\mathscr{P}$ from the subobject fibration ${{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{{\mathcal{S}}}[\mathscr{P}]}$ by change of base along $\Delta_{\mathscr{P}}$. For this reason such $\mathscr{P}$ were called “opos epresenting ndexed et” suggesting the acronym “tripos” (echoing the traditional name for final exams at University of Cambridge). Actually, in [@HJP] triposes were assumed to validate the additional assumption that $\mathscr{P}$ admits a generic family $T \in \mathscr{P}(\Sigma)$ from which all objects in $\mathscr{P}(I)$ may be obtained (up to isomorphim) by reindexing along an appropriate (generally not unique) map $I\to\Sigma$. In [@Pit99] this additional assumption was dropped. We will use the word “tripos” for this relaxed and conceptually more appropriate notion and will refer to the more restrictive notion of [@HJP] as “traditional tripos” as in the following
\[tripdef\] A *tripos* over a topos ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is a finite limit preserving functor $F$ from ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ to a topos ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ such that every $A\in{{\mathcal{E}}}$ appears as subquotient of $FI$ for some $I\in{{\mathcal{S}}}$.
A tripos is called *traditional* iff $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ admits a generic family, i.e.a mono $t : T {\rightarrowtail}F\Sigma$ such that every mono $m : P {\rightarrowtail}FI$ fits into a pullback diagram
P & & T\
\^m & & \_t\
FI & \_[Fp]{} & F
for some (typically not unique) $p : I\to\Sigma$.
With a tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ in the sense of Def. \[tripdef\] one may associate the fibered poset $\mathscr{P}_F = F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ which is a first order hyperdoctrine, i.e.a fibration of Heyting algebras with internal sums and products, since ${{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ has and change of base along the finite limit preserving functor $F$ preserves the required properties (see [@Str]). Next we show that $\mathscr{P}_F$ is actually a fibered poset which allows one to interpret higher order (intuitionistic) logic.
\[hopitts\] Let $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ be a tripos. Then for every object $I$ in ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ there is an object $P(I)$ in ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ and $\varepsilon_I \in \mathscr{P}_F(I{\times P(I)})$ such that for all $J$ in ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ and $\rho \in \mathscr{P}_F(I{\times}J)$ the [**comprehension**]{} principle $$\forall j \in J. \exists p \in P(I).\forall i \in I.\,
\rho(i,j) \leftrightarrow i \,\varepsilon_I\, p$$ holds in the internal logic of $\mathscr{P}_F$. Let $I$ be an object of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$. Then since $\mathscr{P}$ is a tripos there is an object $P(I)$ in ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ such that ${\mathcal{P}}(FI)$ appears as subquotient of $F(P(I))$, i.e. there is a subobject $m_I : C_I {\rightarrowtail}F(P(I))$ such that there exists an epi $e_I : C_I {\twoheadrightarrow}{\mathcal{P}}(FI)$. Consider
\_I & & \_I & & \_[FI]{}\
& & & &\
FI F(P(I)) & \_[FI m\_I]{} & FI C\_I & \_[FI e\_I]{} & FI (FI)
giving rise to a subobject $\varepsilon_I$ of $F(I{\times}P(I)) \cong FI{\times }F(P(I))$. Since the left square in the above diagram is a pullback we have $(FI \times m_I)^*{\varepsilon_I} = (FI \times e_I)^*{\in_{FI}}$.
Suppose $\rho : R {\rightarrowtail}F(I{\times}J) \cong FI \times FJ$. Then
R & & \_[FI]{}\
\^& &\
FIFJ & \_[FI r]{} & FI(FI)
for a unique $r : FJ \to {\mathcal{P}}(FI)$. Consider the pullback
C & \^ & C\_I\
\^e & & \_[e\_I]{}\
FJ & \_r & (FI)
where $e$ is epic since in a topos epis are stable under arbitrary pullbacks. Thus, we have
= $(FI \times e)^*\rho$ = $= (FI \times e)^*(FI \times r)^*{\in_{FI}}
\;\cong (FI \times er)^*{\in_{FI}} =$\
$= (FI \times e_I\widetilde{r})^*{\in_{FI}}
\cong (FI \times \widetilde{r})^*(FI \times e_I)^*{\in_{FI}} =$\
$= (FI \times \widetilde{r})^*(FI \times m_I)^*{\varepsilon_I} \cong$\
$\cong (FI \times m_I\widetilde{r})^*\varepsilon_I$
from which it readily follows that $$\forall j \in J. \exists p \in P(I).\forall i \in I.\,
\rho(i,j) \leftrightarrow i \,\varepsilon_I\, p$$ holds in the internal logic of $\mathscr{P}_F$.
From Lemma \[hopitts\] and the results of [@Pit99] it follows that fibered posets of the form $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ for some tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ may up to equivalence be characterized as Heyting algebras $\mathscr{P}$ fibered over ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ with internal sums $\exists$ and internal products $\forall$ such that for every object $I$ in ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ there is an $\varepsilon_I$ in $\mathscr{P}(I{\times}P(I))$ for some $P(I)$ in ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ such that the *comprehension* principle $$\forall j \in J. \exists p \in P(I).\forall i \in I.\,
\rho(i,j) \leftrightarrow i \,\varepsilon_I\, p$$ holds in the internal logic of $\mathscr{P}$ for all $\rho \in \mathscr{P}(I{\times}J)$.
Notice that a tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is traditional iff the corresponding fibered poset $\mathscr{P}$ is a tripos in the sense of [@HJP], i.e. there exists a $
T \in \mathscr{P}(\Sigma)$ from which all $P \in \mathscr{P}(I)$ can be obtained by reindexing along some map $p : I\to\Sigma$. Notice that these maps are all unique if $F$ has a right adjoint $U$ and $\Sigma = U\Omega_{{\mathcal{E}}}$. Finally, we notice that $F$ is the inverse image part of a localic geometric morphism to ${{\mathcal{S}}}$, i.e. $F$ has a right adjoint, iff $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is locally small iff $P_F$ is locally small as discussed in [@Str].
Constant objects functors are not unique
========================================
For arbitrary base toposes ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ triposes $F,G : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ need not be equivalent since if ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is ${\mathsf{Sh}}(X)$ and ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is ${\mathsf{Sh}}(Y)$ for some sober spaces $X$ and $Y$ then there are at least as many triposes ${{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ (up to equivalence) as there are continuous maps from $Y$ to $X$. But even if ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ there are in general many non-equivalent triposes over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ giving rise to the same topos as shown by the following simple counterexample
For every natural number $n>0$ the functor $F_n : {{\mathbf{Set}}}\to{{\mathbf{Set}}}: I \mapsto I^n$ is a tripos. The triposes $F_n^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathbf{Set}}}$ and $F_m^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathbf{Set}}}$ are equivalent if and only if $n=m$. Obviously, the $F_n$ preserve finite limits since they have right adjoints and every $I\in{{\mathbf{Set}}}$ appears as split subobject of $F_n(I)$. Thus, all $F_n$ are triposes but $F_n^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathbf{Set}}}$ and $F_m^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathbf{Set}}}$ are equivalent as triposes if and only if $n=m$ since the latter is equivalent to $2^n = 2^m$ which in turn is equivalent to $F_n^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathbf{Set}}}(2) \simeq F_m^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathbf{Set}}}(2)$.
Notice, however, that $F_n$ is a traditional tripos if and only if $n=1$. Thus, it may still be the case that there exist traditional triposes $F,G : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to {{\mathcal{E}}}$ which are not equivalent as triposes. Unfortunately, we have not been able so far to find examples of non-equivalent *traditional* triposes $\mathscr{P}_1$ and $\mathscr{P}_2$ over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ such that the ensuing toposes ${{\mathbf{Set}}}[\mathscr{P}_1]$ and ${{\mathbf{Set}}}[\mathscr{P}_2]$ are equivalent. However, though a bit annoying, we can’t find this as a major problem since our weak notion of tripos is conceptually more adequate than the traditional one for the following two reasons. Firstly, because it characterizes those fibered posets which give rise to elementary toposes when “adding subquotients”. Secondly, because from a logical point of view adding the above mentioned comprehension principles to first order posetal hyperdoctrines appears as much more natural than requiring that they are witnessed by Skolem functions in the base ${{\mathcal{S}}}$, i.e. requiring for all $\rho \in \mathscr{P}(I{\times}J)$ the existence of a function $r : J \to P(I)$ such that $$\forall j \in J.\forall i \in I.\, \rho(i,j) \leftrightarrow i \,\varepsilon_I\, r(j)$$ holds in the logic of $\mathscr{P}$. At the end of [@Pit99] the author expresses a similar view in a slightly more cautious way.
Finally, we observe that triposes over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ may give rise to non-localic Grothendieck toposes. Let ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ be the topos of reflexive graphs, i.e. presheaves over the 3 element monoid $\Delta([1],[1])$ of monotone endomaps of the ordinal $2$. As observed by Lawvere the global elements functor $\Gamma : {{\mathcal{E}}}\to{{\mathbf{Set}}}$ fits into a sequence of adjoints $\Pi \dashv \Delta \dashv \Gamma \dashv \nabla : {{\mathbf{Set}}}{\hookrightarrow}{{\mathcal{E}}}$. The rightmost functor $\nabla$ preserves all limits since it has a left adjoint. Subobjects of objects of the form $\nabla(I)$ are up to isomorphism precisely those reflexive graphs where between two nodes there is at most one edge (i.e. directed graphs as traditionally considered in cominatorics!). But since any reflexive graph can be covered by such a traditional directed graph every object of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ appears as subquotient of some $\nabla(I)$ for which reason $\nabla$ is a tripos over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ though it is not the inverse image part of a geometric morphism.
Regular triposes
================
It is well know that a morphism $e : Y\to X$ in an elementary topos ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is epic iff the pullback functor $e^* : {{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}(X) \to {{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}(Y)$ reflects maximal subobjects, i.e.a mono $m : P {\rightarrowtail}X$ in ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ is an iso already if $e^*m$ is an iso. Recall that a poset fibered over a regular category is a *prestack* (w.r.t. the regular cover topology) iff for all regular epis $e$ reindexing along it (preserves and) reflects the order. Thus, for a tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ the fibered poset $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a prestack iff $F$ preserves (regular) epis.
This observation strongly suggests to require that triposes $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ also preserve epis since it vacuously holds when ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ (since in ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ all epis are split as ensured by the axiom of choice!) and, moreover, by Lemma 6.1 (“Pitts’s Iteration Theorem”) of [@Pit81] triposes preserving epis are closed under composition.
A tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is called *regular* iff $F$ preserves epis.
Recall that a functor between regular categories is called *regular* iff it preserves finite limits and regular epis. Thus, regular triposes are regular functors $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ between toposes such that every $A\in{{\mathcal{E}}}$ appears as subquotient of $FI$ for some $I\in{{\mathcal{S}}}$.
From Prop. 3.14 of [@Pit81] it follows that a traditional tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is regular iff it has “fibrewise quantification”, i.e. there are maps $\bigvee,\bigwedge : \Omega_{{\mathcal{S}}}^\Sigma \to\Sigma$ such that $\exists_{Fu}(Fp)^*t$ and $\forall_{Fu}(Fp)^*t$ appear as pullbacks of $t : T{\rightarrowtail}F\Sigma$ along $F(\lambda i{:}I.\bigvee \{ p(j) \mid u(j) = i\})$ and $F(\lambda i{:}I.\bigwedge \{ p(j) \mid u(j) = i\})$, respectively, for all $u:J \to I$ and $p : J\to\Sigma$.
\[iteration1\] Let $F_1 : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}_1$ and $F_2 : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}_2$ be triposes and $H : F_1 \to F_2$, i.e. $H : {{\mathcal{E}}}_1\to{{\mathcal{E}}}_2$ with $F_2 = HF_1$. Then $H$ is a tripos iff $H$ preserves finite limits and $H$ is a regular tripos iff $H$ is a regular functor. The forward directions are trivial. For the backwards directions suppose $A\in{{\mathcal{E}}}_2$. Then, since $F_2$ is a tripos there exists a subobject $m : C {\rightarrowtail}F_2I$ and an epi $e : C {\twoheadrightarrow}A$. Since $F_2 = H F_1$ we have $m : C {\rightarrowtail}H(F_1I)$ and $e : C {\twoheadrightarrow}A$. Thus, we have shown that $H$ validates the second condition required for a tripos.
The previous theorem for regular triposes $F_1 : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}_1$ and $F_2 : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}_2$ suggests that the right notion of morphism from $F_1$ to $F_2$ is a functor $H : F_1 \to F_2$ such that $H : {{\mathcal{E}}}_1 \to {{\mathcal{E}}}_2$ is regular since for this definition morphisms to a regular tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ coincide with regular triposes over ${{\mathcal{E}}}$.
In the subsequent Theorem \[iteration2\] we will show that morphisms between traditional regular triposes are precisely the traditional regular triposes. But for this purpose we need the following lemma characterizing traditional regular triposes among regular triposes in terms of a condition which at first sight looks weaker than the one given in Def. \[tripdef\].
\[FreyLem\] Let $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ be a regular tripos and $t : T {\rightarrowtail}F\Sigma$ be weakly generic for $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$, i.e. every mono $m : P {\rightarrowtail}FI$ fits into a diagram
P & & & & T\
\^m & & & & \_t\
FI & \_[Fe]{} & FJ & \_[Fp]{} & F\
where both squares are pullbacks and $e : J \to I$ is epic, then $F$ is a traditional tripos. Suppose $t : T {\rightarrowtail}F\Sigma$ is a weakly generic family for $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$. Let $E = \{ (u,U) \in \Sigma \times P(\Sigma) \mid u \in U \}$ and $p : E \to \Sigma$ and $q : E \to P(\Sigma)$ the respective projection maps. We will show that $\exists_q p^* t$ is a generic family for $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$.
For this purpose suppose $m \in {{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}(FI)$. By assumption there are $e : J {\twoheadrightarrow}I$ and $f : J \to \Sigma$ such that $e^*m \cong f^*t$. Since $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a prestack w.r.t. the regular cover topology we have $m \cong \exists_ee^*m \cong \exists_ef^*t$. Let $g : I \to P(\Sigma)$ with $g(i) = \{ f(j) \mid e(j) = i\}$. Obviously, the map ${\langle f , ge \rangle}$ factors through ${\langle p , q \rangle}$ since $f(j) \in g(e(j))$. Consider the following diagram
& & J & &\
& (2,4)\^f & \_h & \^e &\
& & R & \_[r\_2]{} & I\
& & \_[r\_1]{} & & \_g\
& \_p & E & \_q & P()
where $R = \{ (u,U,i) \in \Sigma \times P(\Sigma) \times I \mid u \in U = g(i) \}$ with $r_1$ and $r_2$ the respective projections and $h(j) = (f(j),g(e(j)),e(j))$. Notice that $h$ is onto since $g(i) = \{ f(j) \mid e(j) = i \}$. We have
= $g^*\exists_qp^*t$ = $\cong$ = $\exists_{r_2}r_1^*p^*t$ = by Chevalley condition\
$\cong$ $\exists_{r_2}\exists_hh^*r_1^*p^*t$ since $h$ is epic\
$\cong$ $\exists_ef^*t$ since $e = r_2h$ and $f = pr_1h$\
$\cong$ $m$
as desired.
\[iteration2\] Let $F_1 : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to {{\mathcal{E}}}_1$ be a traditional regular tripos and $H : {{\mathcal{E}}}_1 \to {{\mathcal{E}}}_2$ a regular functor between toposes. Then $H$ is a traditional regular tripos if and only if $F_2 = H F_1$ is a traditional regular tripos The forward direction is Pitts’s Iteration Theorem.
For the backward direction suppose that $H : {{\mathcal{E}}}_1 \to {{\mathcal{E}}}_2$ is a regular functor such that $F_2 = H F_1$ is a traditional regular tripos. By Theorem \[iteration1\] it is immediate that $H$ is a regular tripos, too. Since $F_2$ has been assumed to be a traditional tripos there is a $t : T {\rightarrowtail}F_2\Sigma$ generic for $F_2^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{{\mathcal{E}}}_2}$. For showing that $H$ is a traditional tripos it suffices by Lemma \[FreyLem\] to show that $t : T {\rightarrowtail}H F_1 \Sigma$ is weakly generic for $H^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{{\mathcal{E}}}_2}$.
Suppose $m : P {\rightarrowtail}HA$ for some $A \in {{\mathcal{E}}}_1$. Since $F_1$ is a traditional tripos there exist $n : Q {\rightarrowtail}F_1I$ and $e : Q {\twoheadrightarrow}A$ for some $I \in {{\mathcal{S}}}$. Since $F_2 = H F_1$ is a traditional tripos there exists $p : I \to \Sigma$ such that $Hn \circ (He)^*m$ arises as pullback of $t$ along $H F_1 p$ for some $p : I \to \Sigma$. Thus we have
P & & & & T\
\^m & & \_[(He)\^\*m]{} & &\
HA & \_[He]{} & HQ & & \_[t]{}\
& & \_[Hn]{} & &\
& & HF\_1I & \_[HF\_1 p]{} & H F\_1
from which it follows that $(He)^*m$ arises as pullback of $t$ along $H(F_1p \circ n) = HF_1p \circ Hn$. Thus, we have
P & & & & T\
\^m & & \_[(He)\^\*m]{} & & \_[t]{}\
HA & \_[He]{} & HQ & \_[H(F\_1 p n)]{} & H F\_1\
where both squares are pullbacks as required.
We conclude this section with some observations on the
Preservation of assemblies by tripos morphisms {#assembpres}
----------------------------------------------
Following [@realizbook] for a tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ one may define *assemblies* as those objects of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ which appear as subobjects of some $FI$. If $G : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{F}}}$ is a tripos and $H : F \to G$ such that $H : {{\mathcal{E}}}\to{{\mathcal{F}}}$ preserves finite limits then $H$ preserves assemblies, i.e. sends assemblies w.r.t. $F$ to assemblies w.r.t. $G$, since $Hm : HP {\rightarrowtail}HFI = GI$ whenever $m : P {\rightarrowtail}FI$. It follows from the definition of tripos that every object $A$ of ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ appears as subquotient of some $FI$, i.e. we have $\begin{diagram} A & \lOnto^e & C & \rEmbed^m & FI \end{diagram}$. If $H : F \to G$ is a regular functor between triposes then $\begin{diagram} HA & \lOnto^{He} & HC & \rEmbed^{Hm} & HFI = GI \end{diagram}$, i.e. $H$ preserves coverings of objects by assemblies in a very strong sense.
Relation to Miquel’s implicative algebras
=========================================
In an unpublished note [@Miq18] A. Miquel has shown that traditional triposes over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ correspond to so called *implicative algebras*
An *implicative structure* is a complete lattice ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ together with an operation $\to\;: {{\mathcal{A}}}^{{\mathsf{op}}}\times {{\mathcal{A}}}\to {{\mathcal{A}}}$ such that $x \to \bigwedge Y = \bigwedge\limits_{y \in Y} (x \to y)$ for all $x \in {{\mathcal{A}}}$ and $Y \subseteq {{\mathcal{A}}}$. Then $K_{{\mathcal{A}}}= \bigwedge\limits_{x,y \in{{\mathcal{A}}}} x{\to}y{\to}x$ and $S_{{\mathcal{A}}}= \bigwedge\limits_{x,y,z \in{{\mathcal{A}}}} (x{\to}y{\to}z){\to}(x{\to}y){\to}x{\to}z$ are elements of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$.
A *separator* in an implicative structure $({{\mathcal{A}}},\to)$ is an upward closed subset ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ of ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ such that $K_{{\mathcal{A}}},S_{{\mathcal{A}}}\in {{\mathcal{S}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is closed under *modus ponens*, i.e. $b \in {{\mathcal{S}}}$ whenever $a \in {{\mathcal{S}}}$ and $a \to b \in {{\mathcal{S}}}$.
An *implicative algebra* is a triple $({{\mathcal{A}}},\to,{{\mathcal{S}}})$ such that $({{\mathcal{A}}},\to)$ is an implicative structure and ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ is a separator in $({{\mathcal{A}}},\to)$.
With every implicative algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ one associates a ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$-based tripos $\mathscr{P}^{{\mathcal{A}}}$ where $\mathscr{P}^{{\mathcal{A}}}(I)$ is the preorder $\vdash_I$ on ${{\mathcal{A}}}^I$ defined as $$\varphi \vdash_I \psi \quad \mbox{iff} \quad
\bigwedge\limits_{i\in I} \bigl(\varphi_i \to \psi_i\bigr) \in {{\mathcal{S}}}$$ and reindexing is given by precomposition.
In his unpublished note [@Miq18] from spring 2018 A. Miquel has shown that every traditional regular tripos over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$ is equivalent to $\mathscr{P}^{{\mathcal{A}}}$ for some implicative algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}$.
For $i{=}1,2$ let $F_i : {{\mathbf{Set}}}\to {{\mathcal{E}}}_i$ be the constant objects functor for the regular tripos induced by an implicative algebra ${{\mathcal{A}}}_i$ in ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$, i.e. ${{\mathcal{E}}}_i = {{\mathbf{Set}}}[\mathscr{P}^{{{\mathcal{A}}}_i}]$. Due to the remark in subsection \[assembpres\] regular functors $G : {{\mathcal{E}}}_1 \to {{\mathcal{E}}}_2$ with $F_2 = G F_1$ correspond to cartesian functors $g : F_1^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{{\mathcal{E}}}_1} \to F_2^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{{\mathcal{E}}}_2}$ preserving regular logic, i.e.finite limits and existential quantification. Obviously, such $g$ are uniquely determined by $h = g_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_1}({{\mathrm{id}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_1}): {{\mathcal{A}}}_1 \to {{\mathcal{A}}}_2$ since $g_I(\varphi : I \to {{\mathcal{A}}}_1) = h \circ \varphi$. This suggests to define a morphism of implicative algebras from ${{\mathcal{A}}}_1$ to ${{\mathcal{A}}}_2$ as a function $h : {{\mathcal{A}}}_1 \to {{\mathcal{A}}}_2$ such that the cartesian functor $g : F_1^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{{\mathcal{E}}}_1} \to F_2^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{{\mathcal{E}}}_2}$ given by $g_I(\varphi : I \to {{\mathcal{A}}}_1) = h \circ \varphi$ preserves regular logic, i.e.finite limits and existential quantification.
Unfortunately, Miquel’s result from [@Miq18] does not extend to arbitrary base toposes. The reason is that for a traditional regular tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to {{\mathcal{E}}}$ there need not exist a subobject $S$ of $\Sigma$ such that
1. its characteristic map $\chi_S : \Sigma\to\Omega_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ induces by postcomposition a cartesian functor $\gamma_S : F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}\to {{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ preserving finite meets in each fiber and
2. $u : 1 \to \Sigma$ factors through $S$ iff $(Fu)^*t$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathrm{id}}}_{F1}$.
Notice that the first condition means that $u^*S \leq v^*S$ whenever $F(u)^*t \leq F(v)^*t$ and that $t \in S$ and $\forall u,v:\Sigma.\,u \wedge v \in S \leftrightarrow (u \in S \wedge v \in S)$ hold in the internal logic of ${{\mathcal{S}}}$. For base toposes ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ which are not well-pointed such $S$ need neither exist nor be unique (for the latter see Example 4.12.12 of [@FreyThes] for a counterexample[^1]).
The related stronger condition that $u : I\to\Sigma$ factors through $S$ iff $F(u)^*t$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathrm{id}}}_{FI}$ is known as “definability of truth”, i.e. that the full subfibration of $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ on true predicates is definable in the sense of Bénabou (see section 12 of [@Str]). This stronger condition, however, amounts to the requirement that the fibration $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is locally small, i.e. equivalent to the externalization of a complete Heyting algebra internal to ${{\mathcal{S}}}$, which in turn is equivalent to the requirement that $F$ is the inverse image part of a localic geometric morphism.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
We have shown in which sense (generalized) triposes in the sense of [@Pit81] may be understood as a generalizations of localic geometric morphisms. The traditional triposes of [@HJP] can be characterized as those triposes $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ for which the fibered poset $F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ admits a generic family $t : T {\rightarrowtail}F\Sigma$.
We have defined regular triposes as triposes $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ where $F$ preserves epis, i.e.$F^*{{\mathsf{Sub}}}_{{\mathcal{E}}}$ is a prestack. As opposed to ordinary triposes regular triposes are known to be closed under composition, i.e. are closed under iteration. A further advantage of regular triposes is that for a regular tripos $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ regular triposes over ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ correspond to morphisms of regular triposes from $F$ to some regular tripos $G : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{F}}}$, i.e. $H : F \to G$ such that $H : {{\mathcal{E}}}\to{{\mathcal{F}}}$ is a regular functor. Somewhat surprisingly, an analogous result holds for traditional regular triposes as well.
Finally, we have recalled a theorem due to A. Miquel characterizing traditional regular triposes in terms of implicative algebras generalizing the notion of complete Heyting algebra and identified a notion of morphism between implicative algebras corresponding to regular morphisms of triposes over ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$.
We think that the more general notion of tripos as introduced in [@Pit99] is more natural since it corresponds to the class of first order posetal hyperdoctrines which give rise to toposes by “adding subquotients”. Moreover, the form of comprehension principle characterising them is more natural then the Skolemized form postulated as an axiom in the definition of traditional triposes.
But restricting to regular triposes seems to be a good idea since the condition is most natural from the point of view of fibered categories and, moreover, allows one to identify regular tripos morphisms to $F : {{\mathcal{S}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ with regular triposes over ${{\mathcal{E}}}$ as shown in Theorem \[iteration1\].
We have shown that triposes $F,G : {{\mathbf{Set}}}\to{{\mathcal{E}}}$ need not be equivalent. But we do not know whether such $F$ and $G$ are necessarily equivalent under the stronger assumption that both $F$ and $G$ are traditional triposes. There is no conceptual reason why this should hold in general but, alas, we have not been able to find a counterexample so far.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
\
We thank A. Miquel for making his unpublished note [@Miq18] available to us. The second named author thanks S. Maschio for discussions which have triggered the identification of the right notion of morphism between triposes. We further acknowledge the use of Paul Taylor’s diagram macros used for writing this paper.
J. Bénabou *Logique Catégorique* lecture notes of a course at Univ. Montreal (1974) J. Bénabou *Des Catégories Fibrées* handwritten lecture notes by J.-R. Roisin of a course at Univ. Louvain-la-Neuve (1980) J. Frey *A fibrational study of realizability toposes* Thesis Univ. Paris 7 (2013) `arXiv:1403.3672` M. Jibladze *Geometric Morphisms and Indexed Toposes* In *Categorical topology and its relation to analysis, algebra and combinatorics* (Prague, 1988), pages 10–18. World Scientific Publ. (1989) M. Hyland, P. Johnstone, A. Pitts *Tripos Theory* Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 88(2) (1980) P. T. Johnstone *Topos Theory* Academic Press (1977) A. Miquel *Implicative Algebras II: Completeness w.r.t. ${{\mathbf{Set}}}$-based Triposes* unpublished note (2018) A. Pitts *The Theory of Triposes* Thesis Univ. Cambridge (1981) A. Pitts *Tripos Theory in Retrospect* Math. Struct. in Computer Science 12(3) (2002) T. Streicher *Fibred Categories à la Jean Bénabou* (2019) `arXiv:1801.02927` J. van Oosten *Realizability. An Introduction to its Categorical Side* Elsevier (2008)
[^1]: Take for ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ the Sierpiński topos ${{\mathbf{Set}}}^{\mathbbm{2}^{{\mathsf{op}}}}$ and for $F$ the functor ${{\mathrm{Id}}}_{{\mathcal{S}}}$. Then there are two possible choices for $S$, namely $\top : 1 \to \Omega_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ and the subobject $S$ of $\Omega_{{\mathcal{S}}}$ with $S_0 = \Omega_0$ and $S_1 = \{\top\}$. In the first case the corresponding $\gamma_S$ is ${{\mathrm{id}}}_{\Omega_{{\mathcal{S}}}}$ and in the second case it sends a subobject $P$ of $A$ in ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ to the subobject $\gamma_S(P)$ of $A$ with $\gamma_S(P)_0 = A_0$ and $\gamma_S(P)_1 = P_1$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In a [*balloon drawing*]{} of a tree, all the children under the same parent are placed on the circumference of the circle centered at their parent, and the radius of the circle centered at each node along any path from the root reflects the number of descendants associated with the node. Among various styles of tree drawings reported in the literature, the balloon drawing enjoys a desirable feature of displaying tree structures in a rather balanced fashion. For each internal node in a balloon drawing, the ray from the node to each of its children divides the wedge accommodating the subtree rooted at the child into two sub-wedges. Depending on whether the two sub-wedge angles are required to be identical or not, a balloon drawing can further be divided into two types: [*even sub-wedge*]{} and [*uneven sub-wedge*]{} types. In the most general case, for any internal node in the tree there are two dimensions of freedom that affect the quality of a balloon drawing: (1) altering the order in which the children of the node appear in the drawing, and (2) for the subtree rooted at each child of the node, flipping the two sub-wedges of the subtree. In this paper, we give a comprehensive complexity analysis for optimizing balloon drawings of rooted trees with respect to [*angular resolution*]{}, [*aspect ratio*]{} and [*standard deviation of angles*]{} under various drawing cases depending on whether the tree is of even or uneven sub-wedge type and whether (1) and (2) above are allowed. It turns out that some are NP-complete while others can be solved in polynomial time. We also derive approximation algorithms for those that are intractable in general.'
author:
- 'Chun-Cheng Lin'
- 'Hsu-Chun Yen'
- 'Sheung-Hung Poon'
- 'Jia-Hao Fan'
title: Complexity Analysis of Balloon Drawing for Rooted Trees
---
tree drawing ,graph drawing ,graph algorithms
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Graph drawing addresses the issue of constructing geometric representations of graphs in a way to gain better understanding and insights into the graph structures. Surveys on graph drawing can be found in [@BETT1999; @KW2001]. If the given data is hierarchical (such as a file system), then it can often be expressed as a rooted tree. Among existing algorithms in the literature for drawing rooted trees, the work of [@RT1981] developed a popular method for drawing binary trees. The idea behind [@RT1981] is to recursively draw the left and right subtrees independently in a bottom-up manner, then shift the two drawings along the $x$-direction as close to each other as possible while centering the parent of the two subtrees one level up between their roots. Different from the conventional ‘triangular’ tree drawing of [@RT1981], $hv$-drawings [@Shiloach1976], radial drawings [@Eades1992] and balloon drawings [@CK1995; @JP1998; @KY1993; @LY2007; @MH1998] are also popular for visualizing hierarchical graphs. Since the majority of algorithms for drawing rooted trees take linear time, rooted tree structures are suited to be used in an environment in which real-time interactions with users are frequent.
Consider Figure \[fgIllustration\] for an example. A [*balloon drawing*]{} [@CK1995; @JP1998; @LY2007] of a rooted tree is a drawing having the following properties:
- all the children under the same parent are placed on the circumference of the circle centered at their parent;
- there exist no edge crossings in the drawing;
- the radius of the circle centered at each node along any path from the root node reflects the number of descendants associated with the node (i.e., for any two edges on a path from the root node, the farther from the root an edge is, the shorter its drawing length becomes).
In the balloon drawing of a tree, each subtree resides in a [*wedge*]{} whose end-point is the parent node of the root of the subtree. The ray from the parent node to the root of the subtree divides the wedge into two [*sub-wedges*]{}. Depending on whether the two sub-wedge angles are required to be identical or not, a balloon drawing can further be divided into two types: drawings with [*even sub-wedges*]{} (see Figure \[fgIllustration\](a)) and drawings with [*uneven sub-wedges*]{} (see Figure \[fgIllustration\](b)). One can see from the transformation from Figure \[fgIllustration\](a) to Figure \[fgIllustration\](b) that a balloon drawing with uneven sub-wedges is derived from that with even sub-wedges by shrinking the drawing circles in a bottom-up fashion so that the drawing area is as small as possible [@LY2007]. Another way to differentiate the two is that for the even sub-wedge case, it is required that the position of the root of a subtree coincides with the center of the enclosing circle of the subtree.
[*Aesthetic criteria*]{} specify graphic structures and properties of drawing, such as minimizing number of edge crossings or bends, minimizing area, and so on, but the problem of simultaneously optimizing those criteria is, in many cases, NP-hard. The main aesthetic criteria on the angle sizes in balloon drawings are [*angular resolution*]{}, [*aspect ratio*]{}, and [*standard deviation of angles*]{}. Note that this paper mainly concerns the angle sizes, while it is interesting to investigate other aesthetic criteria, such as the drawing area, total edge length, etc. Given a drawing of tree $T$, an angle formed by the two adjacent edges incident to a common node $v$ is called an angle incident to node $v$. Note that an angle in a balloon drawing consists of two sub-wedges which belong to two different subtrees, respectively (see Figure \[fgIllustration\]). With respect to a node $v$, the [*angular resolution*]{} is the smallest angle incident to node $v$, the [*aspect ratio*]{} is the ratio of the largest angle to the smallest angle incident to node $v$, and the [*standard deviation of angles*]{} is a statistic used as a measure of the dispersion or variation in the distribution of angles, equal to the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the deviations from the arithmetic mean.
The [*angular resolution*]{} (resp., [*aspect ratio*]{}; [*standard deviation of angles*]{}) of a drawing of $T$ is defined as the minimum angular resolution (resp., the maximum aspect ratio; the maximum standard deviation of angles) among all nodes in $T$. The angular resolution (resp., aspect ratio; standard deviation of angles) of a tree drawing is in the range of $(0^{\circ},
360^{\circ})$ (resp., $[1,\infty)$ and $[0,\infty)$). A tree layout with a large angular resolution can easily be identified by eyes, while a tree layout with a small aspect ratio or standard deviation of angles often enjoys a very balanced view of tree drawing. It is worthy of pointing out the fundamental difference between aspect ratio and standard deviation. The aspect ratio only concerns the deviation between the largest and the smallest angles in the drawing, while the standard deviation deals with the deviation of all the angles.
With respect to a balloon drawing of a rooted tree, changing the order in which the children of a node are listed or flipping the two sub-wedges of a subtree affects the quality of the drawing. For example, in comparison between the two balloon drawings of a tree under different tree orderings respectively shown in Figures \[fgExperiments\](a) and \[fgExperiments\](b), we observe that the drawing in Figure \[fgExperiments\](b) displays little variations of angles, which give a very balanced drawing. Hence some interesting questions arise: [*How to change the tree ordering or flip the two sub-wedge angles of each subtree such that the balloon drawing of the tree has the maximum angular resolution, the minimum aspect ratio, and the minimum standard deviation of angles?*]{}
Throughout the rest of this paper, we let [*RE*]{}, [*RA*]{}, and [*DE*]{} denote the problems of optimizing angular resolution, aspect ratio, and standard deviation of angles, respectively. In this paper, we investigate the tractability of the RE, RA, and DE problems in a variety of cases, and our main results are listed in Table \[tb-results\], in which trees with ‘flexible’ (resp., ‘fixed’) uneven sub-wedges refer to the case when sub-wedges of subtrees are (resp., are not) allowed to flip; a ‘semi-ordered’ tree is an unordered tree where only the circular ordering of the children of each node is fixed, without specifying if this ordering is clockwise or counterclockwise in the drawing. Note that a semi-ordered tree allows to flip uneven sub-wedges in the drawing, because flipping sub-wedges of a node in the bottom-up fashion of the tree does not modify the circular ordering of its children. See Figure \[fgExperiments\] for an experimental example with the drawings which achieve the optimality of RA1–RA4. In Table \[tb-results\], with the exception of RE1 and RA1 (which were previously obtained by Lin and Yen in [@LY2007]), all the remaining results are new. We also give 2-approximation algorithms for RA3 and RA4, and $O(\sqrt{n})$-approximation algorithms for DE3 and DE4. Finding improved approximation bounds for those intractable problems remains an interesting open question.
[clcccc]{} & & denotation & complexity & reference\
&
(0,0)(0,-8)
unordered trees with
(0,0)(0,-8)
& angular resolution & RE1 & $O(n \log n)$ & [@LY2007]\
& even sub-wedges & aspect ratio & RA1 & $O(n \log n)$ & [@LY2007]\
& & standard deviation & DE1 & $O(n \log n)$$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-DE1\]\]\
&
(0,0)(0,-8)
semi-ordered trees with
(0,0)(0,-8)
& angular resolution & RE2 & $O(n)$$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-RE2\]\]\
& flexible uneven sub-wedges & aspect ratio & RA2 & $O(n^2)$$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-RA2\]\]\
& & standard deviation & DE2 & $O(n)$$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-DE2\]\]\
&
(0,0)(0,-8)
unordered trees with
(0,0)(0,-8)
& angular resolution & RE3 & $O(n \log n)$$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-RE3\]\]\
& fixed uneven sub-wedges & aspect ratio & RA3 & NPC$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-RA3\], \[thm-RA3-approx\]\]\
& & standard deviation & DE3 & NPC$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-DE3\], \[thm-DE3-approx2\]\]\
&
(0,0)(0,-8)
unordered trees with
(0,0)(0,-8)
& angular resolution & RE4 & $O(n \log n)$$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-RE4\]\]\
& flexible uneven sub-wedges & aspect ratio & RA4 & NPC$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-RA4\], \[thm-RA4-approx\]\]\
& & standard deviation & DE4 & NPC$^*$ & \[Thm \[thm-DE4\], \[thm-DE4-approx2\]\]\
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Some preliminaries are given in Section \[sec:preliminary\]. The problems for cases C1 and C2 are investigated in Section \[sec:C1C2\]. The problems for cases C3 and C4 are investigated in Section \[sec:C3C4\]. The approximation algorithms for those intractable problems are given in Section \[sec:approx\]. Finally, a conclusion is given in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminary}
=============
In this section, we first introduce two conventional models of balloon drawing, then define our concerned problems, and finally introduce some related problems.
Two Models of Balloon Drawing
-----------------------------
There exist two models in the literature for generating [*balloon drawings*]{} of trees. Given a node $v$, let $r(v)$ be the radius of the drawing circle centered at $v$. If we require that $r(v)$ = $r(w)$ for arbitrary two nodes $v$ and $w$ that are of the same depth from the root of the tree, then such a drawing is called a balloon drawing under the [*fractal model*]{} [@KY1993]. The fractal drawing of a tree structure means that if $r_m$ and $r_{m-1}$ are the lengths of edges at depths $m$ and $m-1$, respectively, then $r_{m} = \gamma \times r_{m-1}$ where $\gamma$ is the predefined ratio ($0 < \gamma < 1$) associated with the drawing under the fractal model. Clearly, edges at the same depth have the same length in a fractal drawing. Unlike the fractal model, the [*subtrees with nonuniform sizes*]{} (abbreviated as [*SNS*]{}) model [@CK1995; @JP1998] allows subtrees associated with the same parent to reside in circles of different sizes (see also Figure \[fgIllustration\](a)), and hence the drawing based on this model often results in a clearer display on large subtrees than that under the fractal model. Given a rooted ordered tree $T$ with $n$ nodes, a balloon drawing under the SNS model can be obtained in $O(n)$ time (see [@CK1995; @JP1998]) in a bottom-up fashion by computing the edge length $r$ and the angle $\theta_{i}$ between two adjacent edges respectively according to $r = C/(2\pi) \cong
(2\sum\nolimits_{i}R_{i})/(2\pi)$ and $\theta_{i} \cong (R_{i} + free\_arc +
R_{i+1})/r$ (see Figure \[fgIllustration\](a)) where $r$ is the radius of the inner circle centered at node $c_0$; $C$ is the circumference of the inner circle; $R_{i}$ is the radius of the outer circle enclosing all subtrees of the $i$-th child of $c_0$, and $R_{O}$ is the radius of the outer circle enclosing all subtrees of $c_0$; since there exists a gap between $C$ and the sum of all diameters, we can distribute to every $\theta_{i}$ the gap between them evenly, which is called a free arc, denoted by $free\_arc$. Note that the balloon drawing under the SNS model is our so-called balloon drawing with even sub-wedges. A careful examination reveals that the area of a balloon drawing with even sub-wedges (generated by the SNS model) may be reduced by shrinking the free arc between each pair of subtrees and shortening the radius of each inner circle in a bottom-up fashion [@LY2007], by which we can obtain a smaller-area balloon drawing with uneven sub-wedges (e.g., see the transformation from Figure \[fgIllustration\](a) to Figure \[fgIllustration\](c)).
Notation and Problem Definition
-------------------------------
In what follows, we introduce some notation, used in the rest of this paper. A [*circular permutation*]{} $\pi$ is expressed as: $\pi
= \langle\pi_1, \pi_2, ..., \pi_n\rangle$ where for $i = 1, 2, ...,
n$, $\pi_i$ is placed along a circle in a counterclockwise direction. Note that $\pi_n$ is adjacent to $\pi_1$; $i \oplus 1$ denotes $i + 1 \ (mod \ n)$; $i\ominus 1$ denotes $i - 1 \ (mod \
n)$. Due to the hierarchical nature of trees and the ways the aesthetic criteria (measures) for balloon drawings are defined, an algorithm optimizing a [*star graph*]{} can be applied repeatedly to a general tree in a bottom-up fashion [@LY2007], yielding an optimum solution with respect to a given aesthetic criterion. Thus, it suffices to consider the balloon drawing of a star graph when we discuss these problems.
A star graph is characterized by a root node $c_0$ together with its $n$ children $c_{1}, ..., c_{n}$, each of which is the root of a subtree located entirely in a [*wedge*]{}, as shown in Figure \[fgIllustration\](a) (for the even sub-wedge type) and Figure \[fgUnevenNotation\] (for the uneven sub-wedge type). In what follows, we can only see Figure \[fgUnevenNotation\] because the even sub-wedge type can be viewed as a special case of the uneven sub-wedge type. The ray from $c_{0}$ to $c_{i}$ further divides the associated wedge into two sub-wedges $SW_{i, 0}$ and $SW_{i, 1}$ with sizes of angles $w_{0}(i)$ and $w_{1}(i)$, respectively. Note that $w_{0}(i)$ and $w_{1}(i)$ need not be equal in general. An [*ordering*]{} of $c_{0}$’s children is simply a circular permutation $\sigma = \langle \sigma_1, \sigma_2, ..., \sigma_n
\rangle$, in which $\sigma_i \in \{1, 2, ..., n\}$ for each $i$.
There are two dimensions of freedom affecting the quality of a balloon drawing for a star graph. The first is concerned with the ordering in which the children of the root node $c_0$ are drawn. With a given ordering, it is also possible to alter the order of occurrences of the two sub-wedges associated with each child of the root. With respect to child $c_{i}$ and its two sub-wedges $SW_{i,
0}$ and $SW_{i, 1}$, we use $t_{i} \in \{0, 1\}$ to denote the index of the first sub-wedge encountered in a counterclockwise traversal of the drawing. For convenience, we let $t'_{i} = 1 - t_{i}$. We also write $t=(t_1,...,t_n)$ ($t_{i} \in \{0, 1\}, 1 \leq i \leq
n$), which is called the [*sub-wedge assignment*]{} (or simply [*assignment*]{}). As shown in Figure \[fgUnevenNotation\], the sequence of sub-wedges encountered along the cycle centered at $c_0$ in a counterclockwise direction can be expressed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E-subWedge-uneven}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\langle \ \underbrace{w_{t_{\sigma_1}}(\sigma_1),
w_{t'_{\sigma_1}}(\sigma_1)}, &
..., &
\underbrace{w_{t_{\sigma_i}}(\sigma_i), w_{t'_{\sigma_i}}(\sigma_i)}, & ..., & \underbrace{w_{t_{\sigma_n}}(\sigma_n), w_{t'_{\sigma_n}}(\sigma_n)}\ \rangle.\\
c_{\sigma_1} & ... & c_{\sigma_i} & ... & c_{\sigma_n}
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$
If $w_0(i) = w_1(i)$ for each $i\in\{1,...,n\}$, then the drawing is said to be of [*even sub-wedge type*]{}; otherwise, it is of [*uneven sub-wedge type*]{}. As mentioned earlier, the order of the two sub-wedges associated with a child (along the counterclockwise direction) affects the quality of a drawing in the uneven sub-wedge case. For the case of uneven sub-wedge type, if the assignment $t$ is given [*a priori*]{}, then the drawing is said to be of [*fixed*]{} uneven sub-wedge type; otherwise, of [*flexible*]{} uneven sub-wedge type (i.e., $t$ is a design parameter).
As shown in Figure \[fgUnevenNotation\], with respect to an ordering $\sigma$ and an assignment $t$ in circular permutation (\[E-subWedge-uneven\]), $c_{\sigma_{i}}$ and $c_{\sigma_{i \oplus 1}}$, $1 \leq i \leq n$, are neighboring nodes, and the size of the angle formed by the two adjacent edges $\overrightarrow{c_{0}c_{\sigma_i}}$ and $\overrightarrow{c_{0}c_{\sigma_{i \oplus 1}}}$ is $\theta_i=w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)+w_{t_{i\oplus 1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus 1})$. Hence, the [*angular resolution*]{} (denoted by $AngResl_{\sigma,t}$), the [*aspect ratio*]{} (denoted by $AspRatio_{\sigma,t}$), and the [*standard deviation of angles*]{} (denoted by $StdDev_{\sigma,t}$) can be formulated as [$$\begin{aligned}
&&AngResl_{\sigma,t} = \min_{1 \leq i \leq n} \theta_i
= \min_{1\leq i\leq n} \{ w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)+w_{t_{i\oplus 1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus1})
\}
; \nonumber\\
&&AspRatio_{\sigma,t} = \frac{\max_{1 \leq i \leq n}
\theta_i}{\min_{1 \leq i \leq n} \theta_i} = \frac{\max_{1\leq i\leq
n} \{ w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)+w_{t_{i\oplus 1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus1})
\}}{\min_{1\leq i\leq n} \{ w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)+w_{t_{i\oplus 1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus1})
\}};\nonumber\\
&&StdDev_{\sigma,t} =
\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\theta_i^2}{n}-\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\theta_i}{n}\right)^2}
\nonumber\\
\label{E-stdDev2} && =
\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n(w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)^2+w_{t_{i\oplus
1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus 1})^2)}{n}+\frac{2\sum_{i=1}^n
w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)w_{t_{i\oplus 1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus
1})}{n}-\left(\frac{2\pi}{n}\right)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ ]{}We observe that the first and third terms inside the square root of the above equation are constants for any circular permutation $\sigma$ and assignment $t$, and hence, the second term inside the square root is the dominant factor as far as $StdDev_{\sigma,t}$ is concerned. We denote by $SOP_{\sigma,t}$ the sum of products of sub-wedges, which can be expressed as: $$SOP_{\sigma,t} = \sum_{i=1}^n w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)w_{t_{i\oplus 1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus 1}).$$ We are now in a position to define the RE, RA and DE problems in Table \[tb-results\] for four cases (C1, C2, C3, and C4) in a precise manner. The four cases depend on whether the circular permutation $\sigma$ and the assignment $t$ in a balloon drawing are fixed (i.e., given a priori) or flexible (i.e., design parameters). For example, case C3 allows an arbitrary ordering of the children (i.e., the tree is unordered), but the relative positions of the two sub-wedges associated with a child node are fixed (i.e., flipping is not allowed). The remaining three cases are easy to understand.
We consider the most flexible case, namely, C4, for which both $\sigma$ and $t$ are design parameters, which can be chosen from the set $\Sigma$ of all circular permutations of $\{1, ..., n\}$ and the set $\mathbb{T}$ of all $n$-bit binary strings, respectively. The RE and RA problems, respectively, are concerned with finding $\sigma$ and $t$ to achieve the following: $$\begin{aligned}
optAngResl = \max_{\sigma \in \Sigma; t \in \mathbb{T}} \{AngResl_{\sigma,t}\}; optAspRatio = \min_{\sigma \in \Sigma; t \in \mathbb{T}} \{AspRatio_{\sigma,t}\}\texttt{.}\nonumber$$ The DE problem is concerned with finding $\sigma$ and $t$ to achieve the following: $$\begin{aligned}
optStdDev &=& \min_{\sigma \in \Sigma; t \in \mathbb{T}}
\{StdDev_{\sigma,t}\}\mbox{}.\nonumber
$$ As stated earlier, $optStdDev$ is closely related to the SOP problem, which is concerned with finding $\sigma$ and $t$ to achieve the following: $$\begin{aligned}
optSOP &=& \min_{\sigma \in \Sigma; t \in
\mathbb{T}}\{SOP_{\sigma,t}\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Related Problems
----------------
Before deriving our main results, we first recall two problems, namely, the [*two-station assembly line problem*]{} (2SAL) and the [*cyclic two-station workforce leveling problem* ]{}(2SLW) that are closely related to our problems of optimizing balloon drawing under a variety of aesthetic criteria. Consider a serial assembly line with two stations, say $ST_1$ and $ST_2$, and a set $\mathbb{J} =
\{J_1, J_2, ..., J_n\}$ of $n$ jobs. Each job $J_i = (W_{i1},
W_{i2})$ consists of two tasks processed by the two stations, respectively, where $W_{i1}$ (resp., $W_{i2}$) is the workforce requirement at $ST_1$ (resp., $ST_2$). Assume the processing time of each job at each station is the same, say $\tau/n$. Consider a circular permutation $\langle J_{\delta_1}, J_{\delta_2}, ...,
J_{\delta_n}\rangle$ of $\mathbb{J}$ where $\delta = \langle
\delta_1, \delta_2, ..., \delta_n\rangle$ is a circular permutation of $\{1, 2, ..., n\}$. At any time point, a single station can only process one job. We also assume that the two stations are always busy. During the first time range $[0,\tau/n]$, $J_{\delta_1}$ and $J_{\delta_2}$ are processed by $ST_2$ and $ST_1$, respectively, and the workforce requirement is $W_{\delta_12}+W_{\delta_21}$. Similarly, for each $i$, during the time range $[(i-1)\tau/n,i\tau/n]$, $J_{\delta_i}$ and $J_{\delta_{i\oplus 1}}$ are processed at $ST_2$ and $ST_1$ stations respectively, and the workforce requirement is $W_{\delta_i 2}+W_{\delta_{i\oplus 1}1}$.
For example, consider $\mathbb{J} = \{J_1, J_2, J_3, J_4\}$ where $J_1=(2,3)$, $J_2=(1,7)$, $J_3=(6,2)$, and $J_4=(4,2)$. For a certain circular permutation $\langle J_3, J_2, J_4, J_1 \rangle$ of $\mathbb{J}$, the workforce requirements for each period of time as well as the jobs served at the two stations are given in Figure \[fgWorkforcePlanning\], where the largest workforce requirement is 11; the range of the workforce requirements among all the time periods is \[3,11\].
time range $ST_1$ $ST_2$ workforce requirement
--------------------- ----------- --------- ---------------------------
$[~~~~0,~\tau/4]$ $J_{2}$ $J_{3}$ $2 + 1 = ~3$
$[~\tau/4,2\tau/4]$ $J_{4}$ $J_{2}$ $7 + 4 = 11$
$[2\tau/4,3\tau/4]$ $J_{1}$ $J_{4}$ $2 + 2 = ~4$
$[3\tau/4,4\tau/4]$ $J_{3}$ $J_{1}$ $3 + 6 = ~9$
The $2SAL$ and $2SLW$ problems are defined as follows:
- [**2SAL**]{}: Given a set of $n$ jobs, find a circular permutation of the $n$ jobs such that the largest workforce requirement is minimized.
- [**2SLW**]{} (decision version): Given a set of $n$ jobs and a range $[LB, UB]$ of workforce requirements, decide whether a circular permutation exists such that the workforce requirement for each time period is between $LB$ and $UB$.
It is known that 2SAL is solvable in $O(n\log n)$ time [@LV1997], while 2SLW is NP-complete [@V2003].
Cases C1 (Unordered Trees with Even Sub-Wedges) and C2 (Semi-Ordered Trees with Flexible Uneven Sub-Wedges) {#sec:C1C2}
===========================================================================================================
First of all, we investigate the DE1 problem (SOP1 problem), i.e., finding a balloon drawing optimizing $optSOP$ for case C1 (i.e., unordered trees with even sub-wedges). In this case, the two sub-wedges associated with a child node in a star graph are of the same size. For notational convenience, we order the set of wedge angles $\{w_0(i)+w_1(i): i = 1, \cdots, n\}$ (note that in this case $w_0(i) = w_1(i)$ for each $i$) in ascending order as either $$\begin{aligned}
&m_{1}, m_{2}, \cdots, m_{k-1}, m_{k}, M_{k}, M_{k-1}, \cdots,
M_{2}, M_{1} & \mbox{ if $n=2k$, or}
\label{E-subwedge-C1-even}\\
&m_{1}, m_{2}, \cdots, m_{k-1}, m_{k}, mid, M_{k}, M_{k-1}, \cdots,
M_{2}, M_{1} &\mbox{ if $n=2k+1$,}\label{E-subwedge-C1-odd}\end{aligned}$$ for some $k$, where $m_{i}$ (resp., $M_{i}$) is the $i$-th minimum (resp., maximum) among all, and $mid$ is the median if the number of elements is odd. Note that the size of each angle between two edges in the drawing may be one of the forms $(m_a + m_b)/2$, $(m_a + M_b)/2$, $(M_a +
m_b)/2$, or $(M_a + M_b)/2$ for some $a,b \in \{1, \cdots, n\}$, and hence, there may exist more than one angle with the same value. In what follows, we are able to solve the DE1 problem by applying Procedure \[alg:C1\].
**Input:** a star graph $S$ with $n$ child nodes of nonuniform sizes\
**Output:** a balloon drawing of $S$ optimizing standard deviation of angles\
sort $\{w_0(i)+w_1(i): i = 1, \cdots, n\}$ in ascending order as either Equation (\[E-subwedge-C1-even\]), if $n = 2k$, or Equation (\[E-subwedge-C1-odd\]), if $n = 2k+1$ for convenience, let the child node with wedge $m_i$, $mid$ or $M_i$ be also denoted by $m_i$, $mid$ or $M_i$, respectively output $\langle M_{1}, m_{2}, M_{3}, m_{4}, \cdots, M_{k-1}, m_k, M_k, m_{k-1}, \cdots, M_{4}, m_{3}, M_{2}, m_{1} \rangle$ output $\langle M_{1}, m_{2}, M_{3}, m_{4}, \cdots, m_{k-1}, M_k, m_k, M_{k-1}, \cdots, M_{4}, m_{3}, M_{2}, m_{1} \rangle$ output $\langle M_{1}, m_{2}, M_{3}, m_{4}, \cdots, M_{k-1}, m_k, mid, M_k, m_{k-1}, \cdots, M_{4}, m_{3}, M_{2}, m_{1} \rangle$ output $\langle M_{1}, m_{2}, M_{3}, m_{4}, \cdots, m_{k-1}, M_k, mid, m_k, M_{k-1}, \cdots, M_{4}, m_{3}, M_{2}, m_{1} \rangle$
\[thm-DE1\] The DE1 problem is solvable in $O(n \log n)$ time.
In what follows, we show that Procedure \[alg:C1\], which clearly runs in $O(n \log n)$ time, can be applied to correctly producing the optimum solution. We only consider an output case in Procedure \[alg:C1\]: $$\sigma = \langle M_{1}, m_{2}, M_{3}, m_{4}, ..., M_{k-1}, m_{k}, mid,
M_{k}, m_{k-1}, ..., M_{4}, m_{3}, M_{2}, m_{1} \rangle$$ i.e., $n=2k+1$ and $k$ is odd; the remaining cases are similar (in fact, simpler). Note that $SOP_{\sigma,t} = (\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} M_i m_{i+1} + m_{k} \times mid +
mid \times M_k + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} m_i M_{i+1} + m_1 M_1)/4$, for this output case.
We proceed by induction on an integer number $i$, for $i=1$ to $k$, to prove that, with respect to the SOP measure, no circular permutations perform better than a certain circular permutation $\delta$ which contains the sequence $$S_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
m_1 M_1, & \mbox{if $i = 1$;} \\M_{i} S_{i-1} m_{i}, & \mbox{if $i$ is even;} \\m_{i} S_{i-1} M_{i}, & \mbox{if $i$ is odd.}\end{array}
\right. $$ If the above holds, then no circular permutations perform better than a certain circular permutation $\delta$ which contains sequence $S_k$. That is, no circular permutations perform better than circular permutation $\delta = \langle S_k, mid \rangle
= \sigma$, as required.
For $i=1$, we show that no circular permutations perform better than a certain circular permutation $\delta$ which contains sequence $S_1
= m_1 M_1$. Contrarily suppose that there exists a circular permutation $\delta'$ in which $m_1$ is not adjacent to $M_1$ so that $SOP_{\delta'} < SOP_\delta$. We assume that $m_1$ (resp., $M_1$) is adjacent to $x = m_1 + l_1$ (resp., $y = m_1 + l_2$) in $\delta'$ where $m_1 \leq x, y \leq M_1$, $x \neq y$, and $l_1, l_2
\geq 0$. W.l.o.g., let $\delta'$ be $\langle x m_1 S' y M_1 S''
\rangle$ where $S' \cup S'' = \{m_2, \cdots, m_n, mid,$ $M_n,
\cdots, M_2\} \setminus \{x, y\}$. Consider circular permutation $\delta = \langle x y S'^R m_1 M_1 S'' \rangle$ where $S'^R$ is the reverse of $S'$. Then $SOP_{\delta'}-SOP_{\delta}= (x m_1 + y M_1 -
xy - m_1M_1)/4 = l_2 ( M_1 - m_1 - l_1 )/4 = l_2 ( M_1 - x )/4 \geq
0$, which is a contradiction.
Suppose that no circular permutations perform better than a certain circular permutation which contains sequence $S_{i-1}$. We show that no circular permutation perform better than a certain circular permutation $\delta_i$ which contains sequence $S_i$. In the following, we only consider the case when $i$ is even (i.e., $S_i =
M_i S_{i-1} m_i$); the other case is similar.
Contrarily suppose that there exists a circular permutation $\delta_i'$ which perform better than $\delta_i$, i.e., $SOP_{\delta_i'} < SOP_{\delta_i}$. By the inductive hypothesis, $SOP_{\delta_i'} \geq SOP_{\delta_{i-1}}$ for some circular permutation $\delta_{i-1}$ which contains sequence $S_{i-1}$. W.l.o.g., suppose that $\delta_{i-1} =\langle S_{i-1} x_1 S' m_i x_2
S'' x_3 M_i S''' x_4 \rangle$ where $m_i \leq x_1, \cdots, x_4 \leq
M_i$ and $S' \cup S'' \cup S''' = \{m_{i+1}, \cdots, m_n, mid,$ $M_n, \cdots, M_{i+1}\} \setminus \{ x_1, \cdots, x_4\}$; the other cases are similar. Assume $x_1 = m_i + l_1$, $\cdots$, $x_4 = m_i +
l_4$ where $l_1, \cdots, l_4 \geq 0$. Let $M_i = m_i + l_5$ where $l_5 \geq l_j$ for each $j \in \{1, \cdots, 4\}$. Consider $\delta_i
=\langle S_{i-1} m_i S'^R x_1 x_2 S'' x_3 x_4 S'''^R M_i \rangle$. Then $SOP_{\delta_{i-1}}-SOP_{\delta_{i}} = (M_{i-1} x_1 + m_i x_2 +
x_3 M_i + x_4 m_{i-1} - M_{i-1} m_i - x_1 x_2 - x_3 x_4 - M_i
m_{i-1})/4 = l_1 ( M_{i-1} - m_i - l_2)/4 + ( m_{i-1} - m_i - l_3 )
(l_4 - l_5)/4 = l_1 ( M_{i-1} - x_2 )/4 + ( m_{i-1} - x_3 ) (l_4 -
l_5)/4 \geq 0$. Hence, $SOP_{\delta_i'} \geq SOP_{\delta_{i-1}} \geq
SOP_{\delta_{i}}$, which is a contradiction.
Now consider case C2 (semi-ordered trees with flexible uneven angles). In this case, the ordering of children of the root, $\sigma =
(1,2,\cdots,n)$, is fixed, and only the assignment of $t=(t_1,
\cdots, t_n)$ needs to be specified. Our solutions for RE2, RA2 and DE2 are based on dynamic programming approaches. Those results are given as follows:
\[thm-RE2\]The RE2 problem can be solved in $O(n)$ time.
W.l.o.g., assume $\sigma = (1,2,...,n)$. Recall from Equation (\[E-subWedge-uneven\]) that if $t=(t_{1}, ..., t_{n})$ is the assignment of sub-wedges, then the sequence of sub-wedges encountered in a counterclockwise direction is $\langle w_{t_1}(1),
w_{t_1'}(1), w_{t_2}(2), w_{t'_2}(2), \cdots,$ $w_{t_n}(n),
w_{t'_n}(n) \rangle$. We define $f_i (w_{t_1}(1), w_{t'_i}(i))$ as follows: $$\max_{t_{j} \in \{0,1\}, 2 \leq j \leq i-1} \{\min\{
(w_{t'_1}(1)+w_{t_2}(2)), (w_{t'_2}(2)+w_{t_3}(3)), ...,
(w_{t'_{i-1}}(i-1)+w_{t_i}(i)) \}\}.$$ That is, the solution maximizes the minimum sum of adjacent sub-wedge pairs for the first $i$ children, given $w_{t_1}(1)$ and $w_{t'_i}(i)$ as the outer sub-wedges of first child and $i$-th child, respectively. Notice that $w_{t'_{i}}(i)+w_{1}(1)$ is not included in calculating $f_i (w_{t_1}(1), w_{t'_i}(i))$, meaning that the first child is not considered to be adjacent to the $i$-th child. We can observe that $f_i (w_{t_1}(1), w_{t'_{i}}(i))$ can be formulated as the following dynamic programming formula: $$f_i (w_{t_1}(1), w_{t'_{i}}(i)) =
\max_{t_{i-1} \in \{0,1\}} \{ \min \{ f_{i-1} (w_{t_{1}}(1),
w_{t'_{i-1}}(i-1)), \ \ w_{t'_{i-1}}(i-1) + w_{t_i}(i) \} \}.$$ Finally, we have: $$optAngResl = \max_{t_{1}, t'_{n} \in \{0,1\}} \{ \min \{ f_n (w_{t_{1}}(1),
w_{t'_{n}}(n)), \ \ w_{t_{1}}(1) + w_{t'_{n}}(n) \}
\}.$$ It is easy to see that the above algorithm gives the correct answer and runs in linear time.
\[thm-RA2\]The RA2 problem can be solved in $O(n^2)$ time.
Since only flipping subwedges is allowed in this case, $w_0(i)$ and $w_1(i)$ can be the neighbors of $w_0(i\oplus 1)$ and $w_1(i\oplus 1)$ for each $i \in \{ 1, \cdots, n \}$, resulting in four possible angles, i.e., $w_0(i) + w_0(i\oplus 1)$, $w_0(i) + w_1(i\oplus 1)$, $w_1(i) + w_0(i\oplus 1)$, $w_1(i) + w_1(i\oplus 1)$. That is, $w_0(1)$ and $w_1(1)$ can be neighbored with $w_0(2)$ and $w_1(2)$; $w_0(2)$ and $w_1(2)$ can be neighbored with $w_0(3)$ and $w_1(3)$; $\cdots$ ; $w_0(n)$ and $w_1(n)$ can be neighbored with $w_0(1)$ and $w_1(1)$. Hence, there are $O(4n)$ possible angles in total for a given sequence of sub-wedges. We assume the angle $x+y$ formed by each pair $(x,y)$ of sub-wedges to be the ‘largest’ angle in a drawing. Then by using the dynamic programming approach of Theorem \[thm-RE2\] in $O(n)$ time, we can obtain the smallest angle $f_n(x,y)$ in the drawing, and hence the aspect ratio for this drawing is $(x+y)/f_n(x,y)$. Then $optApsRatio$ can be obtained after considering all the $O(4n)$ possible angles, so the time complexity is $O ( 4n
\times n) = O(n^2)$.
Note that the use of dynamic programming allows us to reduce the running time of RE2 and RA2 from $O(n^{2.5})$ in [@LY2007] to $O(n)$ and $O(n^2)$, respectively.
\[thm-DE2\]The DE2 problem can be solved in $O(n)$ time.
Similar to the proof in Theorem \[thm-RE2\], we define $$\begin{aligned}
g_i (w_{t_1}(1), w_{t'_i}(i)) = \min_{t_{j} \in \{0,1\}, 2 \leq j
\leq i-1} \{ w_{t'_1}(1)\times w_{t_2}(2) + w_{t'_2}(2)\times
w_{t_3}(3) + \nonumber\\
\cdots + w_{t'_{i-1}}(i-1)\times w_{t_i}(i) \}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which can be formulated as the following dynamic programming formula: $$g_i (w_{t_1}(1), w_{t'_{i}}(i)) =
\min_{t_{i-1} \in \{0,1\}} \{ g_{i-1} (w_{t_{1}}(1) ,
w_{t'_{i-1}}(i-1)) \ + \ w_{t'_{i-1}}(i-1) \times w_{t_i}(i) \}.$$ Then, we have $$optSOP = \min_{t_{1}, t'_{n} \in \{0,1\}} \{ g_n (w_{t_{1}}(1),
w_{t'_{n}}(n)) \ + \ w_{t_{1}}(1) \times w_{t'_{n}}(n)
\}.$$ Finally, by Equation (\[E-stdDev2\]), the solution of the DE2 problem can be obtained as follows: $$optStdDev = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n(w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i)^2+w_{t_{i\oplus
1}}(\sigma_{i\oplus 1})^2)}{n}+optSOP-\left(\frac{2\pi}{n}\right)^2}.$$ Note that the first and third terms inside the square root of the above equation are constants.
Cases C3 and C4 (Unordered Trees with Fixed/Flexible Uneven Sub-Wedges) {#sec:C3C4}
=======================================================================
In this section, we consider cases C3 and C4 (unordered trees with fixed/flexible [*uneven*]{} sub-wedges). For notational convenience, we order all the sub-wedges $\{w_0(1), w_1(1), \cdots, w_0(n),
w_1(n)\}$ in Equation (\[E-subWedge-uneven\]) in ascending order as $$\label{E-C3C4-subwedges}
m_{1}, m_{2}, ..., m_{n-1}, m_{n}, M_{n}, M_{n-1}, ..., M_{2},
M_{1}\nonumber$$ where $m_{i}$ (resp., $M_{i}$) is the $i$-th minimum (resp., maximum) among all. That is, $c_i = (w_{t_i}(i), w_{t_i'}(i))$ for $i = 1,...,n$ in Equation (\[E-subWedge-uneven\]) may be one of the forms $(m_j, m_k)$, $(m_j, M_k)$, $(M_j, m_k)$, or $(M_j, M_k)$ for some $j, k \in \{1,...,n\}$. For convenience, each $m_{i}$ (resp., $M_{i}$) is said a type-$m$ (resp., type-$M$) sub-wedge.
For cases C3 and C4, we consider a bipartite graph $G = (V, U)$ and a function $\phi: V \cup U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ in which
- for case C3, $\phi(V) = \{w_{t_i}(i): i = 1, \cdots, n\}$, $\phi(U) = \{w_{t_i'}(i): i = 1, \cdots, n\}$; for case C4, $\phi(V) = \{M_1, \cdots, M_n\}$, $\phi(U) = \{m_1, \cdots, m_n\}$;
- the cost of each edge $(v,u)$ is $c(v,u) = \phi(v)+\phi(u)$ for RE, RA and DE problems; $c(v,u) = \phi(v) \times \phi(u)$ for SOP problem; the cost of a matching $N$ for $V \times U$ is $c(N) = \sum_{(v,u) \in N} c(v,u)$.
Note that, for convenience, each node in $V \cup U$ is also denoted by its $\phi$ function value.
In case C3 (unordered tree with fixed uneven sub-wedges), for each $i = 1, 2, ..., n$, sub-wedge $w_{t_{i}}(i)$ in $V$ must be adjacent to (matched with) sub-wedge $w_{t_j'}(j)$ for some $j \in \{1, 2,
..., n\}$ in $U$ in any solution of our concerned problems, and hence the optimal solution must be a perfect matching $N$ for $V
\times U = \{w_{t_i}(i): i = 1, ..., n\} \times \{w_{t_i'}(i): i =
1, ..., n\}$.
In case C4 (unordered tree with flexible uneven sub-wedges), we have the following observation.
\[obs:MmSolution\] For the RE4, RA4, DE4 or SOP4 problem, there must exist an optimal solution in which each type-$m$ sub-wedge is adjacent to (matched with) a certain type-$M$ sub-wedge.
The above observation must hold; otherwise, there must exist $k$ pairs of adjacent type-$m$ sub-wedges and $k$ pairs of adjacent type-$M$ sub-wedges for some $k \geq 1$ in the optimal drawing $D$. But one can easily verify that any of our concerned aesthetic criteria of drawing $D$ must be no better than the drawing where each of the $2k$ type-$m$ sub-wedges is altered to be adjacent to a certain of the $2k$ type-$M$ sub-wedges in drawing $D$ (i.e., a drawing in Observation \[obs:MmSolution\]). Such an optimal solution in Observation \[obs:MmSolution\] must be a perfect matching $N$ for $V \times U = \{M_1, ..., M_n\} \times \{m_1, ...,
m_n\}$.
If $I_0$ denotes the set of the edges corresponding to each pair $(w_{t_i}(i),w_{t_i'}(i))$ for $i \in \{1,...,n\}$ (note that $(w_{t_i}(i),w_{t_i'}(i)) \in$ $V \times U$ in case C3; $(w_{t_i}(i),w_{t_i'}(i)) \in$ $V \times V \cup V \times U \cup U
\times V \cup U \times U$ in case C4), then $I_0 \cup N$ forms a Hamiltonian cycle for $V \cup U$. Two examples for the same problem instance but under different cases are shown in Figure \[fgBipartite\], where the edges in $N$ (resp., $I_0$) are represented by dash (resp., solid) lines. As a result, the RE (resp., RA; DE) problem is equivalent to finding a matching $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ for $V
\times U$ such that $I_0 \cup N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ is a Hamiltonian cycle of $V \cup U$ and the smallest edge cost in $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ is maximal (resp., the ratio of the largest and the smallest edge costs in $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ is minimal; the standard deviation of the edge costs in $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ is minimal).
Before showing our results, we introduce some notation as follows. We place all the nodes in $V$ (resp., $U$) on the line $y=1$ (resp., $y=0$) of the $xy$-plane. Given any matching $N$ with two edges $e_1 = (v_a, u_b)$ and $e_2 =
(v_c, u_d)$ in $V \times U$, an [*exchange*]{} on $e_1$ and $e_2$ returns a matching $N'$ such that $N'=N\otimes (e_1, e_2) = (N
\setminus\{e_1, e_2\}) \cup \{(v_a,u_d),(v_c,u_b)\}$. Denote by $e_v$ the edge incident to node $v$ in $N$.
\[thm-RE3\]\[thm-RE4\]The RE3 and RE4 problems can be solved in $O(n\log n)$ time.
(Sketch) First consider the RE3 problem. A careful examination reveals that the RE3 problem and the 2SAL problem are rather similar in nature. Hence, Algorithm \[alg:RE3-RE4\] (a slight modification of the algorithm for the 2SAL) [@LV1997] is sufficient to solve the RE3 problem in $O(n\log n)$ time.
construct a bipartite graph $V \times U = \{w_{t_i}(i): i
=1, 2, ..., n\} \times \{w_{t_i'}(i): i = 1, 2, ..., n\}$ for RE3 (resp., $V \times U = \{M_1, M_2, ..., M_n\} \times \{m_1, m_2, ..., m_n\}$ for RE4)\
sort the sizes of the sub-wedges in $V$ in nonincreasing order as $\beta_1, \beta_2, ..., \beta_n$\
sort the sizes of the sub-wedges in $U$ in nondecreasing order as $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, ..., \alpha_n$\
consider a matching $N$ in which $\alpha_i$ is matched with $\beta_i$ for each $i \in \{ 1, 2, ..., n\}$. STOP order $\Omega = \{ \alpha_i + \beta_{i+1}: i = 1, 2, ..., n-1
\}$, in nonincreasing order\
$i \leftarrow 0$\
$i \leftarrow i+1$\
$N \leftarrow N \otimes (e_{\alpha_j}, e_{\beta_{j+1}})$
The reader is referred to [@LV1997] for more details on the proof of the correctness of the algorithm. A brief explanation for the correctness is given as follows. From [@LV1997], we have the following proposition and property:
[**Proposition 1.**]{} [*A matching $N$ determines a solution for RE3 if $I_0 \cup N$ is a unique cycle.*]{}
[**Property 1.**]{} [*Let $optAngResl$ be the optimal solution for RE3. Then $optAngResl \leq \min \{ \beta_i + \alpha_i , 1 \leq i \leq n \}$, where $V = \{\beta_1, \cdots, \beta_n\}$; $U = \{\alpha_1, \cdots, \alpha_n\}$; $\beta_1 \geq \cdots \geq \beta_n$; $\alpha_1 \leq \cdots \leq \alpha_n$.*]{}
See Algorithm \[alg:RE3-RE4\]. If $I_0 \cup N$ is a unique cycle at the end of Line 7, then Proposition 1 and Property 1 implies optimality; otherwise, Lines 8–15 are executed. At each iteration of the loop in Lines 10–15, no matter whether $N \leftarrow N \otimes (e_{\alpha_j}, e_{\beta_{j+1}})$ is executed or not, the cases discussed in [@LV1997] can be tailored to show that the cost of each matched edge in $N$ is no less than $ optAngResl$. Hence, the solution produced by Algorithm \[alg:RE3-RE4\] must be no less than $optAngResl$.
The time complexity of the algorithm is explained briefly as follows. It is easy to see that Lines 1–8 can be executed in $O(n\log n)$ time. At the end of Line 7, the nodes of each various cycle are stored in a linked list in $O(n)$ time. Let $\mathbb{S}$ be a stack storing the labels $\alpha_i$ top to bottom, in nonincreasing order of $\alpha_i + \beta_{i+1}$. Stack $\mathbb{S}$ is used to detect which two cycles we merge next. This is done by checking if the endpoints of the edge $(\alpha_i, \beta_{i+1})$, corresponding to top element $\beta_i$ of stack $\mathbb{S}$, belong to different cycles. If they do, the two cycles are merged next; otherwise, the element at the top of the stack is discarded. Therefore, it takes $O(n)$ time to detect which cycles to merge. The exchanging operation in Line 13 is done in $O(1)$ time. But also, merging two cycles is equivalent to merging two linked lists, which is done in $O(1)$ time as well. As a result, the time complexity of Algorithm \[alg:RE3-RE4\] is $O(n\log n)$.
In what follows, we consider the RE4 problem. By Observation \[obs:MmSolution\], we find an optimal solution for the RE4 problem where each type-$m$ sub-wedge is adjacent to a certain type-$M$ sub-wedge, i.e., a perfect matching $N$ for $V\times U = \{M_1, M_2, ..., M_n\} \times \{m_1, m_2, ..., m_n\}$. By viewing $m_i$ (resp., $M_i$) as $\alpha_i$ (resp., $\beta_i$) for each $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$, the RE4 problem is similar to the RE3 problem. As a result, Algorithm \[alg:RE3-RE4\] can also be applied to solving the RE4 problem in $O(n\log n)$ time.
We now turn our attention to the RA3 and RA4 problems. We consider a decision version of the RA3 (resp., RA4) problem:
[[The RA3 (resp., RA4) Decision Problem.]{}]{}\
Given a balloon drawing of an unordered tree with fixed (resp., flexible) uneven sub-wedges, does there exist a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, ..., n\}$ (resp., a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, ..., n\}$ and a sub-wedge assignment $t$) so that the size of each angle is between $A$ and $B$? If the answer returns yes, then $AspRatio_{\sigma,t} \leq B/A$.
Taking advantage of the analogy between RA3 (RA4) and 2SLW, we are able to show:
\[thm-RA3\]\[thm-RA4\]Both the RA3 and RA4 problems are NP-complete.
(Sketch) RA3 and 2SLW bear a certain degree of similarity. Recall that given a set of $n$ jobs and a range $[LB, UB]$, the 2SLW problem decides wether a circular permutation exists such that the workforce requirement (i.e., the sum of the workforce requirements for two jobs respectively executed at two stations at the same time) for each time period is between $LB$ and $UB$. Given a balloon drawing of an unordered tree with fixed uneven sub-wedges, the RA3 decision problem decides whether a circular permutation so that the size of each angle (i.e., the sum of two adjacent subwedges respectively from two various children) is between $A$ and $B$. It is obvious that the decision version of the RA3 problem can be captured by the 2SLW problem (and vice versa) in a straightforward way, hence NP-completeness follows.
As for the RA4 problem, since the upper bound (i.e., in NP) for the RA4 problem is easy to show, we show the RA4 problem to be NP-hard by the reduction from the 2SLW problem as follows. The idea of our proof is to design an RA4 instance so that one cannot obtain any better solution by flipping sub-wedges. To this end, from a 2SLW instance – a set $\mathbb{J} = \{J_1, J_2, ...,
J_n\}$ of jobs and two numbers $LB, UB$ where $J_i = (W_{i1},
W_{i2})$ for each $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$, we construct a RA4 instance – a set of sub-wedges $\{w_0(1), w_1(1), \cdots, w_0(n), w_1(n)\}$ and two numbers $A$ and $B$ in which we let $W_{max} = \max\{W_{11},
W_{12}, \cdots, W_{n1}, W_{n2}\}$ and $\rho=2\pi/\sum_{j=1}^n
(W_{j1}+W_{j2}+W_{max})$; $w_0(i) = W_{i1}\times\rho$ and $w_1(i) =
( W_{i2} + W_{max} ) \times \rho$ for each $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$; $A
= (LB+W_{max})\times\rho$ and $B = (UB+W_{max})\times\rho$.
Now we show that there exists a circular permutation $\langle
J_{\delta_1}, J_{\delta_2}, ..., J_{\delta_n}\rangle$ of $\mathbb{J}$ so that the workforce requirement for each time period is between $LB$ and $UB$ if and only if there exist a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, ..., n\}$ and a sub-wedge assignment $t$ so that the size of each angle in the RA4 instance is between $A$ and $B$.
We are given a 2SLW instance with a circular permutation $\langle J_{\delta_1}, J_{\delta_2},
..., J_{\delta_n} \rangle$ of $\mathbb{J}$ so that the workforce requirement for each time period is between $LB$ and $UB$. It turns out that $LB \leq W_{\delta_i2}+W_{\delta_{i\oplus 1}1} \leq UB$ for each $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$. It implies that $(LB+W_{max})\times\rho
\leq (W_{\delta_i2} + W_{\delta_{i\oplus1}1} + W_{max})\times \rho
\leq (UB + W_{max})\times\rho$ for each $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$. Consider $\sigma = \delta$ and $t = (0, 0, ..., 0)$ in the RA4 instance constructed above. Since $w_0(\sigma_i) =
W_{\sigma_i1}\times\rho$ and $w_1(\sigma_i) = ( W_{\sigma_i2} +
W_{max} ) \times \rho$ for each $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$ in the construction, thus $(LB+W_{max})\times\rho \leq
w_1(\sigma_i)+w_0(\sigma_{i\oplus 1}) \leq (UB +
W_{max})\times\rho$. That is, $A \leq \theta_{\sigma_i} \leq B$ for each $i \in \{1, ..., n\}$.
Conversely, we are given a RA4 instance with a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, ..., n\}$ and a sub-wedge assignment $t$ so that the size of each angle in the RA4 instance is between $A$ and $B$. For any $i,j \in \{1, ...,
n\}$, since $w_1(i) = (W_{i2} + W_{max})\times \rho \geq
W_{max}\times \rho \geq W_{j1}\times \rho = w_0(j)$, hence $w_1(i)
\geq w_0(j)$. In the RA4 instance, the size of each angle can be $w_0(i)+w_0(j)$, $w_0(i)+w_1(j)$, or $w_1(i)+w_1(j)$ for some $i,j
\in \{1, ..., n\}$. For convenience, the angle with size $w_0(i)+w_0(j)$ (resp., $w_0(i)+w_1(j)$; $w_1(i)+w_1(j)$) for some $i,j \in \{1, ..., n\}$ is called a type-00 (resp., 01; 11) angle (note that the order of $i$ and $j$ is not crucial here).
If there exists a type-00 angle in the RA4 instance, then there must exist at least one type-11 angle in this instance; otherwise, all the angles are type-01 angles.
In the case when there exists a type-00 angle with size $w_0(i)+w_0(j)$ so that there exists a type-11 angle with size $w_1(k)+w_1(l)$ for some $i,j, k, l \in \{1, ..., n\}$, then w.l.o.g., the sub-wedge sequence of the instance is expressed as a circular permutation $\langle S_1, w_0(i), w_0(j), S_2, w_1(k),
w_1(l), S_3 \rangle$ where $S_1$ – $S_3$ are sub-wedge subsequences; the number of sub-wedges in each of $S_1$ and $S_3$ (resp., $S_2$) is odd (resp., even). Let $S_2^R$ be the reverse of $S_2$. Consider a new circular permutation $\langle S_1, w_0(i), w_1(k), S_2^R, w_0(j), w_1(l), S_3
\rangle$, in which the size of each angle is between $A$ and $B$, because the size of each angle in $S_3 \cup S_1$ and $S_2^R$ is originally between $A$ and $B$; $A \leq w_0(i)+w_1(k) \leq B$ (since $w_0(i)+w_1(k) \geq w_0(i)+w_0(j) \geq A$ and $w_0(i)+w_1(k) \leq
w_1(l)+w_1(k) \leq B$); similarly, $A \leq w_0(j)+w_1(l) \leq B$.
If there still exists a type-00 angle in the new circular permutation, then we repeat the above procedure until we obtain a circular permutation $\delta$ where all the angles are type-01 angles. By doing this, the size of each angle in $\delta$ is between $A$ and $B$, and the sub-wedge assignment $t$ in the drawing achieved by $\delta$ is $(0,0,...,0)$ or $(1,1, ..., 1)$. In the case of $t = (1, 1, ..., 1)$, we let $\delta \leftarrow \delta^R$, then $t$ becomes $(0,0,...0)$.
Consider the 2SLW instance (constructed above) corresponding to the circular permutation $\delta$. In the 2SLW instance, for each $i \in
\{1, ..., n\}$, workforce requirement $W_{\delta_i2}+W_{\delta_{i\oplus1}1} = (w_1(\delta_i) +
w_0(\delta_{i\oplus1}))/\rho - W_{max}$. Hence, $A/\rho -W_{max}
\leq W_{\delta_i2}+W_{\delta_{i\oplus1}1} \leq B/\rho - W_{max}$, which implies $LB \leq W_{\delta_i2}+W_{\delta_{i\oplus1}1} \leq
UB$.
We can utilize a technique similar to the reduction from [*Hamiltonian-circle problem on cubic graphs*]{} (HC-CG) to 2SLW ([@V2003]) to establish NP-hardness for DE3 and DE4. Hence, we have the following theorem, whose proof is given in Appendix because it is too cumbersome and our main result for the DE3 and DE4 problems is to design their approximation algorithms.
\[thm-DE3\]\[thm-DE4\]Both the DE3 and DE4 problems are NP-complete.
Approximation Algorithms for Those Intractable Problems {#sec:approx}
=======================================================
We have shown RA3 and RA4 to be NP-complete. The results on approximation algorithms for those problems are given as follows.
\[thm-RA3-approx\]\[thm-RA4-approx\]Algorithm $\ref{alg:RE3-RE4}$ is a $2$-approximation algorithm for RA3 and RA4.
Let $a_{{\mathit{angResl}}}$ (resp., $b_{{\mathit{angResl}}}$ and $r_{{\mathit{angResl}}}$) be the minimal angle (resp., the maximal angle and the aspect ratio) among the circular permutation generated by Algorithm \[alg:RE3-RE4\]. Denote $a_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ (resp., $b_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ and $r_{{\mathit{opt}}}$) as the maximum of the minimal angle (resp., the minimum of the maximal angle and the optimal aspect ratio) among any circular permutation. Since $b_{{\mathit{angResl}}}\leq 2 M_1 \leq 2 (x+M_1) \leq 2 b_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ where $x$ is the sub-wedge adjacent to $M_1$ in the circular permutation with the minimum of the maximal angle, we have $b_{{\mathit{angResl}}}\leq 2 b_{{\mathit{opt}}}$. By Theorem \[thm-RE3\], we have $a_{{\mathit{angResl}}}= a_{{\mathit{opt}}}= optAngResl$. Therefore, $r_{{\mathit{angResl}}}= b_{{\mathit{angResl}}}/ a_{{\mathit{angResl}}}\leq 2 b_{{\mathit{opt}}}/
a_{{\mathit{opt}}}\leq 2 r_{{\mathit{opt}}}$.
Next, we design approximation algorithms for the NP-complete DE problems. Here we only consider the approximation algorithms for the SOP4 and DE4 problems because the approximation algorithms for the SOP3 and DE3 problems are similar and simpler. Recall that the SOP4 problem is equivalent to finding a matching $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ for bipartite graph $V \times U$, such that $c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}})$ is the minimal, where $c(N) = \sum_{(v,u)\in N} \phi(v) \times \phi(u)$.
Consider a matching $N_D$ for bipartite graph $V \times U$ in which $M_i$ is matched with $m_i$ for each $i$, i.e., $c(N_D)=\sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i.
$ Assume that $I_0 \cup N_D$ consists of $\eta$ subcycles for $1 \leq
\eta \leq n$, in which we recall that $I_0$ denotes the set of the edges corresponding to each pair $(w_{t_i}(i), w_{t_i'}(i))$ for $i
\in \{1, \cdots, n\}$. According to matching $N_D$, we have that each subcycle in $I_0 \cup N_D$ contains at least one matched edge between $M_i$ and $m_i$ for some $i$. Let the [*exchange graph*]{} $\chi = (V_\chi, E_\chi)$ for bipartite graph $V \times U$ be a complete graph in which
- each node in $V_\chi$ corresponds to a subcycle of $I_0 \cup N_D$, i.e., $|V_\chi| = \eta$;
- each edge $e_i = (u,v)$ in $E_\chi$ corresponding to two subcycles $C_u$ and $C_v$ in $I_0 \cup N_D$ has cost $\psi(e_i) = \min\{r_{a,b}s_{b,a}| (M_a, m_b) \in (C_u,
C_v)\cup (C_u, C_v) \mbox{ for any $a$, $b$; }$ $ r_{a,b} = M_a -
M_b$, $s_{b,a} = m_b - m_a\}$. (In fact, the cost represents the least cost of exchanging edges $e_{M_a}$ and $e_{m_b}$ in $V \times
U$.)
When $\psi(e_i) = r_{k,l}s_{l,k}$ for some $k, l$, we denote $\mu(e_i) = k$ and $\nu(e_i) = l$. Let $T_\chi = (V_\chi,
E_{T_\chi})$ be a minimum spanning tree over $\chi$. With exchange graph $\chi$ and its minimum spanning tree $T_\chi$ as the input of Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\], we can show that Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] is a 2-approximation algorithm for the SOP4 problem.
construct the exchange graph $\chi = (V_\chi, E_\chi)$ for $V\times U$ find the minimum spanning tree $T_\chi = (V_\chi, E_{T_\chi})$ of exchange graph $\chi$ where $|V_\chi| = \eta$ let $S_i=\{ M_{\mu(e_i)}, m_{\mu(e_i)}, M_{\nu(e_i)},
m_{\nu(e_i)} \}$ for each edge $e_i \in E_{T_\chi}$ (noticing that if $\psi(e_i) = r_{k,l}s_{l,k}$ for some $k, l$, then $\mu(e_i) = k$ and $\nu(e_i) = l$), where each $e_i$ is said to correspond to $S_i$ (i.e., there are $S_1, S_2, \cdots, S_{\eta-1}$) let $S = \{S_1, \cdots, S_{\eta-1}\}$ find a set $S_b$ that includes element $x$ but is not considered before append the elements in set $S_b$ to the end of set $S_a$ (i.e., the duplicate elements are not deleted) let both edges $e_i$ and $e_j$ correspond to $S_a$, where edges $e_i$ and $e_j$ in $T_\chi$ correspond to $S_a$ and $S_b$, respectively $S \leftarrow S \setminus S_b$ for each set in $S$, remove the duplicate elements in each set order the elements in each set $S_i$, and then denote the new set as $S_i' = \{m_1', m_2', \cdots, m_l', M_l', M_{l-1}', \cdots, M_1'\}$ where $m_i'$ (resp., $M_i'$) is the $i$-th minimum (resp., maximum) in $S_i$; the cardinality of $S_i'$ is $2 l$\
$M_j'$ is matched with $m_{j + 1}'$ for $j = 1, \cdots, l-1$ $M_l'$ is matched with $m_1'$ output such a matching $N_{{\mathit{APX}}}$ for $V \times U$
Figure \[fgAlgSOP4\] gives an example to illustrate how the algorithm works. Figure \[fgAlgSOP4\](a) is $I_0 \cup N_D$ where the solid lines (resp., dash lines) are the edges in $I_0$ (resp., in $N_D$). Figure \[fgAlgSOP4\](b) is its exchange graph $\chi$, and we assume that Figure \[fgAlgSOP4\](c) is the minimum spanning tree $T_\chi$ for $\chi$ where each edge $e_i$ in $T_\chi$ has weight $r_{\mu(e_i),\nu(e_i)}s_{\nu(e_i),\mu(e_i)}$. We illustrate each $S_i$ after each modification in Line 11 of Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] as follows:
- Initial: $S_1 = \{M_2, m_2, M_6, m_6\}$, $S_2 = \{M_1, m_1, M_7, m_7\}$, $S_3 = \{M_5, m_5, M_8, m_8\}$, $S_4 = \{M_2, m_2, M_9, m_9\}$, $S_5 = \{M_4, m_4, M_9, m_9\}$.
- The elements in $S_4$ is appended to the end of $S_1$:\
$S_1 = \{M_2, m_2, M_6, m_6, M_2, m_2, M_9, m_9\}$, $S_2 = \{M_1, m_1, M_7, m_7\}$, $S_3 = \{M_5, m_5,$ $M_8, m_8\}$, $S_5 = \{M_4, m_4, M_9, m_9\}$.
- The elements in $S_5$ is appended to the end of $S_1$:\
$S_1 = \{M_2, m_2, M_6, m_6, M_2, m_2, M_9, m_9, M_4, m_4, M_9, m_9\}, S_2 = \{M_1, m_1, M_7, m_7\},$ $S_3 = \{M_5, m_5, M_8, m_8\}$.
Based on the above, Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] returns $N_{{\mathit{APX}}}$, and $I_0 \cup N_{{\mathit{APX}}}$ is shown in Figure \[fgAlgSOP4\](d). In fact, Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] provides a 2-aproximation algorithm for SOP4. A slight modification also yields a 2-approximation algorithm for SOP3.
Before showing our result, we need the following notation and lemma. A [*permutation*]{} $\pi$ is a 1-to-1 mapping of $\{1, ..., n\}$ onto itself, which can be expressed as: $\pi = (\pi(1), \pi(2), ...,
\pi(n))$ or in compact form in terms of [*factors*]{}. (Note that it is different from the circular permutation used previously.) If $\pi(j_k)=j_{k+1}$ for $k=1,2,...,h-1$, and $\pi(j_h)=j_1$, then $\langle j_1, j_2, ..., j_h \rangle$ is called a [*factor*]{} of the permutation $\pi$. A factor with $h \geq 2$ is called a nontrivial factor. Note that a matching $N$ for the bipartite graph $V \times
U$ constructed above can be viewed as a permutation $\pi: V
\rightarrow U$.
\[lemma-perm\] For $n \geq 2$, let $X = \{x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n\}$ (resp., $Y = \{y_1, y_2, \cdots, y_n\}$) where $x_i$ (resp., $y_i$) is the $i$-th maximum (resp., minimum) among all. Let $\varrho: X
\rightarrow Y$ be a $1$-to-$1$ mapping, i.e., a permutation of $\{1,\cdots,n\}$. If $\varrho(X)$ is a permutation consisting of only a nontrivial factor with size $n$, then $$\label{E-lemma-perm-1}
c(\varrho(X)) = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_{\varrho(i)} \geq
\sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i + \sum _{i=1}^{n-1} r_{i,i+1}s_{i+1,i}$$ where $r_{a,b} = x_a - x_b, s_{c,d} = y_c - y_d$ for any $a,b,c,d$. Moreover, if $r_{j,i+1}s_{i+1,j'} - r_{i,i+1} s_{i+1,i} \geq 1$ for each $i,j,j' \in \{1, \cdots, n-1\}$ and $j,j' < i$, then $$\label{E-lemma-perm-2}
c(\varrho(X)) \geq \sum_{i=1}^n x_i y_i + \sum _{i=1}^{n-1}
r_{i,i+1}s_{i+1,i} + n - 2$$ Note that the difference between Equation $(\ref{E-lemma-perm-1})$ and Inequality $(\ref{E-lemma-perm-2})$ is that Inequality $(\ref{E-lemma-perm-2})$ can be applied only when the factor size $n$ is known.
We proceed by induction on the size of $\varrho(X)$. If $n=2$, $c(\varrho(X))-\sum_{i=1}^2 x_i y_i = x_1 y_2 + x_2 y_1 - x_1 y_1 -
x_2 y_2 = r_{1,2} s_{2,1}$ holds. Suppose that the required two inequalities hold when $n=k$. When $n=k+1$, $$\begin{aligned}
c(\varrho(X)) &=& \sum_{i \in \{1,\cdots,k\}\setminus\{\varrho^{-1}(k+1)\}} x_i y_{\varrho(i)} + x_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1)}y_{k+1} + x_{k+1}y_{\varrho(k+1)} \nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^{k} x_i y_{\varrho'(i)} + x_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1)}y_{k+1} + x_{k+1}y_{\varrho(k+1)} - x_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1)}y_{\varrho(k+1)} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\varrho'$ is a size-$k$ permutation consisting of a nontrivial factor with size $k$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
c(\varrho(X)) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{k} x_i y_{\varrho'(i)} + x_{k+1} y_{k+1}
+ ( x_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1)} - x_{k+1} )( y_{k+1} - y_{\varrho(k+1)}
)\nonumber\\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^{k} x_i y_{\varrho'(i)} + x_{k+1} y_{k+1} +
r_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1),k+1} s_{k+1,\varrho(k+1)}\label{E-lemma-perm-3}\end{aligned}$$
For proving Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]), we replace the first term in Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-3\]) by the inductive hypothesis of Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]), and then obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
c(\varrho(X)) &\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} x_i y_i + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}
r_{i,i+1} s_{i+1,i} + r_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1),k+1} s_{k+1,\varrho(k+1)} \nonumber \\
&\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} x_i y_i + \sum_{i=1}^{k} r_{i,i+1}
s_{i+1,i}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ since $x_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1)} \geq x_k$ and $y_{\varrho(k+1)} \leq
y_k$.
For proving Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-2\]), we replace the first term in Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-3\]) by the inductive hypothesis of Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-2\]), and then obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
c(\varrho(X)) &\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} x_i y_i + \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}
r_{i,i+1} s_{i+1,i} + k-2 + r_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1),k+1} s_{k+1,\varrho(k+1)}\nonumber\\
&\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} x_i y_i + \sum_{i=1}^{k} r_{i,i+1} s_{i+1,i}
+ k-1\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ since $( x_{\varrho^{-1}(k+1)} - x_{k+1} )( y_{k+1} - y_{\varrho(k+1)}
) \geq (x_k - x_{k+1})(y_{k+1} - y_k) + 1$ by the premise of Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-2\]) (Note that the permutation consists of a nontrivial factor of size $n$, and hence the case $\varrho^{-1}(k+1)=\varrho(k+1)=k$ does not occur except for $n=2$).
Now, we are ready to show our result:
\[thm-DE4-approx1\]There exist $2$-approximation algorithms for SOP3 and SOP4, which run in $O(n^2)$ time.
Recall that given an unordered tree with fixed (resp., flexible) subwedges, the SOP3 (resp., SOP4) problem is to find a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, \cdots, n\}$ (resp., a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, \cdots, n\}$ and a sub-wedge assignment $t$) so that the sum of products of adjacent subwedge sizes ($SOP_{\sigma,t}$) is as small as possible. We only consider SOP4; the proof of SOP3 is similar and simpler. In what follows, we show that Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] correctly produces the 2-approximation solution for SOP4 in $O(n \log n)$ time. From [@KS2009], we have $c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) \geq c(N_D)$, which is explained briefly as follows. From [@KS2009], we have that $N_D$ can be transformed from $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ by a sequence of exchanges $x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n$ which can be constructed as follows. Let $N_k$ denote the matching transformed by the sequence of exchanges $x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_k$ for $k \leq n$. We say a node $v$ in $V$ is [*satisfied*]{} in $N_k$ if its adjacent node in $N_k$ is the same as its adjacent node in $N_D$. For $i = 1,
2, \cdots, n$, if the sub-wedge $M_i$ is satisfied, then $x_i$ is a null exchange. Otherwise, if the node adjacent to $M_i$ in $N_i$ is adjacent to the sub-wedge $M_j$ in $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ for $i \neq j$ (i.e., $M_i$ is not adjacent to $m_i$ in $N_i$), then let $x_i$ be the exchange between the edges respectively incident to $M_i$ and $M_j$ in $N_i$. Here, by observing each non-null exchange $x_i$, $\phi(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) -
\phi(N_i) = r_{i,j}s_{j,i} \geq 0$. Hence, $\phi(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) \geq
\phi(N_n) = \phi(N_D)$.
Let $$c_{{\mathit{LB}}}= \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i + \sum_{e\in E_{T_\chi}}
r_{\mu(e),\nu(e)} s_{\nu(e),\mu(e)}.\nonumber$$ We claim that $c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) \geq c_{{\mathit{LB}}}$. Since $I_0 \cup N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ is a Hamiltonian cycle transformed from $I_0 \cup N_D$ consisting of $\eta$ subcycles, there exist at least $\eta - 1$ times of merging subcycles during the transformation (the sequence of exchanges). We can view $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ as a permutation with several factors . There must exist a set $\Lambda$ of $\eta-1$ edges in $E_\chi$ forming a spanning tree for exchange graph $\chi$ such that each edge in $\Lambda$ must correspond to an edge in $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ which cannot be in a trivial factor of permutation $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$, i.e., it cannot be $M_i m_i$ for some $i$. Therefore, by Inequality (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]) of Lemma \[lemma-perm\], $c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) \geq \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i + \sum_{e \in \Lambda}
r_{\mu(e),\nu(e)} s_{\nu(e),\mu(e)} \geq \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i +
\sum_{e\in E_{T_\chi}} r_{\mu(e),\nu(e)}s_{\nu(e),\mu(e)} = c_{{\mathit{LB}}}$ since $E_{T_\chi}$ is the edge set of minimum spanning tree of $\chi$.
In what follows, we show the approximation ratio to be 2. Note that $N_{{\mathit{APX}}}$ denotes the matching generated by Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\]. Let $\mathbb{S}=\cup_{i=1}^{\eta-1} S_i$ and $i(\mathbb{S})=\cup_{\forall e_i \in E_{T_\chi}}\{\mu(e_i),
\nu(e_i)\}$ in Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\]. $$\begin{aligned}
&&2c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) \geq 2 c_{{\mathit{LB}}}\geq 2 \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i + \sum_{e\in E_{T_\chi}} r_{\mu(e),\nu(e)}s_{\nu(e),\mu(e)}\nonumber\\
&&\geq \sum_{e\in E_{T_\chi}} (M_{\mu(e)}m_{\mu(e)} +
M_{\nu(e)}m_{\nu(e)}) + \sum_{i \in \{1,2,\cdots,n\} \setminus
i(\mathbb{S}) } M_i m_i + \sum_{e\in E_{T_\chi}}
r_{\mu(e),\nu(e)}s_{\nu(e),\mu(e)}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality above holds since $M_i m_i$ for any $i \in
i(\mathbb{S})$ never presents in the first summation term more than twice; otherwise we can find another spanning tree with cost strictly less than that of $T_\chi$. For example, we consider Figure \[fgAlgSOP4\](c). Suppose that the cost of edge $e_3$ in $T_\chi$ is $r_{2,5}s_{5,2}$, rather than $r_{5,8}s_{8,5}$, i.e., $M_2 m_2$ is used three times by $e_1$, $e_3$, and $e_4$ (with costs $r_{2,6}s_{6,2}$, $r_{2,5}s_{5,2}$, and $r_{2,9}s_{9,2}$, respectively). We can obtain a contradiction by considering a spanning tree $T$ replacing edge $e_4$ by edge $C_4 C_5$ with cost $r_{5,9}s_{9,5}$, which is less than $r_{2,9}s_{9,2}$ in general. (The cost of $T$ is less than that of $T_\chi$.)
Recall that $r_{a,b} = M_a - M_b$ and $s_{c,d} = m_c - m_d$. Hence, combining the first and third terms of the above inequality, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
2c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) &\geq& \sum_{e \in E_{T_\chi}} (M_{\mu(e)}m_{\nu(e)} +
M_{\nu(e)}m_{\mu(e)}) + \sum_{i \in \{1,2,\cdots,n\} \setminus
i(\mathbb{S}) } M_i m_i\nonumber\\
&\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{\eta-1} \sum_{j=1}^{|S_i'|-1} (M_j'm_{j + 1}' +
M_{j + 1}'m_j') + \sum_{i \in \{1,2,\cdots,n\} \setminus
i(\mathbb{S}) } M_i m_i\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The above inequality holds due to $\mu(e) \neq \nu(e)$ for any $e
\in E_\chi$. Since $M_2'm_1' \geq M_{|S_i'|}'m_1'$ in every $S_i'$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
2c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) &\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{\eta-1} \left( \sum_{j=1}^{|S_i'|-1}
(M_j'm_{j + 1}') + M_{|S_i'|}'m_1'\right) + \sum_{i \in
\{1,2,\cdots,n\} \setminus i(\mathbb{S}) } M_i m_i =
c(N_{{\mathit{APX}}})\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In what follows, we explain how the algorithm runs in $O(n^2)$ time.
In Line 1, the exchange graph can be constructed in $O(n^2)$ time as follows. It takes $O(n^2)$ time to construct a complete graph $\chi$ with $\eta \leq n$ nodes in which the nodes corresponds $\eta$ subcycles in $I_0 \cup N$, and the cost of each edge is assumed to be infinity. Then, it takes $O({{n}\choose{2}}) = O(n^2)$ time to compute all possible $r_{a,b} s_{b,a} = (M_a - M_b) (m_b - m_a)$ for any $a, b \in \{1, \cdots, n\}$. Consider each $r_{a,b} s_{b,a}$. If $M_a$ and $M_b$ belong to two different subcycles in $I_0 \cup N$, say $C_u$ and $C_v$, respectively, and $r_{a,b} s_{b,a} < \psi(e_i)$ for their corresponding edge $e_i = (u,v)$ in graph $\chi$, then $\psi(e_i) \leftarrow r_{a,b} s_{b,a}$. Obviously, after considering all possible $r_{a,b} s_{b,a}$ in $O(n^2)$ time, graph $\chi$ is the required exchange graph.
In Line 2, it is well-known that the minimum spanning tree for graph $\chi$ can be found in $O(n \log n)$ time. Line 3 runs in $O(n)$ time since each element is denoted only once. Line 4 is done in $O(n)$ time.
We explain how Lines 5–13 can be done in $O(n)$ time as follows. Note that in Line 3, in addition that each set includes four elements, we record that each element knows which set includes it. Hence, in Line 7, any set $S_b$ including element $x$ can be found in $O(1)$ time. Line 8 is done in $O(1)$ time, since each set is a linked list. Note that in Line 7 all the sets that includes element $x$ will be considered at the end of Line 12, because in Line 8 a duplicate element of $x$ is appended to $S_a$ and will be considered again in later iteration. Lines 9 and 10 are done in $O(1)$ time. Therefore, Lines 7–10 are done in $O(1)$ time. We observe from Lines 5, 6, 8, 10 that each element in $S_1$, …, $S_{\eta-1}$ is considered once at the end of Line 12. Since the number of elements in $S_1, \cdots, S_{\eta-1}$ is $4(\eta-1)$, there are $4(\eta-1)$ iterations, each of which is done in $O(1)$ time. Hence, Lines 5–12 are done in $O(4(\eta-1)) = O(n)$ time. In Line 13, by scanning each set in $S$, all duplicate elements are deleted in $O(n)$ time.
Line 14 can be done in $O(n)$ time, because the ordering of $\{m_1, m_2, \cdots, m_n,$ $M_n, M_{n-1}, \cdots, M_1\}$ is known. Lines 15–18 are done in $O(n)$ time, because each element is matched only once.
Note that Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] is a 2-approximation algorithm for the SOP4 problem rather than the DE4 problem because the approximation ratio is incorrect when the minus of the first and third items inside the square root of Equation (\[E-stdDev2\]) is negative. Therefore, we rewrite Equation (\[E-stdDev2\]) as: [$$\begin{aligned}
StdDev_{\sigma,t}= \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n(M_i^2 + m_i^2)}{n}+ \frac{2\sum_{i=1}^n w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i) w_{t_{i\oplus 1}'}(\sigma_{i\oplus 1})}{n}- \left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n (M_i + m_i)}{n}\right)^2}\nonumber\\
= \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n(M_i + m_i)^2}{n}+ \frac{-2\sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i}{n} + \frac{2\sum_{i=1}^n w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i) w_{t_{i\oplus 1}'}(\sigma_{i\oplus 1})}{n}- \left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n (M_i+m_i)}{n}\right)^2}.\nonumber$$ ]{}Note that the combination of first and fourth items inside the square root of the above equation is the variance of $\{M_1+m_1,
M_2+m_2, \cdots, M_n+m_n\}$, and hence must be positive. Therefore, the DE4 problem is equivalent to minimizing the sum of the second and third items, i.e., to minimize $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^n w_{t_i'}(\sigma_i) w_{t_{i\oplus 1}'}(\sigma_{i\oplus 1}) - \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i = SOP_{\sigma, t} - \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i.\nonumber$$ Algorithm \[alg:DE4\] provides an $O(\sqrt{n})$-approximation algorithm for DE4. A slight modification also yields an $O(\sqrt{n})$-approximation algorithm for DE3. Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](a) is an example for Algorithm \[alg:DE4\].
The algorithm is almost the same as Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] except Lines 15–18 in Algorithm \[alg:SOP4\] is replaced as follows:\
13’: [**for each**]{} $S_i'$ with $|S_i'| \geq 2$ (otherwise trivially) [**do**]{}\
14’: let $r_{a,b}' = M_a'- M_b'$ and $s_{c,d}' = m_c' - m_d'$\
15’: an element is said to be [*available*]{} if it is not matched yet\
16’: [**for each**]{} $j = 1, \cdots, |S_i'|-2$ [**do**]{}\
17’: [**if**]{} $r_{j,j+1}' \geq r_{j+1,j+2}'$ [**do**]{}\
18’: the available maximum is matched with the available second minimum\
19’: [**else**]{}\
20’: the available minimum is matched with the available second maximum\
21’: [**end if**]{}\
22’: [**end for**]{}\
> [ 23’: $M_a'$ is matched with $m_{|S_i'|}'$; $M_{|S_i'|}'$ is matched with $m_b'$, where $M_a'$ and $m_b'$ are the remaining elements excluded in the above condition for some $a, b \in \{1,\cdots,|S_i'|-1\}$\
> ]{}
24’: [**end for**]{}
\[thm-DE3-approx2\] \[thm-DE4-approx2\]There exist $O(\sqrt{n})$-approximation algorithms for DE3 and DE4, which run in $O(n^2)$ time.
Recall that given an unordered tree with fixed (resp., flexible) subwedges, the DE3 (DE4) problem is to find a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, \cdots, n\}$ (resp., a circular permutation $\sigma$ of $\{1, \cdots, n\}$ and a sub-wedge assignment $t$) so that the standard deviation of angles ($StdDev_{\sigma,t}$) is as small as possible. We only concern DE4; the proof of DE3 is similar and simpler.
In what follows, we show that Algorithm \[alg:DE4\] correctly produces $O(\sqrt{n})$-approximation solution in $O(n\log n)$ time. Let $N_{{\mathit{opt}}}$ be the matching for $V\times U$ witnessing the optimal solution of the DE4 problem, and $N_{{\mathit{APX}}}$ be the matching generated by Algorithm \[alg:DE4\]. From Theorem \[thm-DE4-approx1\], $c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) \geq c_{{\mathit{LB}}}$, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
n \left( c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) - \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i \right)&\geq& n \left( c_{{\mathit{LB}}}- \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i \right) = n \sum_{e\in E_{T_\chi}} r_{\mu(e),\nu(e)} s_{\nu(e),\mu(e)} \nonumber \\
&\geq& n \sum_{i=1}^{\eta-1} \left( \sum_{j=1}^{|S_i'|-1} r_{j,j+1}' s_{j+1, j}' \right)\label{E-DE4-1}$$ since $\mu(e) \neq \nu(e)$ for every edge $e \in E_\chi$. Observing the matching $N_{S_i'}$ for each $S_i'$ generated by Algorithm \[alg:DE4\] (e.g., see also Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](a)), without lose of generality, we assume that $1 \leq j_1 \leq j_2 \leq
\cdots \leq j_k \leq \cdots \leq j_h = |S_i'|-1$ and $h$ is odd such that in $S_i'$, [$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{0.1mm}}l@{\hspace{0.1mm}}l@{\hspace{0.1mm}}l@{\hspace{0.1mm}}l@{\hspace{0.1mm}}l@{\hspace{0.1mm}}l@{\hspace{0.1mm}}}
& \ \ \ r_{1,2}' & \geq r_{2,3}' \geq \cdots & \geq r_{j_1,j_1+1}' & \leq r_{j_1+1,j_1+2}' & \leq \cdots \leq r_{j_2, j_2+1}' & \geq \cdots \\
\ \ \ \cdots &&& \ \ \ \cdots \\
\leq r_{j_k,j_k+1}' & \geq r_{j_k+1,j_k+2}' & \geq \cdots & \geq r_{j_{k+1},j_{k+1}+1}' & \leq r_{j_{k+1}+1,j_{k+1}+2}' & \leq \cdots \leq r_{j_{k+2},j_{k+2}+1}' & \geq \cdots \\
\ \ \ \cdots &&& \ \ \ \cdots\\
\leq r_{j_{h-1}, j_{h-1}+1}' & \geq r_{j_{h-1}+1, j_{h-1}+2}' & \geq \cdots & \geq r_{j_h-1, j_h}'.\end{array}\label{E-jRelation}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
Inequality (\[E-jRelation\]) is explained as follows. Since Line 17’ in Algorithm \[alg:DE4\] considers the relationship between $r_{j,j+1}'$ and $r_{j+1,j+2}'$ for $j = 1, \cdots, |S_i'|-2$, thus, without loss of generality, we use $h+1$ numbers (i.e., $1 \leq j_1 \leq j_2 \leq \cdots \leq j_k \leq \cdots \leq j_h = |S_i'|-1$) to classify all $r_{j,j+1}'$ data. Then the data is alternately expressed as Inequality (\[E-jRelation\]), in which $r_{j_1,j_1+1}'$, $r_{j_3,j_3+1}'$, …are local minimal; $r_{1,2}'$, $r_{j_2,j_2+1}'$, $r_{j_4,j_4+1}'$, …are local maximal.
Then, [$$\begin{aligned}
c(N_{S_i'}) &=& (\sum_{j = 1}^{j_1-1} M_j' m_{j+1}' + M_{j_1+1}'m_1') + (M_{j_1}'m_{j_2+1}' + \sum_{j = j_1+1}^{j_2-1} M_{j+1}' m_{j}')\nonumber\\
&&+ \cdots + (\sum_{j = j_k+1}^{j_{k+1}-1} M_j' m_{j+1}' + M_{j_{k+1}+1}'m_{j_k}') + (M_{j_{k+1}}'m_{j_{k+2}+1}' + \sum_{j = j_{k+1}+1}^{j_{k+2}-1} M_{j+1}' m_{j}')\nonumber\\
&&+ \cdots + (\sum_{j = j_{h-1}+1}^{j_h-1} M_j' m_{j+1}' +
M_{j_h}'m_{j_{h-1}}')\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ]{}Therefore, [$$\begin{aligned}
&&c(N_{S_i'}) - \sum_{j=1}^{|S_i'|} M_j' m_j'\nonumber\\
&&= (\sum_{j = 1}^{j_1} \sum_{l=j}^{j_1} r_{l,l+1}'s_{j+1,j}') + (\sum_{j = j_1+1}^{j_2} \sum_{l=j_1}^{j} r_{l,l+1}'s_{j+1,j}') - r_{j_2,j_2+1}'s_{j_2+1,j_2}'\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ + \cdots + (\sum_{j = j_k}^{j_{k+1}} \sum_{l=j}^{j_{k+1}} r_{l,l+1}'s_{j+1,j}') + (\sum_{j = j_{k+1}+1}^{j_{k+2}} \sum_{l=j_{k+1}}^{j} r_{l,l+1}'s_{j+1,j}')- r_{j_{k+2},j_{k+2}+1}'s_{j_{k+2}+1,j_{k+2}}' \nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ + \cdots + (\sum_{j = j_{h-1}}^{j_h} \sum_{l=j}^{j_h} r_{l,l+1}'s_{j+1,j}') \nonumber$$ ]{}Consider Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](b) for an example. The above multiplication relationship of those $r_{\cdot,\cdot}$ and $s_{\cdot,\cdot}$ for Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](a) is given in Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](b). Figure \[fgAlgDE4pattern\] shows how to transform from Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](a) to Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](b).
By Inequality (\[E-jRelation\]), since $r_{l,l+1}' \leq
r_{j+1,j}'$ for $j \leq l \leq j_1$ or $j_1 \leq l \leq j$ or $\cdots$ or $j \leq l \leq j_{k+1}$ or $j_{k+1} \leq l \leq j$ or $\cdots$ or $j \leq l \leq j_h$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&&c(N_{S_i'}) - \sum_{j=1}^{|S_i'|} M_j' m_j' \nonumber\\
&&\leq (\sum_{j = 1}^{j_1} (j_1-j+1) r_{j,j+1}' s_{j+1,j}') + (\sum_{j = j_1+1}^{j_2} (j-j_2+1) r_{j,j+1}' s_{j+1,j}') - r_{j_2,j_2+1}'s_{j_2+1,j_2}'\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ + \cdots + (\sum_{j = j_k}^{j_{k+1}} (j_{k+1}-j+1) r_{j,j+1}' s_{j+1,j}') + (\sum_{j = j_{k+1}+1}^{j_{k+2}} (j-j_{k+2}+1) r_{j,j+1}' s_{j+1,j}')\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{10cm} - r_{j_{k+2},j_{k+2}+1}'s_{j_{k+2}+1,j_{k+2}}'\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ + \cdots + (\sum_{j = j_{h-1}}^{j_h} (j_{h}-j+1) r_{j,j+1}' s_{j+1,j}')\nonumber\\
&&\leq n \left(\sum_{j = 1}^{|S_i'|-1} r_{j,j+1}' s_{j+1,j}' \right) \label{E-DE4-2}$$ Considering Figure \[fgAlgDE4\](b) for an example, $c(N_{S_i'}) -
\sum_{j=1}^{|S_i'|} M_j' m_j' \leq 3 r_{1,2}' s_{2,1}' + 2 r_{2,3}'
s_{3,2}' + 1 r_{3,4}' s_{4,3}' + 2 r_{4,5}' s_{5,4}' + (3+5-1)
r_{5,6}' s_{6,5}' + 4 r_{6,7}' s_{7,6}' + 3 r_{7,8}' s_{8,7}' + 2
r_{8,9}' s_{9,8}' + 1 r_{9,10}' s_{10,9}' + 2 r_{10,11}' s_{11,10}'
+ 3 r_{11,12}' s_{12,11}' + (4 + 3 - 1) r_{12,13}' s_{13,12}' + 2
r_{13,14}' s_{14,13}' + 1 r_{14,15}' s_{15,14}'$.
By Inequalities (\[E-DE4-1\]) and (\[E-DE4-2\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
n \left( c(N_{{\mathit{opt}}}) - \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i \right)\geq c(N_{{\mathit{APX}}}) - \sum_{i=1}^n M_i m_i \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In what follows, we explain how the algorithm runs in $O(n^2)$ time. It suffices to explain Lines 13’–24’. Lines 14’ and 15’ are just notations for the proof of correctness, not being executed. In Line 17’, $r_{j,j+1}'$ and $r_{j+1,j+2}'$ can be calculated in $O(1)$ time. Hence, Lines 13’–24’ in Algorithm \[alg:DE4\] runs in $O(n)$ time, because the concerned availability (available maximum, minimum, second maximum, second minimum) is recorded and updated at each iteration in $O(1)$ time (noticing that $U$ and $V$ have been sorted, so has $S_i'$); each element is recorded as the concerned availability at most $O(1)$ and matched only once.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
This paper has investigated the tractability of the problems for optimizing the angular resolution, the aspect ratio, as well as the standard deviation of angles for balloon drawings of ordered or unordered rooted trees with even sub-wedges or uneven sub-wedges. It turns out that some of those problems are NP-complete while the others can be solved in polynomial time. We also give some approximation algorithms for those intractable problems. A line of future work is to investigate the problems of optimizing other aesthetic criteria of balloon drawings.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
G. D. Battista, P. Eades, R. Tammassia, I. G. Tollis, Graph Drawing: Algorithms for the Visualization of Graphs, Prentice Hall, 1999.
J. Carri$\grave{e}$re, R. Kazman, Research report: Interacting with huge hierarchies: Beyond cone trees, in: IV 95, IEEE CS Press, 1995.
P. Eades, Drawing free trees, Bulletin of Institute for Combinatorics and its Applications (1992) 10–36.
C. Jeong, A. Pang, Reconfigurable disc trees for visualizing large hierarchical information space, in: InfoVis ’98, IEEE CS Press, 1998.
M.-Y. Kao, M. Sanghi, An approximation algorithm for a bottleneck traveling salesman problem, Journal of Discrete Algorithms 7 (3) (2009) 315–326.
K. Kaufmann, D. [Wagner (Eds.)]{}, Drawing Graphs: Methods and Models, vol. 2025 of LNCS, Springer, 2001.
H. Koike, H. Yoshihara, Fractal approaches for visualizing huge hierarchies, in: VL ’93, IEEE CS Press, 1993.
C.-Y. Lee, G. L. Vairaktarakis, Workforce planning in mixed model assembly systems, Operations Research 45 (4) (1997) 553–567.
C.-C. Lin, H.-C. Yen, On balloon drawings of rooted trees, Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications 11 (2) (2007) 431–452.
G. Melançon, I. Herman, Circular drawing of rooted trees, Reports of the Centre for Mathematics and Computer Sciences, Report number INS-9817.
E. Reingold, J. Tilford, Tidier drawing of trees, IEEE Trans. Software Eng. SE-7 (2) (1981) 223–228.
Y. Shiloach, Arrangements of planar graphs on the planar lattice, Ph.D. thesis, Weizmann Institute of Science (1976).
G. L. Vairaktarakis, On [Gilmore-Gomory]{}’s open question for the bottleneck [TSP]{}, Operations Research Letters 31 (6) (2003) 483–391.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
$\bullet$ [**On Proof of Theorem \[thm-DE4\]**]{}\
Recall that the DE problem is concerned with minimizing the standard deviation, which involves keeping all the angles as close to each other as possible. Such an observation allows us to take advantage of what is known for the 2SLW problem (which also involves finding a circular permutation to bound a measure within given lower and upper bounds) to solve our problems. It turns out that, like 2SLW, DE3 and and DE4 are NP-complete. Even though DE3, DE4 and 2SLW bear a certain degree of similarity, a direct reduction from 2SLW to DE3 or DE4 does not seem obvious. Instead, we are able to tailor the technique used for proving NP-hardness of 2SLW to showing DE3 and DE4 to be NP-hard. To this end, we first briefly explain the intuitive idea behind the NP-hardness proof of 2SLW shown in [@V2003] to set the stage for our lower bound proofs.
The technique utilized in [@V2003] for the NP-hardness proof of 2SLW relies on reducing from the [*Hamiltonian-circle problem on cubic graphs*]{} (HC-CG) (a known NP-complete problem). The reduction is as follows. For a given cubic graph $G$ with $n$ nodes, we construct a complete bipartite graph $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ consisting of $n$ [*blocks*]{} in the following way. (For convenience, $V$ (resp., $U$) is called the upper (resp., lower) side.) For each node $v_i$ adjacent to $v_j$, $v_k$, $v_l$ in cubic graph $G$, a [*block*]{} $\mathcal{B}_i$ of 14 nodes (7 on each side) is associated to $v_i$, where the upper side (resp., lower side) contains three $v$-nodes (resp., $u$ nodes) corresponding to $v_j$, $v_k$, $v_l$, and each side has a pair of $\lambda$-nodes, as well as a pair of $b$-nodes (as shown in Figure \[fig:fg2SLW\]). For the three blocks $\mathcal{B}_j$, $\mathcal{B}_k$, and $\mathcal{B}_l$ associated with nodes $v_j$, $v_k$, and $v_l$, respectively, each has a $v$-node corresponding to $v_i$ (because $v_i$ is adjacent to $v_j$, $v_k$, and $v_l$). These three $v$-nodes are labelled as $v_{i1}$, $v_{i2}$, and $v_{i3}$. In the construction, nodes in $V$ and $U$ correspond to those tasks to be performed in stations $ST1$ and $ST2$, respectively, in 2SLW.
As shown in Figure \[fig:fg2SLW\], the nodes on the upper and lower sides in $\mathcal{B}_i$ from the left to the right are associated with the following values [$$\begin{aligned}
&&(A_{i,1}, \cdots, A_{i,7}) =
(\kappa_i, \kappa_i-1, \kappa_i-2, \kappa_i-2, \kappa_i-3, \kappa_i-4, \kappa_i-5),\mbox{ and} \label{E-2SLW-valueA}\\
&&(B_{i,1}, \cdots, B_{i,7}) = (iK, iK+1, iK+2, iK+2, iK+3, iK+4,
iK+5),\label{E-2SLW-valueB}\end{aligned}$$]{}respectively, where $\kappa_i = (n+1-i)K$ and $K$ is any integer $\geq 7$; $LB=(n+1)K-1$ and $UB=(n+1)K+1$. Each edge in $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ has weight equal to the sum of the values of its end points.
The instance of 2SLW consists of $7n$ jobs, in which $2n$ jobs associated with pairs of $b$-nodes are $I_{01} = \{(b_{2i-1},
b_{2i-1}')$, $(b_{2i}, b_{2i}'): 1 \leq i \leq n\}$, $3n$ jobs associated with $v$-nodes are $I_{02} = \{(v_{i1},u_{i2})$, $(v_{i2}, u_{i3})$, $(v_{i3}, u_{i1}): i=1,...,n \}$, and $2n$ jobs associated with pairs of $\lambda$-nodes are $I_{03} = \{(\lambda_i,
\lambda_{i\oplus 1}')$, $(\lambda_{i\oplus 1},\lambda_{i\oplus 2}'):
1 \leq i \leq n \}$. Note that $I_0 = I_{01} \cup I_{02} \cup
I_{03}$ is a perfect matching for $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$, and such a matching is called a [*city matching*]{}.
The crux of the remaining construction is based on the idea of relating a permutation of the $7n$ jobs $(J_{[1]}, J_{[2]}, ...,
J_{[7n]})$ in the constructed 2SLW instance to a perfect matching in $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ in such a way that $(W_{[i]2}, W_{[(i \ mod \ 7n)+1]1})$, $1 \leq i \leq 7n$, are matches. Note that $W_{[i]2}, W_{[i+1]1}$ are the two tasks performed by stations $ST1$ and $ST2$, respectively, simultaneously at a certain time. One can easily observe that, because of bounds $LB$ and $UB$, any matching $N$ as a solution for 2SLW cannot involve a edge connecting two different blocks, and the only edges which can be included in $N$ in each block are the dash lines in Figure \[fig:fg2SLW\]. Such a perfect matching $N$ is called a [*transition matching*]{}. If $I_0 \cup N$ forms a Hamiltonian cycle for $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$, then it is called [*complementary Hamiltonian cycle*]{} (CHC).
We use notation $(\cdot,\cdot)$ (resp., $[\cdot,\cdot]$) to indicate an edge of a city matching (resp., transition matching). Consider a special transition matching $N_D = \{[A_{i,j},B_{i,j}]: i = 1, ...,
n, j = 1, ..., 7\}$. $I_0 \cup N_D$ consists of a master $\lambda$-subcycle $\mathcal{C}_\lambda = [\lambda_{1},\lambda_1']
(\lambda_1',\lambda_{2}) ... [\lambda_{i},\lambda_i']
(\lambda_i',\lambda_{i\oplus 1}) ... [\lambda_{n},\lambda_n']
(\lambda_n',\lambda_1)$, $n$ $v$-subcycles $\mathcal{C}_i$ for $i=1,...,n$ (e.g., $\mathcal{C}_1 =
[v_{11},u_{11}](u_{11},v_{12})[v_{12},u_{12}](u_{12},v_{13})[v_{13},u_{13}](u_{13},v_{11})$), and $2n$ $b$-subcycles $\mathcal{C}_b = [b_i,b_i'](b_i,b_i')$ for $i=1,...,n$. Hence, a CHC for $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ is formed by combining the $3n+1$ subcycles. From [@V2003], in order to yield a CHC for $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$, there are exactly three possible transaction matchings for $\mathcal{B}_i$ as shown in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\]. The design is such that edge $(v_i,
v_l)$ (resp., $(v_i, v_j)$ and $(v_i, v_k)$) is in a HC of G if Figure \[fig:fg4matching\](i) (resp., (ii) and (iii)) is the chosen permutation for the constructed 2SLW instance. Following a somewhat complicated argument, [@V2003] proved that there exists a Hamiltonian cycle (HC) for the cubic graph $G$ if and only if there exists a CHC for $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$, and such a CHC for $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ in turn suggest a sufficient and necessary condition for a solution for 2SLW.
. (Sketch) Now we are ready to show the theorem. We only consider the DE4 problem; the DE3 problem is similar and in fact simpler. Recall that the DE4 problem is equivalent to finding a balloon drawing optimizing $optSOP$. Consider the following decision problem:
$\mbox{\sc The DE4 Decision Problem}:$
: Given a star graph with flexible uneven angles specified by Equation (\[E-subWedge-uneven\]) and an integer $UB$, determine whether a drawing (i.e., specified by the permutation $\sigma \in
\Sigma$ and the assignments (0 or 1) for $t_i$ ($1\leq i \leq n$)) exists so that $SOP_{\sigma,t} \leq UB$.
It is obvious that the problem is in NP; it remains to show NP-hardness, which is established by a reduction from HC-CG. In spite of the similarity between our reduction and the reduction from HC-CG to 2SLW ([@V2003]) explained earlier, the correctness proof of our reduction is a lot more complicated than the latter, as we shall explain in detail shortly.
In the new setting, Equations (\[E-2SLW-valueA\]) and (\[E-2SLW-valueB\]) become: [$$\begin{aligned}
&&(A_{i,1}, \cdots, A_{i,7}) =
(\kappa(i), \kappa(i)-2, \kappa(i)-3, \kappa(i)-4, \kappa(i)-6, \kappa(i)-8, \kappa(i)-9);\nonumber\\&&(B_{i,1}, \cdots, B_{i,7}) = (9ni, 9ni+1, 9ni+2, 9ni+3, 9ni+5, 9ni+7, 9ni+9) \nonumber$$]{}for $i = 1, 2, ..., n$ where $\kappa(i) = 9n(2n+2-i)$, $n \geq 2$, and $UB=\sum_{i=1}^{7n}M_i m_i+7n$ where $M_i$ (resp., $m_i$) is the $i$-th maximum (resp., minimum) among the $14n$ values. (Note that such a setting satisfies the premise of Inequality (\[E-lemma-perm-2\]) in Lemma \[lemma-perm\], and hence can utilize the inequality.) Hence, we have that: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{i,j} &>& B_{i,j}, \mbox{ for any $i,j$;}\nonumber\\
A_{i,j} &>& A_{k,l} \mbox{ and } B_{i,j} < B_{k,l} \mbox{ if ($i <
k$) or ($i = k$ and $j < l$).}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above implies that the $j$-th upper (resp., lower) node in $\mathcal{B}_i$ is $M_{7i+j}$ (resp., $m_{7i+j}$) for $i\in
\{1,...,n\}$ and $j \in \{1,...,7\}$. Define $r_{a,b} = M_{7i+a} -
M_{7i+b}$ and $s_{a,b} = m_{7i+a} - m_{7i+b}$ in $\mathcal{B}_i$. Hence, $$r_{1,2}s_{2,1} = 2, \ r_{2,3}s_{3,2} = 1, \ r_{3,4}s_{4,3} = 1,
r_{4,5}s_{5,4} = 4, \ r_{5,6}s_{6,5} = 4, \ r_{6,7}s_{7,6} = 2,$$ which are often utilized throughout the remaining proof.
If $\Omega$ is a set of transition edges, the sum of the transition edge weights is denoted by $c(\Omega)$. If $C_H = I_0 \cup N$ is a CHC for $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ where $I_0$ (resp., $N$) is the city matching (resp., transition matching) of the CHC and $t_i = 0$ for $i=1,...,n$ (i.e., flipping sub-wedges is not allowed), then $c(N) =
\sum_{e \in N} c(e) = SOP_{\sigma,t}$ where $c(e)$ is the weight of the transition edge $e$.
Now based on the above setting, we show that there exists a HC for the cubic graph $G$ if and only if there exists a CHC $C_H = I_0
\cup N$ for the instance $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ of the DE4 problem such that $c(N) \leq UB$.
Suppose that $G$ has a Hamiltonian cycle $C_H$. Let $ C_H =
v_{[1]},v_{[2]}, ..., v_{[n]}$. The construction of a solution for $\mathcal{B}(U,V)$ is the same as [@V2003], as explained in the following. Initiating with $\mathcal{B}_{[1]}$, there exists a pair ($u_{[2]}, v_{[2]}$) of nodes in $V \times U$ corresponding to $v_{[2]} \in G$ because $v_{[1]}$ is connected with $v_{[2]}$. From [@V2003], we have that $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ is merged with $\mathcal{C}_l$, $\mathcal{C}_j$, and $\mathcal{C}_k$ respectively in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\] (i), (ii), and (iii). Hence, considering the order of $B_{[1]},B_{[2]},...,B_{[n]}$, in iteration $i$, by choosing the appropriate transition matching, say $N_{[i]}$, of $\mathcal{B}_i$ from the three possible matchings in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\], $N_{[i]}$ merges $\mathcal{C}_{[i\oplus 1]}$ with the master subcycle $\mathcal{C}_{\lambda}$. Besides, since the two $b$-subcycles in each $\mathcal{B}_i$ also are merged with $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ in any matching of Figure \[fig:fg4matching\], we can obtain a complementary cycle traversing all nodes in $\mathcal{B}(U,V)$.
We need to check $c(N) \leq UB$. In fact, we show that $c(N) = UB$ as follows. It suffices to show that $c(N_i) = \sum_{j=1}^7
M_{7i+j}m_{7i+j} + 7$ for any $i \in \{1,...,n\}$ where $N_i$ is the transition matching for $\mathcal{B}_i$. Denote $\Delta c(N_i) =
c(N_i) - \sum_{j=1}^7 M_{7i+j}m_{7i+j}$. We can prove that $\Delta
c(N_i) = 7$ for every matching in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\]. Case (i) is shown as follows, and the others are similar: [$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta c(N_i) &=& M_{7i+1}m_{7i+1} + M_{7i+2}m_{7i+3} +
M_{7i+3}m_{7i+2} + M_{7i+4}m_{7i+5} \nonumber\\
&& + M_{7i+5}m_{7i+4} + M_{7i+6}m_{7i+7} + M_{7i+7}m_{7i+6} -
\sum_{j=1}^7
M_{7i+j}m_{7i+j} \label{E-DE4proof-if}\\
&=& r_{2,3}s_{3,2} +
r_{4,5}s_{5,4} + r_{6,7}s_{7,6} = 1 + 4 + 2 = 7\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ ]{}From the above computation, one should notice that if $M_j$ is matched with a sub-wedge larger than $m_j$ and $M_{j+1}$ is matched with a sub-wedge less than $m_{j+1}$ for $j \in
\{7i+1,7i+2,...,7i+6\}$, then $\Delta c(N_i)$ includes $r_{j,j+1}s_{j+1,j}$.
The converse, i.e., showing the existence of a CHC $C_H = I_0 \cup
N$ for the instance $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$ of DE4 with $c(N) \leq UB$ implies the presence of a HC in $G$, is rather complicated. The key relies on the following three claims.
1. (*Bipartite*) There are no transition edges in $N$ between any pairs of upper (resp., lower) nodes in $C_H$.
2. (*Block*) There are no transition edges in $N$ between two blocks in $C_H$.
3. (*Matching*) There is only one of $\mathcal{C}_j$, $\mathcal{C}_k$, and $\mathcal{C}_l$ merged with the master subcycle $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ in each $\mathcal{B}_i$. (Recall that each node $v_i$ is adjacent to $v_j$, $v_k$, $v_l$ in $G$, and hence the statement implies the presence of a HC in $G$.)
For proving the above statements, we need the following claims:
Claim 1
: (see [@KS2009]) Given two transition matchings $N$ and $N'$ between $V$ and $U$, there exists a sequence of exchanges which transforms $N$ to $N'$.
Claim 2
: If $N$ is a transition matching between $V$ and $U$ and involves two edges $e_1$ and $e_2$ crossing each other, then $c(N) > c(N')$ for $N'=N\otimes
(e_1,e_2)$.
(Claim 2 can be proved by easily checking $c(N)-c(N')>0$.) It is very important to notice that Claim 2 can be adapted even when $I_0
\cup N$ may NOT be a CHC. The transition matching where $M_j$ is matched with $m_j$ for every $j$ (every transition edge is visually vertical) is denoted by $N_D$, i.e., $c(N_D) = \sum_{j=1}^{7n} M_j
m_j$. Note that if each edge in $N$ is between $V$ and $U$, we can obtain $c(N) > c(N_D)$ by repeatedly using Claim 2 in the order from the leftmost node to the rightmost node of $V$, similar to the technique in the proof of Claim 1 [@KS2009].
. Supposing that there exits $\overline{k} \geq 1$ transition edges between pairs of upper nodes in $C_H$, then there must exist $\overline{k}$ transition edges between pairs of lower nodes in $C_H$, by Pigeonhole Principle. Select one of the upper (resp., lower) transition edges, say $e_1 = (M_a, M_b)$, (resp., say $e_2 = (m_p,
m_q)$). Consider $N' = N \otimes (e_1, e_2)$. Then $c(N) -
c(N')=(M_a-m_p)(M_b-m_q) \geq (M_n - m_n)^2 = 18^2(n-1)^2
> 7n$. Hence, $c(N) > c(N') + 7n$. By the same technique, we can find $N''$ where each edge in $N''$ is between $U$ and $V$ such that $c(N) > c(N'')+7\overline{k}n \geq c(N'')+7n \geq
c(N_D) + 7n = UB$, which is impossible. . By Statement (S-1), each edge in the transition matching of $C_H$ is between $V$ and $U$. Suppose there exists at least one transition edge between two blocks. Assume there are $l$ blocks, $\{\mathcal{B}_{k_1},
\mathcal{B}_{k_2}, ..., \mathcal{B}_{k_l}\}$, with transition edges across two blocks. Let $k_{min} = \min(k_1, k_2, ..., k_l)$. Consider $e_1 = (M_a, m_d)$ is the transition edge between $\mathcal{B}_{k_{min}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{k_{i}}$ for $i \in \{1,
...,l\}$, and $k_{min} \neq k_i$. Then there must exist a transition edge connecting to one of the lower nodes of $\mathcal{B}_{k_{min}}$, say $m_c$, by Pigeonhole Principle, and we say the edge $e_2 = (M_b, m_c)$ where $m_c$ and $M_b$ are respectively from $\mathcal{B}_{k_{min}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{k_j}$ for $j \in \{1, ...,l\}$ and $k_j \neq k_{min}$. Note that $e_2$ must cross $e_1$ because $M_a$ and $m_c$ are in $\mathcal{B}_{k_{min}}$, i.e., $M_a
> M_b$ and $m_c < m_d$. Besides, we have $M_a
\geq M_b + 9n - 9$ and $m_d \geq m_c + 9n - 9$ because two end points of edge belong to different blocks. Consider $N'=N\otimes
(e_1, e_2)$. Then $c(N) - c(N') = (M_a-M_b)(m_d-m_c) \geq (9n-9)^2
> 7n$ for $n \geq 2$. That is, $c(N) > c(N') + 7n \geq c(N_D) +
7n$, which is a contradiction. . Recall that $I_0
\cup N_D$ in every $\mathcal{B}_i$ involves subcycles $\mathcal{C}_j$, $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$, $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i-1}}$, $\mathcal{C}_k$, $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i}}$, $\mathcal{C}_l$, $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ from the leftmost to the rightmost. If there exists a CHC $C_H = I_0 \cup N$ for the instance $\mathcal{B}(V,U)$, each $b$-subcycle in $\mathcal{B}_i$ has to be merged with some subcycle in the same $\mathcal{B}_i$ by Statements (S-1) and (S-2). $\Delta c(N_i)$ is at least 5 due to the merging of $b$-subcycles from the following four cases (here it suffice to discuss the merging of $b$-subcycles with their adjacent subcycles because $\Delta c(N_i)$ in others cases are larger):
1. $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i-1}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ and $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_k$: $\Delta c(N_i) > r_{2,3}s_{3,2}+r_{4,5}s_{5,4} = 1 + 4 =5$
2. $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i-1}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_\lambda$ and $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_l$: $\Delta c(N_i) > r_{2,3}s_{3,2}+r_{5,6}s_{6,5} = 1 + 4 =5$
3. $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i-1}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_k$ and $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_k$: $\Delta c(N_i) > r_{3,4}s_{4,3}+r_{4,5}s_{5,4} = 1 + 4 =5$
4. $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i-1}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_k$ and $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i}}$ merged with $\mathcal{C}_l$: $\Delta c(N_i) > r_{3,4}s_{4,3}+r_{5,6}s_{6,5} = 1 + 4 =5$
Recall that there are $3n + 1$ subcycles in $\mathcal{B}$. Hence we require at least $3n$ times of merging subcycles to ensure these subcycles to be merged as a CHC. Since we have discussed that two $b$-subcycles have to be merged in each $\mathcal{B}_i$ (i.e., the total times of merging $b$-subcycles are $2n$), we require at least $n$ more times of merging subcycles to obtain a CHC. In fact, the $n$ times of merging subcycles is because each $\mathcal{B}_i$ contributes once of merging subcycles. As a result, Statement (S-3) is proved if we can show that after merging two $b$-subcycles in each $\mathcal{B}_i$, the third merging subcycles in $\mathcal{B}_i$ is to merge one of $C_j$, $C_k$, and $C_l$ with $C_\lambda$.
In what follows, we discuss $\Delta c(N_i)$ when there are exactly $\overline{h}$ times of merging subcycles in $N_i$:
- If $\overline{h} = 2$, then $\Delta c(N_i) > 5$.
- If $\overline{h} = 3$ and the transition matching of $\mathcal{B}_i$ is one of the matchings in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\], then $\Delta c(N_i) = 7$.
- If $\overline{h} = 3$ and the transition matching of $\mathcal{B}_i$ is NOT any of the matchings in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\], then $\Delta c(N_i) > 7$.
- If $\overline{h} = 4$, then $\Delta c(N_i) > 9$.
- If $\overline{h} = 5$, then $\Delta c(N_i) > 11$.
- If $\overline{h} = 6$, then $\Delta c(N_i) > 13$.
If the above statements on $\overline{h}$ hold, then Statement (S-3) hold. The reason is as follows. Remind that we need $3n$ times of merging subcycles to be a CHC. Therefore, if there exists a transition matching of $\mathcal{B}_i$ with $\overline{h}=2$ for some $i$ (i.e., there are exactly two times of merging subcycles in $\mathcal{B}_i$), then there must exists a $\mathcal{B}_j$ for some $j$ with $\overline{h} \geq 4$. Then $\Delta c(N_i)+\Delta c(N_j)
> 14$, which is impossible because this results in the total $\Delta c$ larger than $7n$.
. Note that the transition matching of every $\mathcal{B}_i$ can be viewed as a permutation of $\{ M_{7i+1}, M_{7i+2}, ..., M_{7i+7}\}$ (a mapping from $V$ to $U$), and hence different ordering or different times of merging subcycles lead to a permutation with different factors, e.g, the permutation for Figure \[fig:fg4matching\](i) is $\langle M_{7i+1}\rangle \langle
M_{7i+2} M_{7i+3}\rangle \langle M_{7i+4} M_{7i+5}\rangle \langle
M_{7i+6} M_{7i+7}\rangle$. If we let $f = \langle M_{j_1}, M_{j_2},
..., M_{j_h}\rangle$ be a nontrivial factor of the permutation for $N_i$, then $c(N_i) \geq c(f) \geq \sum_{k=j_1}^{j_h} M_{k} m_{k} +
\sum_{k=j_1}^{j_{h-1}} r_{k,k+1}s_{k+1,k}$ by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]) in Lemma \[lemma-perm\]. Here we concern the value $\sum_{k=j_1}^{j_{h-1}} r_{k,k+1}s_{k+1,k}$ induced by $f$ (which is denoted by $\Theta(f)$) because it can be viewed as a lower bound of $\Delta c(N_i)$.
If a factor $f$ includes $M_j$ but excludes $M_{j+1}$, then we say that $f$ has a [*lack*]{} at $M_{j+1}$. We observe that if the permutation $p_i$ for $\mathcal{B}_i$ has a lack, then we can find a permutation $p_i'$ for $\mathcal{B}_i$ consisting of the factors without any lacks such that $\Theta(p_i') < \Theta(p_i)$ in which the number of factors of $p_i'$ is the same as that of $p_i$ and the size of each factor is also the same. The reason is as follows. Assume that $p_i$ has a factor $f = \langle ..., M_j, M_l,
...\rangle$ with a lack at $M_{j+1}$ (i.e., $l\neq j+1$) and the minimum number appearing in the factor is $M_q$. Let $p_i'$ be almost the same as $p_i$ except the factor $f$ in $p_i$ is modified as a factor without any lacks involving $M_{j+1}$ but excluding $M_q$ in $p_i'$. Then by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]) in Lemma \[lemma-perm\], $\Theta(p_i)-\Theta(p_i') \geq
(r_{j,j+2}s_{j+2,j} - r_{j,j+1}s_{j+1,j} - r_{j+1,j+2}s_{j+2,j+1}) +
r_{q-1,q}s_{q,q-1} \geq 2 + 1 > 0$. In the similar way, we can find a permutation with factors without any lacks.
In light of the above, it suffices to consider the permutation for $\mathcal{B}_i$ consisting of the factors without any lacks when discussing the lower bound of $c(N_i)$. Thus, in the following, when we say that the permutation for $\mathcal{B}_i$ has a factor $f$, this implies that $f$ has no lacks, so Lemma \[lemma-perm\] can be applied to $f$.
Now we are ready to prove the statements on $\overline{h}$. The statement of $\overline{h}=2$ holds because $c(N_i)$ is increased by at least 5 when two $b$-subcycles have to be merged in each $\mathcal{B}_i$. As for the statement of $\overline{h}=6$, note that merging six subcycles implies a permutation with a factor of size seven. Thus, by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]) in Lemma \[lemma-perm\], $\Delta c(N_i) \geq \sum_{j=1}^6 r_{j,j+1}
s_{j+1,j} = 2 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 2 = 14
> 13$, as required. Let $\psi = \sum_{j=1}^6 r_{j,j+1} s_{j+1,j} = 14$ for the convenience of the following discussion. As for the statement of $\overline{h}=5$, the permutation involves two nontrivial factors after five times of merging subcycles. Note that one of the two factors has size at least four, and hence the factor $\langle j_1, ..., j_4\rangle$ contributes $\sum_{k=j_1}^{j_4} M_k
m_k + \sum_{k=j_1}^{j_4} r_{k,k+1} s_{k+1,k} + (4-2)$ by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-2\]) in Lemma \[lemma-perm\]. Therefore, by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]) in Lemma \[lemma-perm\], $\Delta c(N_i) \geq \psi -
r_{x,x+1}s_{x+1,x} + (4-2) = 16 - r_{x,x+1}s_{x+1,x}$ for some $x
\in \{1,...,6\}$. (Note that $-r_{x,x+1}s_{x+1,x}$ suggests that $M_x$ and $M_{x+1}$ are in different factors.) Since $r_{x,x+1}s_{x+1,x} \leq 4$, hence $\Delta c(N_i) \geq 12 > 11$, as required.
As for the statement of $\overline{h}=4$, by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]), $\Delta c(N_i) \geq \psi -
r_{x,x+1} s_{x+1,x} - r_{y,y+1} s_{y+1,y}$ for some $x,y \in
\{1,...,6\}$ and $x \neq y$. Discuss all possible cases of pair $(x,y)$ as follows. Consider one of $x,y$ is 2 or 3. We assume that $x = 2$, and the other case is similar. Hence, $r_{x,x+1}s_{x+1,x}=1$. Since $r_{y,y+1}s_{y+1,y} \leq 4$ and there exists a factor with size at least three in this case, $\Delta
c(N_i) \geq \psi - 1 - 4 + (3-2) = 10 > 9$ by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-2\]), as required. The remaining cases are $(1,4), (1,5), (1,6), (4,5), (4,6)$, and $(5,6)$. Consider one of $x,y$ is 1 or 6. We assume that $x = 1$, and the other case is similar. Hence $r_{x,x+1}s_{x+1,x}=2$. Since $r_{y,y+1}s_{y+1,y}
\leq 4$ and there exists a factor with size at least four or two factors with size at least three in this case, $\Delta c(N_i) \geq
\psi - 2 - 4 + (4-2) \vee 2(3-2) = 10
> 9$ by Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-2\]), as required. Last, consider $(x,y) =
(4,5)$, namely, $M_4$ and $M_5$ (resp., $M_5$ and $M_6$) are in different factors. Hence, $M_5$ cannot be matched with $m_4$ nor $m_6$, i.e., subcycle $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i}}$ cannot be merged with adjacent subcycles $\mathcal{C}_k$, $\mathcal{C}_l$. Since merging $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i}}$ with $\mathcal{C}_{b_{2i-1}}$ induces the smallest cost $r_{3,5}s_{53}=9$ in this case, and the other two times of merging subcycles must induce cost more than 2, hence $\Delta c(N_i)$ is at least 9.
As for the two statements of $\overline{h}=3$, by Equation (\[E-DE4proof-if\]), $\Delta c(N_i)$ in the case when $N_i$ is one of the matchings in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\] is exactly seven, as required. Then we consider the case when $N_i$ is not in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\] in the following. By Equation (\[E-lemma-perm-1\]), $\Delta c(N_i) \geq
r_{x,x+1}s_{x+1,x} + r_{y,y+1}s_{y+1,y} +r_{z,z+1}s_{z+1,z} \geq 5 +
r_{z,z+1}s_{z+1,z}$ for some $x,y,z\in\{1,...,6\}$ and $x\neq y \neq
z \neq x$ since it is necessary to merge $b$-subcycles, which contributes at least 5. It suffices to consider the cases when $r_{z,z+1}s_{z+1,z} \leq 2$, which may violate our required. That is, $z$ may be 1, 2, 3 or 6. By considering four possible cases of merging $b$-subcycles, one may easily check that whatever $z$ is, $\Delta c(N_i)$ must be either larger than 7 or in Figure \[fig:fg4matching\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'barton.bib'
nocite: '[@*]'
---
**John Clifford Barton\
1923 – 2002**
(430,400) (0,-20) [{width="15cm"}]{}
John Clifford Barton {#john-clifford-barton .unnumbered}
====================
John Barton was one of the founders of particle astrophysics. This experimental science, born in the aftermath of the Second World War and fuelled by developments in electronics and computing, seeks answers to fundamental cosmological problems. Barton was one of the greatest experimentalists, working in deep underground locations all over world and inspiring a generation of physicists to follow him.
Born in 1923, he was a wartime student at University College London during its evacuation to Bangor. Clearly, wartime requirements influenced the curriculum and he gained a “Certificate of Proficiency in Radio-Physics”, which was to mark out his future path. He graduated in 1943, receiving the Granville Prize, annually awarded to the best Physics graduate of London University. He did his National Service at Marconi in Chelmsford, Essex, working on military electronics. Here he acquired a thorough grounding in the basics of electronic design and construction techniques. After the war he became a PhD student at Birkbeck College, London University, working with E.P. George on cosmic rays. His first experiments were performed at an altitude of 3,457 metres, high on the Jungfraujoch in Switzerland. An amusing aside in the report thanks the director of the Jungfraujoch railway for the loan of 15 tonnes of coal that had been used for absorber. This use of available materials was to become something of a trademark of Barton’s experiments.
In 1954 he began four years at the nascent University College of the West Indies, Jamaica. As well as his teaching, Barton continued his research, measuring the cosmic muon flux as a function of depth in the sea. For this he built a transistorised cosmic-ray “telescope” using Geiger tubes contained in a pressure vessel, which was lowered to depths of 3,000m. Calibrations were made underground at Norton Hill Colliery in Somerset which were Barton’s first experiments in a mine. To record the data he used his own design of tape recorder, capable of recording eight tracks of digital data across standard quarter-inch audio tape. This was the first ever use of digital recording on a scientific experiment.
In 1958, Barton returned to London and became lecturer at Northern Polytechnic, almost immediately publishing his first paper describing a cosmic-ray detector using photomultipliers, which had just become commercially available. Photomultipliers are vacuum tubes which detect faint flashes of light, and their large area of sensitivity and high gain meant that large, robust particle detectors could be built. They are still found at the heart of innumerable physics experiments and huge numbers are used in medical imaging. Barton rapidly became one of the world experts in photomultipliers and their applications. He also had an almost intuitive feel for the “non-imaging” optics needed to carry light to the photomultipliers, and used to say to his students, “Light doesn’t go down a funnel like water does”, when they came up with ideas that didn’t work.
He began a series of experiments to determine the nature of cosmic rays that could penetrate deep underground. These experiments were performed in the “Holborn Laboratory”, a series of rooms deep in Holborn Underground station. A spare platform at Holborn had been converted to offices during the war. Immediately after the war it was used as a staff hostel, and later many of the rooms were used by physicists for experiments needing a deep location. The laboratory rooms were reached through a service door on one of the Piccadilly Line platforms. They were linked by an extremely narrow corridor, only wide enough for a single person, running along the edge of what had once been the platform. It was a dry and dusty environment and there were occasional problems caused by rodents chewing cables, but it was none the less an extraordinarily convenient site to work. For many measurements Holborn was not deep enough and Barton and his colleagues also ran experiments in Tilmanstone Colliery in Kent and later in the Woodhead Tunnel, a disused railway tunnel under the Pennines.
In the early 1980s Barton started on a series of studies on meteorites. His low background laboratory was ideal for identifying trace radioisotopes produced in the meteorites in space before they hit the earth. This work led on to a search for “superheavy elements”. Theoretical analysis suggested that while nuclides heavier than Uranium were unstable, there would be an “island of stability” around element 114 which would have half-lives long enough to exist in nature. Others had already undertaken searches in a range of samples, particularly meteorites, and some had claimed positive results. Together with a group from Leeds, Barton repeated the experiments and, despite having more sensitive equipment, saw no superheavy elements. Years later, element 114 was made artificially at Darmstadt and was found to have a half-life of 30 seconds, a full 15 orders of magnitude smaller than the original predictions. For Barton this was a vindication of his belief that theoretical predictions must be tested by experiment and that theoreticians are often just plain wrong.
When the Physics Department of what was now the Polytechnic of North London closed in 1984, Barton officially retired, devoting himself to research. He held honorary posts at Birkbeck and at Queen Mary, London University. In 1993 the Holborn Laboratory was closed, following increasing safety concerns in the wake of the King’s Cross fire. Barton transferred his underground laboratory to the Eisenhower Centre, a wartime control centre near Goodge Street, and, when the lease on this expired, to the basement at Queen Mary, not really deep enough but workable. Increasing frailty did not deter him – an ingenious assembly of car jacks enabled him single-handed to move several tonnes of lead shielding, no mean feat in a cramped laboratory packed with chemicals, electronics, computers, domestic appliances such as freezers and all the latest state-of-the-art instruments that he could get his hands on.
He became a member of the team that built the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) deep in a Canadian nickel mine. The observatory relies heavily on the use of photomultiplier tubes in a harsh environment that must be as free as possible from radioactive contamination. Barton’s contributions were pivotal and without them SNO’s evidence that neutrinos emitted by the Sun change their “flavour” on their way to the Earth would be much less convincing. In 1988, Neil Spooner, then at Imperial College, London, and Professor Peter Smith of the Rutherford Laboratory were forming a new collaboration to study dark matter and to hunt for the elusive “WIMPS” (weakly interacting massive particles). They knew that they needed a deep site to shield the detectors from cosmic rays and that the Boulby potash mine in North Yorkshire was the deepest mine in Britain. Barton was enthusiastic about this new project and went with Spooner on the site visit to help persuade the mine management to accept an underground laboratory. They were successful and the Boulby Dark Matter Collaboration came into being, operating a range of dark matter detectors in the rocksalt seams, one kilometre underground. While he never visited the site again, Barton continued to make vital contributions to the collaboration. The new surface building there has recently been named the John Barton Building.
Much of Barton’s pioneering work was made with relatively cheap equipment he built himself, using the very latest technology available to him, but always on a shoestring budget. Once, when asked why he never applied for grants from the Science Research Council, he replied that, if one applied for a grant, then one had to write reports on the grant, irrespective of the scientific results, and that then one ended up believing what one had written in the reports. Most of his career was spent at Northern Polytechnic, in a period when polytechnics rarely did fundamental research. Barton managed to, despite the environment. In 1968 he put together a pack of 50 research papers and submitted them for a DSc at London University, because he wanted to show that it was possible to do good science in a polytechnic with a supportive head of department.
John Barton was a shy, private and unassuming man but you knew within the first minute of meeting him that you were in the presence of an exceptionally talented and intelligent person. He was an enthusiastic walker and always took an annual walking holiday, most recently a strenuous traverse of Corsica. He loved the cinema and chose to live in Hampstead because of the proximity to the Everyman Cinema. Barton worked in his laboratory almost daily until his final illness. On becoming housebound, he bought the first television he had ever owned, typically finding even Bang & Olufsen’s superior specification left much to be desired.\
*John Clifford Barton, physicist: London 29 September 1923; Senior Lecturer in Physics, University College of the West Indies 1954-58; Lecturer in Physics, Northern Polytechnic (later Polytechnic of North London) 1958-84, Head of Physics Department 1971-84; died London 14 October 2002.*\
John McMillan\
\
This obituary first appeared in the daily newspaper “The Independant”,\
London, 29th November 2002.\
\
[email protected]\
\
Department of Physics and Astronomy,\
The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S3 7RH, Great Britain.\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a recursive way to partition hypergraphs which creates and exploits hypergraph geometry and is suitable for many-core parallel architectures. Such partitionings are then used to bring sparse matrices in a recursive Bordered Block Diagonal form (for processor-oblivious parallel LU decomposition) or recursive Separated Block Diagonal form (for cache-oblivious sparse matrix–vector multiplication). We show that the quality of the obtained partitionings and orderings is competitive by comparing obtained fill-in for LU decomposition with SuperLU (with better results for $8$ of the $28$ test matrices) and comparing cut sizes for sparse matrix–vector multiplication with Mondriaan (with better results for $4$ of the $12$ test matrices). The main advantage of the new method is its speed: it is on average $21.6$ times faster than Mondriaan.'
author:
- 'B. O. Fagginger Auer[^1]'
- 'R. H. Bisseling[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: A Geometric Approach to Matrix Ordering
---
hypergraphs, k-means, LU decomposition, nested dissection, partitioning, sparse matrices, visualization
05C65, 05C70, 65F05, 65F50, 65Y05
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
With the increased development and availability of many-core processors (both CPUs and GPUs) it is important to have algorithms that can make use of these architectures. To this end, we present a new recursive hypergraph partitioning algorithm that uses the underlying geometry of the hypergraph to generate the partitioning (which is largely done using shared-memory parallelism). Hypergraph geometry may either be provided from the problem at hand or generated by the partitioning software. This entire process is illustrated in .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The matrices `twotone` (top) and `ford2` (bottom). For the original matrix (left), a visual representation is created (middle), which in turn is used to permute the matrix to recursive Bordered Block Diagonal form (right).[]{data-label="fig:vmoprocess"}](twotone_orig "fig:"){width="3.6cm"} ![The matrices `twotone` (top) and `ford2` (bottom). For the original matrix (left), a visual representation is created (middle), which in turn is used to permute the matrix to recursive Bordered Block Diagonal form (right).[]{data-label="fig:vmoprocess"}](twotone_layout_small "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![The matrices `twotone` (top) and `ford2` (bottom). For the original matrix (left), a visual representation is created (middle), which in turn is used to permute the matrix to recursive Bordered Block Diagonal form (right).[]{data-label="fig:vmoprocess"}](twotone_permute "fig:"){width="3.6cm"}
![The matrices `twotone` (top) and `ford2` (bottom). For the original matrix (left), a visual representation is created (middle), which in turn is used to permute the matrix to recursive Bordered Block Diagonal form (right).[]{data-label="fig:vmoprocess"}](ford2_orig "fig:"){width="3.6cm"} ![The matrices `twotone` (top) and `ford2` (bottom). For the original matrix (left), a visual representation is created (middle), which in turn is used to permute the matrix to recursive Bordered Block Diagonal form (right).[]{data-label="fig:vmoprocess"}](ford2_layout_small "fig:"){height="3.4cm"} ![The matrices `twotone` (top) and `ford2` (bottom). For the original matrix (left), a visual representation is created (middle), which in turn is used to permute the matrix to recursive Bordered Block Diagonal form (right).[]{data-label="fig:vmoprocess"}](ford2_permute "fig:"){width="3.6cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypergraphs {#sec:hypergraphs}
-----------
We will start with a brief introduction to hypergraphs (see [@Berge1976] for more information) and the ways in which they can be related to sparse matrices.
\[def:hypergraph\] A *hypergraph* is a pair $G = (V, E)$ where $V$ is a set, the *vertices* of the hypergraph $G$, and $E$ a collection of subsets of $V$ (so for all $e \in E$, $e \subseteq V$), the *hyperedges* or *nets* of $G$ (see ). We call a hypergraph $G = (V, E)$ *weighted* when it is paired with functions $w : V \rightarrow [0, \infty[$ and $c : E \rightarrow [0, \infty[$ which assign *weights* $w(v) \geq 0$ and *costs* $c(e) \geq 0$ to vertices $v \in V$ and hyperedges $e \in E$, respectively. We call a hypergraph $G = (V, E)$ simply a *graph* if all hyperedges $e \in E$ are of the form $e = \{v, w\}$ with $v, w \in V$; in this case the graph is undirected and the hyperedges are called *edges*. We call a hypergraph $G = (V, E)$ *finite* if $V$ is a finite set, in which case $|E| \leq 2^{|V|}$, so $E$ is finite as well.
![Hypergraph $G = (V, E)$ with $V = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$ and $E = \{\{1\}, \{1, 2\}, \{2, 3, 4\}, \{3, 4\}\}$.[]{data-label="fig:hgexample"}](hg0){width="3.5cm"}
Hypergraphs possess a natural notion of *duality*, where the roles played by the vertices and hyperedges are interchanged.
\[def:hypergraphdual\] Let $G = (V, E)$ be a hypergraph.
Then we define its *dual hypergraph* as $G^* := (V^*, E^*)$ where $V^* := E$ and $$E^* := \{ \{e \in E {\ |\ }e \ni v \} {\ |\ }v \in V\}.$$ If the hypergraph is weighted, we also exchange the vertex weights and hyperedge costs to make its dual a weighted hypergraph.
The dual of the dual of a hypergraph is isomorphic to the original hypergraph, $(G^*)^* \cong G$.
**Name** $\mathbf{V}$ $\mathbf{E}$
------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symmetric [@Parter1961] $\{1, \ldots, m\}$ $\{ \{i, j\} {\ |\ }1 \leq i \leq m, 1 \leq j \leq n, a_{i \, j} \neq 0\}$
Bipartite [@Hendrickson2000] $\{r_1, \ldots, r_m, c_1, \ldots, c_n\}$ $\{ \{r_i, c_j\} {\ |\ }1 \leq i \leq m, 1 \leq j \leq n, a_{i \, j} \neq 0\}$
Column-net [@Catalyurek1999] $\{r_1, \ldots, r_m\}$ $\{ \{r_i {\ |\ }1 \leq i \leq m, a_{i \, j} \neq 0\} {\ |\ }1 \leq j \leq n\}$
Row-net [@Catalyurek1999] $\{c_1, \ldots, c_n\}$ $\{ \{c_j {\ |\ }1 \leq j \leq n, a_{i \, j} \neq 0\} {\ |\ }1 \leq i \leq m\}$
Finegrain [@Catalyurek2001] $\{v_{i \, j} {\ |\ }a_{i \, j} \neq 0\}$ $\underbrace{\{ \{v_{i \, j} \vert 1 \leq i \leq m, a_{i \, j} \neq 0\} {\ |\ }1 \leq j \leq n\}}_{\text{column hyperedges}}$
$\cup \underbrace{\{ \{v_{i \, j} \vert 1 \leq j \leq n, a_{i \, j} \neq 0\} {\ |\ }1 \leq i \leq m\}}_{\text{row hyperedges}}$
: Several common representations of an $m \times n$-matrix $A = \left( a_{i \, j} \right)$ by a hypergraph $G = (V, E)$.[]{data-label="tab:hypergraphmatrix"}
One direct application of hypergraphs is to use them to represent sparse matrices, see . We can make a number of observations about these representations.
1. The symmetric representation is only sensible if the matrix is structurally symmetric, because only then we can recover the nonzero pattern of the original matrix from its representation.
2. The bipartite representation is a bipartite graph with the two parts consisting of the rows ($r_1, \ldots, r_m$) and the columns ($c_1, \ldots, c_n$) of the matrix.
3. The symmetric and bipartite representations are both undirected graphs instead of hypergraphs and the size of the symmetric representation is about half that of the bipartite representation.
4. The column-net and row-net representations are each other’s dual.
5. The finegrain and bipartite representations are each other’s dual. This is also reflected in the fact that the hyperedges of the finegrain representation can be partitioned into two disjoint sets (the row and column hyperedges).
We will make use of these observations in .
Visual representations
----------------------
As stated in , we would like to exploit the underlying geometry of a hypergraph, usually representing a sparse matrix.
\[def:visualrepresentation\] Let $G = (V, E)$ be a given hypergraph. Then a *visual representation* of $G$ in $d \in {\mathbf{N}}$ dimensions is a mapping $$V \rightarrow {\mathbf{R}}^d$$ that reflects the structure of the underlying hypergraph.
This definition is not very precise and therefore we will illustrate it by looking at a few examples. Sometimes the visual representation of a matrix is directly available, for instance if the matrix is based on a triangulated mesh, such as the following . In other cases, the visual representation can be generated from the problem that the matrix represents, see . If no such information is available at all, we generate the visual representation ourselves, as discussed in .
\[exa:pothen\] The `pothen` collection of matrices, available from [@Davis2010], consists of NASA structural engineering matrices collected by A. Pothen. We will take a closer look at the square pattern[^3] matrices from this collection, which have a natural visual representation. Each row/column of these matrices corresponds to a vertex (the coordinates of which are supplied in a separate file) and each nonzero to an edge between the vertices corresponding to the row and column to which the nonzero belongs. We can take a look at the matrices and their corresponding visual representation by plotting these vertices, as is done in . These vertices give a visual representation of the symmetric hypergraph representation of the sparse matrix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![From left to right: the matrices `sphere3`, `pwt`, and `commanche_dual` with their original meshes (top, see ) and visual representations created using the techniques described in (bottom, also compare with [@Hu2005]).[]{data-label="fig:pothenlayout"}](sphere3_orig_small "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![From left to right: the matrices `sphere3`, `pwt`, and `commanche_dual` with their original meshes (top, see ) and visual representations created using the techniques described in (bottom, also compare with [@Hu2005]).[]{data-label="fig:pothenlayout"}](pwt_orig_small "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![From left to right: the matrices `sphere3`, `pwt`, and `commanche_dual` with their original meshes (top, see ) and visual representations created using the techniques described in (bottom, also compare with [@Hu2005]).[]{data-label="fig:pothenlayout"}](commanche_orig_small "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
![From left to right: the matrices `sphere3`, `pwt`, and `commanche_dual` with their original meshes (top, see ) and visual representations created using the techniques described in (bottom, also compare with [@Hu2005]).[]{data-label="fig:pothenlayout"}](sphere3_new_small "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![From left to right: the matrices `sphere3`, `pwt`, and `commanche_dual` with their original meshes (top, see ) and visual representations created using the techniques described in (bottom, also compare with [@Hu2005]).[]{data-label="fig:pothenlayout"}](pwt_new_small "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![From left to right: the matrices `sphere3`, `pwt`, and `commanche_dual` with their original meshes (top, see ) and visual representations created using the techniques described in (bottom, also compare with [@Hu2005]).[]{data-label="fig:pothenlayout"}](commanche_new_small "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[exa:finiteelts\] Another important example of matrices with a natural visual representation are those arising in finite-element methods. In this example, we will consider the Laplace equation on a compact smooth $d$-dimensional closed submanifold $\Omega \subseteq {\mathbf{R}}^d$ with compact smooth boundary $\partial \Omega$. Let $$V := \{f \in C^{\infty}(\Omega, {\mathbf{R}}) {\ |\ }f,\, \|\nabla f\| \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbf{R}}), \ f \vert_{\partial \Omega} = 0 \}$$ be the collection of all smooth real-valued functions on $\Omega$ that are square-integrable, have square-integrable derivative, and vanish on the boundary $\partial \Omega$. Here the inner product is given by $$\smash{\langle u, v \rangle = \int_{\Omega} u(x) \, v(x) {\, \mathrm{d}}x + \int_{\Omega} \nabla u(x) \cdot \nabla v(x) {\, \mathrm{d}}x.}$$ Let $g \in V$ be given. We consider the problem of finding an $f \in V$ such that $$\label{eq:laplace}
\Delta f(x) = -g(x), \qquad (x \in \Omega).$$ The first step in the finite-element method is to rewrite the above problem into its *weak formulation*.[^4] Let $h \in V$ and suppose $f$ is a solution to , then using integration by parts $$\int_{\Omega} g(x) \, h(x) {\, \mathrm{d}}x = -\int_{\Omega} \Delta f(x) \, h(x) {\, \mathrm{d}}x
= -0 + \int_{\Omega} \nabla f(x) \cdot \nabla h(x) {\, \mathrm{d}}x.$$ Hence, every solution $f$ necessarily satisfies the weak formulation of this problem: $$\label{eq:laplaceweak}
a(f, h) = b(h), \qquad (h \in V),$$ where $$a(u, v) := \int_{\Omega} \nabla u(x) \cdot \nabla v(x) {\, \mathrm{d}}x, \qquad b(u) := \int_{\Omega} g(x) \, u(x) {\, \mathrm{d}}x.$$
If we now choose functions $h_1, \ldots, h_m \in V$, we can look at the approximate solution $\phi$ to in the subspace $V_m := \langle h_1, \ldots, h_m \rangle_{{\mathbf{R}}} \subseteq V$ spanned by $h_1, \ldots, h_m$. Because $\phi \in V_m$, there exist coefficients $\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_m \in {\mathbf{R}}$ such that $\phi = \sum_{i = 1}^m \phi_i \, h_i$, and therefore, $$b(h_j) = a(\phi, h_j) = a \left( \sum_{i = 1}^m \phi_i \, h_i, h_j \right)
= \sum_{i = 1}^m \phi_i \, a(h_i, h_j), \qquad (1 \leq j \leq m).$$ So solving in $V_m$ for $\phi$ amounts to solving the linear system $$\sum_{i = 1}^m a(h_i, h_j) \, \phi_i = b(h_j), \qquad (1 \leq j \leq m),$$ for $(\phi_1, \ldots, \phi_m) \in {\mathbf{R}}^m$. By choosing $h_1, \ldots, h_m$ such that their supports only have a small overlap we create a sparse matrix $A \in {\mathbf{R}}^{m \times m}$ with entries $a_{i \, j} := a(h_j, h_i)$ that are nonzero only for the $1 \leq i, j \leq m$ where $\supp h_i \cap \supp h_j \neq \emptyset$. This can be done, for instance, by triangulating $\Omega$ and choosing for each vertex $i$ in the triangulation a function $h_i$ with support contained in all triangles adjacent to the vertex $i$.
We can now directly create a visual representation for the various hypergraph representations of the matrix $A$ ():
1. for the symmetric, bipartite, column-net, and row-net representations, we map each vertex $i$, $r_i$, and $c_i$ to the center of $\supp h_i$ in ${\mathbf{R}}^d$,
2. for the finegrain representation, we map each vertex $v_{i \, j}$ to the center of $\supp h_i \cap \supp h_j$ in ${\mathbf{R}}^d$.
Thus, in this case, we can generate a visual representation from our original problem with little extra effort.
However, not all matrices have an immediate geometric origin (e.g. `twotone`), so we would like to be able to create such a visual representation ourselves if it cannot be provided directly. Hence, we will continue by discussing how to create such a visual representation in . In , we show how to use visual representations for hypergraph partitioning, and in we apply this in the context of sparse LU decomposition. We conclude by implementing these methods and comparing them with both SuperLU and Mondriaan in .
Creating visual representations {#sec:genvisrep}
===============================
To create visual representations, we employ the method described in [@Fruchterman1991; @Hu2005; @Walshaw2003], generalized to visualizing hypergraphs: we let the vertices of the hypergraph repel each other by an electrostatic-like force and let the hyperedges bind their vertices together like rubber bands. We model this as the minimization of an energy function where we lay out the graph in at least three dimensions (to prevent having to treat the special cases $d = 1$ and $d = 2$ where the form we propose for the energy function is not appropriate). For brevity, we will simply enumerate the vertices of the hypergraph we consider, thus assuming that $V = \{1, \ldots, k\}$ for some $k \in {\mathbf{N}}$.
\[def:graphenergy\] Let $G = (\{1, \ldots, k\}, \{e_1, \ldots, e_l\})$ be a finite weighted hypergraph with vertex weights $w_1, \ldots, w_k > 0$, hyperedge costs $c_1, \ldots, c_l > 0$, and let $d \geq 3$ be the dimension of the target space. Define $$U := \{(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in {\mathbf{R}}^{d \times k} {\ |\ }\forall 1 \leq i < j \leq k : x_i \neq x_j\}.$$
Then the *energy function of $G$* is defined as $$\label{eq:graphenergy}
f(x_1, \ldots, x_k) := \underbrace{\frac{\alpha}{2} \sum_{j = 1}^l c_j \sum_{i \in e_j} \|x_i - z_j\|^{\gamma}}_{\text{rubber bands}} + \underbrace{\frac{\beta}{2} \sum_{j = 1}^k \sum_{\substack{i = 1 \\ i \neq j}}^k \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|x_i - x_j\|^{\delta}}}_{\text{repelling charges}},$$ for $(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U$, where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta > 0$ are constants, and for $1 \leq j \leq l$ the center of hyperedge $e_j$ is defined as $$\smash[t]{z_j := \frac{1}{|e_j|} \sum_{i \in e_j} x_i.}$$
Now, we will generate a visual representation by finding $$\label{eq:mingraphenergy}
{\mathrm{argmin \,}}\{f(x_1, \ldots, x_k) {\ |\ }(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U\},$$ where $f$ is the energy function of our hypergraph $G$. Approximate solutions to generated by our algorithm are shown in .
Constants
---------
We can tinker with $f$ by varying the constants $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\delta$. First, we can make a number of observations about $U$, $f$, and their symmetries.
1. $\{(R(x_1) + x, \ldots, R(x_k) + x) {\ |\ }(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U\} = U$ for all $x \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$ and all orthogonal transformations $R \in {\mathrm{O}}({\mathbf{R}}^d)$.
2. $U$ is an open subset of ${\mathbf{R}}^{d \times k}$ and $U = \theta \, U$ for all $\theta \in {\mathbf{R}}\setminus \{0\}$.
3. $f(R(x_1) + x, \ldots, R(x_k) + x) = f(x_1, \ldots, x_k)$ for all $x \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$, $R \in {\mathrm{O}}({\mathbf{R}}^d)$.
4. $f \in C(U, [0, \infty[\;)$ is continuous; $f$ is always bounded from below by $0$; and if $k \geq 2$, $f$ is unbounded from above.
So $U$ and $f$ are invariant under all translations and orthogonal transformations in ${\mathbf{R}}^d$, but while $U$ is scaling-invariant, $f$ in general is not.
Let $\theta > 0$ and $(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U$. Then $$f(\theta \, x_1, \ldots, \theta \, x_k) = \frac{\alpha \, \theta^{\gamma}}{2} \sum_{j = 1}^l c_j \sum_{i \in e_j} \|x_i - z_j\|^{\gamma} + \frac{\beta}{2 \, \theta^{\delta}} \sum_{j = 1}^k \sum_{\substack{i = 1 \\ i \neq j}}^k w_i \, w_j \, \|x_i - x_j\|^{-\delta}.$$ So in particular, for all $(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U$ we have that $$\frac{1}{\beta} \left( \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \right)^{\frac{\delta}{\gamma + \delta}} \, f \left( \left( \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma + \delta}} \, x_1, \ldots, \left( \frac{\beta}{\alpha} \right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma + \delta}} \, x_k \right) = \tilde{f}(x_1, \ldots, x_k),$$ where $\tilde{f}$ is given by , but with $\alpha = \beta = 1$. Therefore, we can pick $\alpha = \beta = 1$ without loss of generality; this just scales the minimum of $f$ by an overall factor (a similar scaling property is derived in [@Hu2005 Theorem 1]).
The function $f$ is continuously differentiable for $\gamma \geq 2$. Calculating the partial derivatives of $f$, we find that for $1 \leq m \leq d$, $1 \leq n \leq k$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:graphenergygradient}
\frac{\partial f(x_1, \ldots, x_k)}{\partial x_{m \, n}} =
- \frac{\alpha \, \gamma}{2} \sum_{\{j {\ |\ }n \in e_j\}} \frac{c_j}{|e_j|} \sum_{i \in e_j} \|x_i - z_j\|^{\gamma - 2} \, (x_{m \, i} - z_{m \, j}) \\
+ \frac{\alpha \, \gamma}{2} \sum_{\{j {\ |\ }n \in e_j\}} c_j \, \|x_n - z_j\|^{\gamma - 2} \, (x_{m \, n} - z_{m \, j})
+ \underbrace{\beta \, \delta \sum_{\substack{i = 1 \\ i \neq n}}^k \frac{w_i \, w_n}{\|x_i - x_n\|^{\delta + 2}} \, (x_{m \, i} - x_{m \, n})}_{\text{repelling charges}}.\end{gathered}$$ Note that simplifies considerably if we pick $\gamma = 2$, as $\sum_{i \in e_j} \|x_i - z_j\|^{2 - 2} \, (x_{m \, i} - z_{m \, j}) = (\sum_{i \in e_j} x_{m \, i}) - |e_j| \, z_{m \, j} = 0$, which makes the first term disappear, and ensures that $f \in C^{\infty}(U, [0, \infty[)$ is smooth. This motivates us to pick $\gamma = 2$.
Calculating the repelling-charges part of for $n = 1, \ldots, k$ requires ${\mathcal{O}}(k^2)$ evaluations which is too expensive for the hypergraphs we envision, with a huge number of vertices $k$. Luckily, we can circumvent this problem using techniques from [@Hu2005] and [@Nakasato2009]: we will build the $d$-dimensional equivalent of an octree to group the repelling charges into clusters and treat far-away clusters of charges as a single, but heavier charge. To ensure that this works properly the location of this larger charge will be the weighted average location of the cluster and the weight of the charge will be set equal to the sum of the charge weights in the cluster. Note that the repelling-charges part of $f$ in consists of applications of the map $x \mapsto \|x\|^{-\delta}$ for $x \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$, the Laplacian of which is given by $x \mapsto \delta \, (\delta - (d - 2)) \, \|x\|^{-\delta - 2}$. Hence, we can ensure that this part of $f$ is harmonic (i.e. with vanishing Laplacian) by choosing $\delta = d - 2$. This will in turn make our energy function behave well when treating clusters of far-away charges as a single, heavier charge, because of the *mean-value property* of harmonic functions (see [@Axler1992 Theorem 1.6 and 1.24]).
Recapitulating the above:
1. we can pick $\alpha = \beta = 1$ since this only scales a solution to ,
2. we should pick $\gamma = 2$ to be able to calculate the rubber band contribution to efficiently,
3. we should pick $\delta = d - 2$ to be able to approximate the repelling charge contribution to by treating clusters of charges as a single, heavier charge.
Inserting these constants we obtain the following expressions for $f$ and its partial derivatives: $$\begin{aligned}
f(x_1, \ldots, x_k)
& = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j = 1}^l c_j \sum_{i \in e_j} \|x_i - z_j\|^2
+ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j = 1}^k \sum_{\substack{i = 1 \\ i \neq j}}^k \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|x_i - x_j\|^{d - 2}}, \label{eq:graphenergysimple} \\
\frac{\partial f(x_1, \ldots, x_k)}{\partial x_{m \, n}}
& = \sum_{\{j {\ |\ }n \in e_j\}} c_j \, (x_{m \, n} - z_{m \, j})
+ (d - 2) \sum_{\substack{i = 1 \\ i \neq n}}^k \frac{w_i \, w_n}{\|x_i - x_n\|^d} \, (x_{m \, i} - x_{m \, n}). \label{eq:graphenergygradientsimple}\end{aligned}$$
Connectedness
-------------
Before we start describing an algorithm to solve , we should take care to ensure that such a solution actually exists.
\[thm:disconnectedminimum\] Let $G = (V, E)$, $U$, and $f$ be given as in and suppose $G$ is non-empty.
Then precisely one of the following statements is true:
1. there exists a solution $(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U$ to ,
2. $G$ is disconnected: we can write $V = V_1 \cup V_2$ as a disjoint union with $V_1, V_2 \neq \emptyset$, such that for all $e \in E$ we have $e \subseteq V_1$ or $e \subseteq V_2$.
Suppose $G$ is disconnected. Without loss of generality, we can order the vertices such that $V_1 = \{1, \ldots, k'\}$ and $V_2 = \{k' + 1, \ldots, k\}$. Suppose $(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U$ has minimum energy. Then for all $y \in {\mathbf{R}}^d \setminus \{0\}$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
f(x_1 + y, \ldots, x_{k'} + y, x_{k'} - y, \ldots, x_k - y) \\
= f(x_1, \ldots, x_k)
+ \beta \sum_{i = 1}^{k'} \sum_{j = k' + 1}^k \left( \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|2 \, y + x_i - x_j\|^{\delta}} - \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|x_i - x_j\|^{\delta}} \right).\end{gathered}$$ This equation holds because all hyperedges $e_j \in E$ are either completely contained in $V_1$ or completely contained in $V_2$, such that all $x_i$ with $i \in e_j$ are either translated by $+y$ or $-y$, respectively. This ensures that for all hyperedges $e_j \in E$ and vertices $i \in e_j$, the difference $x_i - z_j$ remains the same, which in turn leaves the first term of unchanged. For the second term of , we find that the difference $x_i - x_j$ only changes if $i \in V_1$ and $j \in V_2$, or vice versa.
For all $1 \leq i \leq k'$, $k' < j \leq k$, we have $$\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|2 \, (r \, y) + x_i - x_j\|^{\delta}}
= \lim_{r \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{|r|^{\delta}} \, \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|2 \, y + (x_i - x_j)/r\|^{\delta}}
= 0$$ as $y \neq 0$ and $\delta > 0$. In particular there exists an $r > 0$ such that for all $1 \leq i \leq k'$, $k' < j \leq k$ we have $$\smash{\frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|2 \, (r \, y) + x_i - x_j\|^{\delta}} - \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|x_i - x_j\|^{\delta}} < 0.}$$ So for this $r$ we have $$f(x_1 + r \, y, \ldots, x_{k'} + r \, y, x_{k' + 1} - r \, y, \ldots, x_k - r \, y) < f(x_1, \ldots, x_k),$$ hence $(x_1, \ldots, x_k)$ does not have minimum energy; we have reached a contradiction. Therefore, no solution to exists.
Suppose conversely that $G$ has no disconnected components: for any disjoint union $V = V_1 \cup V_2$ with $V_1, V_2 \neq \emptyset$ there exists an $e \in E$ such that $e \cap V_1 \neq \emptyset$ and $e \cap V_2 \neq \emptyset$. So in particular for every $v, w \in V$ there exists a path of hyperedges $e_1, \ldots, e_n \in E$ such that $v \in e_1$, $w \in e_n$, and $e_{j - 1} \cap e_j \neq \emptyset$ for all $1 < j \leq n$. We can see this by writing $V$ as the disjoint union $\{v\} \cup (V \setminus \{v\})$ which gives us $e_1$ and continuing by induction to obtain $e_{j + 1}$ from the disjoint union $V = (e_1 \cup \ldots \cup e_j) \cup (V \setminus (e_1 \cup \ldots \cup e_j))$ until we reach $w$ (which will happen eventually as each new hyperedge adds at least one new vertex and our hypergraph is finite).
Suppose that for a given $R > 0$, $(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U$ satisfies $$\label{eq:energymaxradius}
\max_{1 \leq i < j \leq k} \|x_i - x_j\| \geq R.$$ We will now focus on two vertices for which the relative distance in is maximal. As described above there exists a path of hyperedges between these two vertices. So there exist vertices $i_1, \ldots, i_{n + 1} \in V$ and edges $e_1, \ldots, e_n \in E$ such that $\|x_{i_1} - x_{i_{n + 1}}\|$ is maximal, $i_1 \in e_1$, $i_{n + 1} \in e_n$, and $i_j \in e_{j - 1} \cap e_j$ for $1 < j \leq n$. Along this path, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R & \leq \|x_{i_1} - x_{i_{n + 1}}\|
= \left\|x_{i_1} - z_1 + \sum_{m = 2}^n (z_{j - 1} - x_{i_m} + x_{i_m} - z_j) + z_n - x_{i_{n + 1}} \right\| \\
& \leq \|x_{i_1} - z_1\| + \sum_{m = 2}^n (\|x_{i_m} - z_{j - 1}\| + \|x_{i_m} - z_j\|) + \|x_{i_{n + 1}} - z_n\|.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, one of these $2 \, n$ terms must be at least $R / (2 \, n)$. So there exist a vertex $p \in V$ and a hyperedge $e_q \in E$ such that $p \in e_q$ and $\|x_p - z_q\| \geq R/(2 \, n) \geq R/(2 \, l).$ Therefore, $f$ satisfies $$\label{eq:energyblowupmax}
f(x_1, \ldots, x_k)
\geq \frac{\alpha}{2} \, c_q \, \|x_p - z_q\|^{\gamma}
\geq \frac{\alpha}{2 \, (2 \, l)^{\gamma}} \, \left( \min_{1 \leq j \leq l} c_j \right) \, R^{\gamma}.$$
Suppose that for a given $r > 0$, $(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \in U$ satisfies $$\min_{1 \leq i < j \leq k} \|x_i - x_j\| \leq r.$$ Fix $1 \leq i < j \leq k$ such that $\|x_i - x_j\|$ is minimal, then $$\label{eq:energyblowupmin}
f(x_1, \ldots, x_k) \geq \beta \, \frac{w_i \, w_j}{\|x_i - x_j\|^{\delta}} \geq \beta \, w_i \, w_j \, \frac{1}{r^{\delta}} \geq \beta \, \left( \min_{1 \leq i \leq k} w_i^2 \right) \, \frac{1}{r^{\delta}}.$$
Note that $f$ is invariant under translations, so that without loss of generality we can restrict ourselves to solutions with $x_1 = 0$. Let $$E := f((0, 0, \ldots, 0), (1, 0, \ldots, 0), (2, 0, \ldots, 0), \ldots, (k - 1, 0, \ldots, 0))$$ be an upper bound for the minimum value of $f$.
By we know that there exists an $R > 0$ such that $f(0, x_2, \ldots, x_k) > E$ whenever $\max_{i \neq j} \|x_i - x_j\| > R$. On the other hand, by there exists an $r > 0$ such that $f(0, x_2, \ldots, x_k) > E$ whenever $\min_{i \neq j} \|x_i - x_j\| < r$. So if $(0, x_2, \ldots, x_k) \in U$ has minimal energy, then necessarily $(0, x_2, \ldots, x_k) \in C$ where $$C := \bigcap_{1 \leq i < j \leq k} \left\{ (x_1 = 0, x_2, \ldots, x_k) \in {\mathbf{R}}^{d \times k} {\ |\ }r \leq \|x_i - x_j\| \leq R \right\}.$$ As $C \subseteq {\mathbf{R}}^{d \times k}$ is both closed and bounded (because $x_1 = 0$), $C$ is compact by Theorem 1.8.17 in [@Duistermaat2004i]. We also have that $C \subseteq U$ and $f$ is continuous on $U$, so $f$ is continuous on the compact set $C$ and therefore $f \vert_C$ attains its minimum at a certain point in $C$ by Theorem 1.8.8 of [@Duistermaat2004i]. Since the minimum of $f$ necessarily lays within $C$ by construction, this is a solution to .
Therefore, in solving , we should restrict ourselves to connected hypergraphs. If the provided hypergraph is not connected, we have to treat each connected component separately, where a solution is guaranteed to exist by .
Algorithm
---------
$p_v \gets v$; $p_v \gets p_{p_v}$; $p \gets \min \{p_v {\ |\ }v \in e\}$; $p_{p_v} \gets p$; $p_v \gets p_{p_v}$;
We use the above observations to create a multilevel algorithm which approximates a minimum-energy solution. Firstly, we find the connected components via . This algorithm works by creating a forest, i.e. a collection of rooted trees, where the parent of a vertex $v \in V$ is denoted by $p_v \in V$, and each root satisfies $p_v = v$. The algorithm merges the trees of all vertices contained in a hyperedge, for all hyperedges. After this is completed, each vertex is directly attached to its root, which represents its connected component.
$G^0 \gets G$; $j \gets 0$; coarsen $G^j$ to $G^{j + 1}$ with surjective $\pi^j : V_{G^j} \rightarrow V_{G^{j + 1}}$; $j \gets j + 1$; let $x^j$ be a random visual representation for $G^j$ (so pick $x^j(v) \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$ at random for all vertices $v \in V_{G^j}$); improve $x^j$ by ; \[algline:vmovisrepimp\] \[algline:vmovisreppar\] $x^{j - 1}(v) \gets $ scale $x^j(\pi^j(v))\, + $ small random displacement; $j \gets j - 1$;
Secondly, we apply to each connected component to generate a visual representation. We create a hierarchy of coarsenings of the hypergraph and visual representations for these coarser hypergraphs, to avoid getting stuck in local energy minima. Here, we follow the graph visualization algorithm from [@Hu2005]. We coarsen hypergraphs by creating a maximal matching that is constructed greedily from heavy (high cost) hyperedges, as heavy hyperedges have the tendency to pull the vertices contained in them closer together when we try to find the energy minimum, and then merging the matched vertices. To prevent star hypergraphs from forming (which disrupt this matching procedure [@Davis2010]) we also always match single-neighbor vertices to their neighbor. Coarsening a hypergraph $G$ to a hypergraph $H$ in this way, we obtain a surjective map $\pi : V_G \rightarrow V_H$ which maps each collection of matched vertices of $G$ to a single vertex of $H$. We also merge hyperedges $e, e' \in E_G$ satisfying $\pi(e) = \pi(e')$ (where $\pi(e) = \{\pi(v) {\ |\ }v \in e\}$) to a single hyperedge and set the cost of this new hyperedge to the sum of the costs of $e$ and $e'$. At of , we introduce the **parallel do** construct. We use it to denote parallel for-loops that can directly be parallelized because their iterations are independent.
For the coarsest version of the hypergraph, we start out with a random visual representation, which is then improved by using the steepest descent method. After the visual representation has been improved for the coarse hypergraph we scale it and add small random displacements, to ensure that different vertices in the fine hypergraph do not occupy the same position. Thus, we obtain a visual representation for the fine hypergraph. This layout is then again improved by . We continue doing this until we obtain a visual representation for the original hypergraph.
build tree $T$ recursively clustering $x_1, \ldots, x_k$; $y_n \gets 0$; $z_j \gets \frac{1}{|e_j|} \sum_{i \in e_j} x_i$; $y_n \gets y_n + c_j \, (x_n - z_j)$; (cf. ) $t \gets $ root of $T$; $y_n \gets y_n + (d - 2) \, w_t \, w_n \, \|x_t - x_n\|^{-d} \, (x_t - x_n)$; (cf. ) $t \gets $ sibling of $t$; $t \gets $ child of $t$; $y_n \gets y_n + (d - 2) \, w_i \, w_n \, \|x_i - x_n\|^{-d} \, (x_i - x_n)$; (cf. ) $t \gets $ sibling of $t$; determine appropriate stepsize $\alpha > 0$; $x_n \gets x_n - \alpha \, y_n$;
gives the details of the improvement procedure on of . The part of the gradient of the energy function $f$ belonging to $x_n$, is denoted by $y_n$. We create a tree $T$ which recursively groups the points belonging to the visual layout; this tree consists of nodes $t \in T$ which have position $x_t \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$ (the average position of all points contained in $t$) and weight $w_t > 0$ (the sum of the weights of all vertices contained in $t$). The functionality of siblings of nodes in the tree is extended by letting the root have a $\text{dummy}$ node as sibling (denoting the end of the tree traversal), and letting nodes without siblings have the sibling of their parent as sibling. This facilitates a fast, direct tree traversal without backtracking [@Nakasato2009]. During steepest descent, we determine the step size by comparing the bounding box volume to the individual gradients of the vertices to prevent blowup for the first few steps and then decrease the found stepsize by multiplying it by $0.9$ [@Hu2005]. Note that apart from the building of the tree grouping the hypergraph vertices, almost all parts of consist of $d$-dimensional floating point arithmetic that is directly parallellizable over all vertices and hyperedges. This makes suitable for many-core architectures such as GPUs.
Partitioning {#sec:partitioning}
============
Suppose that $x_1, \ldots, x_k \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$ is a visual representation of our hypergraph $G = (\{1, \ldots, k\}, \{e_1, \ldots, e_l\})$, obtained either directly or by using the methods from . Then we will use this spatial layout to create a partitioning of the hypergraph in a desired number of $m \in {\mathbf{N}}$ parts. To do so, we employ the `k-means++` method [@Arthur2007], given by . This algorithm searches for $m$ centers $z_1, \ldots, z_m \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$ such that $$\label{eq:kmeans}
\sum_{i = 1}^k \min_{1 \leq j \leq m} \|x_i - z_j\|^2$$ is minimal, which is NP-hard for all $m \geq 2$ [@Aloise2009]. The advantage of `k-means++` is that the algorithm finds $z_1, \ldots, z_m$ in $\mathcal{O}(k \, m \, \log m)$ time, while the value of is expected to be within a factor of $8 \, (\log m + 2)$ from its minimum value already at the start () of the first iteration [@Arthur2007]. The `k-means++` algorithm therefore permits us to isolate clusters quickly in the visual representation of our hypergraph, which correspond to highly interconnected patches of vertices in the hypergraph. is furthermore easily parallelized in shared memory (lines \[algline:kmeanspar1\] and \[algline:kmeanspar2\]). The sum at can also be performed in parallel by computing partial sums for the $z_j$ and summing these afterwards.
set $z_1$ to a randomly chosen point from $\{x_1, \ldots, x_k\}$; \[algline:kmeanspar1\] $d_i \gets \min_{1 \leq j < n} \|x_i - z_j\|^2$; choose $z_n$ to be equal to $x_i$ with probability $d_i / (d_1 + \ldots + d_k)$; \[algline:kmeansstart\] \[algline:kmeanspar2\] $j_i \gets {\mathrm{argmin \,}}_{1 \leq j \leq m} \|x_i - z_j\|^2$; $C_j := \{1 \leq i \leq k {\ |\ }j_i = j\}$; $z_j := \frac{1}{|C_j|} \sum_{i \in C_j} x_i$; \[algline:kmeanssum\]
The $m$ disjoint subsets $C_1, \ldots, C_m \subseteq V$ produced by form an $m$-way partitioning of $V$. It should be remarked that this way of generating a partitioning does not enforce balancing of the partitioning, but in general `k-means++` does a good job of dividing the point set into parts of approximately equal size: large groups of points pull centers harder towards themselves, which enlarges the other, smaller, groups. Such balancing can be observed in and . Partitionings generated by can further be improved by subjecting them to a few iterations of the Kernighan–Lin algorithm [@Kernighan1970].
LU decomposition {#sec:lu}
================
We will now apply the ideas discussed in the previous sections to performing an LU decomposition of a given matrix in parallel using nested dissection [@George1973; @Hendrickson1998], see also [@Aykanat2004; @Catalyurek2009; @Grigori2010; @Hu2000; @Mehrabi1993].
\[def:lu\] Let $A \in {\mathbf{C}}^{m \times m}$ be a given $m \times m$ matrix. Then a *(permuted) LU decomposition* of $A$ is a decomposition of the form $$\label{eq:ludecomposition}
P \, A \, Q = L \, U,$$ where $P, Q \in \{0, 1\}^{m \times m}$ are permutation matrices and $L, U \in {\mathbf{C}}^{m \times m}$ with entries $l_{i \, j}$, $u_{i \, j}$ respectively, such that $l_{i \, j} = 0$ for $i < j$, $u_{i \, j} = 0$ for $i > j$, and $l_{i \, i} = 1$ for all $i$.
$\pi_k \gets k$, $\sigma_k \gets k$; \[algline:blockludiagonal\] \[algline:blocklupivot\] find $k \leq i, j \leq m$ such that $|a_{i \, j}|$ is maximal; swap rows $k$ and $i$ and swap $\pi_k$ and $\pi_i$; swap columns $k$ and $j$ and swap $\sigma_k$ and $\sigma_j$; $a_{i \, k} \gets a_{i \, k} / a_{k \, k}$; $a_{i \, j} \gets a_{i \, j} - a_{i \, k} \, a_{k \, j}$; \[algline:blockluinner\] set $p_{i \, j}$ to $1$ if $\pi_i = j$ and $0$ otherwise, to form $P$; set $q_{i \, j}$ to $1$ if $\sigma_j = i$ and $0$ otherwise, to form $Q$; set $l_{i \, j}$ to $a_{i \, j}$ if $i > j$, $1$ if $i = j$, and $0$ otherwise, to form $L$; set $u_{i \, j}$ to $a_{i \, j}$ if $i \leq j$ and $0$ otherwise, to form $U$;
We include permutations in to ensure that well-behaved matrices like $\left( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ also have an LU decomposition. Calculating an LU decomposition for a given matrix with complete pivoting is described by . While this algorithm is fine for small dense matrices, we get into trouble with large sparse matrices for two reasons: takes $\mathcal{O}(m^3)$ iterations (which scales rather badly), regardless of matrix sparsity, and as illustrated by , the sparsity of the original matrix may be lost during the decomposition, requiring up to $\mathcal{O}(m^2)$ memory. We will remedy these problems by calculating appropriate permutation matrices $P$ and $Q$, using the techniques from the previous sections.
\[exa:fillin\] Consider the following decomposition (using without pivoting): $$\left( \begin{matrix} 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 2 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 2 \end{matrix} \right)
\, = \,
\left( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\frac{1}{2} & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{3} & 1 & 0 \\
\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{3} & -\frac{1}{2} & 1 \end{matrix} \right) \,
\left( \begin{matrix} 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & \frac{3}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\
0 & 0 & \frac{4}{3} & -\frac{2}{3} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{matrix} \right).$$ Here, the sparsity pattern of the original matrix is lost completely in the $L$ and $U$ factors, and a *fill-in* of six new nonzeros is created. Suppose we permute the matrix by swapping the first and last rows and columns, then we obtain the following decomposition: $$\left( \begin{matrix} 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 2 \end{matrix} \right)
\, = \,
\left( \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} & 1 \end{matrix} \right) \,
\left( \begin{matrix} 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \end{matrix} \right).$$ Now, $L$ and $U$ have the same sparsity pattern as the original matrix. Furthermore, performing on the permuted matrix also required less work because of zeros that were preserved during decomposition: the two loops around can skip most rows and columns because either $a_{i \, k}$ or $a_{k \, j}$ is equal to $0$.
Recursive BBD form {#sec:recbbd}
------------------
Following we will try to bring the sparse matrix into Bordered Block Diagonal (BBD) form [@Hu2000] as illustrated in (a). The block in the lower-right corner is commonly called the *Schur complement*. A row that contains a nonzero in a column that intersects the first diagonal block and also in a column that intersects the second diagonal block is said to be *cut* or *split* with respect to the subdivision of the matrix. Cut columns are defined similarly. Performing on a matrix in such a form will only generate fill-in in the shaded blocks and the costly inner loop can skip the empty blocks. By doing this recursively, see (b), the amount of fill-in will be further reduced. This principle is called *nested dissection* [@George1973].
![Nested dissection for LU decomposition. (a) Bordered Block Diagonal (BBD) matrix form; (b) recursive BBD matrix form; (c) LU decomposition contributions; (d) matrix form for .[]{data-label="fig:recursivebbd"}](recbbdfull){width="9cm"}
Such a recursive matrix layout furthermore permits us to create a parallel LU decomposition algorithm (similar to [@Mehrabi1993]). We illustrate this in (c) where we are busy performing along the diagonal of diagonal block 1 (for the sake of simplicity we do not perform any pivoting). For this nonzero on the diagonal, performing LU decomposition will only modify the darkly shaded parts of the matrix and therefore leave the diagonal blocks 2, 4, and 5 untouched. Furthermore, the LU decomposition contributions of all diagonal blocks to the Schur complements 3, 6, and 7 do not depend on the actual values in the Schur complements, so we can perform LU decomposition on blocks 1, 2, 4, and 5 in parallel and add the contributions to the Schur complements afterwards. To process the nonzero on the diagonal of block 1, we need nonzero values not only from the cut rows and columns of Schur complement 3 (solid arrows), but *also* from the rows and columns of Schur complement 7 (dashed arrows). So we need to keep track of *all* previous Schur complements during parallel LU decomposition.
For the parallel LU algorithm outlined in , we therefore work recursively on a matrix of the form illustrated in (d). Here, we added *contribution blocks* $A_C$, $A^C_{C1}$, $A^C_{C2}$, $A^C_{CS}$, $A^R_{C1}$, $A^R_{C2}$, and $A^R_{CS}$ to the matrix, which are indicated by a darker shade. At the start of (so for the original matrix $A$), these are empty, but as the algorithm further recurses, the contribution blocks will contain all the contributions of the LU decomposition to Schur complements of the previous recursion levels (i.e. the data required for the dashed arrows in (c)). In an implementation of it would be efficient to store the nonzeros $a_{i \, j}$ of the matrix by increasing $\min \{i, j\}$. Thus, we keep all data necessary to perform the LU decomposition at together, regardless of the level of recursion. This is better than storing the nonzeros by increasing $i$ (Compressed Row Storage, CRS) or $j$.
\[algline:parlusubdivide\] apply recursively and in parallel to $$\includegraphics[width=7cm]{recbbd3b}$$ add the contributions from $A_1$ and $A_2$ to $A_S$, $A_C$, $A^R_{CS}$, and $A^C_{CS}$; \[algline:parlublock1\] perform LU decomposition (e.g. ) on $$\includegraphics[width=1.2cm]{recbbd3c},$$ only permuting within $A_S$ and stopping after factorizing $A_S$; \[algline:parlublock2\] perform LU decomposition on $A$, only permuting within the lightly shaded part of the matrix and stopping after factorizing $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_S$;
It is important to note that the LU decompositions performed in on and are incomplete in the sense that they only treat part of the given matrix. In , this would amount to specifying a number $1 \leq m' < m$ and letting $k$ run from $1$ to $m'$ at and choosing $i$ and $j$ such that $k \leq i, j \leq m'$ at . To improve performance, multifrontal [@Davis1997] or supernodal [@Demmel1999] methods could be used to perform these LU decompositions. The condition at in is used to stop the algorithm whenever the resulting diagonal block becomes so small that a direct LU decomposition would outperform further recursion, or when there is a risk of the diagonal matrices becoming singular. Note that is *processor-oblivious* in the sense that we can continue recursing on the diagonal blocks while there are still more processors available, up to the recursion depth where the diagonal blocks are still sufficiently large.
Since with this parallel method we can only pivot within each block (not doing so would destroy the recursive BBD form), we could encounter a singular submatrix, as illustrated by and .
\[thm:luranks\] Let $A \in {\mathbf{C}}^{a \times a}$, $B \in {\mathbf{C}}^{b \times b}$, $C \in {\mathbf{C}}^{c \times c}$ such that $d := a - (b + c) \geq 0$ and $A$ is of the form $$A = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\cline{1-1} \cline{3-3}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{B} & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{1-2}
0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{C} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{1-3}
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{D} \\
\cline{1-3}
\end{array} \right).$$
If $\det(A) \neq 0$, then $$\label{eq:luranks}
b + c - d \leq \rank(B) + \rank(C) \leq b + c.$$
First of all, note that if the matrix $A' \in {\mathbf{C}}^{a \times a}$ is obtained from $A$ using Gauss–Jordan elimination with column pivoting, then $\det(A) = 0$ if and only if $\det(A') = 0$. Suppose that $\det(A) \neq 0$, then by performing these operations on $B$ and $C$ separately, we find the nonzero value $$\begin{aligned}
& \det \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-2} \cline{5-5}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{I_{\rank(B)}} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{1-2}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{3-4}
0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{I_{\rank(C)}} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{3-4}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{2-2} \cline{4-5}
0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{D} \\
\cline{2-2} \cline{4-5}
\end{array} \right)
= \pm \det \left( \begin{array}{ccccc}
\cline{1-1} \cline{4-5}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{I_{\rank(B)}} & 0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{1-3} \cline{4-5}
0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{I_{\rank(C)}} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{2-3}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{3-5}
0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{D} \\
\cline{3-5}
\end{array} \right)
\\
& = \pm \det \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\cline{3-3}
0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
0 & 0 & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} \\
\cline{1-3}
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{D} \\
\cline{1-3}
\end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The resulting smaller matrix has size $a - \rank(B) - \rank(C)$ and must be of maximum rank because its determinant is nonzero. Let $e := a - \rank(B) - \rank(C) - d$, then $e \geq a - b - c - d = 0$. If $e \leq d$, a matrix with the above nonzero pattern can have maximum rank $e + d$. If $e > d$, the rank of such a matrix can be at most $2 \, d < e + d$. Therefore, it is necessary that $e \leq d \iff a - \rank(B) - \rank(C) - d \leq d \iff a - 2 \, d \leq \rank(B) + \rank(C) \iff (b + c + d) - 2 \, d \leq \rank(B) + \rank(C)$, from which follows.
shows us that we cannot assume our diagonal blocks to be invertible whenever the Schur complement is nonempty. Furthermore, it motivates us to reduce the size of the Schur complement: this will increase the minimum rank that the diagonal blocks are required to have and thereby increases stability. In terms of hypergraph partitioning we therefore see that we should at all times try to make the Schur complement *as small as possible*: this will increase parallelism in the sense that more rows/columns can be treated in parallel by , it will reduce fill-in, and it will improve stability.[^5]
To prevent the diagonal blocks from becoming singular we allow for an optional specification of a desired (strengthened) matrix diagonal beforehand [@Duff2001], which will be preserved by the generated permutations as described in . As shows however, this is not guaranteed to solve the problem.
\[exa:luproblem\] Let $$A = \left( \begin{matrix}
2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
4 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2
\end{matrix} \right), \quad
B = \left( \begin{matrix}
2 & 1 \\
4 & 2
\end{matrix} \right), \quad
C = \left( \begin{matrix}
2 & 1 \\
1 & 2
\end{matrix} \right).$$ Then $a = 5$, $b = 2$, $c = 2$, $d = 1$, $\rank(B) = 1$, $\rank(C) = 2$, and $\det(A) = 3 \neq 0$. Therefore, the bound in is tight: $b + c - d = 3 = \rank(B) + \rank(C)$. Note that $\det(B) = 0$ even though the product of the diagonal elements of $A$ is maximal.
During the performed benchmark with SuperLU () we found that for $8$ of the $28$ matrices no pivoting was required at all (not even in the Schur complements), and in all other cases pivoting with a threshold of $10^{-6}$ was sufficient. Therefore, if we keep the Schur complements small, strengthen the matrix diagonal, and use threshold pivoting within diagonal blocks and Schur complements, we anticipate that submatrix singularity will not pose any significant problems in practice.
Permutations {#sec:permutations}
------------
We will now apply the ideas from sections \[sec:hypergraphs\], \[sec:genvisrep\], and \[sec:partitioning\] to obtain the desired permutations to bring a given sparse matrix $A \in {\mathbf{C}}^{m \times m}$ with $\mathit{nz}$ nonzeros into recursive BBD form. This method will be referred to as *visual matrix ordering* (VMO). We assume the matrix to be square, because we want to use VMO for LU decomposition.
Firstly, we need to determine what kind of hypergraph we will use to represent $A$ (from ). Using only the symmetric representation is not appropriate, because LU factorization is usually applied to unsymmetric matrices. The column-net and row-net approach often do not yield optimal partitionings when compared to the finegrain representation [@Catalyurek2001]. However, the finegrain representation results in $\mathit{nz}$ vertices, thus degrading the performance of , which would scale as $\mathcal{O}(\mathit{nz} \, \log(\mathit{nz}) + m)$. Inspection of the visual layouts revealed that a good layout for the finegrain representation could be obtained by laying out its dual (the bipartite representation, which is a graph) and then mapping each nonzero to the average of the points of the row and column belonging to that particular nonzero. As the bipartite representation has only $2 \, m$ vertices instead of $\mathit{nz}$, the layout can be generated much faster, scaling as $\mathcal{O}(m \, \log(m) + \mathit{nz})$. It also permits us easily to maintain a previously selected strengthened diagonal in the generated permutations
Therefore, let $G = (V, E)$ be the bipartite representation of our sparse matrix $A$. To avoid the problem of ending up with a singular matrix during recursion, we permit a desired strengthened diagonal to be specified with the matrix, in the form of a perfect bipartite graph matching $M \subseteq E$, [@Duff2001]. We will view this matching as a map $\mu : V \rightarrow V$ which maps each vertex $v \in V$ to $\mu(v) \in V$ such that the edge $\{v, \mu(v)\} \in M$ (as $M$ is a perfect matching, exactly one vertex $\mu(v)$ has this property).
We can also incorporate the values of the nonzeros of the matrix in the partitioning by setting the edge costs of $G$ to $|a_{i \, j}|$ for each edge $\{i, j\} \in E$ (optionally rescaling these values to a fixed interval to avoid convergence issues in ). This is natural, because zeros of the matrix are not incorporated at all in (as they are not included in $E$), so letting the edge cost of $\{i, j\}$ go to $0$ as $|a_{i \, j}| \rightarrow 0$ gradually decreases the influence of $\{i, j\}$ on the energy function of $G$ to zero. However, as this reduced the quality of the partitionings in terms of fill-in, we did not use this option for the performed experiments.
determine two centers $z_1, z_2 \in {\mathbf{R}}^d$ in $x(V) \subseteq {\mathbf{R}}^d$ by ; $p(v) \gets 1$; $p(v) \gets 2$; $r \gets z_2 - z_1$; $\delta \gets \frac{1}{2} (z_2 + z_1) \cdot r$; \[algline:permuteplane\] \[algline:vertexseparator\] $p(v) \gets 3$; $p(\mu(v)) \gets 3$; \[algline:respectmatch1\] $p(w) \gets 3$; $p(\mu(w)) \gets 3$; \[algline:respectmatch2\] $q(e) \gets \max \{p(v), p(w)\}$; sort the vertex pairs $\{v, \mu(v)\}$ by their $p$-values to obtain $V_1, V_2, V_3$; \[algline:permutecountsort\] sort the edges by their $q$-values to obtain $E_1, E_2, E_3$;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Matrix partitioning for (left) and improved partitionings obtained by bringing either the Schur complement (middle) or the cut rows and columns (right) into BBD form.[]{data-label="fig:permute"}](permutebbd "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![Matrix partitioning for (left) and improved partitionings obtained by bringing either the Schur complement (middle) or the cut rows and columns (right) into BBD form.[]{data-label="fig:permute"}](recbbd2b "fig:"){width="3.5cm"} ![Matrix partitioning for (left) and improved partitionings obtained by bringing either the Schur complement (middle) or the cut rows and columns (right) into BBD form.[]{data-label="fig:permute"}](recbbd2 "fig:"){width="3.5cm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using we generate a visual representation of $G$. Then we apply to obtain $V = V_1 \cup V_2 \cup V_3$ and $E = E_1 \cup E_2 \cup E_3$, where $p(v)$ and $q(e)$ denote the part indices for vertices $v$ and edges $e$. turns the edge separator, obtained by partitioning the vertices using , into a vertex separator. To do so we exploit the geometry of the partitioning by letting the vertices closest to the plane (described in by its normal $r$ and distance $\delta$ on ) separating the two groups of vertices be chosen to be added to the vertex separator. We ensure that we preserve the strengthened diagonal in lines \[algline:respectmatch1\] and \[algline:respectmatch2\]: this ensures that edges from the matching $M$ are contained completely in either $V_1$, $V_2$, or $V_3$, which prevents them from entering the darker off-diagonal blocks in . This can be skipped if no matching is available or desired (e.g. in the context of sparse matrix–vector multiplication instead of LU decomposition), which will result in smaller $V_3$ and $E_3$. However, for LU decomposition it is necessary, in particular to maintain square blocks on the diagonal. After the first iteration of , we again apply it to $G_1 = (V_1, E_1)$ and $G_2 = (V_2, E_2)$ and continue doing this recursively to obtain recursive BBD permutations for our matrix $A$ as shown in the rightmost column of .
The permutations themselves can directly be obtained from the recursive partitioning of $V$: the rows and columns of the block $E_1$ (see ) are exactly the vertices in $V_1$, and similarly for the rows and columns of the blocks $E_2$ and $E_3$. Therefore, a simple linear walk through the reordered vertices ( of ) will provide the proper permutations of the rows and columns of our matrix $A$.
When permuting the matrix to recursive BBD form, we have additional freedom in permuting the rows and columns of $V_3$ in (left) (also see ). A direct way to do this is also to apply recursively to $G_3 = (V_3, E'_3)$, just like we do for $G_1$ and $G_2$. Here $E'_3$ consists of all edges $e \in E_3$ satisfying $e \subseteq V_3$ (so $E'_3$ is the lightly shaded $E_3$ part of (left)). This gives permutations as illustrated in (middle). An advantage of this method is that the strengthened diagonal is also maintained within the Schur complement.
Another way in which the additional freedom can be used, is to bring the cut rows and columns into recursive BBD form as illustrated in (right). Doing this is a little more tricky: first of all, we assign a two-bit number to each vertex in $V_3$, initially set to $00$. We also keep track of the edges $E_{1 \, 3}$ between $V_1$ and $V_3$, and edges $E_{2 \, 3}$ between $V_2$ and $V_3$. Now, if $V_i$ ($i = 1, 2$) is split with into $V_{i \, 1}$, $V_{i \, 2}$, and $V_{i \, 3}$ we can loop through all edges $\{v, w\}$ in $E_{i \, 3}$ with $w \in V_3$. Then if $v \in V_{i \, 1}$ we set the first bit of the number associated with $w$ and if $v \in V_{i \, 2}$ we set the second bit. If we do this for both splits of $V_1$ and $V_2$, and then sort the vertices in $V_3$ by their two-bit numbers we obtain a permutation as shown in (right). By expanding these numbers to $b$ two-bit pairs and keeping track of the edges extending to the Schur complements for up to $b$ splits, we can bring the cut rows and columns into recursive BBD form up to the $b$th level.
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
We implemented the VMO algorithm in C++ using the Intel Threading Building Blocks library for many-core parallelism where we chose to generate visual representations in $d = 4$ dimensions to be able to perform all parallel vector calculations in and efficiently on either the CPU (one Streaming SIMD `xmm*` register for a point in ${\mathbf{R}}^4$) or the GPU (a `float4` register for a point in ${\mathbf{R}}^4$). This furthermore ensures that we do not need to take a square root in .
Matrix Size Nonzeros VMO CMD MMD$+$ MMD$\times$
--------------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --
`swang1` 3169 20841 **6.2** 7.7 6.7 8.2
`lns_3937` 3937 25407 **15.0** 17.5 132.2 17.5
`poli_large` 15575 33074 **1.6** 1.6 1.6 1.6
`mark3jac020`$^*$ 9129 56175 68.1 45.6 121.3 **43.9**
`fd18`$^*$ 16428 63406 **21.9** 24.1 302.0 25.5
`lhr04`$^*$ 4101 82682 6.0 **4.1** 20.6 4.3
`raefsky6` 3402 137845 **2.7** 3.4 4.5 3.1
`shermanACb`$^*$ 18510 145149 19.0 45.3 **14.3** 57.2
`bayer04`$^*$ 20545 159082 10.2 4.2 41.8 **4.2**
`Zhao2`$^*$ 33861 166453 158.1 115.1 1280.1 **107.0**
`mult_dcop_03` 25187 193216 3.1 **2.0** 3.4 5.9
`jan99jac120sc`$^*$ 41374 260202 71.8 **15.9** 52.4 19.7
`bayer01`$^*$ 57735 277774 7.5 **5.4** 47.6 5.6
`sinc12`$^*$ 7500 294986 37.8 44.7 **36.3** 45.3
`onetone1`$^*$ 36057 341088 32.1 14.4 149.0 **14.2**
`mark3jac140sc`$^*$ 64089 399735 **111.0** 125.7 4435.0 152.0
`af23560` 23560 484256 **24.8** 25.0 82.7 26.9
`e40r0100`$^*$ 17281 553562 9.2 9.2 137.5 **8.4**
`sinc15`$^*$ 11532 568526 56.3 58.0 **48.7** 57.2
`Zd_Jac2_db`$^*$ 22835 676439 9.6 **5.1** 32.1 5.7
`lhr34c`$^*$ 35152 764014 7.0 4.7 50.5 **4.7**
`sinc18`$^*$ 16428 973826 **65.7** 67.8 68.2 72.3
`torso2` 115967 1033473 10.2 16.8 **8.2** 14.5
`twotone` 120750 1224224 35.8 **15.2** 1448.1 17.0
`lhr71c`$^*$ 70304 1528092 6.7 4.8 66.4 **4.7**
`av41092`$^*$ 41092 1683902 64.6 26.0 177.6 **23.8**
`bbmat`$^*$ 38744 1771722 32.0 **26.7** 1000.6 26.8
: Comparison between VMO and SuperLU 4.1 in terms of fill-in, defined as $(\mathit{nz}(L) + \mathit{nz}(U) - \mathit{nz}(I))/\mathit{nz}(A)$ for $A = L \, U$. The best result for each matrix is **bold**, CMD = COLAMD, MMD$+$ = MMD($A^T + A$), and MMD$\times$ = MMD($A^T \, A$) are the column pre-orderings determined by SuperLU. Matrices marked with $^*$ required threshold $10^{-6}$ pivoting for VMO.[]{data-label="tab:superlucomparison"}
To measure the quality of the generated permutations we compared VMO to the SuperLU [@Demmel1999] LU decomposition package by measuring fill-in, see . In this case we made use of the additional freedom in the cut rows and columns by also recursively subdividing the cut parts of the graph while retaining the strengthened diagonal ( (middle) and (left)) to ensure that few small pivots are encountered along the diagonal. We performed four decompositions for each matrix where we used permutations generated by VMO, as well as the built-in COLAMD($A$), MMD($A^T + A$), and MMD($A^T \, A$) column permutations generated by SuperLU. For the permutations generated by SuperLU we retained the default SuperLU 4.1 options, while for the VMO permutations we first performed a run without any pivoting and then a run with threshold pivoting[^6], using a value of $u = 10^{-6}$. To ensure we would not run into numerical problems we used a strengthened diagonal obtained via a heavy edge matching in the bipartite representation of $A$, augmented to a perfect matching via the Hopcroft–Karp algorithm [@Hopcroft1973]. We furthermore validated the decomposition by comparing calculated condition numbers for all permutation methods and letting SuperLU calculate the backward error of the solution to $A \, x = b$ obtained by solving the system using the decomposition $A = L \, U$ (section 3.1 of [@Golub1996]) for $b = A \, (1, \ldots, 1)^T$. shows that in $8$ of the $28$ cases, decomposition of the matrices permuted by VMO did not require *any* pivoting at all, not even in the Schur complements. From the table we see that VMO compares favorably with SuperLU: looking at the lowest fill-in of COLAMD($A$), MMD($A^T + A$), and MMD($A^T \, A$) and the fill-in of VMO for each of the $28$ test matrices, we find that on average the fill-in of VMO equals $1.52$ times the lowest fill-in of the other methods, and that VMO outperforms all other methods in $8$ cases. This indicates that the permutations generated by VMO are useful in the context of sparse LU decomposition.
We also compared VMO with Mondriaan [@Vastenhouw2005] in terms of matrix partitioning. Firstly, we did this in the context of cache-oblivious sparse matrix–vector multiplication where the matrices are permuted into recursive Separated Block Diagonal (SBD) form [@Yzelman2009] (with the cut rows and columns in the middle instead of at the end) to decrease the number of cache-misses, independent of the particular cache hierarchy of the processor performing the multiplication. Results are further improved by also using the additional freedom in the cut rows and columns to bring these into recursive SBD form ( (right)). We measure the matrix multiplication time with the same program and on the same processor as [@Yzelman2010]: a single node of the Huygens supercomputer equipped with a dual-core 4.7GHz IBM Power6+ processor with 64kB L1 cache per core, a semi-shared L2 cache of 4MB, and an L3 cache of 32MB on which the matrix–vector multiplication program has been compiled with the IBM XL compiler. In , we compare the matrix–vector multiplication time for the original matrix with the best result from [@Yzelman2010] (where the matrix has been permuted by Mondriaan), and with the result obtained by using VMO.
Matrix Rows Columns Nonzeros Orig. [@Yzelman2010] VMO
---------------------- --------- --------- ---------- ------- ---------------- -------
`ex37` 3565 3565 67591 0.116 0.113 0.113
`memplus` 17758 17758 126150 0.308 0.300 0.280
`rhpentium` 25187 25187 258265 0.645 0.627 0.646
`lhr34` 35152 35152 764014 1.37 1.34 1.34
`lp_nug30` 52260 379350 1567800 5.35 4.85 9.15
`s3dkt3m2` 90449 90449 1921955 7.81 7.27 7.80
`tbdlinux` 112757 21067 2157675 6.43 5.03 5.66
`stanford` 281903 281903 2312497 19.0 9.35 5.88
`stanford_berkeley` 683446 683446 7583376 20.9 19.2 22.5
`wikipedia-20051105` 1634989 1634989 19753078 249 116 128
`cage14` 1505785 1505785 27130349 69.4 74.4 99.0
`wikipedia-20060925` 2983494 2983494 37269096 688 256 264
: Comparison with Mondriaan in the context of cache-oblivious sparse matrix–vector multiplication [@Yzelman2010]. We compare the original matrix–vector multiplication time with the best time from [@Yzelman2010] (which used Mondriaan 3.01 for reordering) and the best time with VMO.[]{data-label="tab:spmvcomparison"}
VMO performs poorly for `lp_nug30` and `cage14`. For `lp_nug30`, this can be explained by a lack of underlying geometrical structure: the visual representation of this matrix is a featureless blob from which little extra information can be obtained, resulting in quite bad permutations. The matrix `cage14` already possesses a nonzero layout that is well suited for matrix–vector multiplication: both Mondriaan and VMO fail to improve the matrix–vector multiplication time. For `tbdlinux`, `wikipedia-20051105`, and `wikipedia-20060925` VMO shows improvements comparable to those of Mondriaan, while for `memplus` and `stanford` the results are even better. As generating the permutations with VMO is much faster (see ), this makes VMO a viable alternative to Mondriaan in this context.
Another comparison with Mondriaan was made in terms of the cut-net metric, which is the appropriate metric in the context of LU decomposition because of . Hence, we look at the maximum number of cut rows and columns in all matrix (sub)divisions. While Mondriaan divides the matrix among a given number of processors, VMO continues subdividing the matrix until it can no longer continue. Therefore, we ran Mondriaan with a hybrid splitting strategy for the cut-net metric to divide the matrix into $256$ parts with a permitted imbalance of $0.1$ to obtain permutations comparable to those of VMO.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The matrices `rhpentium` (left) and `wikipedia-20070206` (right), permuted by VMO to recursive BBD and recursive SBD form, respectively. Additional permutation freedom is used for `rhpentium` as in (middle), and for `wikipedia-20070206` as in (right).[]{data-label="fig:permute2"}](pentium_vmo "fig:"){width="5.0cm"} ![The matrices `rhpentium` (left) and `wikipedia-20070206` (right), permuted by VMO to recursive BBD and recursive SBD form, respectively. Additional permutation freedom is used for `rhpentium` as in (middle), and for `wikipedia-20070206` as in (right).[]{data-label="fig:permute2"}](wiki2007_vmo "fig:"){width="5.0cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------- --------- --------- ----------
Matrix Speedup Speedup Relative
cut
`ex37` 13.4 53.2 0.39
`memplus` 2.1 11.0 2.86
`rhpentium` 14.5 57.0 1.08
`lhr34` 6.5 39.8 2.47
`lp_nug30` 9.1 144.7 2.20
`s3dkt3m2` 4.7 26.7 1.02
`tbdlinux` 25.0 228.3 0.75
`stanford` 7.9 78.6 2.37
`stanford_berkeley` 17.0 118.0 3.26
`wikipedia-20051105` 36.0 290.7 0.61
`cage14`$^*$ 4.3 29.1 0.62
`wikipedia-20060925`$^*$ 119.4 1104.3 1.02
-------------------------- --------- --------- ----------
: Comparison with Mondriaan in terms of the calculation time and the largest number of cut rows/columns in a split. Speedup is defined as the time required by Mondriaan 3.01 to perform the matrix partitioning, divided by the time required by VMO to generate both the visual representation and permutations (V + O) or just the permutations (O). The last column gives the maximum of the number of cut rows and columns in all splits of VMO, divided by the maximum obtained by Mondriaan. Entries marked with a $^*$ were benchmarked on a different system because of a lack of memory. The test matrices are the same as those from .[]{data-label="tab:mondriaancomparison"}
In , we measure the time it takes Mondriaan to perform the matrix partitioning and divide this by the time it takes VMO to generate a visual representation of the matrix and to generate a partitioning from this visual representation. All timings except for those marked with $^*$ were measured on a system with a quad-core 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 860 processor and 8GB RAM, in particular to illustrate the gains of using VMO on a many-core system. The entries marked with $^*$ needed to be benchmarked on a different system, because of Mondriaan’s memory requirements: these were performed on a dual quad-core 2.4GHz AMD Opteron 2378 system with 32GB RAM. From we find that VMO is on average $21.6$ times faster than Mondriaan, and if for all matrices a visual representation would already have been given the average speedup would even be $181.8$. We also measure the maximum of the number of cut rows and columns in all subdivisions of the matrix for VMO and divide this by the maximum for Mondriaan. This gives a measure for the relative maximum cut size when comparing the two methods: the maximum cut size obtained by VMO is on average $1.55$ times that of Mondriaan and in four cases it is less. To make the comparison as fair as possible we used Mondriaan with the cut-net metric for partitioning, but it should still be remarked that minimizing the maximum number of cut rows and columns is not the primary objective of Mondriaan and the balancing restrictions placed on Mondriaan are absent for VMO.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that it is possible to create and use the visual representations of hypergraphs to generate partitionings and orderings which are of sufficient quality for sparse LU decomposition () and sparse matrix–vector multiplication (). Our method generates orderings on average $21.6$ times faster than Mondriaan (). We generalized the 2D/3D graph visualization method from [@Hu2005] to generate hypergraph geometries in higher dimensions. Furthermore, the algorithms to generate visual representations () and matrix orderings () are well suited to shared-memory many-core parallel architectures such as current many-core CPUs and GPUs. We have implemented these algorithms in the software package VMO.
This also opens up opportunities for further research, such as moving from a shared-memory parallel architecture to distributed-memory, which would require significant modifications of , , and the data structures involved. Since VMO is fast and parallel, it also has potential to remove computational partitioning bottlenecks in large applications such as the human bone simulations in [@Bekas2010].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Albert-Jan Yzelman for performing the sparse matrix–vector multiplication experiments (). We thank Job Kuit, Joop Kolk, and Paul Zegeling for helpful discussions and comments. We thank the Dutch supercomputing center SARA in Amsterdam and the Netherlands National Computing Facilities foundation NCF for providing access to the Huygens supercomputer.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands (`[email protected]`).
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht, the Netherlands (`[email protected]`).
[^3]: Nonzero entries have numerical value $1$.
[^4]: If the weak formulation satisfies the conditions of the Lax–Milgram theorem, the solution $f$ to the weak formulation is unique and hence also the solution to the original problem, provided such a solution exists [@Johnson1987].
[^5]: So hypergraph partitioners used for the purpose of bringing the matrix into recursive BBD form should use the *cut-net* metric instead of the $(\lambda - 1)$-metric, reducing the number of cut hyperedges, and not the associated communication volume.
[^6]: SuperLU performs row pivoting by generating a row permutation $\pi$ such that for all $1 \leq j \leq m$, $|a_{\pi(j) \, j}| \geq u \, \max_{1 \leq i \leq m} |a_{i \, j}|$ where $u \in [0, 1]$ is the desired threshold, see [@Duff1986 eqn (4.4.7)].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Anatoliy Tugay\
Dept. of Astronomy & Space Physics, Faculty of Physics,\
Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University,\
Glushkova Ave. 4, Kyiv, Ukraine\
email: [[email protected]]{}
title: 'X-ray galaxies in nearby filaments'
---
.\
New sample of X-ray galaxies selected from 2XMMi catalogue in SDSS region is analysed in this work. Spatial distribution and X-ray AGN spectral properties are discussed. A new method for extragalactic filament detection and description is proposed.
[Keywords: X-rays: galaxies; large-scale structure of Universe]{}
Introduction
============
Xgal - a sample of 5021 X-ray emitting galaxies was compiled in [@tugay12] based on 2XMM catalog ([@watson09]) and HyperLeda database. In [@tugay11] it was shown that extragalactic X-ray sources are AGNs and clusters. It was also shown in [@tugay13] that the main type of X-ray galaxies is Seyfert 1. X-ray spectra of 42 Seyfert 1 galaxies from SDSS region were analysed in [@tugay13a]. These galaxies has radial velocities from 4000 to 39000 km/s (appropriate for filament detection) and does not necessary belongs to known filaments from [@smith12]. An example of 100 Mpc-thick slice with Xgal objects and filaments is presented at Fig. 2. For 7 galaxies X-ray spectra were obtained in [@tugay13a] at first time. One of them is presented at Fig. 3.
![Distribution of u magnitude and X-ray flux from redshift for extragalactic X-ray sources. Note the absence of dependence of X-ray flux from distance.[]{data-label="fig1"}](tugay_fig1.eps){width="3.4in"}
![Sky distribution of SDSS galaxies with radial velocities between 4000 and 11000 km/s. Larger dots are faint X-ray galaxies, squares - bright X-ray galaxies with $F_{X}>3.7\cdot 10^{-13} erg/cm^2$, rectangles - filaments from [@smith12], double squares - galaxies in filaments which were considered in [@tugay13].[]{data-label="fig2"}](tugay_fig2.eps){width="3.4in"}
![Example of new X-ray spectrum of Seyfert galaxy in SDSS filament: 2MASX J15585579+0248338. Details see in [@tugay13a].[]{data-label="fig3"}](tugay_fig3.eps){width="3.4in"}
New results
===========
Xgal sample was inspected to check entries of identification of more than one optical galaxy with the same X-ray source. 344 such entries were found in the whole sample. Twelve X-ray sources corresponds to 3 optical galaxies, three to 4, two to 5 and one to 6. The cases of multiple identifications in 4000-39000 km/s range includes 12 X-ray galaxy clusters, 3 groups and 8 pairs. 392 extragalactic X-ray sources were found in Xgal sample in the same redshift range but outside SDSS sky region. These are 138 galaxy clusters, 36 groups, 3 pairs, 175 AGNs, 1 emission line galaxy, 5 irregular galaxies and 34 indefinite galaxies. AGNs includes 86 Seyfert 1 galaxies, 49 Seyfert 2 galaxies, 8 quasars, 13 blasars, 7 radio galaxies and 3 LINERs. It was assumed that complete filament distribution can be recovered by applying the method of steepest gradient to smoothed (sky) galaxy distribution in 100 Mpc thick slice. The results are unappropriate yet.
Conclusions
===========
There are enought archival data for X-ray galaxies in filaments. New methods for correct filament detection are needed. Possible directions of further study of Xgal sample includes the analysis of X-ray spectra outside SDSS region and at $z>0.1$, the description of numerous faint sources and the development of physical model of AGN X-ray spectrum.
2012, *MNRAS*, 422, 25
2011, *Odessa Astronomy Publications*, 24, 72
2012, *Odessa Astronomy Publications*, 25, 142
2013, *Adv. in Astron. and Space Physics*, 3, 116
2013, *Astronomical School’s Report*, 9, 64
2009, *A & A*, 493, 339
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study periodic lattices, such as vortex lattices, driven by an external force in a random pinning potential. We show that effects of static disorder persist even at large velocity. It results in a novel moving glass state which has analogies with the static Bragg glass. The lattice flows through well-defined, elastically coupled, [*static*]{} channels. We predict barriers to transverse motion resulting in finite transverse critical current. Experimental tests of the theory are proposed.'
address:
- |
Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Universit[é]{} Paris-Sud,\
B[â]{}t. 510, 91405 Orsay, France[@junk]
- |
CNRS-Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de l’Ecole\
Normale Supérieure, 24 rue Lhomond, F-75231 Paris[@frad]
author:
- 'T. Giamarchi'
- 'P. Le Doussal'
title: Moving glass phase of driven lattices
---
An open question is to understand the effect of static substrate disorder on periodic media such as vortex lattices [@blatter_vortex_review], charge density waves (CDW) [@gruner_revue_cdw], Wigner crystals [@wigner_andrei], colloids [@murray_colloid_prb], magnetic bubbles [@seshadri_bubbles_long]. Numerous experiments study such elastic systems in motion under an applied force produced by a current (vortex lattices), a voltage (CDW), an electric field (colloids) and a magnetic field gradient (magnetic bubbles). It is therefore important to describe the physical properties of both the static and moving lattices. The statics of vortex lattices has been much investigated recently and it is generally agreed that disorder leads to a glass state with diverging barriers, pinning and loss of translational order. The precise nature of the glass state however has been the subject of much debate [@feigelman_collective; @fisher_vortexglass_long; @nattermann_vortex] in particular concerning the decay of translational order and the presence of topological defects. It was shown recently [@giamarchi_vortex_global] within an elastic theory that, because of the periodicity of the lattice, the decay of translational order is only algebraic and that the resulting glass phase still exhibits divergent Bragg peaks. We argued that at weak disorder, a Bragg glass exists without equilibrium dislocations and also that such a glass will undergo a transition into a strongly disordered vortex glass containing topological defects, or a pinned liquid, upon increase of disorder or field [@giamarchi_vortex_global]. This is compatible with recent decoration and neutron experiments [@yaron_neutron; @giamarchi_comment-neutrons] and with the behaviour of the critical point [@safar_tricritical_prl] in the phase diagram of vortex lattices where a transition between two different glass states is observed upon raising the field [@khaykovich_zeldov].
It is thus crucial to determine how much of the glassy properties of the static system remain once the lattice is set in motion, and how translational and topological order behave. At large velocity $v$ it was expected that since the pinning force on a given vortex varies rapidly, disorder would produce little effect. Perturbation theories in disorder and $1/v$ were thus developped [@hauger_schmidt; @larkin_ovchinnikov] to compute velocity as a function of the external force, and to estimate critical currents. Recently, Koshelev and Vinokur [@koshelev_dynamic] have extended the perturbation theory of [@hauger_schmidt; @larkin_ovchinnikov] to compute vortex displacements $u$. They concluded that at low $T$ and above a certain velocity the moving lattice is a crystal at an effective temperature $T^{\prime }=T+T_{sh}$. Several experiments indeed suggest that a fast moving lattice is more ordered [@thorel_vortex; @yaron_neutron]. The effect of pinning can be described [@koshelev_dynamic] by some effective shaking temperature $T_{sh}\sim 1/v^2$ defined by the relation $\langle |u(q)|^2 \rangle = T_{sh}/c_{66} q^2$ This would suggest bounded displacements in $d>2$ and absence of glassy properties in the moving solid.
In this Letter we reconsider this problem. We show that in the case of a moving lattice the perturbation theory of [@koshelev_dynamic] breaks down, even at large $v$. The physical reason is that some modes of the disorder are not affected by the motion and [*static*]{} disorder is still present in the moving system. As a result the moving lattice is in fact a [*moving glass*]{}. Since translational order in the moving frame decays and relative displacements are not bounded, such a phase cannot be described by simple perturbation theory [@perturb]. As in the statics, [*periodicity*]{} is crucial and the moving lattice has a completely different behaviour than other driven systems such as manifolds. The physics of this new phase can be described in terms of [*elastic channels*]{}. When the force is applied along a principal lattice direction the rows of the lattice flow along well-defined, nearly parallel, preferred paths in the pinning potential. The manifold of these optimal channels (lines for 2D lattice and sheets for 3D vortex line lattice) which exhibits a roughness that we estimate, are a purely static and reproducible feature of the disorder configuration. We also predict that the moving glass exhibits barriers to an additional small transverse force and compute the associated transverse critical current. The other modes of the disorder are suppressed by motion and give rise to an additional wiggling motion of the particles around the static channel configuration, which can be treated in perturbation.
We now derive the equation of motion for a lattice submitted to external force $F$. We denote by $R_i(t)$ the position of an individual vortex in the laboratory frame. The lattice as a whole moves with a velocity $v$. We thus introduce the displacements $R_i(t)=R_i^0+vt+u_i(t)$ where the $R_i^0$ denote the equilibrium positions in the perfect lattice with no disorder. $u_i$ represent the displacements in the moving frame. We consider in the following the elastic limit in the absence of topological defects, thus assuming $|u_i - u_{i+1}| \ll a$ where $a$ is the lattice spacing, an assumption which may be checked self-consistently. One then takes the continuum limit $u_i(t)\to u(r,t)$, where $u(r,t)$ is a smoothly varying $n$-component vector field, which components we denote by $u_\alpha(r,t)$. It is convenient here to express the displacement field $u_\alpha(r,t)$ in terms of the coordinates $(r,t)$ of the laboratory frame. The equation of motion in the laboratory frame is then: $$\eta \partial_t u_\alpha +\eta v \cdot \nabla u_\alpha = c\nabla^2 u_\alpha
+ F^{\text{pin}}_{\alpha}
+ F_{\alpha}-\eta v_{\alpha} + \zeta_{\alpha}
\label{eqmotion}$$ where $\eta$ is the friction coefficient, $F^{\text{pin}}_{\alpha}(r,t) = - \delta {\cal E}/\delta u_{\alpha}(r,t)$ is the pinning force, ${\cal E}[u(r,t)]$ is the pinning energy, and the thermal noise satisfies $\overline{\zeta_{\alpha} (r,t)\zeta_{\beta} (r^{\prime},t^{\prime})}
= 2 T \delta_{\alpha \beta}
\delta^d(r-r^{\prime})\delta(t-t^{\prime})$. For clarity we use here an isotropic elastic constant $c$. The realistic case, discussed at the end, has the same large distance physics. The term $\eta v \cdot \nabla u_\alpha$ comes from expressing the displacement field in the laboratory frame and $-\eta v_{\alpha}$ is the average friction. $v$ is determined by the condition that the average of $u$ is zero. (1) is exact up to higher powers of derivatives of $u$, negligible in the elastic limit. The pinning energy can be expressed in terms of the vortex density $%
\rho(r,t)=\sum_i\delta (r-R_i^0-vt-u_i(t))$. One has ${\cal E}[u(r,t)]=\int
d^dr\rho(r,t)V(r)$ where the random potential has correlations $\langle
V(r)V(r^{\prime})\rangle = \Delta(r-r^{\prime})$ of range $r_f$. Since even for smooth displacement fields the density is a series of delta peaks, the continuum limit for ${\cal E}[u]$ should be performed by distinguishing [@giamarchi_vortex_global] the various Fourier components of the density $\rho (r,t)=\rho _0(1-\nabla \cdot u + \sum_{K\neq 0} \exp(iK \cdot
(r-vt-u(r,t)))$ where $K$ spans the reciprocal lattice and $\rho_0$ is the average density. Using this decomposition in (\[eqmotion\]) the force due to disorder naturally splits into a [*static*]{} and a time-dependent part: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\eta \partial_t u_\alpha + \eta v \cdot \nabla u_\alpha = c\nabla^2 u_\alpha
+F_\alpha^{\text{stat}}(r,u(r,t)) + F_\alpha^{\text{dyn}}(r,t,u(r,t)) + F_\alpha -
\eta v_\alpha + \zeta_\alpha(r,t) \label{eqmotion2} \\
&& F_\alpha ^{\text{stat}}(r,u) = V(r)\rho_0\sum_{K.v=0} iK_\alpha
e^{iK\cdot(r-u)} - \rho_0 \nabla_\alpha V(r) , \qquad
F_\alpha^{\text{dyn}}(r,t,u) = V(r)\rho_0\sum_{K.v\neq 0} iK_\alpha
e^{iK\cdot(r-vt-u)} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The static part of the random force comes from the modes such that $K.v=0$ which exist for any direction of the velocity commensurate with the lattice. The maximum effect is obtained for $v$ parallel to one principal lattice direction, the situation we study now. Reflection symmetry then imposes that $v$ and $F$ are aligned along direction $x$, the $d-1$ transverse directions being denoted by $y$. $F_\alpha ^{\text{stat}}$ gives the dominant contribution to the lattice deformations. In first approximation we drop $F_\alpha ^{\text{dyn}}$ and solve the remaining static problem (leading to a reference ground state at $T=0$). $F_\alpha^{\text{dyn}}$ gives additional fluctuations on top of this ground state, estimated below. The static term $\rho_0 \nabla_\alpha V$, which comes from the Fourier components $k \ll 1/a$ of the disorder, produces alone only bounded displacements for $d > 1$. Thus, as for the non-moving lattice [@giamarchi_vortex_global] for $d>2$, it does not change the large scale physics and we drop it. Since $F_\alpha^{\text{stat}}$ is now along $y$, and depends only on $u_y$, $u_x=0$ in the ground state.
The most important terms in (1) thus lead to the following equation of motion in the laboratory frame which involves only the [*transverse*]{} displacements $u_y$: $$\begin{aligned}
\eta \partial_t u_y +\eta v\partial_x u_y &=& c\nabla^2 u_y
+ F^{\text{stat}}(r,u_y(r,t)) + \zeta_y (r,t) \nonumber \\
F^{\text{stat}}(x,y,u_y) &=& V(x,y) \rho_0 \sum_{Ky \ne 0} K_y
\sin{K_y(u_y-y)}
\label{staticequ}\end{aligned}$$ This is now a non-trivial static disordered model and one expects a glass phase at low temperature, with pinning of the field $u(r,t)$ into preferred configurations. Thus, the moving vortex configurations can be described in terms of [*static channels*]{} that are the easiest paths where particle follow each other in their motion. Channels in the elastic flow regime behave differently than the one introduced to describe slow plastic motion between pinned islands [@jensen]. In the topologically ordered moving glass they form a manifold of elastically coupled, almost parallel lines or sheets (for vortex lines in $d=3$) directed along $x$ and characterized by transverse wandering $u_y$. In the laboratory frame they are determined by the static disorder and do not fluctuate with time. In the moving frame, since each particle is tied to a given channel which is now moving, it indeed wiggles and dissipates but remains highly correlated with the neighbors. To obtain the roughness of the manifold of channels we compute the correlator of relative displacements $B(x,y)=\langle [u(x,y)-u(0,0)]^2\rangle$. A detailed analysis will be presented elsewhere [@giamarchi_moving_long]. One defines two characteristic lengths for decay of translational order, $R_x^a$ and $R_y^a$ along the longitudinal and transverse direction by $B(R) \sim a^2$. One expects three regimes.
[*short scale regime*]{}: At very short scales one can expand the pinning force to lowest order in $u$. This gives a simple model where pinning is described by a random force $F^{\text{stat}}(x)$ independent of $u$ whose correlator is $\langle F^{\text{stat}}(r)F^{\text{stat}}(r')\rangle
=\Delta \delta^d(r-r^{\prime })$ with $\Delta = \rho_0^2 \sum_{K_y} K_y^2\Delta _K$. This is the dynamic equivalent of the Larkin random force model and $B = B_{rf} + \langle u^2\rangle_{th}$: $$\label{larkinmove}
B_{rf}(x,y)=\int \frac{dq_x
d^{d-1} q_y}{(2\pi)^d} \frac{\Delta (1-\cos(q_x x+q_y y))}{(\eta v q_x)^2 +
c^2(q_x^2+q_y^2)^2}$$ and $\left\langle u^2 \right\rangle_{th}$ is the thermal displacement. One finds for $x > c/\eta v$ $B(x,y) \sim \Delta \frac{y^{3-d}}{c \eta v}H(c x/\eta v y^2)$ where $H(0)=\text{cst}$ and $H(z)\sim z^{(3-d)/2}$ at large $z$. $x$ scales as $y^2$ and the displacements are very anisotropic. For $x < c/\eta v$ one has the usual isotropic result. If one could extrapolate this behaviour to larger scales it would result in an algebraic decay of translational order in $d=3$ ($B(x,y) \sim \log|y|$) and exponential decay in $d=2$. However, since the Larkin model rests on the expansion in powers of $u$, it is valid only as long as $K_{\text{max}} u \ll 1$, where $K_{\text{max}} \sim 1/r_f$ is the highest Fourier component of the random potential [@giamarchi_vortex_global]. This defines two lengths $R_x^c$ and $R_y^c$ such that $B(R) \sim r_f^2$, below which the Larkin model is valid. At large velocity: $R_y^c = (r_f^2 v c/\Delta)^{1/(3-d)}$, $R_x^c = v (R_y^c)^2/c$. For smaller velocities $v < v^* \sim c(\Delta/c^2 r_f^2)^{1/(4-d)}$ the elastic term dominates and $R_x^c \sim R_y^c \sim R_{iso}^c$ where $R_{iso}^c$ is the static pinning length. These lengths are renormalized by temperature and by the dynamical part $u^d$. Note that this Larkin random force corresponds formally to the so-called “random mobility term” considered in [@krug; @balents_dynamics_vortex] and by keeping only this term one misses all the physics of the moving glass, e.g. the channels and the transverse barriers. As for the static case [@giamarchi_vortex_global] the pinning force in (\[staticequ\]) should be treated to all orders in $u$. Above this length scale pinning and metastability appear.
[*intermediate regime*]{}: At intermediate scales $R_y^c < y < R_y^a$ and $R_x^c < x < R_x^a$, the analogous of a random manifold regime [@feigelman_collective; @giamarchi_vortex_global] exists for which $u_y \sim y^\zeta$. The channels are determined by optimization of elasticity ($c q^2$ term), dissipation ($i \eta v q_x$ term) and the random potential seen independently by each channel in its vicinity. One expects many metastable nearly optimal configurations in that regime and glassy behaviour. Flory type arguments suggest that the scaling properties of this glass are related to the static Bragg glass by $d\to d+1$ and $n\to n-1$. The former comes from assuming $q_x\sim q_y^2$ and the latter from $u\to u_y$. The Flory estimate is then $\zeta^F=\frac{3-d}{n+3}$.
[*asymptotic regime*]{}: At large distances $x> R_x^a, y> R_y^a$, in $d=3$ the displacements have a slower, logarithmic growth. Estimates a la Fukuyama-Lee then give: $$\label{fukulee2}
R_y^a \sim (a^2 v c/\Delta)^{1/(3-d)}, \qquad
R_x^a = v (R_y^a)^2/c$$ The moving glass is highly anisotropic since $R_x^a/R_y^a$ diverges as $v\to \infty $. Its upper critical dimension is $d=3$, instead of $d=4$ for the static one. For $d > 3$ the moving system is not a glass but a perfect crystal at weak disorder or large $v$. For $d \leq 3$ weak disorder destroys long range order and results in a moving glass.
As an important consequence of the existence of the moving glass, barriers for transverse motion exist once the pattern of channels is established. Thus the response to an additional small transverse force $F_y$ is very non linear with activated behaviour. At $T=0$, neglecting the dynamic part of the disorder a true transverse critical current $J_y^c$ should exist. This can be seen by adding a transverse force in (\[staticequ\]). For $\eta v < \eta v^* \sim (R^c_{iso}/r_f) F_c$ where $F_c$ is the isotropic critical force, the Larkin domains remain isotropic and one expects $J_y^c$ to decrease slowly from $J^c_{iso}$ to a fraction of the longitudinal critical current $J_{iso}^c$ (since only the $K_y$ modes contribute). For $\eta v > \eta v^*$ one expect a much faster decay and a naive estimate for $J_y^c$ is obtained by balancing the pinning force with the transverse force acting on a Larkin domain: $$J_y^c=\frac{c_l}{\phi_0 r_f}\Delta^{1/2} (R_y^c)^{-(d-1)/2}(R_x^c)^{-1/2} \sim
\widetilde{\Delta }
^{2/(3-d)}$$ where $\tilde{\Delta }=\Delta /v$ is an effective velocity-dependent disorder and $c_l$ is the speed of light. In $d=3$ it yields exponential decay with $v$. In practice, $\eta v^*$ can correspond to a large driving compared to $F_c$. The above regimes correspond to collective pinning with $R_y^c >a$. For $R_y^c <a$, i.e $v < v_0 = \Delta a^{3-d}/c r_f^2$, single channel pinning leads to different estimates for $J_y^c$. Since motion is not modified below $J_y^c$, $dv_x/df_y$ also vanishes below the transverse critical force. One can expect non linear effects in the flow along $x$ since channel configuration is modified when $F_x$ is increased. A simpler example of transverse barriers is a lattice driven in a commensurate washboard potential $V(x,y)=U_0 \cos(K_0 y)- F_x x$. There it is clear that even in the moving frame the problem is static and that the transverse critical force is $F_y^c \sim U_0 K_0$. Even a single particule in the 2D potential $V(x,y) = f_c \cos(x) + f_c \cos(y) - F_x x$, has finite $F_y^c$. Its velocity can be computed as in [@ledoussal_vinokur] and becomes for $T \to 0$, $V_y = (F_y^2 - f_c^2)^{1/2} \theta(F_y-f_c)$, independent of $F_x$.
To estimate the effects of the time-dependent pinning force in (\[eqmotion2\]), we split $u=u^s+u^d$ into a static $u^s$ and a dynamics $u^d$ part. A reasonable estimate is: $$\label{dynamicequ}
\langle u^d . u^d \rangle_{q,\omega} =
\sum_{K.v \ne 0}
\frac{\rho_0^2 K^2 \Delta_K \delta(\omega-K.v)}{\eta^2v^2(K_x+q_x)^2+c^2 q^4}$$ The dynamic correlations are bounded due to the presence of mass term $K_x v$ in the denominator. $u^d$ saturates at large distances, even in $d=2$ if $T=0$. $u^d$ is smaller by a factor $a/R_x \ll 1$ compared to $u^s$ at the length scales $R_x$. $u^d$ thus represents a small additional wiggling motion around the ground state. The massive propagator in (\[dynamicequ\]) is very different from a thermal one $1/q^2$.
Extension to realistic elastic energy, e.g. a triangular lattice in $d=2$ is straightforward. The static displacements, within the random force model, are now $u_{\alpha}(q) = F_y(q)( P^T_{\alpha y}(i \eta v q_x + c_{66} q^2)^{-1}
+ P^L_{\alpha y}(i \eta v q_x + c_{11} q^2 )^{-1})$ where $c_{11}$ and $c_{66}$ are (dispersionless) bulk and shear moduli, respectively. Thus the mean square displacement $B(x,y)$ is again given, for $y>y^*$, by (\[displ\]) with $c$ replaced by $c_{11}$. Note that only shear modes were considered in [@koshelev_dynamic], an approximation which may hold for $y \ll y^*$ but misses the physics of the glass. Indeed only the [*compression*]{} modes are responsible for the glass (and lead to unbounded displacements for $d>2$) since both displacements and force have to be considered along y. In $d=3$ tilt modes would also be relevant for flux lines, and transverse shear modes for a solid. One finds $y^* = c_{11}/(\eta v) \sqrt{(c_{11}^2-c_{66}^2)/(c_{11}^2+c_{66}^2)}$.
The predictions of glassy structure, topological order, channel motion and transverse critical force can be tested in experiments. For vortex lattices $J_c^y$ can be measured in presence of a longitudinal current. Magnetic noise experiments and NMR probe $v t + u(x,t)$ and the phase at the washboard frequency should contain a static component with slow and anisotropic decay. Other experimental systems such as colloids, magnetic bubbles and double or triple incommensurate CDW should exhibit similar behavior. A transverse critical force may explain recent Hall voltage experiments in 2D Wigner crystals [@williams]. The predictions of channel motion and transverse critical current can be directly tested in numerical simulations [@koshelev_simulations].
(\[eqmotion2\]) shows the importance of the relative orientation of the lattice and the applied force. It has been argued [@hauger_schmidt] that to minimize power dissipation the lattice aligns with the force. This process may be slow and other orientations can be studied by applying a transverse field. We expect commensuration effects with devil’s staircase type structure in the response to additional force. At higher commensuration vectors the channel structure may become unstable due to stronger effect of $u^d$. Conversely, the larger the static part, the more stable the glass with fewer topological defects. The size of the plastic flow regime should thus depend on the lattice orientation. It is then possible that in $d=3$ for weak disorder the glass remains topologically ordered at all $v$ and that the intermediate plastic regime disappears at low T. One would thus go smoothly from the moving to the static Bragg glass. At large $v$ channels are nearly straight and out of equilibrium dislocations are thus suppressed. This allows to understand why in [@yaron_neutron] the plastic regime disappears when $J$ is slowly decreased.
Previous descriptions of moving systems, such as manifolds driven in periodic [@spohn] or disordered potentials, focused on the generation under RG of dissipative Kardar-Parisi-Zhang $(\nabla u)^2$ non linearities. They do occur, due to lattice cutoff, in driven random sine-Gordon models [@hwa_ledou; @krug]. They are not important here because of the statistical symmetry $u_y \to - u_y$ in (\[staticequ\]) and the fact that dynamic modes (\[dynamicequ\]) are massive. Thus, because of periodicity this problem belongs to a new universality class. KPZ terms may play a role for incommensurate motion.
In conclusion, we studied a lattice moving in a random potential. Static disorder dominates motion along symmetry directions and the moving system is a [*glass*]{} with a large amount of topological order. It is continuously related to the static Bragg glass and although the decay of translational order is slow it has genuine glass properties different from a usual solid. We predict experimental signatures such as elastic channels and transverse critical current.
We thank Argonne National Laboratory for hospitality and NSF-Office of Science and Technology Center for support under contract DMR91-20000. We are grateful to A. Koshelev and V. Vinokur for stimulating and interesting discussions during the making of this work, and a detailed explanation of [@koshelev_dynamic]. PLD acknowledges discussions with G. Crabtree and C. Bolle.
Laboratoire Associé au CNRS. email: [email protected].
Laboratoire Propre du CNRS, associé á l’Ecole Normale Supérieure et à l’Université Paris-Sud. email: [email protected].
G. Blatter [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 1125 (1994).
G. Gr[" u]{}ner, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**60**]{}, 1129 (1988).
E. Y. Andrei et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 2765 (1988).
C. A. Murray, W. O. Sprenger, and R. Wenk, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 688 (1990).
R. Seshadri and R. M. Westervelt, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 5150 (1992).
M. Feigelman, V.B. Geshkenbein, A.I. Larkin and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{} 2303 (1989).
D. S. Fisher and M. P. A. Fisher and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{} 130 (1990).
T. Nattermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2454 (1990).
T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{} 1530 (1994); Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{} 1242 (1995).
U. Yaron et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{} 2748 (1994)
T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} 3372 (1995).
H. Safar [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3800 (1993).
B. Khaykovich et al, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. (1995).
A. Schmid and W. Hauger, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**11**]{} 667 (1973).
A. I. Larkin and Y. N. Ovchinnikov Sov. Phys. JETP [**38**]{} 854 (1974).
A.E. Koshelev and V.M. Vinokur Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{} 3580 (1994).
R. Thorel et al. J. Phys. (Paris) [**34**]{} 447 (1973).
the invalidity of perturbation theory for transverse modes was noticed in [@hauger_schmidt].
H.J. Jensen, A. Brass and A.J. Berlinsky Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{} 1676 (1988); A. Brass, H.J. Jensen and A.J. Berlinsky Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{} 102 (1989).
T. Giamarchi, P. Le Doussal in preparation.
J. Krug, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} 1795 (1995).
L. Balents and M. P. A. Fisher preprint.
P. Le Doussal and V.M. Vinokur, Physica C [**254**]{} 63 (1995).
F. Williams Private Communication and F. Perruchot Thesis 1995.
A. E. Koshelev, V. M. Vinokur in preparation.
M. Rost and H. Spohn, Phys. Rev. E, [**49**]{} 3709 (1994).
T. Hwa, P. Le Doussal, unpublished.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The common practice in coreference resolution is to identify and evaluate the maximum span of mentions. The use of maximum spans tangles coreference evaluation with the challenges of mention boundary detection like prepositional phrase attachment. To address this problem, minimum spans are manually annotated in smaller corpora. However, this additional annotation is costly and therefore, this solution does not scale to large corpora. In this paper, we propose the [`MINA`]{}algorithm for automatically extracting minimum spans to benefit from minimum span evaluation in all corpora. We show that the extracted minimum spans by [`MINA`]{}are consistent with those that are manually annotated by experts. Our experiments show that using minimum spans is in particular important in cross-dataset coreference evaluation, in which detected mention boundaries are noisier due to domain shift. We will integrate [`MINA`]{}into <https://github.com/ns-moosavi/coval> for reporting standard coreference scores based on both maximum and automatically detected minimum spans.'
author:
- 'Nafise Sadat Moosavi$^{1}$'
- Leo Born$^2$
- Massimo Poesio$^3$
- |
Michael Strube$^{4}$\
$^1$Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing (UKP) Lab, Technische Universität Darmstadt\
$^2$Institute for Computational Linguistics, Heidelberg University\
$^3$School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London\
$^4$Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies gGmbH\
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: Using Automatically Extracted Minimum Spans to Disentangle Coreference Evaluation from Boundary Detection
---
=1
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Mark-Christoph Müller, Ilia Kuznetsov and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and feedbacks. This work has been supported by the Klaus Tschira Foundation, Heidelberg, Germany, the German Research Foundation (DFG) as part of the QA-EduInf project (grant GU 798/18-1 and grant RI 803/12-1), and the DFG-funded research training group “Adaptive Preparation of Information form Heterogeneous Sources” (AIPHES, GRK 1994/1).
Appendix {#sec:appendix}
========
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a strongly hyperbolic first-order formulation of the Einstein equations based on the conformal and covariant Z4 system (CCZ4) with constraint-violation damping, which we refer to as FO-CCZ4. As CCZ4, this formulation combines the advantages of a conformal and traceless formulation, with the suppression of constraint violations given by the damping terms, but being first order in time and space, it is particularly suited for a discontinuous Galerkin (DG) implementation. The strongly hyperbolic first-order formulation has been obtained by making careful use of first and second-order ordering constraints. A proof of strong hyperbolicity is given for a selected choice of standard gauges via an analytical computation of the entire eigenstructure of the FO-CCZ4 system. The resulting governing partial differential equations system is written in non-conservative form and requires the evolution of 58 unknowns. A key feature of our formulation is that the first-order CCZ4 system decouples into a set of pure ordinary differential equations and a reduced hyperbolic system of partial differential equations that contains only linearly degenerate fields. We implement FO-CCZ4 in a high-order path-conservative arbitrary-high-order-method-using-derivatives (ADER)-DG scheme with adaptive mesh refinement and local time-stepping, supplemented with a third-order ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter in order to deal with singularities arising with black holes. We validate the correctness of the formulation through a series of standard tests in vacuum, performed in one, two and three spatial dimensions, and also present preliminary results on the evolution of binary black-hole systems. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first successful three-dimensional simulations of moving punctures carried out with high-order DG schemes using a first-order formulation of the Einstein equations.'
author:
- Michael Dumbser
- Federico Guercilena
- Sven Köppel
- Luciano Rezzolla
- Olindo Zanotti
title: 'Conformal and covariant Z4 formulation of the Einstein equations: strongly hyperbolic first-order reduction and solution with discontinuous Galerkin schemes'
---
\[firstpage\]
Introduction
============
Large scale, fully general-relativistic numerical simulations have emerged in the last decade as a very powerful tool for the study of astrophysical systems, following the breakthrough calculations of the inspiral and merger of binary black holes [@Pretorius:2005gq; @Campanelli06; @Baker05a]. The interest for such numerical techniques and the results they can produce has been only strengthened by the recent direct detection of gravitational waves [@Abbot2016-GW-detection-prl], which paves the way for the forthcoming era of gravitational-wave astronomy.
General-relativistic simulations require (among other issues) stable and accurate methods for evolving the spacetime, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}for solving the Einstein field equations. The development of hyperbolic formulations of the Einstein equations that allow for long-term simulations of generic spacetimes, including the ones encompassing the physical singularities arising in the presence of black holes, has been therefore of great importance in numerical relativity. The first step in this direction has been the derivation of the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) formulation (originally introduced in [@Arnowitt62unfindable], but see [@Alcubierre:2008; @Bona2009; @Baumgarte2010; @Gourgoulhon2012; @Rezzolla_book:2013; @Shibata_book:2016] for a more modern perspective). While this formulation splits time and space and naturally presents general relativity as an initial boundary-value problem, suitable for numerical implementation, it is known to be not hyperbolic – at least when usual gauge choices are considered (see [@Sarbach2012] for a discussion) – and therefore unstable in numerical applications.
Subsequently, a lot of effort has been devoted to find hyperbolic formulations of the Einstein equations. These efforts have lead to the derivation of the Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura-Oohara-Kojima (BSSNOK) formulation [@Shibata95; @Baumgarte99; @Nakamura87; @Brown09], which achieves hyperbolicity via a conformal transformation of the 3-metric and the promotion of some contractions of the Christoffel symbols to independently evolved variables and, most importantly, by inserting the momentum and Hamiltonian constraint expressions in the evolution system. A general-covariant alternative is the Z4 formulation of [@Bona:2003fj; @Bona:2003qn; @Alic:2009], which has been presented both in first- and second-order form in the spatial derivatives. More successful have been formulations based on the Z4 one that include a conformal transformation of the metric. These are the Z4c formulation, that removes some source terms in the Einstein equations in order to bring the evolution equations into a form which is closer to the BSSNOK system [@Bernuzzi:2009ex], and the conformal and covariant CCZ4 formulation [@Alic:2011a; @Alic2013] (see also [@Sanchis2014; @Bezares2017] for some recent and slight variants). The Z4 family of formulations also admits mechanisms to damp constraint violations as they arise during the evolution [@Gundlach2005:constraint-damping; @Weyhausen:2011cg; @Alic:2011a; @Alic2013].
For completeness, it should be mentioned that the 3+1 formalism is not the only way to develop a formulation of the Einstein equations suitable for numerical implementation: alternatives are the generalized-harmonic formalism [[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@Garfinkle02; @Pretorius:2005gq; @Lindblom:2005gh; @Szilagyi:2006qy]; the characteristic-evolution formalism [@Winicour05] the conformal approach [@Friedrich:2002xz; @Husa02b] and fully-constrained formulations [@Cordero09]. These approaches, however, are not the subject of the present work.
Parallel to the quest for better formulations of the equations, the development and implementation of better numerical methods has been a main priority of ongoing research. While most general-relativistic codes use finite-differences ([[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@Brown2007b]) or spectral methods ([[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@Szilagyi:2009qz]) for the spacetime evolution, increasing interest is being focused towards DG methods (see, [[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@hesthaven2008] for an introduction and review). DG methods are very attractive due to their excellent scalability and wave-propagation properties. The latter allow the propagation of smooth linear and nonlinear waves over long distances with little dissipation and dispersion errors, and should thus be in principle particularly well suited for the solution of the Einstein equations, where (apart from physical singularities in black holes) the fields are smooth and high accuracy can be achieved.
So far, however, only a rather limited number of attempts have been made to solve the Einstein equations with DG methods. Field et al. [@field10] tested a second-order BSSNOK formulation, while Brown et al. [@Brown2012] developed a first-order formulation of BSSNOK, however both works were limited to spherical symmetry and vacuum spacetimes. The first DG implementation in non-vacuum spacetimes was published by Radice & Rezzolla [@Radice2011], but was still restricted to spherical symmetry. The first three-dimensional (3D) implementation, albeit in a fixed spacetime and focused on hydrodynamics was developed by Bugner et al. [@Bugner2015]. More recently, Miller and Schnetter [@Miller2016] proposed an operator-based DG method suitable also for second-order systems and applied it to the BSSNOK system, while Kidder et al. [@Kidder2016] developed a task based relativistic magnetohydrodynamics code.
In this work we propose a novel first-order form of the CCZ4 system, which we refer to as FO-CCZ4. We thoroughly study its eigenstructure and in particular show that it is strongly hyperbolic for two typical choices of gauges, namely zero shift with harmonic lapse and the Gamma-driver with 1+log slicing. We then implement this formulation in a fully three-dimensional code, using an ADER-DG algorithm with adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) and local time-stepping (LTS), supplemented with a high order ADER-WENO [@eno; @Liu1994; @Jiang1996] finite-volume subcell limiter [@Dumbser2009a; @Dumbser2010; @Dumbser2011] to deal with singularities in black-hole spacetimes. This family of schemes has already been successfully applied also to the classical and special relativistic MHD equations (see [@Zanotti2015b; @Zanotti2015c]).
We test the stability and accuracy of the ADER-DG discretization applied to our novel FO-CCZ4 formulation in a series of standard tests for general-relativistic codes [@Alcubierre2003:mexico-I; @Babiuc:2007vr]. We also verify that our scheme converges at the expected order of accuracy and we provide evidence of long-time robustness and stability. Finally we apply the method to the long-term evolution of single black-hole spacetimes, showing that we are able to stably evolve a puncture black-hole spacetime for a time scale of $\sim 1000$ $M$ ($M$ being the mass of the black hole). We also present preliminary results for the head-on collision of two black holes. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first simulations of black-hole spacetimes performed in three spatial dimensions with a high-order DG code.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec.FO-CCZ4\] we derive the full set of first-order evolution equations and prove the strong hyperbolicity for common gauge choices by computing the full eigenstructure. In Section \[sec.ader\] we introduce the numerical scheme intended to solve the partial differential equations (PDE) system. In Section \[sec.tests\] we show a number of benchmark results to demonstrate correctness of both the formulation and the numerical solver. Finally, the conclusions are summarised in Section \[sec.conclusions\].
We work in a geometrized set of units, in which the speed of light and the gravitational constant are set to unity, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$c=G=1$. Greek indices run from $0$ to $3$, Latin indices run from $1$ to $3$ and we use the Einstein summation convention of repeated indices.
A first-order strongly hyperbolic CCZ4 system: FO-CCZ4 {#sec.FO-CCZ4}
======================================================
The original second-order CCZ4 system
-------------------------------------
The second-order CCZ4 system can be derived from the Z4 Lagrangian $\mathcal{L} = g^{\mu\nu} ( R_{\mu\nu} + 2 \nabla_\mu Z_\nu )$, which adds terms dependent on the $Z_\mu$ vector to the classical Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian (see [@Bona2009] for a complete derivation). The Einstein field equations are recovered by minimizing the corresponding action and the algebraic constraints $Z_\mu = 0$. Additional constraint-damping terms can be introduced [@Gundlach2005:constraint-damping], so that the Einstein equations of the constraint-damped Z4 system in vacuum read $$R_{\mu\nu} + \nabla_{(\mu} Z_{\nu)} +
\kappa_1 \left( n_{(\mu} Z_{\nu)}
-(1+\kappa_2) g_{\mu\nu} n_\alpha Z^\alpha \right)
= 0\,,$$ where $R_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci tensor and $\boldsymbol{n}$ is the unit vector normal to the spatial hypersurfaces. Here, $\kappa_1, \kappa_2$ are tuning constants related to the characteristic time of the exponential damping the of constraint violations.
In order to formulate a well-posed Cauchy problem, we apply the 3+1 decomposition of space time (see, [[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@Bona2009; @Baumgarte2010]), so that the line element reads $$d s^2 = -\alpha^2 d t^2 + \gamma_{ij}
(d x^i + \beta^i d t)
(d x^j + \beta^j d t)\,,$$ with lapse $\alpha$, shift $\beta^i$ and 3-metric $\gamma_{ij}$. The 3+1 split leads to evolution equations for $\gamma_{ij}$ as well as the extrinsic curvature $K_{ij} = -\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{L}_n \gamma_{ij}$, $\mathcal{L}_n$ being the Lie derivative along $n^\mu$; because of the gauge freedom of general relativity, the functions $\alpha$ and $\beta$ can be in principle freely specified. The four constraint equations of the ADM system (generally formulated as an elliptic system, but see, [[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@Racz2016] for an alternative formulation) become four evolution equations for the $Z_\mu$ vector.
The CCZ4 formulation, as presented in [@Alic:2011a], introduces the conformal factor $\phi := (\det(\gamma_{ij}))^{-1/6}$ to define the conformal 3-metric $\tilde\gamma_{ij}:= \phi^2\gamma_{ij}$, with unit determinant. As in the BSSNOK system, the extrinsic curvature is decomposed into its trace $K=K_{ij}\gamma^{ij}$ and a trace-free part $\tilde{A}_{ij}$, which are promoted to primary evolution variables [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$$\tilde A_{ij} := \phi^2\left(K_{ij}-\frac{1}{3}K\gamma_{ij}\right)\,.$$
The second-order version of the vacuum CCZ4 equations, including the evolution equations for the $1+\log$ slicing \[Eq. \] and Gamma-driver shift condition \[Eqs. –\], is reported here for clarity, using essentially the same notation as in [@Alic:2011a]
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\tilde\gamma_{ij} &=& - 2\alpha \tilde A_{ij}
+ 2\tilde\gamma_{k(i}\partial_{j)}~\beta^k
- \frac{2}{3}\tilde\gamma_{ij}\partial_k~\beta^k
+\beta^k \partial_k \tilde\gamma_{ij} \,, \label{gamma_eq}\\
\partial_t \tilde A_{ij} &=& \phi^2 \left[-\nabla_i \nabla_j \alpha
+ \alpha \left(R_{ij} + \nabla_i Z_j + \nabla_j Z_i \right)\right]^{\rm TF}
+ \alpha \tilde A_{ij}\left(K- 2\Theta\right) \nonumber \\
&&
- 2\alpha \tilde A_{il}\tilde A^l_j + 2\tilde A_{k(i}\partial_{j)}~\beta^k
-\frac{2}{3}\tilde A_{ij}\partial_k~\beta^k + \beta^k \partial_k \tilde A_{ij} \,, \label{A_eq} \\
\partial_t\phi &=& \frac{1}{3} \alpha \phi K
- \frac{1}{3} \phi \partial_k \beta^k + \beta^k \partial_k \phi \,, \label{phi_eq} \\
\partial_t K &=& - \nabla^i \nabla_i \alpha + \alpha \left(R + 2
\nabla_i Z^i + K^2 -2 \Theta K \right)
+ \beta^j \partial_j K - 3 \alpha \kappa_1 \left(1 +
\kappa_2\right) \Theta \,, \\
\partial_t \Theta &=& \frac{1}{2} \alpha \left(R + 2 \nabla_i Z^i - \tilde A_{ij} \tilde
A^{ij} + \frac{2}{3} K^2 - 2 \Theta K\right) - Z^i
\partial_i \alpha+ \beta^k \partial_k \Theta
- \alpha \kappa_1 \left(2 + \kappa_2\right) \Theta \,, \\
\partial_t \hat\Gamma^i &=& 2\alpha \left(\tilde\Gamma^i_{jk} \tilde A^{jk}
- 3 \tilde A^{ij} \frac{\partial_j \phi}{\phi} - \frac{2}{3}
\tilde\gamma^{ij} \partial_j K \right)
+2\tilde\gamma^{ki}\left(\alpha \partial_k \Theta - \Theta
\partial_k \alpha
- \frac{2}{3} \alpha K Z_k\right) - 2\tilde A^{ij} \partial_j \alpha + \beta^k \partial_k \hat\Gamma^i \nonumber \\
&& + \tilde\gamma^{kl} \partial_k \partial_l \beta^i
+ \frac{1}{3}\tilde\gamma^{ik}\partial_k\partial_l \beta^l
+ \frac{2}{3} \tilde\Gamma^i \partial_k \beta^k -
\tilde\Gamma^k \partial_k \beta^i
+ 2 \kappa_3 \left(\frac{2}{3} \tilde\gamma^{ij} Z_j \partial_k \beta^k -
\tilde\gamma^{jk} Z_j \partial_k \beta^i \right)
- 2 \alpha \kappa_1 \tilde \gamma^{ij} Z_j \,, \label{Gamma_eq}\\
\label{1plog}
\partial_t \alpha &=& - \alpha^2 g(\alpha) \left(K - K_0 - 2\Theta \right) + \beta^k \partial_k \alpha \,, \\
\label{gammadriver1}
\partial_t \beta^i &=& f b^i +\beta^k\partial_k\beta^i \,, \\
\label{gammadriver2}
\partial_t b^i &=& \partial_t \hat\Gamma^i - \beta^k \partial_k \hat\Gamma^i
+ \beta^k\partial_k b^i - \eta b^i \,,\end{aligned}$$
with the contracted Christoffel symbols $\tilde \Gamma^i := \tilde
\gamma^{jk} \tilde \Gamma^i_{jk} = \tilde \gamma^{ij} \tilde \gamma^{kl}
\partial_l \tilde \gamma_{jk}$, the shorthand $\hat \Gamma^i := \tilde
\Gamma^i + 2 \tilde \gamma^{ij} Z_j\,$, and the use of the upper index ${\rm TF}$ to indicate a quantity whose trace has been removed.
We recall that the four-vector $Z^\mu$ is an extra dynamical field specifically introduced to account for the energy and momentum constraints of the Einstein equations [@Bona:2003fj; @Bona:2003qn; @Bona:2004yp]. Its temporal component is $Z^0 = \Theta/\alpha$ and the indices of its spatial part may be raised and lowered with the spatial physical metric $\gamma_{ij}$. Following [@Alic:2011a], the Hamiltonian constraint $H$ and the momentum constraint $M_i$ of the CCZ4 system read as usual, namely $$\label{eqn.adm}
H := R - K_{ij} K^{ij} + K^2\,, \qquad M_i := \gamma^{jl} \left( \partial_l
K_{ij} - \partial_i K_{jl} - \Gamma^m_{jl} K_{mi} + \Gamma^m_{ji} K_{ml}
\right)\,,$$ where of course $H=0=M_i$ in the continuum limit.
Introduction of the auxiliary variables and resulting ordering constraints
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We introduce the following $33$ auxiliary variables, which involve first spatial derivatives of the metric terms, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Auxiliary}
A_i := \partial_i\ln\alpha = \frac{\partial_i \alpha }{\alpha}\,, \qquad
B_k^{i} := \partial_k\beta^i\,,
\qquad
D_{kij} := \frac{1}{2}\partial_k\tilde\gamma_{ij}\,, \qquad
P_i := \partial_i\ln\phi = \frac{\partial_i \phi}{\phi}\,.\end{aligned}$$
An immediate consequence of and the Schwarz theorem on the symmetry of second-order derivatives are the following second order ordering constraints [@Gundlach:2005ta], which read: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn.second.ord.const}
\mathcal{A}_{ki} &:= \partial_k A_i - \partial _i A_k = 0\,, &
\mathcal{B}_{kl}^i &:= \partial_k B_l^i - \partial_l B_k^i = 0\,, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{D}_{klij} &:= \partial_k D_{lij} - \partial_l D_{kij} = 0\,, &
\mathcal{P}_{ki} &:= \partial_k P_i - \partial _i P_k = 0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Since $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ is by construction trace-free, the following additional constraint holds: $\tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \tilde{A}_{ij} = 0$, and thus $$\label{atf.diff}
\mathcal{T}_k := \partial_k \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \tilde{A}_{ij} \right) = \partial_k \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \tilde{A}_{ij} + \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \partial_k \tilde{A}_{ij} = 0.$$ These relations will be important later in order to derive a *strongly* hyperbolic system in first-order form. Furthermore, from the constraint $\det(\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}) =1$ and via the Jacobi formula $ \partial_k \det(\boldsymbol{A}) = {\rm tr}(
\det(\boldsymbol{A}) \boldsymbol{A}^{-1} \partial_k \boldsymbol{A})$ on the derivatives of the determinant of a matrix, we obtain the following additional algebraic constraints on the auxiliary variables $D_{kij}$ (see also [@Brown2012]) $$\tilde{\gamma}^{ij} D_{kij} = 0\,.
\label{eqn.dcons}$$ From Eq. , another differential constraint follows, namely, $$\partial_l \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} D_{kij} + \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \partial_l
D_{kij}=0\,.$$ In practical implementations, however, we have not found particular benefits from making use of this additional constraint in the FO-CCZ4 formulation.
The evolution equations for the auxiliary quantities are obtained by applying the temporal derivative operator $\partial_t$ to equations , by subsequently exchanging the spatial and temporal derivatives on the right-hand side of the resulting equations and by making use of the PDEs , , and .
Many different first-order formulations of the CCZ4 system are possible, since any non-purely algebraic term in the original second-order system can be written as a combination of conservative terms and non-conservative products (see [@Gundlach:2005ta; @Hilditch2015] for a parametric study of such families of systems). In this work, we considered the two extreme cases: a first one, where as many terms as possible are written in a conservative flux-divergence form (see, [[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@Alic:2009], as an example for the first-order Z4 system) and a second formulation, similar to the ideas outlined in [@Alcubierre:2008], making maximum use of the first-order ordering constraints, so that the variables defining the 4-metric ($\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\phi$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$) are only evolved by a nonlinear system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) and where the rest of the dynamics is written in terms of non-conservative products. The coefficients of these non-conservative products are only functions of $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\phi$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ and no differential terms in these variables appear. The dynamical variables of the FO-CCZ4 system with Gamma-driver shift condition are then: $\tilde{A}_{ij}$, $K$, $\Theta$, $\hat{\Gamma}^i$, $b^i$ (the $b^i$ vector is an auxiliary field used to write the Gamma-driver gauge condition [@Alcubierre:2008; @Alic:2011a]) and the auxiliary variables $A_k$, $B_k^i$, $P_k$ and $D_{kij}$. In this paper we will follow the second approach, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}the final system of 58 evolution equations will consist of 11 ODEs and 47 PDEs and will have a very special structure discussed later in Section \[sec.hyp\].
Strongly hyperbolic first-order form of the CCZ4 system {#sec.foccz4}
-------------------------------------------------------
The most natural first-order formulation of the CCZ4 system is non-conservative and appears in the following form discussed later in more detail $$\label{eqn.pde.mat.preview}
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{Q} }{\partial t} +
\boldsymbol{A}_1({\boldsymbol{Q}}) \frac{\partial {\boldsymbol{Q}}}{\partial x_1} +
\boldsymbol{A}_2({\boldsymbol{Q}}) \frac{\partial {\boldsymbol{Q}}}{\partial x_2} +
\boldsymbol{A}_3({\boldsymbol{Q}}) \frac{\partial {\boldsymbol{Q}}}{\partial x_3} = \boldsymbol{S}(\boldsymbol{Q}),$$ where one has the state vector ${\boldsymbol{Q}}$, the system matrices $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ and the purely algebraic source terms $\boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{Q}})$. To obtain a *strongly* hyperbolic first-order system from the second-order CCZ4 formulation of Alic et al. [@Alic:2011a] given by - we systematically use the constraints and and make *maximum possible use* of the auxiliary variables Eq. . In other words, our first-order CCZ4 system does *not* contain *any* spatial derivatives of $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ and $\phi$ any more, but all these terms have been moved to the purely algebraic source term $\boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{Q}})$ by using . This has the immediate consequence that the evolution equations , , and reduce to *ordinary* differential equations instead of *partial* differential equations.
Our final non-conservative first-order CCZ4 system reads as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn.gamma}
\partial_t\tilde\gamma_{ij}
& = & {\beta^k 2 D_{kij} + \tilde\gamma_{ki} B_{j}^k + \tilde\gamma_{kj} B_{i}^k - \frac{2}{3}\tilde\gamma_{ij} B_k^k }
- 2\alpha \left( \tilde A_{ij} - {\frac{1}{3} \tilde \gamma_{ij} {\rm tr}{\tilde A} } \right)
- { \tau^{-1} ( \tilde{\gamma} -1 ) \, \tilde{\gamma}_{ij}},
\\
\label{eqn.alpha}
{ \partial_t \ln{\alpha} } &=& { \beta^k A_k } - \alpha g(\alpha) ( K - K_0 - 2\Theta {c} ) \,, \\
\label{eqn.beta}
\partial_t \beta^i &=&
s \beta^k B_k^i +
s f b^i \\
\label{eqn.phi}
{ \partial_t \ln{\phi} } & = & { \beta^k P_k } + \frac{1}{3} \left( \alpha K - {B_k^k} \right) \,,\\
\label{eqn.Aij}
\partial_t\tilde A _{ij} - \beta^k \partial_k\tilde A_{ij} & - & \phi^2 \bigg[ -\nabla_i\nabla_j \alpha + \alpha \left( R_{ij}+ \nabla_i Z_j + \nabla_j Z_i \right) \bigg]
+ \phi^2 \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde\gamma_{ij}}{\phi^2} \bigg[ -\nabla^k \nabla_k \alpha + \alpha (R + 2 \nabla_k Z^k ) \bigg] \\
\nonumber
& = & { \tilde A_{ki} B_j^k + \tilde A_{kj} B_i^k - \frac{2}{3}\tilde A_{ij} B_k^k }
+ \alpha \tilde A_{ij}(K - 2 \Theta {c} ) - 2 \alpha\tilde A_{il} \tilde\gamma^{lm} \tilde A_{mj} - { \tau^{-1} \, \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} \, {\rm tr}{\tilde A} } \,, \\
\label{eqn.K}
\partial_t K - \beta^k \partial_k K & + & \nabla^i \nabla_i \alpha - \alpha( R + 2 \nabla_i Z^i) =
\alpha K (K - 2\Theta {c} ) - 3\alpha\kappa_1(1+\kappa_2)\Theta \\
\label{eqn.theta}
\partial_t \Theta - \beta^k\partial_k\Theta & - & \frac{1}{2}\alpha {e^2} ( R + 2 \nabla_i Z^i)
= \frac{1}{2} \alpha {e^2} \left( \frac{2}{3} K^2 - \tilde{A}_{ij} \tilde{A}^{ij} \right) - \alpha \Theta K {c} - {Z^i \alpha A_i}
- \alpha\kappa_1(2+ \kappa_2)\Theta \,, \\
\label{eqn.Ghat}
\partial_t \hat\Gamma^i - \beta^k \partial_k \hat \Gamma^i &+& \frac{4}{3} \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \partial_j K - 2 \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{ki} \partial_k \Theta
- s \tilde{\gamma}^{kl} \partial_{(k} B_{l)}^i
- s \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{ik} \partial_{(k} B_{l)}^l - \textcolor{red}{ s 2 \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{ik} \tilde{\gamma}^{nm} \partial_k \tilde{A}_{nm} }
\\
& = & { \frac{2}{3} \tilde{\Gamma}^i B_k^k - \tilde{\Gamma}^k B_k^i } +
2 \alpha \left( \tilde{\Gamma}^i_{jk} \tilde{A}^{jk} - 3 \tilde{A}^{ij} P_j \right) -
2 \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{ki} \left( \Theta A_k + \frac{2}{3} K Z_k \right) -
2 \alpha \tilde{A}^{ij} A_j \nonumber \\
&& - \textcolor{red}{ 4 s \, \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{ik} D_k^{~\,nm} \tilde{A}_{nm} } + 2\kappa_3 \left( \frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} Z_j B_k^k - \tilde{\gamma}^{jk} Z_j B_k^i \right) - 2 \alpha \kappa_1 \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} Z_j \nonumber \\
\label{eqn.b}
\partial_t b^i - s \beta^k \partial_k b^i & = & s \left( \partial_t \hat\Gamma^i - \beta^k \partial_k \hat \Gamma^i - \eta b^i \right),
$$
with the PDEs for the auxiliary variables given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn.A}
\partial_t A_{k} - {\beta^l \partial_l A_k} &+& \alpha g(\alpha) \left( \partial_k K - \partial _k K_0 - 2c \partial_k \Theta \right)
+ \textcolor{red}{s \alpha g(\alpha) \tilde{\gamma}^{nm} \partial_k \tilde{A}_{nm} }\\ \nonumber &=&
+ \textcolor{red}{2s\, \alpha g(\alpha) D_k^{~\,nm} \tilde{A}_{nm} }
-\alpha A_k \left( K - K_0 - 2 \Theta c \right) \left( g(\alpha) + \alpha g'(\alpha) \right) + B_k^l ~A_{l} \,,
\\
\label{eqn.B}
\partial_t B_k^i - s\beta^l \partial_l B_k^i &-& s\left( f \partial_k b^i + \textcolor{red}{ \alpha^2 \mu \, \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \left( \partial_k P_j - \partial_j P_k \right) }
- \textcolor{red}{\alpha^2 \mu \, \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \tilde{\gamma}^{nl} \left( \partial_k D_{ljn} - \partial_l D_{kjn} \right) } \right)
\\ \nonumber &=& s B^l_k~B^i_l \,,
\\
\label{eqn.D}
\partial_t D_{kij} - {\beta^l \partial_l D_{kij}} &+& s \left(
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}_{mi} \partial_{(k} {B}_{j)}^m
- \frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}_{mj} \partial_{(k} {B}_{i)}^m
+ \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} \partial_{(k} {B}_{m)}^m \right)
+ \alpha \partial_k \tilde{A}_{ij}
- \textcolor{red}{ \alpha \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} \tilde{\gamma}^{nm} \partial_k \tilde{A}_{nm} } \\ \nonumber
&=& B_k^l D_{lij} + B_j^l D_{kli} + B_i^l D_{klj} - \frac{2}{3} B_l^l D_{kij} - \textcolor{red}{ \alpha \frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} D_k^{~\,nm} \tilde{A}_{nm} } - \alpha A_k \left( \tilde{A}_{ij} - \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} {\rm tr} \tilde{A} \right),
\\
\label{eqn.P}
\partial_t P_{k} - \beta^l \partial_l P_{k} &-& \frac{1}{3} \alpha \partial_k K
+ s \frac{1}{3} \partial_{(k} {B}_{i)}^i - \textcolor{red}{s \frac{1}{3} \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{nm} \partial_k \tilde{A}_{nm} } \\ \nonumber &=&
\frac{1}{3} \alpha A_k K + B_k^l P_l - \textcolor{red}{s \frac{2}{3} \alpha \, D_k^{~\,nm} \tilde{A}_{nm} }.
$$
Indicated in red in the equations above are those terms that have been added to the PDE to obtain an approximate symmetrization of the sparsity pattern of the system matrices (see discussion in Sec. \[sec.hyp\] and Fig. \[fig.pattern\]).
A few remarks should be made now. First, the function $g(\alpha)$ in the PDE for the lapse $\alpha$ controls the slicing condition, where $g(\alpha)=1$ leads to harmonic slicing and $g(\alpha)=2/\alpha$ leads to the so-called $1+\log$ slicing condition, see [@Bona95b]. Second, in order to obtain the advective terms along the shift vector in the evolution equations of the auxiliary variables, we have used the identities . We stress that it is important to use the second-order ordering constraints in an appropriate way to guarantee strong hyperbolicity, since a naive first-order formulation of the second-order CCZ4 system that just uses the auxiliary variables in order to remove the second-order spatial derivatives will only lead to a weakly hyperbolic system (see [@Gundlach:2005ta] for a detailed discussion on the use of second-order ordering constraints in second order in space first order in time hyperbolic systems). Third, we have found that the use of first and second-order ordering constraints alone is *not enough*, but that one must also literally derive the PDE for $D_{kij}$ from by explicitly exploiting the fact that $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ is trace-free via the use of the constraint $\mathcal{T}_k$ by adding Eq. to Eq. . Without the use of $\mathcal{T}_k$ in Eq. , the system immediately loses its strong hyperbolicity (see also [@Cao:2012] for a similar observation in the Z4c system). Once again, these important additional terms in the FO-CCZ4 system related to the constraints and have been highlighted in red in Eqs. -.
We also have introduced several additional constants compared to the original second-order CCZ4 system. In particular:
- the constant $\tau$ is a relaxation time to enforce the algebraic constraints on the determinant of $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ and on the trace of $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ *“weakly”* (see the discussion in [@Alic:2011a]).
- the constant $e$ is a *cleaning speed* for the Hamiltonian constraint, following the ideas of the generalized Lagrangian multiplier (GLM) approach of Dedner et al. [@Dedner:2002]. As the cleaning is a non-physical process, $e > 1$ is in principle allowed; this leads to faster constraint transport and thus can be used to obtain a better satisfaction of the constraints for *purely numerical* purposes, but $e \neq 1$ breaks the covariance of the FO-CCZ4 system.
- the constant $\mu>0$ appears in Eq. and allows one to adjust the contribution of second-order ordering constraints.
- the constant $s$ contributes to the evolution equations for $b^i$, $\beta^i$ and $B^i_k$ and allows to turn on or off the evolution of the shift. For $s=0$ we have the simple gauge condition $\partial_t \beta^i
= 0$, while for $s=1$ the usual Gamma-driver gauge condition is obtained.
- the constant $c$ (not to be confused with the speed of light, which is set to unity) allows to remove some of the algebraic source terms of the Z4 system, but its default value is $c=1$, see [@Alic:2011a].
- instead of evolving the lapse $\alpha$ and the conformal factor $\phi$, we evolve their *logarithms*, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$\ln(\alpha)$ and $\ln(\phi)$. While not a standard choice, this is a very simple method to preserve the *positivity* of the lapse and the conformal factor also at the discrete level. Note also that when treating black holes as punctures, the lapse would vanish at the puncture location and its logarithm diverge. We therefore impose a positive lower limit in our numerical implementation. Since we employ a DG scheme where the solution in every element is represented by an interpolating polynomial (see section \[sec.ader\]), in an element surrounding the puncture the polynomial might actually reach values lower than the limit due to the Runge phenomenon; even in this case, however, the logarithm would not diverge.
Furthermore, we have the following expressions and identities for various terms appearing in the evolution equations: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm tr} \tilde{A} & = & \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \tilde{A}_{ij}, \qquad \textnormal{ and } \qquad \tilde{\gamma} = \textnormal{det}( \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} ), \\
\partial_k \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} & = & - 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{in} \tilde{\gamma}^{mj} D_{knm} := -2 D_k^{~\,ij},
\qquad\text{(derivative of the inverse matrix)} \\
\tilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^k &=& \tilde{\gamma}^{kl} \left( D_{ijl} + D_{jil} - D_{lij} \right), \\
\label{eqn.dchr}
\partial_k \tilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^m & = & -2 D_k^{ml} \left( D_{ijl} + D_{jil} - D_{lij} \right)
+ \tilde{\gamma}^{ml} \left( \partial_{(k} {D}_{i)jl} + \partial_{(k} {D}_{j)il} - \partial_{(k} {D}_{l)ij} \right) , \\ \Gamma_{ij}^k &=& \tilde{\gamma}^{kl} \left( D_{ijl} + D_{jil} - D_{lij} \right) - \tilde{\gamma}^{kl} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{jl} P_i + \tilde{\gamma}_{il} P_j - \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} P_l \right)
= \tilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^k - \tilde{\gamma}^{kl} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{jl} P_i + \tilde{\gamma}_{il} P_j - \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} P_l \right), \\
\partial_k \Gamma_{ij}^m &=& -2 D_k^{ml} \left( D_{ijl} + D_{jil} - D_{lij} \right) +
2 D_k^{ml} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{jl} P_i + \tilde{\gamma}_{il} P_j - \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} P_l \right)
- 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{ml} \left( D_{kjl} P_i + D_{kil} P_j - D_{kij} P_l \right)
\nonumber \\
&& + \tilde{\gamma}^{ml} \left( \partial_{(k} {D}_{i)jl} + \partial_{(k} {D}_{j)il} - \partial_{(k} {D}_{l)ij} \right) -
\tilde{\gamma}^{ml} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{jl} \partial_{(k} {P}_{i)} + \tilde{\gamma}_{il} \partial_{(k} {P}_{j)} - \tilde{\gamma}_{ij} \partial_{(k} {P}_{l)} \right) , \\
R^m_{ikj} & = & \partial_k \Gamma^m_{ij} - \partial_j \Gamma^m_{ik} + \Gamma^l_{ij} \Gamma^m_{lk} - \Gamma^l_{ik} \Gamma^m_{lj}, \\
R_{ij} & = & R^m_{imj}, \\
\nabla_i \nabla_j \alpha &=& \alpha A_i A_j - \alpha \Gamma^k_{ij} A_k + \alpha \partial_{(i} {A}_{j)}, \\
\nabla^i \nabla_i \alpha &=& \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \left( \nabla_i \nabla_j \alpha \right), \\
\tilde{\Gamma}^i & = & \tilde{\gamma}^{jl} \tilde{\Gamma}^i_{jl}, \\
\partial_k \tilde{\Gamma}^i & = & -2 D_k^{jl} \, \tilde{\Gamma}^i_{jl} + \tilde{\gamma}^{jl} \, \partial_k \tilde{\Gamma}^i_{jl}, \\
Z_i &=& \frac{1}{2} \tilde\gamma_{ij} \left(\hat{\Gamma}^j-\tilde{\Gamma}^j \right), \qquad Z^i = \frac{1}{2} \phi^2 (\hat\Gamma^i-\tilde\Gamma^i), \\
\nabla_i Z_j &=& D_{ijl} \left(\hat{\Gamma}^l-\tilde{\Gamma}^l \right) + \frac{1}{2} \tilde\gamma_{jl} \left( \partial_i \hat{\Gamma}^l - \partial_i \tilde{\Gamma}^l \right) - \Gamma^l_{ij} Z_l, \\
R + 2 \nabla_k Z^k & = & \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \left( R_{ij} +
\nabla_i Z_j + \nabla_j Z_i \right)\,.
$$
Here, we have again made use of the second-order ordering constraints by *symmetrizing* the spatial derivatives of the auxiliary variables as follows:
$$\partial_{(k} {A}_{i)} := \frac{ \partial_k A_i + \partial_i A_k }{2}, \quad
\partial_{(k} {P}_{i)} := \frac{ \partial_k P_i + \partial_i P_k }{2}, \quad
\partial_{(k} {B}^i_{j)} := \frac{ \partial_k B^i_j + \partial_j B^i_k }{2}, \quad
\partial_{(k} {D}_{l)ij} := \frac{ \partial_k D_{lij} + \partial_l D_{kij} }{2}.
\label{eqn.symm.aux}$$
Many of the above terms will contribute to the purely algebraic source term, as well as to the non-conservative product. For example, in the spatial derivatives of the Christoffel symbols of the conformal metric , the first bracket contributes only to the purely algebraic source term, while the second bracket is a non-conservative product.
In a practical implementation, it is therefore necessary to carefully separate each contribution. We also stress that in our FO-CCZ4 formulation, the Ricci tensor $R_{ij}$ is directly calculated from the Riemann tensor $R^m_{ikj}$ and the Christoffel symbols and their derivatives *ab definitionem*, without making use of the typical splitting of the Ricci tensor as [[e.g.,]{} ]{}used in [@Alic:2011a]. We also compute the contracted Christoffel symbols $\tilde{\Gamma}^i$ directly from their definition, without making use of the fact that the determinant of $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ is unity, since in general this cannot be guaranteed to hold exactly at the discrete level, unless the algebraic constraints are rigorously enforced.
From a more formal and mathematical point of view, the additional use of the second-order ordering constraints and the constraint $\mathcal{T}_k$ (the terms colored in red) can be motivated by looking at the structure of the sparsity pattern of the system matrix $\boldsymbol{A} \cdot \boldsymbol{n} = \boldsymbol{A}_1 n_1
+ \boldsymbol{A}_2 n_2 + \boldsymbol{A}_3 n_3$ with and without the use of these constraints. In Fig. \[fig.pattern\] we report the sparsity pattern of the system matrix in the normal direction $\boldsymbol{n} =
1/\sqrt{3} (1,1,1)$ for the Gamma-driver shift condition and the $1+\log$ slicing condition for a randomly perturbed flat Minkowski spacetime, neglecting all matrix entries whose absolute value is below a threshold of $10^{-7}$. The blue dots represent the original sparsity structure *without* the use of the second-order ordering constraints and without using the constraint , while the combination of the blue and the red dots shows the sparsity pattern after the terms colored in red have been added to the PDE system. Our approach for finding a suitable form of the ordering constraints to be added is based on *approximate symmetrization* of the sparsity pattern of the system matrix, in order to avoid *Jordan blocks*, which cannot be diagonalized. Such Jordan blocks are evident in the sparsity pattern given by the blue dots alone in Fig. \[fig.pattern\].
We are not aware of works in which the constraint $\mathcal{T}_k$ has been used in conformal first-order hyperbolic formulations of the 3+1 Einstein equations, but its effect becomes rather clear from Fig. \[fig.pattern\]. It is also directly evident from Fig. \[fig.pattern\] that the first 11 quantities $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, $\alpha$, $\beta^i$ and $\phi$ are only evolved by ODEs and that the entire system does not depend on spatial derivatives of these variables, since all entries in the first 11 rows and columns of the system matrix are zero. However, we explicitly stress here that our FO-CCZ4 system is *not* symmetric hyperbolic in the sense of Friedrichs [@Friedrichs1954], like for example the family of symmetric hyperbolic and thermodynamically compatible systems of Godunov and Romenski [@GodunovRomenski72; @Godunov:1995a; @Rom1998]. Further work in this direction will be necessary to try and achieve a symmetric hyperbolic form of FO-CCZ4 with a convex extension.
In summary and as an aid to the reader, we list below the key ideas that have been used in order to obtain the *strongly hyperbolic* FO-CCZ4 system proposed in this paper:
1. maximum use of the first-order ordering constraints in order to *split* the complete system into 11 pure ODEs for the evolution of the quantities defining the 4-metric ($\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ and $\phi$), and with *no spatial derivatives* of these quantities appearing in the remaining PDE system . However, if we want to keep this very particular split structure of the PDE system, it is *not* possible to add damping terms proportional to the first-order ordering constraints to the system, since this would make spatial derivatives of $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, $\phi$ appear again and may eventually lead to Jordan blocks which cannot be diagonalized. We therefore explicitly refrain from adding these terms, in contrast to what has been done in [@Brown2012]. Following the philosophy above, also writing the system in a flux-conservative form like in [@Bona97a; @Alic:2009] is not possible, since the fluxes will in general depend on the 4-metric and thus, after application of the chain rule, spatial derivatives of $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ and $\phi$ would appear again in the quasi-linear form. We note that not adding any damping terms proportional to the first-order ordering constraints may lead to a rapid growth of these constraints on the discrete level (see also [@Lindblom:2005gh]). This effect, however, may be reduced by a periodic reinitialization of the auxiliary variables with appropriate discrete versions of Eq. , either after a certain number of timesteps, or if a large growth of the first-order constraint violations is detected. However, in this paper this option has not been further investigated.
2. *approximate symmetrization* of the sparsity pattern of the system matrix $\boldsymbol{A} \cdot \boldsymbol{n}$ by appropriate use of the second-order ordering constraints and the constraint , [[i.e.,]{} ]{}by adding the terms highlighted in red in PDEs -. Symmetrization of the first derivatives of the auxiliary variables by using , apart from the advective terms along the shift vector.
3. introduction of an *independent* constraint propagation speed $e$ for the Hamiltonian constraint $H$ in the PDE for the variable $\Theta$, following the ideas of the GLM approach of Dedner et al. [@Dedner:2002].
4. use of the *logarithms* of $\alpha$ and $\phi$ as evolution variables, in order to guarantee positivity for $\alpha$ and $\phi$ in a simple and natural way. These evolution quantities are consistent with the definitions of the auxiliary variables $A_k$ and $P_k$.
![Sparsity pattern of the system matrix $\boldsymbol{A} \cdot
\boldsymbol{n}$ with $\boldsymbol{n}=(1,1,1) / \sqrt{3}$ for randomly perturbed flat Minkowski spacetime using the Gamma-driver shift condition ($s=1$) and $1+\log$ slicing ($g(\alpha)=2/\alpha$), without the use of the constraints and (blue dots) and with the use of these constraints (blue & red dots). The achieved *approximate symmetrization* of the sparsity pattern is evident. Note also the complete absence of non-zero entries in the first 11 lines and columns corresponding to the variables $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$,$\alpha$, $\beta^i$ and $\phi$, which clearly highlights the special structure of our FO-CCZ4 system that can be split into a set of pure ODEs and a reduced PDE system, as discussed in Section \[sec.hyp\].[]{data-label="fig.pattern"}](figures/pattern.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
Strong hyperbolicity {#sec.hyp}
--------------------
As already shown briefly above, the FO-CCZ4 system - can be written in compact matrix-vector form , where the complete state vector is given by ${\boldsymbol Q}^T := \left( \tilde\gamma_{ij}, \ln{\alpha},
\beta^i, \ln{\phi}, \tilde A_{ij}, K, \Theta, \hat\Gamma^i, b^i, A_k,
B^i_k, D_{kij}, P_k \right)$, containing a total of 58 variables that have to be evolved in time. For clarity, we show the full sequential form of all 58 variables in vector ${\boldsymbol{Q}}$ in Appendix \[sec:eigenappendix\]. The vector ${\boldsymbol{Q}}$ can be split as ${\boldsymbol{Q}}^T = ( \boldsymbol{V}^T,
\boldsymbol{U}^T )$ into a vector $\boldsymbol{V}$ of the 11 quantities that define the 4-metric, $\boldsymbol{V}^T :=(\tilde\gamma_{ij},
\ln{\alpha}, \beta^i, \ln{\phi})$, and a vector $\boldsymbol{U}$ of the remaining 47 dynamic variables $\boldsymbol{U}^T :=\left( \tilde A_{ij},
K, \Theta, \hat\Gamma^i, b^i, A_k, B^i_k, D_{kij}, P_k \right)$. From - and Fig. \[fig.pattern\] it is obvious that the vector $\boldsymbol{V}$ is evolved in time only via ODEs of the type $$\label{eqn.ode}
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{V}}{\partial t} = \boldsymbol{S}'({\boldsymbol{Q}}),$$ where $\boldsymbol{S}'({\boldsymbol{Q}})$ contains the first 11 elements of the vector of purely algebraic source terms $\boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{Q}})$. Therefore, the eigenvalues associated with the ODE subsystem for $\boldsymbol{V}$ are trivially zero. Since in our formulation of the FO-CCZ4 system we have made maximum use of the first-order ordering constraints, Eqs. – do not contain *any* spatial derivative of the quantities in $\boldsymbol{V}$, so that the columns in the matrices of the related eigenvectors are trivially the unit vectors. The remaining reduced system that needs to be analyzed contains the vector $\boldsymbol{U}$ of the dynamic quantities and has the very particular structure $$\label{eqn.pde.red}
\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{U} }{\partial t} +
\boldsymbol{B}_1 (\boldsymbol{V}) \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{U}}{\partial x_1} +
\boldsymbol{B}_2 (\boldsymbol{V}) \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{U}}{\partial x_2} +
\boldsymbol{B}_3 (\boldsymbol{V}) \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{U}}{\partial x_3} =
\boldsymbol{S}''({\boldsymbol{Q}})\,,$$ where the source term $\boldsymbol{S}''({\boldsymbol{Q}})$ contains the remaining elements of the source vector $\boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{Q}})$ and where the system matrices $\boldsymbol{B}_i$ depend only on the vector $\boldsymbol{V}$ defining the 4-metric and do *not* depend on the vector $\boldsymbol{U}$. The non-trivial eigenvectors of the complete system can thus be obtained from those of the reduced system by simply adding zeros corresponding to the quantities contained in $\boldsymbol{V}$.
An immediate consequence of the very particular splitting of into the ODEs and the reduced PDEs is that all waves appearing in the system and thus in are *linearly degenerate* (see [@Toro09] for a detailed discussion), since the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ depend only on $\boldsymbol{V}$ and not on $\boldsymbol{U}$ and hence $\partial
\lambda_i / \partial {\boldsymbol{Q}}\cdot \boldsymbol{r}_{i} = 0, \, \forall\,
\lambda_i$. This also means that the FO-CCZ4 system cannot generate shock waves, since the formation of classical shock waves requires the compression of characteristics and thus the presence of genuinely nonlinear fields [@Toro09; @Rezzolla_book:2013].
In order to prove strong hyperbolicity of the FO-CCZ4 system proposed in this paper, we compute the *entire* eigenstructure of the system matrix $\boldsymbol{B}_1$ in the $x_1$ direction for two standard gauge choices: i) zero shift $\beta^i=0$ (hence $s=0$) with harmonic slicing, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$g(\alpha)=1$ and ii) the gamma driver shift condition ($s=1$) with 1+log slicing, i.e. $g(\alpha)=2/\alpha$. Note that, in principle, the eigenstructure of the principal symbol of the system should be computed for every normal direction $\mathbf{n} \neq 0$ in space. However, this is not necessary in this case, since the Einstein equations are isotropic (see [@Sarbach2012]).
For the first shift condition, there is no need to evolve the quantities $b^i$ and $B_k^i$, whose corresponding PDEs can therefore be neglected in the following analysis (the associated eigenvalues are simply zero and the eigenvectors are the unit vectors). For zero shift the vector $\boldsymbol{U}$ can thus be furthermore reduced to only 35 remaining dynamic quantities $\boldsymbol{U}^T = (\tilde{A}_{ij}, K,
\Theta, \hat{\Gamma}^i, A_k, D_{kij}, P_k)$. In this case the 35 eigenvalues of matrix $\boldsymbol{B}_1$ in $x_1$ direction are
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{1,2,\cdots,21} &= 0\,, &
\lambda_{22,23} &= \pm \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \phi \, \alpha \,e\,, \\
\lambda_{24,25,\cdots,29}&=+\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \phi \, \alpha\,, &
\lambda_{30,31,\cdots,35}&=-\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \phi \, \alpha\,.\end{aligned}$$
The associated complete set of 35 right eigenvectors defining the right eigenvector matrix $\boldsymbol{R}$ as well as the inverse right eigenvector matrix ($\boldsymbol{L} = \boldsymbol{R}^{-1}$) that defines the so-called left eigenvectors are given in the first section of the Appendix \[sec:eigenappendix\].
The fact that the FO-CCZ4 system has only real eigenvalues and a complete set of linearly independent eigenvectors (where the matrix of eigenvectors is uniformly bounded) is a necessary and sufficient condition for strong hyperbolicity. Note that for harmonic lapse the eigenvectors $\boldsymbol{r}_{22,23}$ are only linearly independent of $\boldsymbol{r}_{24,\cdots35}$ if $c=1, \, \forall e>0$ or for $e \neq 1,
\, \forall c \geq 0$. The choice $c=1$ and $e=1$ corresponds to the standard setting typically used for second order Z4 and CCZ4 systems, and the importance of using $c=1$ has already been shown in the hyperbolicity analysis for the first and second order Z4 system carried out in [@Bona:2003qn; @Bona:2004yp], i.e. our results on the FO-CCZ4 system confirm previous findings made in the literature. For the gamma driver shift condition, the hyperbolicity analysis is much more complex and requires the computation of all 47 eigenvectors of the reduced dynamical system , this time including also the quantities $b^i$ and $B^i_k$. After tedious calculations it was possible to obtain analytical expressions for the eigenvalues and all 47 eigenvectors also in this case. The results are reported in the second section of the Appendix \[sec:eigenappendix\]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a hyperbolicity analysis of a first-order reduction of the CCZ4 system including the gamma driver shift condition has been carried out. An analysis of the FO-CCZ4 system with other shift conditions, such as the generalized harmonic shift [@Bona:2004yp; @Bona05a], is left to future work.
At this point, we would like to add the following clarifying remark. The hyperbolicity analysis has been carried out for the FO-CCZ4 evolution system -, which in principle admits violations of the algebraic constraints $\det(\tilde{\gamma}_{ij})=1$, $\tilde{\gamma}^{ij} \tilde{A}_{ij} = 0$ and $\tilde{\gamma}^{ij} D_{kij}
= 0$. Hence, compared to the original Z4 system [@Bona:2003fj; @Bona:2003qn; @Alic:2009], it has an augmented solution space. Since our hyperbolicity analysis has been made without enforcing the algebraic constraints, it is valid for the FO-CCZ4 system with the augmented solution space, but should not be regarded as an analysis of the original Z4 system. However, if the initial data satisfies the algebraic constraints, a direct consequence of the system - is that the constraints will remain satisfied for all times, so that our hyperbolicity analysis also covers solutions that satisfy the algebraic constraints.
Path-conservative ADER Discontinuous Galerkin schemes with ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter {#sec.ader}
==================================================================================================
### Unlimited ADER-DG scheme and Riemann solvers
As mentioned above, the FO-CCZ4 system - above can be written as a non-conservative first-order hyperbolic system of the symbolic form given by Eq. (see also [@Dumbser2009a; @Dumbser2010; @Dumbser2011]), where the matrices $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ are the system matrices in the coordinate direction $x_i$ and their eigenstructure has been analyzed in the previous section.
When solving numerically the system , the computational domain $\Omega$ is covered by a set of non-overlapping Cartesian tensor-product elements $\Omega_{i} = [x_i - {\frac{1}{2}}\Delta x_i,
x_i + {\frac{1}{2}}\Delta x_i] \times [y_i - {\frac{1}{2}}\Delta y_i, y_i + {\frac{1}{2}}\Delta y_i] \times [z_i - {\frac{1}{2}}\Delta z_i, z_i + {\frac{1}{2}}\Delta z_i] $ where $\boldsymbol{x}_i = (x_i, y_i, z_i)$ indicates the barycenter of cell $\Omega_i$ and $\Delta \boldsymbol{x}_i = (\Delta x_i,\Delta
y_i,\Delta z_i)$ defines the size of $\Omega_i$ in each spatial coordinate direction. Furthermore, the domain $\Omega$ is the union of all elements, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$\Omega = \bigcup \Omega_i$. Adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) has been implemented in a cell-by-cell framework based on a tree structure [@Khokhlov1998], together with time-accurate local time-stepping (LTS; see Refs. [@Dumbser2013; @Dumbser2014; @Zanotti2015; @Zanotti2015c; @Zanotti2015b] for details). In the DG finite-element framework, the discrete solution of the PDE system is denoted by $\boldsymbol{u}_h$ in the following and is defined in the space of tensor products of piecewise polynomials of degree $N$ in each spatial direction, denoted $\mathcal{U}_h$ in the following. At time $t^n$, in each element $\Omega_i$ the discrete solution is written in terms of some spatial basis functions $\Phi_l(\boldsymbol{x})$ and some unknown degrees of freedom $\hat{\boldsymbol{u}}_{i,l}^n$ as follows, $$\boldsymbol{u}_h(\boldsymbol{x},t^n) = \sum \limits_l \hat{\boldsymbol{u}}_{i,l}
\Phi_l(\boldsymbol{x}) := \hat{\boldsymbol{u}}_{i,l}^n \Phi_l(\boldsymbol{x})\,,
\label{eqn.ansatz.uh}$$ where $l:=(l_1,l_2,l_3)$ is a multi-index and the spatial basis functions $\Phi_l(\boldsymbol{x}) = \varphi_{l_1}(\xi) \varphi_{l_2}(\eta)
\varphi_{l_3}(\zeta)$ are generated via the tensor product of one-dimensional basis functions $\varphi_{k}(\xi)$ on the reference element $[0,1]$. The mapping from physical coordinates $\boldsymbol{x}
\in \Omega_i$ to reference coordinates $\boldsymbol{\xi}=\left(
\xi,\eta,\zeta \right) \in [0,1]^3$ is simply given by $\boldsymbol{x} =
\boldsymbol{x}_i - {\frac{1}{2}}\Delta \boldsymbol{x}_i + (\xi \Delta x_i, \eta
\Delta y_i, \zeta \Delta z_i)^T$. For the one-dimensional basis functions $\varphi_k(\xi)$ we use the Lagrange interpolation polynomials passing through the Gauss-Legendre quadrature nodes $\xi_j$ of an $N+1$ point Gauss quadrature formula (see Fig. \[fig.subcellgrid\]). Hence, the basis polynomials satisfy the interpolation property $\varphi_k(\xi_j) =
\delta_{kj}$, where $\delta_{kj}$ is the usual Kronecker symbol. Due to this particular choice of a *nodal* tensor-product basis, the entire scheme can be written in a dimension-by-dimension fashion, where all integral operators can be decomposed into a sequence of one-dimensional operators acting only on the $N+1$ degrees of freedom in the respective dimension.
To derive the ADER-DG method, we first multiply the governing equations by a test function $\Phi_k \in
\mathcal{U}_h$, identical to the spatial basis functions of Eq. . After that, we integrate over the spacetime control volume $\Omega_i \times [t^n;t^{n+1}]$ and obtain $$\label{eqn.pde.nc.gw1}
\int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \int \limits_{\Omega_i}
\Phi_k \frac{\partial {\boldsymbol{Q}}}{\partial t} d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t
+\int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \int \limits_{\Omega_i}
\Phi_k \left( \boldsymbol{A}({\boldsymbol{Q}}) \cdot \nabla {\boldsymbol{Q}}\right) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t
= \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \int \limits_{\Omega_i} \Phi_k
\boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{Q}}) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t\,,$$ with $d \boldsymbol{x} = d x \, d y \,d z$, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}we integrate over *coordinate volumes* rather than over physical volumes. Since the solution is discontinuous across element interfaces, the resulting jump terms have to be taken properly into account. This is done in our numerical scheme with the aid of the path-conservative approach, first developed by Castro and Parés in the finite-volume framework [@Castro2006; @Pares2006] and later extended also to the DG finite-element framework in [@Rhebergen2008; @Dumbser2009a; @Dumbser2010]. In the ADER-DG framework, higher order in time is achieved with the use of an element-local spacetime predictor, denoted by $\boldsymbol{q}_h(\boldsymbol{x},t)$, and which will be discussed later. Using , integrating the first term by parts in time, taking into account the jumps between elements and making use of the local predictor solution $\boldsymbol{q}_h$ instead of ${\boldsymbol{Q}}$, the weak formulation can be rewritten as $$\label{eqn.pde.nc.gw2}
\left( \int \limits_{\Omega_i} \Phi_k \Phi_l d {\boldsymbol{x}}\right)
\left( \hat{\boldsymbol{u}}^{n+1}_{i,l} - \hat{\boldsymbol{u}}^{n}_{i,l} \right)
+ \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i^\circ}
\Phi_k \left( \boldsymbol{A}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) \cdot \nabla {\boldsymbol{q}}_h \right) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t
+ \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\partial \Omega_i}
\Phi_k \mathcal{D}^-\left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^-, {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ \right) \cdot \boldsymbol{n} \,d S d t
= \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i}
\Phi_k \boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t\,.$$ In , the first integral leads to the so-called “element mass matrix”, which is diagonal for our choice of the basis and test functions, the second integral accounts for the smooth part of the discrete solution in the interior $\Omega_i^\circ = \Omega_i
\backslash \partial \Omega_i$ of the element $\Omega_i$, the boundary integral accounts for the jumps across the element interfaces and the term on the right-hand side accounts for the presence of the purely algebraic source terms $\boldsymbol{S}$. Following the path-conservative approach [@Pares2006; @Castro2006; @Dumbser2011], the jump terms are defined via a path-integral in phase space between the boundary extrapolated states at the left $\boldsymbol{q}_h^-$ and at the right ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+$ of the interface as follows: $$\label{eqn.pc.scheme}
\mathcal{D}^-\left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^-, {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ \right) \cdot \boldsymbol{n} =
\frac{1}{2} \left( \, \int \limits_{0}^1
\boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{\psi}) \cdot \boldsymbol{n} \, {\mathrm{d}}s \right)
\left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ - {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^- \right) - \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{\Theta} \left(
{\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ - {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^- \right),$$ with $\boldsymbol{A} \cdot \boldsymbol{n} = \boldsymbol{A}_1 n_1 + \boldsymbol{A}_2 n_2 +
\boldsymbol{A}_3 n_3$ the system matrix in normal direction and where we have used the simple segment path $$\boldsymbol{\psi} = \boldsymbol{\psi}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h^-, {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+, s) =
{\boldsymbol{q}}_h^- + s \left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ - {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^- \right),
\qquad 0 \leq s \leq 1\,.$$ In Eq. $\boldsymbol{\Theta} > 0$ denotes an appropriate numerical viscosity matrix. According to [@Dumbser2009a; @Dumbser2010; @Dumbser2011], the path integral appearing in is simply computed numerically via a Gauss-Legendre quadrature formula of sufficient order of accuracy. In this paper, we use one to three Gaussian quadrature points to approximate the path integral above. For a simple path-conservative Rusanov-type method [@Dumbser2009a; @Castro2010], the viscosity matrix reads $$\label{eqn.rusanov}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\textnormal{Rus}} = s_{\max}
\boldsymbol{I}_{58\times58}, \qquad \textnormal{with} \qquad s_{\max} =
\max \left( \left| \Lambda({\boldsymbol{q}}_h^-) \right|, \left| \Lambda({\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+)
\right| \right)\,,$$ and where $s_{\max}$ denotes the maximum wave speed found at the interface. Furthermore, $\boldsymbol{I}_{p \times q} = \delta_{ij}$ with $i,j \in \mathbb{N}$, $1 \leq i \leq p$, $1 \leq j \leq q$ is the $p
\times q$ identity matrix. In order to reduce numerical dissipation for the quantities evolved via ODEs, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}for $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ and $\phi$, in alternative to the Rusanov scheme we also employ the recently-proposed path-conservative Harten-Lax-van Leer-Einfeldt-Munz (HLLEM) method [@Dumbser2015], which is a generalization of the original HLLEM method [@Harten83; @Einfeldt1991], and for which the jump terms on the element boundary read $$\label{eqn.hllem.scheme}
\mathcal{D}^-\left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^-, {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ \right) \cdot \boldsymbol{n} =
-\frac{s_L}{s_R-s_L} \left( \, \int \limits_{0}^1 \boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{\psi})
\cdot \boldsymbol{n} \, {\mathrm{d}}s \right) \left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ - {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^- \right)
+ \frac{s_L s_R}{s_R-s_L} \left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ - {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^- \right)
- \frac{s_L s_R}{s_R-s_L} \boldsymbol{R}_* \boldsymbol{\delta}_* \boldsymbol{L}_*
\left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ - {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^- \right)\,,$$ with $$\boldsymbol{\delta}_* = \boldsymbol{I}_{11\times11} -
\frac{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_*^-}{s_L} - \frac{\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_*^+}{s_R},
\qquad
\textnormal{and} \qquad \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_*^{\pm} = {\frac{1}{2}}\left( \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_* \pm \left| \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_* \right|
\right)\,.$$
Here, $\boldsymbol{R}_*$ and $\boldsymbol{L}_*$ are the rectangular matrices containing only the right and left eigenvectors of the internal waves associated with the eigenvalues $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_*$ that one wants to resolve exactly in the HLLEM Riemann solver. In our case, these internal waves are exactly the 11 stationary contact waves associated with the 11 ODEs for $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\phi$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, hence their wave speed is zero and thus $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_* = 0$ and $\boldsymbol{\delta}_*=
\boldsymbol{I}_{11\times11}$. The associated 11 eigenvectors are the unit vectors, hence $\boldsymbol{R}_* = \boldsymbol{I}_{58 \times 11}$ and $\boldsymbol{L}_* = \boldsymbol{I}_{11 \times 58}$. With the left and right signal speeds simply chosen as $s_L = -s_{\max}$ and $s_R =
+s_{\max}$ and with $s_{\max}$ computed as in Eq. , the HLLEM scheme takes the same form of Eq. with the viscosity matrix given by $$\label{eqn.hllem.visc}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\textnormal{HLLEM}} = s_{\max}
\left( \boldsymbol{I}_{58\times58} - \boldsymbol{I}_{58\times11}
\boldsymbol{I}_{11\times58} \right)\,.$$ The choice of the approximate Riemann solver closes the description of the numerical scheme . Next, we will briefly describe the computation of the local spacetime predictor solution ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h$ needed in Eq. and .
### Spacetime predictor
The element-local spacetime predictor solution ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ is computed from the known discrete solution ${\boldsymbol{u}}_h(\boldsymbol{x},t^n)$ at time $t^n$ using a solution of the Cauchy problem *“in the small”*, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}without considering the interaction with the neighbors, according to the terminology introduced by Harten et al. in [@eno]. In the ENO scheme of Harten et al. [@eno], and in the original ADER approach of Toro and Titarev [@Titarev2002; @Titarev2005; @Toro2006], the so-called Cauchy-Kovalewski procedure was used. This procedure is very cumbersome and is based on local Taylor series expansions in space and time and where time derivatives are replaced by the known space derivatives at time $t^n$ by successively differentiating the governing PDE system with respect to space and time and inserting the resulting terms into the Taylor series. For an explicit example of the Cauchy-Kovalewski procedure applied to the three-dimensional Euler equations of compressible gas dynamics, see [@Dumbser2007]. However, it is obvious that a highly complex PDE system as the FO-CCZ4 model - is not amenable to such an approach, which heavily relies on analytical manipulations of the PDE system. Therefore, we use an alternative local spacetime DG predictor [@Dumbser2008; @Dumbser2009; @Dumbser2009a], which only requires the pointwise computation of source terms and non-conservative products. The solution ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h$ is expanded into a local spacetime basis $$\label{eqn.spacetime}
{\boldsymbol{q}}_h(\boldsymbol{x},t) = \sum \limits_l \theta_l(\boldsymbol{x},t)
\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{i,l} := \theta_l(\boldsymbol{x},t) \hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{i,l}\,,$$ with the multi-index $l=(l_0,l_1,l_2,l_3)$ and where the spacetime basis functions $\theta_l(\boldsymbol{x},t) = \varphi_{l_0}(\tau)
\varphi_{l_1}(\xi) \varphi_{l_2}(\eta) \varphi_{l_3}(\zeta) $ are again generated from the same one-dimensional nodal basis functions $\varphi_{k}(\xi)$ as before, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}the Lagrange interpolation polynomials of degree $N$ passing through $N+1$ Gauss-Legendre quadrature nodes. The spatial mapping $\boldsymbol{x} = \boldsymbol{x}(\boldsymbol{\xi})$ is also the same as before and the coordinate time is mapped to the reference time $\tau \in [0,1]$ via $t = t^n + \tau \Delta
t$. Multiplication of the PDE system with a test function $\theta_k$ and integration over $\Omega_i \times
[t^n,t^{n+1}]$ yields the following weak form in space and time, which is *different* from , since now the test and basis functions are also time dependent: $$\label{eqn.pde.st1}
\int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i}
\theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t) \frac{\partial {\boldsymbol{q}}_h}{\partial t} d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t
+\int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i}
\theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t) \left( \boldsymbol{A}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) \cdot \nabla {\boldsymbol{q}}_h \right) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t
= \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i}
\theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t) \boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t\,.$$ Since we are now interested only in an element local predictor solution, without interaction with the neighbors, at this stage we do *not* account for the jumps in ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h$ across the element interfaces yet, since this will be done later in the final corrector step of the ADER-DG scheme . Instead, we have to introduce the known discrete solution ${\boldsymbol{u}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n)$ at time $t^n$. For this purpose, the first term is integrated by parts in time and leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn.pde.st2}
\int \limits_{\Omega_i} \theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n+1}) {\boldsymbol{q}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n+1}) d {\boldsymbol{x}}-
\int \limits_{\Omega_i} \theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n}) {\boldsymbol{u}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n}) d {\boldsymbol{x}}- \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i}
\frac{\partial \theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t)}{\partial t} {\boldsymbol{q}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t)
d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t = && \nonumber \\
\int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i} \theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t)
\boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t
- \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_i} \theta_k({\boldsymbol{x}},t)
\left( \boldsymbol{A}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) \cdot \nabla {\boldsymbol{q}}_h \right) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t\,. &&\end{aligned}$$ Using the local spacetime ansatz , Eq. becomes an element-local nonlinear system for the unknown degrees of freedom $\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{i,l}$ of the spacetime polynomials ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h$. The solution of can be easily found via a simple and fast converging, fixed-point iteration detailed [[e.g.,]{} ]{}in [@Dumbser2009a; @Toro2009b; @Dumbser2014]. This completes the description of the unlimited ADER-DG scheme.
### ADER-WENO finite-volume subcell limiter {#sec.aderweno}
In general the spatial metric is smooth, which justifies the use of the high-order unlimited ADER-DG scheme discussed in the previous sections. However, in the presence of black holes physical singularities appear, which can lead to numerical instabilities or can even lead to a failure of the computation. Following the ideas outlined in Refs. [@Dumbser2014; @Zanotti2015c; @Zanotti2015b], we therefore supplement our ADER-DG scheme with a high-order ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter, which is much more robust than the unlimited DG scheme, but which is at the same time still high-order accurate in space and time.
While in Refs. [@Dumbser2014; @Zanotti2015c; @Zanotti2015b] a sophisticated *a posteriori* limiting strategy has been proposed, in this paper for simplicity we fix the limited cells *a priori* for the entire duration of the simulation, since we assume to know the location of the black holes. Future simulations with moving black holes will require a dynamic adjustment of the limiter, as suggested in [@Dumbser2014; @Zanotti2015c; @Zanotti2015b]. In practice, each computational cell $\Omega_i$ that has been marked for limiting is split into $(2N+1)^3$ finite-volume subcells, which are denoted by $\Omega_{i,s}$ and that satisfy $\Omega_i = \bigcup_s \Omega_{i,s}$ (see Fig. \[fig.subcellgrid\]). Note that this very fine division of a DG element into finite-volume subcells does *not* reduce the timestep of the overall ADER-DG scheme, since the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) coefficient of explicit DG schemes scales with $1/(2N+1)$, while the CFL of finite-volume schemes (used on the subgrid) is of the order of unity. The discrete solution in the subcells $\Omega_{i,s}$ is represented at time $t^n$ in terms of *piecewise constant* subcell averages $\bar{{\boldsymbol{u}}}^n_{i,s}$, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$$\label{eqn.subcellaverage}
\bar{{\boldsymbol{u}}}^n_{i,s} := \frac{1}{|\Omega_{i,s}|} \int \limits_{\Omega_{i,s}}
{\boldsymbol{Q}}({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\,.$$ These subcell averages are now evolved in time with a third-order ADER-WENO finite-volume scheme that looks very similar to the ADER-DG scheme , namely $$\label{eqn.pde.nc.fv}
\left( \bar{\boldsymbol{u}}^{n+1}_{i,s} - \bar{\boldsymbol{u}}^{n}_{i,s} \right)
+ \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_{i,s}^\circ}
\left( \boldsymbol{A}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) \cdot \nabla {\boldsymbol{q}}_h \right) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t
+ \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\partial \Omega_{i,s}}
\mathcal{D}^-\left( {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^-, {\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+ \right) \cdot \boldsymbol{n} \, d S d t
= \int \limits_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}} \! \! \int \limits_{\Omega_{i,s}}
\boldsymbol{S}({\boldsymbol{q}}_h) d {\boldsymbol{x}}\, d t\,.$$ Here, we use again a spacetime predictor solution ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h$, which is now computed from an initial condition given by a WENO [@Jiang1996] reconstruction polynomial ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n)$ computed from the cell averages $\bar{{\boldsymbol{u}}}^n_{i,s}$ via a multi-dimensional WENO reconstruction operator detailed in [@Dumbser2007b; @Dumbser2013]. The values at the cell interfaces ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h^-$ and ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h^+$ are again computed as the boundary extrapolated values from the left and the right subcell adjacent to the interface.
To summarize our nonlinear WENO reconstruction briefly: for each subcell $\Omega_{i,s}$ we compute several reconstruction polynomials ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h^k({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n)$ requiring integral conservation of ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h^k$ on a set of different reconstruction stencils $\mathcal{S}^k_{i,s}$, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$$\frac{1}{|\Omega_{i,j}|} \int \limits_{\Omega_{i,j}} {\boldsymbol{w}}^k_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n)
d {\boldsymbol{x}}= \bar{{\boldsymbol{u}}}^n_{i,j} \qquad \forall \, \Omega_{i,j} \in
\mathcal{S}^k_{i,s}\,.$$ This system is solved via a constrained least-squares algorithm requiring at least exact conservation in the cell $\Omega_{i,s}$ itself (see [@Dumbser2007b] for details). From the set of reconstruction polynomials ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h^k$, the final WENO reconstruction polynomial ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h$ is obtained by using a classical nonlinear weighted combination of the polynomials ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h^k$ (see [@Jiang1996; @Dumbser2007b]) as follows: $$\label{eqn.weno}
{\boldsymbol{w}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n) = \sum \limits_k \omega_k {\boldsymbol{w}}_h^k({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n),
\qquad \textnormal{with} \qquad \omega_k = \frac{\tilde{\omega}_k}
{\sum \limits_l \tilde{\omega}_l}
\qquad \textnormal{and} \qquad \tilde{\omega}_k = \frac{\lambda_k}
{(\sigma_k + \epsilon)^r}\,,$$ where the oscillation indicators $\sigma_k$ are computed as usual from $$\sigma_k := \sum \limits_{l\geq 1} \int \limits_{\Omega_{i,s}}
\Delta {\boldsymbol{x}}_{i,s}^{2l -1} \left( \frac{\partial^l}{\partial {\boldsymbol{x}}^l}
{\boldsymbol{w}}_h^k({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n) \right)^2 d {\boldsymbol{x}}\,.$$
The small parameter $\epsilon$ in , which is only needed to avoid division by zero, is set to $\epsilon=10^{-14}$ and the exponent in the denominator is chosen as $r=8$. The linear weights are $\lambda_1 = 10^5$ for the central stencil ([[i.e.,]{} ]{}$k=1$), while all other stencils ([[i.e.,]{} ]{}$k>1$) have linear weight $\lambda_k=1$. This choice corresponds also to the one made in [@Dumbser2007b].
In a practical implementation it is very convenient to write also the WENO reconstruction polynomials in terms of some reconstruction basis functions $\psi_l({\boldsymbol{x}})$ as ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n) = \Psi_l({\boldsymbol{x}}) \hat{{\boldsymbol{w}}}_l^n$. In this paper, following [@Dumbser2013], the basis functions $\Psi_l$ are defined exactly as the $\Phi_l$, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}as tensor products of Lagrange interpolation polynomials through the Gauss-Legendre quadrature nodes. For the limiter, we only use a piecewise quadratic reconstruction, leading to a nominally third-order accurate scheme. As already mentioned before, the predictor is computed according to , where the initial data ${\boldsymbol{u}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n)$ is replaced by ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^n)$ and the spatial control volumes $\Omega_i$ are replaced by the subcells $\Omega_{i,s}$.
Once all subcell averages $\bar{\boldsymbol{u}}^{n+1}_{i,s}$ inside a cell $\Omega_i$ have been computed according to , the limited DG polynomial ${\boldsymbol{u}}'_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n+1})$ at the next time level is obtained again via a classical constrained least squares reconstruction procedure requiring $$\frac{1}{|\Omega_{i,s}|} \int \limits_{\Omega_{i,s}} {\boldsymbol{u}}'_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n+1}) d
{\boldsymbol{x}}= \bar{{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{n+1}_{i,s} \qquad \forall \, \Omega_{i,s} \in \Omega_i,$$ and $$\label{eqn.constr.Omegai}
\int \limits_{\Omega_{i}}
{\boldsymbol{u}}'_h({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n+1}) d {\boldsymbol{x}}= \sum \limits_{\Omega_{i,s} \in \Omega_i}
|\Omega_{i,s}| \bar{{\boldsymbol{u}}}^{n+1}_{i,s}\,,$$ where is a constraint and imposes conservation at the level of the control volume $\Omega_i$.
This completes the brief description of the ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter used in this paper. We should emphasize that all our attempts to simulate puncture black holes with the unlimited ADER-DG scheme described in Sec. \[sec.single.punctures\] have failed after only a few timesteps, and only with the aid of the limiter described in this section we were able to carry out stable long-time evolutions of puncture black holes.
![*Left*: Node locations in the reference one-dimensional cell of the ADER-DG scheme. The coordinate $x\in\{0,1\}$ covers the computational cell holding $N$ degrees of freedom, where $N+1$ is the order of the method. *Right*: representation of the finite-volume subcell structure, with each cell being divided in a set of $2N+1$ subcells.[]{data-label="fig.subcellgrid"}](figures/aderdg-subcell-grid-tikz.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
### Summary of the path conservative ADER-DG method with subcell ADER-WENO finite volume limiter
For the sake of clarity, in this section we briefly summarize the description of the ADER-DG method with subcell finite-volume limiter outlined in the previous sections. In particular, to illustrate the algorithm flow and its practical implementation, we list below the various stages of the algorithm over a full timestep.
For each element $\Omega_i$, the algorithm to obtain the solution at time $t^{n+1}$ from the data at time $t^n$ proceeds as follows:
1. at all Gauss-Legendre quadrature nodes in each element, the data at time $t^n$ for all evolved variables are present, as computed from the previous timestep of the scheme (or from the initial data); if the cell $\Omega_i$ is flagged as troubled (the subcell limiter is active), also all the subcell finite volume averages are present;
2. the discrete data are modified to strictly enforce the algebraic constraints of the CCZ4 system (see section \[sec.tests\]);
3. the degrees of freedom $\hat{\boldsymbol{q}}_{i,l}$ of the spacetime predictor are computed from using a fixed-point iteration method; the spatial derivatives $\nabla
{\boldsymbol{q}}_h$ of the solution needed in the predictor are computed by differentiating the DG polynomial (a so-called pseudo-spectral derivative). In unlimited cells, the initial data in are given by the DG polynomials ${\boldsymbol{u}}_h$, in limited cells the initial data are given by the reconstruction polynomials ${\boldsymbol{w}}_h$ obtained via a nonlinear WENO reconstruction operator acting on the subcell averages; inside the spacetime predictor, no information from the neighbouring elements is necessary;
4. the predictor is used to compute the volume and boundary integrals of the explicit fully discrete corrector stage, i.e. Eq. for the ADER-DG scheme and Eq. for the ADER finite volume limiter; in both cases the jump terms at the element interfaces are evaluated using the path-conservative approach of Parés and Castro [@Pares2006; @Castro2006], see Eq. ;
5. the volume and boundary integrals are used to compute the solution at time $t^{n+1}$ in a fully discrete one-step time-update, reminiscent of the forward Euler method;
6. finally, if a cell is flagged for limiting, the finite volume subcell averages are used to reconstruct the limited DG polynomial ${\boldsymbol{u}}_h'({\boldsymbol{x}},t^{n+1})$.
The algorithm is simplified by the assumption that the cells to be limited and evolved via the ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume scheme rather than the ADER-DG scheme, are fixed a-priori throughout the entire simulation. Otherwise, additional steps would be present in order to determine if a particular cell is developing pathologies in the numerical solution and the limiting procedure should be activated, or not. Furthermore, in this work we do not employ a dynamic adaptive mesh-refinement (AMR) approach; instead, for simplicity the refined grid structure is fixed at the beginning of the simulation. Note finally that the spacetime predictor is computed “in the small”, disregarding contributions from the neighbouring cells. This means in particular that also boundary conditions are not supplied to the spacetime predictor, but only to the corrector scheme which carries out the fully-discrete time update of each cell. Combined with the compact stencil of the ADER-DG method at any order of accuracy, which involves only the cell and its direct neighbors, this potentially allows for a very efficient parallel implementation of the algorithm.
Numerical tests {#sec.tests}
===============
In the following we present a battery of standard tests that explore the ability of our formulation to carry out long-term stable evolutions of a number of different spacetimes with increasing degree of curvature. If not stated otherwise, in all of the tests we set initially $\Theta = 0$, $\hat{\Gamma}^i = \tilde{\Gamma}^i$ and $b^i = 0$ and the HLLEM method is used, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}Eq. with the viscosity matrix . In all tests the algebraic constraints on the unit determinant of $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, the zero trace of $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ as well as the constraint $\tilde{\gamma}^{ij} D_{kij} =
0$ (which is a consequence of $|\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}|=1$) have all been *rigorously enforced* in the discrete solution ${\boldsymbol{u}}_h(\boldsymbol{x},t^n)$ at the beginning of each timestep, but they have *not* been enforced during the computation of the spacetime predictor ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h$. Note that the predictor ${\boldsymbol{q}}_h$ is only an auxiliary quantity that is overwritten after each timestep and which has a role similar to the evolution stage to the half timelevel in second-order MUSCL-Hancock type TVD finite-volume schemes. We therefore set $\tau \to \infty$ and thus neglect the corresponding source terms. In tests involving black holes, the lower limit on the lapse is set to be $\ln(\alpha) \geq -20$. We will use the notation $P_N$ to indicate an ADER-DG scheme using piecewise polynomials of degree $N$ to represent ${\boldsymbol{u}}_h$.
Linearized gravitational-wave test
----------------------------------
The first test problem is a simple one-dimensional wave-propagation test problem in the linearized regime. The computational setup follows the one suggested by Alcubierre et al. in Ref. [@Alcubierre:2003pc]. The computational domain is $\Omega = [-0.5,0.5]$ with periodic boundary conditions in the $x$ direction and two simulations are run until a final time of $t=1000$: *(i)* a first one using 4 ADER-DG $P_5$ elements ([[i.e.,]{} ]{}a total number of 24 degrees of freedom) and *(ii)* a second one using only 2 ADER-DG $P_9$ elements ([[i.e.,]{} ]{}only 20 degrees of freedom). This test is run with the unlimited version of the ADER-DG scheme. The exact solution of the metric of the problem is given by $$\label{eqn.lw.metric}
d s^2 = - d t^2 + d x^2 + (1+h) d y^2 + (1-h) d z^2\,,
\qquad \textnormal{with} \qquad
h := \epsilon \sin \left( 2 \pi (x-t) \right)\,,
$$ and the wave amplitude $\epsilon = 10^{-8}$ is chosen small enough in order to stay in the linear regime, so that terms $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)$ can be neglected. Since the shift is zero in the metric ($\beta^i = 0$), we set $s=0$ in our FO-CCZ4 system and furthermore harmonic slicing is used, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$g(\alpha)=1$. We also set $K_0=0$, $c=0$, $e=2$ and use the *undamped* version of the system, setting $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 =
\kappa_3 = \eta = 0$. Using the metric , the definition of the extrinsic curvature reduces to $K_{ij} = -
\tfrac{1}{2}\partial_t \gamma_{ij}/(\alpha)$, so that the various components are given by $K_{xx} = K_{xy} = K_{xz} = K_{yz} = 0$, $K_{yy}
= -{\frac{1}{2}}\partial_t h$ and $K_{zz} = +{\frac{1}{2}}\partial_t h$. From this information, the conformal factor $\phi$, the conformal spatial metric $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, the traceless conformal extrinsic curvature $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ and all auxiliary variables can be computed by a direct calculation according to their definitions.
In Fig. \[fig.linearwave\] we report the temporal evolution of all ADM constraints (Hamiltonian and momentum constraints) as well as the errors of the algebraic constraints on the determinant of the conformal metric and the error in the trace of $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ in both cases, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}using the ADER-DG $P_5$ and $P_9$ scheme. A comparison of the extrinsic-curvature component $\tilde{A}_{22}$ with the exact solution is also provided at the final time $t=1000$, showing overall an excellent agreement between numerical and exact solution. The quality of the results obtained with the ADER-DG schemes used in this paper, which are uniformly high-order accurate in both space and time, is significantly superior to the results shown in Ref. [@Alcubierre:2003pc] for the same test problem using a finite difference scheme with much more grid points (between 50 and 200) compared to the very coarse mesh containing only 20 to 24 degrees of freedom used in our simulations. Note that a fair comparison between high order finite-difference and DG schemes must be made in terms of points per wavelength for finite-difference methods and in degrees of freedom per wavelength for DG schemes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Linearized gravitational-wave test using an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme with 4 elements (top row) and an ADER-DG $P_9$ scheme with only 2 elements (bottom row). The temporal evolution of the constraints (left column) is shown together with the waveform for the component $\tilde{A}_{22}$ of the traceless conformal extrinsic curvature after 1000 crossing times at time $t=1000$ (right column).[]{data-label="fig.linearwave"}](figures/LinearWave-P5-04-ADM.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Linearized gravitational-wave test using an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme with 4 elements (top row) and an ADER-DG $P_9$ scheme with only 2 elements (bottom row). The temporal evolution of the constraints (left column) is shown together with the waveform for the component $\tilde{A}_{22}$ of the traceless conformal extrinsic curvature after 1000 crossing times at time $t=1000$ (right column).[]{data-label="fig.linearwave"}](figures/LinearWave-P5-04-waveform.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![Linearized gravitational-wave test using an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme with 4 elements (top row) and an ADER-DG $P_9$ scheme with only 2 elements (bottom row). The temporal evolution of the constraints (left column) is shown together with the waveform for the component $\tilde{A}_{22}$ of the traceless conformal extrinsic curvature after 1000 crossing times at time $t=1000$ (right column).[]{data-label="fig.linearwave"}](figures/LinearWave-P9-02-ADM.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Linearized gravitational-wave test using an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme with 4 elements (top row) and an ADER-DG $P_9$ scheme with only 2 elements (bottom row). The temporal evolution of the constraints (left column) is shown together with the waveform for the component $\tilde{A}_{22}$ of the traceless conformal extrinsic curvature after 1000 crossing times at time $t=1000$ (right column).[]{data-label="fig.linearwave"}](figures/LinearWave-P9-02-waveform.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gauge-wave test
---------------
Also this classical test problem has been taken from the collection of standard tests of Ref. [@Alcubierre:2003pc]. The metric in this case is given by $$\label{eqn.gw.metric}
{\mathrm{d}}s^2 = - H(x,t) d t^2 + H(x,t) {\mathrm{d}}x^2 + {\mathrm{d}}y^2 + {\mathrm{d}}z^2\,,
\qquad \textnormal{with} \qquad H(x,t) := 1-A\,\sin \left( 2\pi(x-t)
\right)\,.$$ The metric implies zero shift ($\beta^i = 0$), hence we use once more $s=0$ together with harmonic slicing $g(\alpha)=1$. Also for this test we employ the *undamped* version of the FO-CCZ4 system, setting $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 = \kappa_3 = \eta =
0$. The computational domain in this case is two-dimensional, with $\Omega = [-0.5,0.5] \times
[-0.05, 0.05]$ with periodic boundary conditions in all directions. Since $\beta^i = 0$, the extrinsic curvature is again given by $K_{ij} =
-\partial_t \gamma_{ij} / (2\alpha)$, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$K_{yy} = K_{zz} = K_{xy} =
K_{xz} = K_{yz} = 0$ and the remaining primary variables are $$\phi^2 = H^{-1/3}, \qquad \alpha = \sqrt{H}, \qquad
K_{xx} = - \pi A\frac{\cos\left(2\pi(x-t)\right)}{\sqrt{1 - A\sin\left(2\pi(x-t)\right)}}.$$ We furthermore set $K_0=0$. The auxiliary variables can be obtained from their definition via a straightforward calculation.
We first simulate this test problem with a perturbation amplitude of $A=0.1$ until $t=1000$ with an unlimited ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme and using $100 \times 10$ elements to cover the domain $\Omega$. We run this physical setup twice, once with the default parameters $e=c=1$, according to the original second order CCZ4 system [@Alic:2011a] and a *modified* setting with $e=2$ and $c=0$ to obtain an improved cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint. In both cases the system is strongly hyperbolic. The time evolution of the ADM constraints is reported in Fig. \[fig.gaugewave\], showing only a very moderate growth of the constraint $M_2$ that is sublinear in time and close to machine precision. The other constraints $H$ and $M_1$ remain essentially constant during the entire simulation. We emphasize that we have used the *undamped* version of the FO-CCZ4 system, and nevertheless obtain stable results, while the original second-order CCZ4 formulation was reported to fail for this test problem in the undamped version, and only the damped CCZ4 system was stable (see [@Alic:2011a] for details). It is also worth recalling that both the first- and the second-order formulation of the BSSNOK system fail for this test case after a rather short time (see [@Alic:2011a; @Brown2012]). In Fig. \[fig.gaugewave\] we also provide a direct comparison of the solution after 1000 crossing times for the conformal factor $\phi$ as well as for the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$. Note the overall very good agreement between the numerical solution and the exact one. For the sake of clarity, in the plots of the waveforms we also report the numerical error computed as the difference between the numerical solution and the exact solution at the final time $t=1000$. It can be clearly noticed from the computational results shown in Fig. \[fig.gaugewave\] that the constraints and the phase errors in the waveforms are significantly smaller for the modified setting $e=2$, which may justify the use of a faster cleaning speed of the Hamiltonian constraint $e>1$ for *purely numerical* purposes. In any case, our FO-CCZ4 system behaves well also with the default setting $e=c=1$, which is typically used in the standard second order CCZ4 system [@Alic:2011a].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Gauge-wave test case with amplitude $A=0.1$ using the undamped FO-CCZ4 system ($\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$). Comparison of the default setting $e=1$ and $c=1$ (left) with the modified setting $e=2$ and $c=0$ leading to an improved cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint (right). Temporal evolution of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (top). Comparison of the wave form of the conformal factor $\phi$ (center) and the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$ (bottom) with the exact solution at time $t=1000$. Notice the larger constraint violations and the slight phase shift in the waveforms present in the results in the left column, corresponding to the default setting $e=c=1$. Since in this test the momentum constraint $M_3=0$, it is not plotted when using a logarithmic axis.[]{data-label="fig.gaugewave"}](figures/GaugeWaveE1-Constraints.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Gauge-wave test case with amplitude $A=0.1$ using the undamped FO-CCZ4 system ($\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$). Comparison of the default setting $e=1$ and $c=1$ (left) with the modified setting $e=2$ and $c=0$ leading to an improved cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint (right). Temporal evolution of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (top). Comparison of the wave form of the conformal factor $\phi$ (center) and the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$ (bottom) with the exact solution at time $t=1000$. Notice the larger constraint violations and the slight phase shift in the waveforms present in the results in the left column, corresponding to the default setting $e=c=1$. Since in this test the momentum constraint $M_3=0$, it is not plotted when using a logarithmic axis.[]{data-label="fig.gaugewave"}](figures/GaugeWaveA01-Constraints.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![Gauge-wave test case with amplitude $A=0.1$ using the undamped FO-CCZ4 system ($\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$). Comparison of the default setting $e=1$ and $c=1$ (left) with the modified setting $e=2$ and $c=0$ leading to an improved cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint (right). Temporal evolution of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (top). Comparison of the wave form of the conformal factor $\phi$ (center) and the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$ (bottom) with the exact solution at time $t=1000$. Notice the larger constraint violations and the slight phase shift in the waveforms present in the results in the left column, corresponding to the default setting $e=c=1$. Since in this test the momentum constraint $M_3=0$, it is not plotted when using a logarithmic axis.[]{data-label="fig.gaugewave"}](figures/GaugeWaveE1-Waveform-phi.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Gauge-wave test case with amplitude $A=0.1$ using the undamped FO-CCZ4 system ($\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$). Comparison of the default setting $e=1$ and $c=1$ (left) with the modified setting $e=2$ and $c=0$ leading to an improved cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint (right). Temporal evolution of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (top). Comparison of the wave form of the conformal factor $\phi$ (center) and the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$ (bottom) with the exact solution at time $t=1000$. Notice the larger constraint violations and the slight phase shift in the waveforms present in the results in the left column, corresponding to the default setting $e=c=1$. Since in this test the momentum constraint $M_3=0$, it is not plotted when using a logarithmic axis.[]{data-label="fig.gaugewave"}](figures/GaugeWaveA01-Waveform-phi.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![Gauge-wave test case with amplitude $A=0.1$ using the undamped FO-CCZ4 system ($\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$). Comparison of the default setting $e=1$ and $c=1$ (left) with the modified setting $e=2$ and $c=0$ leading to an improved cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint (right). Temporal evolution of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (top). Comparison of the wave form of the conformal factor $\phi$ (center) and the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$ (bottom) with the exact solution at time $t=1000$. Notice the larger constraint violations and the slight phase shift in the waveforms present in the results in the left column, corresponding to the default setting $e=c=1$. Since in this test the momentum constraint $M_3=0$, it is not plotted when using a logarithmic axis.[]{data-label="fig.gaugewave"}](figures/GaugeWaveE1-Waveform-K.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Gauge-wave test case with amplitude $A=0.1$ using the undamped FO-CCZ4 system ($\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$). Comparison of the default setting $e=1$ and $c=1$ (left) with the modified setting $e=2$ and $c=0$ leading to an improved cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint (right). Temporal evolution of the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints (top). Comparison of the wave form of the conformal factor $\phi$ (center) and the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$ (bottom) with the exact solution at time $t=1000$. Notice the larger constraint violations and the slight phase shift in the waveforms present in the results in the left column, corresponding to the default setting $e=c=1$. Since in this test the momentum constraint $M_3=0$, it is not plotted when using a logarithmic axis.[]{data-label="fig.gaugewave"}](figures/GaugeWaveA01-Waveform-K.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the gauge-wave test has a smooth nontrivial exact analytical solution and is also valid in the nonlinear regime of the equations, we can use it in order to perform a numerical convergence study. For this purpose, we run the test again with different unlimited ADER-DG $P_N$ schemes on a sequence of successively refined meshes. To make the test more difficult, we choose a very large perturbation amplitude of $A=0.9$, which takes the system in the highly nonlinear regime, although in the end the test consists only in a nonlinear re-parametrization of the flat Minkowski spacetime. For thise case we use $c=0$ and $e=2$. We set the final simulation time to $t=10$ and continue using the *undamped* version of the FO-CCZ4 system.
The $L_2$ error norms of the conformal factor $\phi$, the lapse $\alpha$ and the trace of the extrinsic curvature $K$, together with the observed order of accuracy of the different ADER-DG schemes are reported in Table \[tab.conv1\]. We observe essentially the expected order of accuracy of the scheme for $N=3$ and $N=4$, while a superconvergence is observed for $N=5$ and $N=7$. We think that this is due to the strong nonlinearities of the PDE system appearing in the regime in which we run this test case with $A=0.9$ and that some leading errors may be dominated by quadratic terms in the metric and the conformal factor, which can lead to a faster error decay than $N+1$ for *coarse* meshes. However, we expect that this superconvergence will disappear on sufficiently refined meshes; but since the absolute errors are already getting close to machine accuracy on the meshes used here, it is not possible to refine the mesh much more with double-precision arithmetics, at least in the $N=7$ case. For the ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme using $100 \times 10$ elements a comparison between numerical and exact solution of the nonlinear waveforms for $\phi$, $\alpha$, $K$ and $D_{xxx}$ is provided in Fig. \[fig.gauge.xxl\] at $t=10$, where we can note again an excellent agreement between exact and numerical solution.
[ccccccc]{} $N_x \times N_y$ & ${L_2}$ error $\phi$ & $\mathcal{O}(\phi)$ & ${L_2}$ error $\alpha$ & $\mathcal{O}(\alpha)$ & ${L_2}$ error $K$ & $\mathcal{O}(K)$\
\
$60 \times 6$ & 2.8663E-05 & & 5.4876E-05 & & 3.8469E-03 &\
$80 \times 8$ & 1.0574E-05 & 3.5 & 2.2314E-05 & 3.1 & 7.0357E-04 & 5.9\
$100\times 10$ & 3.8760E-06 & 4.5 & 8.0170E-06 & 4.6 & 2.3112E-04 & 5.0\
$120\times 12$ & 1.6311E-06 & 4.7 & 3.2521E-06 & 4.9 & 9.7392E-05 & 4.7\
\
$60 \times 6$ & 4.2966E-06 & & 1.1408E-05 & & 2.1910E-04 &\
$80 \times 8$ & 8.9473E-07 & 5.5 & 2.3725E-06 & 5.5 & 5.0194E-05 & 5.1\
$100\times 10$ & 2.5596E-07 & 5.6 & 6.8053E-07 & 5.6 & 1.5781E-05 & 5.2\
$120\times 12$ & 9.0039E-08 & 5.7 & 2.4064E-07 & 5.7 & 6.1004E-06 & 5.2\
\
$40 \times 4$ & 8.9305E-07 & & 2.1971E-06 & & 1.3614E-04 &\
$60 \times 6$ & 5.2103E-08 & 7.0 & 1.2756E-07 & 7.0 & 5.9568E-06 & 7.7\
$80 \times 8$ & 7.1947E-09 & 6.9 & 1.7348E-08 & 6.9 & 8.4259E-07 & 6.8\
$100\times 10$ & 1.5357E-09 & 6.9 & 3.6421E-09 & 7.0 & 1.8093E-07 & 6.9\
\
$30 \times 3$ & 1.7693E-08 & & 3.9004E-08 & & 6.3103E-06 &\
$40 \times 4$ & 1.8387E-09 & 7.9 & 4.1751E-09 & 7.8 & 5.5791E-07 & 8.4\
$60 \times 6$ & 6.2824E-11 & 8.3 & 1.4304E-10 & 8.3 & 2.1519E-08 & 8.0\
$80 \times 8$ & 5.6521E-12 & 8.4 & 1.3455E-11 & 8.2 & 1.7085E-09 & 8.8\
\[tab.conv1\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Highly nonlinear gauge-wave test case with very large amplitude $A=0.9$. Comparison of the wave form with the exact solution at time $t=10$ for an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme and $100 \times ![Highly nonlinear gauge-wave test case with very large amplitude $A=0.9$. Comparison of the wave form with the exact solution at time $t=10$ for an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme and $100 \times
10$ elements.[]{data-label="fig.gauge.xxl"}](figures/GaugeWaveA09-Waveform-phi.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 10$ elements.[]{data-label="fig.gauge.xxl"}](figures/GaugeWaveA09-Waveform-alpha.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![Highly nonlinear gauge-wave test case with very large amplitude $A=0.9$. Comparison of the wave form with the exact solution at time $t=10$ for an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme and $100 \times ![Highly nonlinear gauge-wave test case with very large amplitude $A=0.9$. Comparison of the wave form with the exact solution at time $t=10$ for an ADER-DG $P_5$ scheme and $100 \times
10$ elements.[]{data-label="fig.gauge.xxl"}](figures/GaugeWaveA09-Waveform-K.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 10$ elements.[]{data-label="fig.gauge.xxl"}](figures/GaugeWaveA09-Waveform-D111.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robust stability test
---------------------
The so-called robust stability test is the last standard test problem that we take from Ref. [@Alcubierre:2003pc]. While in the previous test problems we have used a simple frozen shift condition $\partial_t
\beta^i = 0$ by setting $s=0$ in the FO-CCZ4 system, here we employ the classical Gamma-driver shift condition. Furthermore, we employ the $1+\log$ slicing condition, setting the slicing function to $g(\alpha)=2/\alpha$ and the parameter $f$ of the Gamma driver to $f=0.75$, which is also the typical value used for the BSSNOK system and for the classical second-order CCZ4 system (see [@Alic:2011a] for details). We further set $e=2$, $\kappa_1=\kappa_2=\kappa_3=0$, $K_0=0$, $c=1$ and $\eta=0$.
As customary in this test, we start from the flat Minkowski metric $$d s^2 = -d t^2 + d x^2 + d y^2 + d z^2.
\label{eqn.robstab.metric}$$ We then add uniformly distributed *random perturbations* to *all* quantities of the FO-CCZ4 system, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}to all primary and auxiliary variables and also to $\Theta$ and $\hat{\Gamma}^i$. The two-dimensional computational domain is $\Omega = [-0.5,0.5]^2$ and we run different simulations with an unlimited ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme on four successively refined meshes composed of $10 \rho \times 10 \rho$ elements, corresponding to $40 \rho \times 40 \rho$ degrees of freedom, where $\rho \in \left\{ 1, 2, 4, 8 \right\}$ is the refinement factor. The perturbation amplitude is $\epsilon = 10^{-7}/\rho^2$, which corresponds to perturbation amplitudes that are three orders of magnitude larger that those suggested in Ref. [@Alcubierre:2003pc].
The time evolution of the ADM constraints is reported in Fig. \[fig.robstab\] for all four simulations. One can observe that after an initial decay the constraints remain essentially constant in time for all different grid resolutions, indicating that our FO-CCZ4 system indeed passes the robust stability test with the standard Gamma driver and $1+\log$ gauge conditions (see [@Cao:2012] for similar tests with the Z4c system).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Robust stability test case with Gamma-driver shift condition and $1+\log$ slicing with random initial perturbation of amplitude $10^{-7}/\rho^2$ in all quantities on a sequence of successively refined meshes on the unit square in 2D using an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme. Top left: $10\times10$ elements, corresponding to $40\times40$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=1$). Top right: $20\times20$ elements, corresponding to $80\times80$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=2$). Bottom left: $40\times40$ elements, corresponding to $160\times160$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=4$). Bottom right: $80\times80$ elements, corresponding to $320\times320$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=8$). []{data-label="fig.robstab"}](figures/RobustStabilityODE-10x10.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Robust stability test case with Gamma-driver shift condition and $1+\log$ slicing with random initial perturbation of amplitude $10^{-7}/\rho^2$ in all quantities on a sequence of successively refined meshes on the unit square in 2D using an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme. Top left: $10\times10$ elements, corresponding to $40\times40$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=1$). Top right: $20\times20$ elements, corresponding to $80\times80$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=2$). Bottom left: $40\times40$ elements, corresponding to $160\times160$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=4$). Bottom right: $80\times80$ elements, corresponding to $320\times320$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=8$). []{data-label="fig.robstab"}](figures/RobustStabilityODE-20x20.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![Robust stability test case with Gamma-driver shift condition and $1+\log$ slicing with random initial perturbation of amplitude $10^{-7}/\rho^2$ in all quantities on a sequence of successively refined meshes on the unit square in 2D using an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme. Top left: $10\times10$ elements, corresponding to $40\times40$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=1$). Top right: $20\times20$ elements, corresponding to $80\times80$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=2$). Bottom left: $40\times40$ elements, corresponding to $160\times160$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=4$). Bottom right: $80\times80$ elements, corresponding to $320\times320$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=8$). []{data-label="fig.robstab"}](figures/RobustStabilityODE-40x40.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![Robust stability test case with Gamma-driver shift condition and $1+\log$ slicing with random initial perturbation of amplitude $10^{-7}/\rho^2$ in all quantities on a sequence of successively refined meshes on the unit square in 2D using an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme. Top left: $10\times10$ elements, corresponding to $40\times40$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=1$). Top right: $20\times20$ elements, corresponding to $80\times80$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=2$). Bottom left: $40\times40$ elements, corresponding to $160\times160$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=4$). Bottom right: $80\times80$ elements, corresponding to $320\times320$ degrees of freedom ($\rho=8$). []{data-label="fig.robstab"}](figures/RobustStabilityODE-80x80.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Convergence tests on three-dimensional black-hole spacetimes
------------------------------------------------------------
In this test we consider the evolution of isolated Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes in 3D Cartesian Kerr-Schild coordinates, with $M=1$ the mass of the black hole and $a$ the dimensionless spin. The metric in these coordinates is known analytically and thus the primary variables of our evolution system are given by $$\alpha = S^{-{\frac{1}{2}}}\,, \qquad
\beta^i = \frac{2 H}{S} l_i\,, \qquad
\gamma_{ij} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
1 + 2 H l_x^2 & 2 H l_x l_y & 2 H l_x l_z \\
2 H l_x l_y & 1 + 2 H l_y^2 & 2 H l_y l_z \\
2 H l_x l_z & 2 H l_y l_z & 1 + 2 H l_z^2
\end{array} \right)\,,
\label{eqn.kerr.metric}$$ with $$H := M \frac{r^3}{r^4 + a^2 z^2}\,, \qquad
S := 1 + 2 H\,, \qquad
l_x := \frac{r x + a y}{r^2 + a^2}\,, \qquad
l_y := \frac{r y - a x}{r^2 + a^2}\,, \qquad
l_z := \frac{z}{r}\,,$$ and $$r := \sqrt{ (x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - a^2)/2 + \sqrt{((x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -
a^2)/2)^2 + z^2 a^2} }\,.$$ We furthermore use the fact that the solution is stationary, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$\partial_t \gamma_{ij}=0$, hence the extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}$ is computed as follows (see [@Rezzolla_book:2013]) $$K_{ij} = \frac{1}{2\alpha} \left( \nabla_i \beta_j + \nabla_j \beta_i
\right)\,.$$ The function $K_0$ is chosen as $K_0 = \left( K - \beta^k \partial_k
\alpha \right)/{\left(\alpha^2 g(\alpha)\right)}$, so that $ \partial_t
\alpha = 0$ and in this test the Gamma-driver shift condition is simplified to $\partial_t \beta^i = f b^i$, $\partial_t B_k^i = f
\partial_k b^i$ and $\partial_t b^i = \partial_t \hat{\Gamma}^i$, with the consequence that the above exact solution corresponds to a stationary solution of the FO-CCZ4 system. In other words, we remove the advection terms from the evolution equations of the shift $\beta^i$ and the variable $b^i$ (see also [@Alcubierre:2008]). The conformal factor $\phi$ and the auxiliary variables can be computed according to their definition. The computational domain is chosen as $\Omega = [1,5]^3 \,
M^3$, and the exact solution given by the initial condition is imposed on all boundaries in all variables at all times. Note that this choice of boundary conditions is appropriate to study convergence since the exact solution is also a stationary solution of our PDE system. Note also that the black hole is centered at $x=y=z=0$, so that we evolve only a section of the domain offset from the singularity, but encompassing regions both inside and outside of the event horizon; this effectively amounts to employing an excision of the black-hole interior. We furthermore set $e=2$, $c=1$, $\eta=0$, and consider the undamped CCZ4 system with the $1+\log$ slicing, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}we set $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 = \kappa_3 = 0$, $f=0.75$ and $g(\alpha)=2 / \alpha$.
The simulations were performed with different ADER-DG schemes on a sequence of successively refined meshes until a final time of $t=10\,M$. The Rusanov method is used as approximate Riemann solver at the element interfaces. In the case of the Schwarzschild black hole we use $a=0$, while for the Kerr black hole we set $a=0.9$. The corresponding numerical convergence rates are reported for both cases in Table \[tab.conv.bh\], where we observe that the designed order of accuracy $N+1$ of our high-order fully-discrete one-step ADER-DG schemes has been properly reached.
------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------------- ---------------------
$N_x$ ${L_2}$ error $\phi$ $\mathcal{O}(\phi)$ $N_x$ ${L_2}$ error $\phi$ $\mathcal{O}(\phi)$ $N_x$ ${L_2}$ error $\phi$ $\mathcal{O}(\phi)$ $N_x$ ${L_2}$ error $\phi$ $\mathcal{O}(\phi)$
10 9.9982E-06 5 2.1837E-06 10 1.4270E-05 5 2.6679E-06
15 1.8439E-06 4.2 10 2.8327E-08 6.3 15 2.8279E-06 4.0 10 6.5136E-08 5.4
20 5.8521E-07 4.0 15 2.3649E-09 6.1 20 8.9487E-07 4.0 15 6.0944E-09 5.8
25 2.4322E-07 3.9 20 4.1176E-10 6.1 25 3.6468E-07 4.0 20 1.1087E-09 5.9
------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------------- --------------------- ------- ---------------------- ---------------------
: Numerical convergence results of FO-CCZ4 with simplified Gamma driver for the Schwarzschild black hole (left) and the Kerr black hole (right) in 3D Cartesian Kerr-Schild coordinates at a final time of $t=10$. The $L_2$ errors and corresponding observed convergence order are reported for the variables $\phi$.
\[tab.conv.bh\]
Evolution of a single puncture black hole {#sec.single.punctures}
-----------------------------------------
We next have applied the FO-CCZ4 formulation to a single puncture black hole [@Brandt97b] with mass $M=1$ and dimensionless spin $a=0$ located at the origin of a three-dimensional computational domain $\Omega
= [-150,150]^3 \, M^3$ with periodic boundary conditions everywhere. The domain is discretized with an AMR mesh with grid spacing $\Delta x =
\Delta y = \Delta z = 2.5\,M$ within the inner box $\Omega_b = [-15,15]^3
\, M^3$, while $\Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z = 7.5\,M$ is used in the outer part of the domain. In the innermost zone $\Omega_l = [-3,3]^3 \,
M^3$ the third-order subcell ADER-WENO finite-volume limiter is activated throughout the entire simulation. For details on the AMR framework and the subcell finite-volume limiter we refer the interested reader again to [@Dumbser2014; @Zanotti2015c; @Zanotti2015b]. We also stress that this simulation can be run only after activating the finite-volume subcell limiter, since a robust scheme is needed in order to deal with the puncture singularity. Without such a limiter, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}with a pure DG scheme, the code crashes after a few timesteps since the high-order unlimited DG scheme is *not* robust enough to deal with the puncture metric. In our simulation we use an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme ($N=3$), which leads to $2N+1 = 7$ finite-volume subcells per DG element, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}the effective mesh spacing in terms of points (cell averages) inside the domain $\Omega_l$ is $\Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z = 0.357\,M$. Note that we set up the mesh so that the puncture is located at the boundary of the DG elements; given the location of the degrees of freedom in the subcell grid (see Fig. \[fig.subcellgrid\]), no grid point coincides with the puncture. We set the CCZ4 parameters to $\kappa_1 = 0.1$, $\kappa_2=0$, $\kappa_3 =
0.5$ and $\eta=0$. The constant $\mu$ accounting for the second-order ordering constraints in the evolution of $B^i_k$ is set to $\mu=1/5$, while for this test we use $c=1$, $f=0.75$ and $e=1$ to be as close as possible to a standard second-order CCZ4 formulation, where the cleaning of the Hamiltonian constraint is done at the speed of light. The initial metric and lapse are provided by the `TwoPunctures` initial data code [@Ansorg:2004ds] (part of the Einstein Toolkit software [@loeffler_2011_et]). Explicitly, the lapse is set initially to $$\alpha = {\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{1-{\frac{1}{2}}\left({M}/{r^*}\right)}{1+{\frac{1}{2}}\left({M}/{r^*}\right)}+1\right)\,,$$ where $r^*:=(r^4+10^{-24})^{\frac{1}{4}}$ and $r$ is the coordinate distance of a grid point from the puncture. The auxiliary quantities (which are spatial derivatives of the primary quantities) are obtained via a simple fourth order central finite difference applied to the primary variables $\alpha$ and $\gamma_{ij}$. Initially the shift and the extrinsic curvature are set to zero, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}$\beta^i = 0$ and $K_{ij}=0$.
The evolution was carried out until a final time of $t=1000\,M$ and Fig. \[fig.puncture\] reports the evolution of the average $L_2$ error of the ADM constraints, which we define as $$\overline{L}_2 = \sqrt{ \frac{\int_\Omega \epsilon^2
{\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{x}}{\int_\Omega d\boldsymbol{x} } }\,,$$ where $\epsilon$ denotes the local error of each of the ADM quantities, [[i.e.,]{} ]{}Hamiltonian $H$ and momentum constraints $M_i$. In Fig. \[fig.puncture\] also a view of the 3D grid setup is shown together with a zoom into the center region with the contour colors of the lapse function at a time of $t=200\,M$.
It is probably worth recalling that, to the best of our knowledge, these are the first results obtained for a puncture black-hole spacetime using a fully three-dimensional DG finite-element method with AMR and LTS. Previous results obtained with high-order DG schemes for black-hole spacetimes were essentially limited to the one-dimensional case (see, [[e.g.,]{} ]{}Refs. [@field10; @Brown2012; @Miller2016]).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Time evolution of the ADM constraints for the single puncture black hole using an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme with AMR and ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter until $t=1000$ (left). Color contours for the lapse at $t=200$ and grid setup showing the domain $\Omega$, the refined box $\Omega_b$ and the zone with active subcell finite-volume limiter $\Omega_l$ (center). Zoom into the center region at $t=200$ with color contours for $\alpha$ (right).[]{data-label="fig.puncture"}](figures/SinglePunctureBH-ODE-eta0.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Time evolution of the ADM constraints for the single puncture black hole using an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme with AMR and ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter until $t=1000$ (left). Color contours for the lapse at $t=200$ and grid setup showing the domain $\Omega$, the refined box $\Omega_b$ and the zone with active subcell finite-volume limiter $\Omega_l$ (center). Zoom into the center region at $t=200$ with color contours for $\alpha$ (right).[]{data-label="fig.puncture"}](figures/OnePunctureODE.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Time evolution of the ADM constraints for the single puncture black hole using an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme with AMR and ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter until $t=1000$ (left). Color contours for the lapse at $t=200$ and grid setup showing the domain $\Omega$, the refined box $\Omega_b$ and the zone with active subcell finite-volume limiter $\Omega_l$ (center). Zoom into the center region at $t=200$ with color contours for $\alpha$ (right).[]{data-label="fig.puncture"}](figures/OnePunctureODE-zoom.pdf "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary results for moving punctures {#sec.movpunct}
----------------------------------------
The last test considered is a preliminary application of the FO-CCZ4 system to a binary system of two moving punctures. In particular, we consider a head-on collision of two nonrotating black holes of equal mass $M=1$ with zero linear momentum initially located at $\boldsymbol{x}^- =
(-1,0,0)$ and $\boldsymbol{x}^+ = (+1,0,0)$. The three-dimensional computational domain is given by $\Omega = [-25,25]^3 \, M^3$ and flat Minkowski spacetime is imposed as boundary condition everywhere. The CCZ4 parameters are set to $\kappa_1 = 0.1$, $\kappa_2=0$, $\kappa_3 =
0.5$, $\eta=0$ and furthermore we choose $c=1$, $e=1$, $f=1$ and $\mu=1/5$. Again, the initial metric and the lapse are provided by the `TwoPunctures` initial data code [@Ansorg:2004ds], with the lapse set initially to $$\alpha =
{\frac{1}{2}}\left(
\frac{1-{\frac{1}{2}}\left({m_-}/{r_-^*}\right)-{\frac{1}{2}}\left({m_+}/{r_+^*}\right)}
{1+{\frac{1}{2}}\left({m_-}/{r_-^*}\right)+{\frac{1}{2}}\left({m_+}/{r_+^*}\right)}
+1 \right)\,,$$ where $r^*_-$ and $r^*_+$ are the coordinate distances of a grid point from either puncture (defined analogously to the previous section) and $m_-$ and $m_+$ are the so-called bare masses of the two black holes (see [@Ansorg:2004ds]) and in this case they are equal. The auxiliary quantities are computed from the primary variables via a fourth-order central finite-difference method. We use the simple and robust Rusanov method as approximate Riemann solver on the element boundaries. The shift and extrinsic curvature are initially set to $\beta^i = 0$ and $K_{ij}=0$.
The domain is discretized with an AMR mesh of mesh spacing $\Delta x =
\Delta y = \Delta z = 5/12\,M$ within the inner box $\Omega_b =
[-2.5,2.5]^3 \, M^3$, while $\Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z =
1.25\,M$ is used in the outer part of the domain. In the innermost zone $\Omega_l = [-5/3,5/3]^3 \, M^3$ the third-order subcell ADER-WENO finite-volume limiter is activated throughout the entire simulation. As for a single puncture, we use an ADER-DG $P_3$ scheme ($N=3$), whose $2N+1 = 7$ finite-volume subcells lead to an effective mesh spacing inside the domain $\Omega_l$ of $\Delta x =
\Delta y = \Delta z = 0.0595$. Once again we remark that the use of the finite-volume subcell limiter is essential in order to obtain a stable evolution.
The simulation is run until a final time of $t=60\,M$ and the evolution of the contour surfaces of the lapse and the shift vector are reported in Fig. \[fig.twopunctures\]. The contour surfaces of the conformal factor at the final time as well as the evolution of the ADM constraints are depicted in Fig. \[fig.twopunctures.adm\]. Clearly, no sign of growth in the violation of the constraints appears after the two punctures have merged at $t\simeq 10\,M$.
Although these results are meant mostly as a proof-of-concept rather than as a realistic modelling of the inspiral and merger on binary black-hole systems, they provide convincing evidence that binary systems of puncture black holes can be evolved stably with our path-conservative ADER-DG scheme with ADER-WENO subcell finite-volume limiter on AMR grids based on the FO-CCZ4 formulation proposed here. A more detailed and systematic investigation, which includes the emission of gravitational waves from binary systems of rotating black holes in quasi-circular orbits (see, [[e.g.,]{} ]{}[@Alic:2011a]), will be the subject of future work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Time evolution of the contour surfaces of the lapse $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta^i$ for the head-on collision of two puncture black holes of equal mass $M=1$ at times $t=0,\,5,\,7,\,8,\,10\,M$ and $t=15\,M$, from top left to bottom right.[]{data-label="fig.twopunctures"}](figures/TPRusanov-t00.pdf "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![Time evolution of the contour surfaces of the lapse $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta^i$ for the head-on collision of two puncture black holes of equal mass $M=1$ at times $t=0,\,5,\,7,\,8,\,10\,M$ and $t=15\,M$, from top left to bottom right.[]{data-label="fig.twopunctures"}](figures/TPRusanov-t05.pdf "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![Time evolution of the contour surfaces of the lapse $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta^i$ for the head-on collision of two puncture black holes of equal mass $M=1$ at times $t=0,\,5,\,7,\,8,\,10\,M$ and $t=15\,M$, from top left to bottom right.[]{data-label="fig.twopunctures"}](figures/TPRusanov-t07.pdf "fig:"){width="31.00000%"}
![Time evolution of the contour surfaces of the lapse $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta^i$ for the head-on collision of two puncture black holes of equal mass $M=1$ at times $t=0,\,5,\,7,\,8,\,10\,M$ and $t=15\,M$, from top left to bottom right.[]{data-label="fig.twopunctures"}](figures/TPRusanov-t08.pdf "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![Time evolution of the contour surfaces of the lapse $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta^i$ for the head-on collision of two puncture black holes of equal mass $M=1$ at times $t=0,\,5,\,7,\,8,\,10\,M$ and $t=15\,M$, from top left to bottom right.[]{data-label="fig.twopunctures"}](figures/TPRusanov-t10.pdf "fig:"){width="31.00000%"} ![Time evolution of the contour surfaces of the lapse $\alpha$ and the shift vector $\beta^i$ for the head-on collision of two puncture black holes of equal mass $M=1$ at times $t=0,\,5,\,7,\,8,\,10\,M$ and $t=15\,M$, from top left to bottom right.[]{data-label="fig.twopunctures"}](figures/TPRusanov-t15.pdf "fig:"){width="31.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Head-on collision of two puncture black holes: contour surfaces of the conformal factor $\phi$ at time $t=34\,M$ after the merger (left) and time evolution of the ADM constraints (right). The curves for the second and third momentum constraint almost coincide. []{data-label="fig.twopunctures.adm"}](figures/TPRusanov-phi-t34.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Head-on collision of two puncture black holes: contour surfaces of the conformal factor $\phi$ at time $t=34\,M$ after the merger (left) and time evolution of the ADM constraints (right). The curves for the second and third momentum constraint almost coincide. []{data-label="fig.twopunctures.adm"}](figures/TPCollisionADM.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions {#sec.conclusions}
===========
We have proposed a possible FO-CCZ4 formulation of the Einstein equations, that is, a *strongly hyperbolic* first-order formulation of the conformal covariant Z4 (CCZ4) system of Alic et al. [@Alic:2011a]. The system comprises 58 evolution equations for the complete state vector given by ${\boldsymbol Q}^T := \left(
\tilde\gamma_{ij}, \ln{\alpha}, \beta^i, \ln{\phi}, \tilde A_{ij}, K,
\Theta, \hat\Gamma^i, b^i, A_k, B^i_k, D_{kij}, P_k \right)$. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a first-order hyperbolic formulation of the CCZ4 system has been proposed and has been employed in a systematic series of numerical tests of increasing complexity in one, two and three spatial dimensions.
The key idea for obtaining strong hyperbolicity in the new formulation is the *approximate symmetrization* of the sparsity pattern of the system matrix, that is, the appropriate use of ordering constraints and by using the fact that the trace of $\tilde{A}_{ij}$ is zero, in order to avoid the appearance of Jordan blocks that cannot be diagonalized. Another important idea employed to obtain the FO-CCZ4 formulation is the use of first-order ordering constraints in a way that reduces the evolution equations of the lapse $\alpha$, the shift $\beta^i$, the conformal metric $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ and the conformal factor $\phi$ to a pure system of *ordinary* differential equations [@Alcubierre:2008]. In other words, whenever differential terms with respect to $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\phi$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ appear, they are replaced by the corresponding auxiliary variables $A_k$, $B^i_k$, $P_k$ and $D_{kij}$ and thus become algebraic source terms. This leads to a very particular split structure of the system that also greatly simplifies the analysis of the resulting FO-CCZ4 system, since the eigenvalues and eigenvectors associated with $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\phi$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$ become trivial, being zero and unit, respectively. This has also the advantage that for the rest of the analysis a reduced system of *partial* differential equations relative to only 47 dynamic variables $\boldsymbol{U}^T=(\tilde{A}_{ij}, K,
\Theta, \hat{\Gamma}^i, b^i, A_k, B_k^i, D_{kij}, P_k)$ can be considered. Furthermore, the matrix of the reduced system in the dynamic variables is only a function of $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\phi$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, and not of the dynamic variables themselves, which not only substantially simplifies the hyperbolicity analysis but which also leads to the important result that *all fields* of our FO-CCZ4 system are *linearly degenerate*.
When compared to the first-order Z4 system proposed in Refs. [@Bona97a; @Alic:2009], our entire FO-CCZ4 system is written in a fully non-conservative form, which is another key idea of our FO-CCZ4 formulation. We stress that the previously mentioned simplifications are *not possible* if a *conservative* formulation of the system based on the divergence of fluxes is used, [[e.g.,]{} ]{}like the one proposed in [@Bona97a; @Alic:2009], since the Jacobian $\partial
\boldsymbol{F} / \partial{\boldsymbol{Q}}$ of the flux $\boldsymbol{F}({\boldsymbol{Q}})$ will also depend on the dynamical variables and the quasi-linear form of the system will also contain differential terms in $\alpha$, $\beta^i$, $\phi$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ij}$, while in our genuinely non-conservative formulation, no differential terms of the latter quantities appear.
We have also provided a proof of *strong hyperbolicity* of our FO-CCZ4 system for two standard gauge choices, namely i) harmonic lapse and zero shift and ii) 1+log slicing combined with the Gamma-driver. In both cases we have computed the analytical expressions of all eigenvalues and all right eigenvectors of the system. For zero shift and harmonic lapse it was also possible to provide the inverse of the right eigenvector matrix, i.e. the so-called left eigenvectors of the system. To the best knowledge of the authors, this is the first time that the hyperbolicity of a *first-order reduction* of the CCZ4 system is analyzed, in particular including the Gamma-driver shift condition.
We have numerically solved the FO-CCZ4 system after discretizing it with the aid of a family of high-order fully-discrete one-step ADER discontinuous Galerkin (DG) schemes, supplemented with an ADER-WENO finite-volume limiter in order to deal with the physical singularities arising with black holes. The non-conservative formulation of the system is naturally treated within the framework of path-conservative schemes, first proposed by Castro and Parés in the finite-volume context [@Castro2006; @Pares2006] and later extended also to ADER-DG schemes in [@Dumbser2009a; @Dumbser2010]. Furthermore, in order to ensure positivity of the numerical solution in terms of $\alpha$ and $\phi$, we have decided to evolve the logarithms $\ln{\alpha}$ and $\ln{\phi}$ of these quantities in time, rather than the quantities themselves.
As customary for novel formulations of the Einstein equations, we have applied the strongly hyperbolic FO-CCZ4 system to a series of standard test cases suggested in Ref. [@Alcubierre:2003pc], such as the gauge-wave test, the robust stability test and the linear-wave test bed. Besides providing evidence that the new system is able to reproduce the analytic solution accurately, we have carried out numerical convergence studies of the method on the gauge-wave test in the highly nonlinear regime of the equations, as well as on the Schwarzschild and a Kerr black hole using 3D Cartesian Kerr-Schild coordinates. We have also provided numerical evidence that our ADER-DG scheme with ADER-WENO finite-volume subcell limiter is able to perform a long time integration of a single puncture black hole with the usual Gamma driver and $1 + \log$ gauge conditions that are typically used in simulations carried out with the BSSNOK evolution system. Finally, we have also shown some first preliminary results for two moving puncture black holes. To the best of our knowledge, the numerical results shown in this paper represent the first simulations of the 3+1 Einstein equations ever done with high-order DG and WENO finite-volume schemes on three-dimensional adaptive grids. All previous simulations of black-hole spacetimes with high-order DG schemes, in fact, were limited to the one-dimensional case only.
Future research will concern the extension of the present algorithms to dynamic AMR and the extraction of the gravitational waveforms generated by binary black-hole mergers (see [@Centrella:2010; @Bishop2016] for reviews) and binary neutron-star mergers (see [@Baiotti2016] for a review). For the latter case, the present FO-CCZ4 system will be properly coupled with the GRMHD equations, using the high order DG schemes on space-time adaptive AMR meshes with *a posteriori* subcell finite volume limiter proposed in . We also plan to extend the unified formulation of Newtonian continuum mechanics recently proposed in [@Peshkov2014; @Dumbser2015a; @Dumbser2016] to the general relativistic case and couple it with the FO-CCZ4 system presented in this paper.
It is a pleasure to thank D. Alic, C. Bona, and C. Palenzuela for helpful and inspiring discussions. We also thank the referee very much for his very useful, insightful and constructive comments that helped to improve the quality of this paper substantially. This research was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the project *ExaHyPE*, grant agreement number no. 671698 (call FETHPC-1-2014). It was also supported by the ERC synergy grant “BlackHoleCam: Imaging the Event Horizon of Black Holes" (Grant No. 610058), by “NewCompStar”, COST Action MP1304 and by the LOEWE-Program in the Helmholtz International Center (HIC) for FAIR. The simulations were performed on the SuperMUC cluster at the LRZ in Garching, on the LOEWE cluster in CSC in Frankfurt and on the HazelHen cluster at the HLRS in Stuttgart.
The eigenstructure of the FO-CCZ4 system {#sec:eigenappendix}
========================================
The ordering of the 58 variables for the complete state vector ${\boldsymbol{Q}}$ used in this paper is explicitly given below as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn.pde.Q}
{\boldsymbol Q}^T &=& \Big(
\tilde\gamma_{xx}, \tilde\gamma_{xy}, \tilde\gamma_{xz},
\tilde\gamma_{yy}, \tilde\gamma_{yz}, \tilde\gamma_{zz},
\ln{\alpha},
\beta^x, \beta^y, \beta^z,
\ln{\phi},
\tilde A_{xx}, \tilde A_{xy}, \tilde A_{xz},
\tilde A_{yy}, \tilde A_{yz}, \tilde A_{zz},
K, \Theta,
\hat\Gamma^x, \hat\Gamma^y, \hat\Gamma^z,
b^x, b^y, b^z,
\nonumber \\
&&
A_x, A_y, A_x
B^x_x, B^x_y, B^x_z,
B^y_x, B^y_y, B^y_z,
B^z_x, B^z_y, B^z_z,
D_{xxx}, D_{xxy}, D_{xxz},
D_{xyy}, D_{xyz}, D_{xzz},
D_{yxx}, D_{yxy}, D_{yxz},
\nonumber \\
&&
D_{yyy}, D_{yyz}, D_{yzz},
D_{zxx}, D_{zxy}, D_{zxz},
D_{zyy}, D_{zyz}, D_{zzz},
P_x, P_y, P_z
\Big)
\,.\end{aligned}$$
We emphasize again that for the hyperbolicity analysis of our FO-CCZ4 system it is sufficient to consider the reduced evolution system of the dynamic variables in the vector $\boldsymbol{U}$, while the quantities defining the 4-metric in the vector $\boldsymbol{V}^T=(\tilde\gamma_{ij}, \ln{\alpha}, \beta^i,
\ln{\phi})$ are only evolved in time via pure ODEs, hence the associated eigenvalues are trivially zero and the eigenvectors are the unit vectors.
Zero shift with harmonic lapse
------------------------------
For a harmonic lapse ($g(\alpha)=1$) and zero shift ($\beta^i=0$, $s=0$) and using the standard setting $c=1$ that is necessary for achieving strong hyperbolicity in first and second order formulations of the Z4 system (with $e=1$), see [@Bona:2003qn; @Bona:2004yp] for a detailed analysis, the eigenvalues are given by $$\lambda_{1,2,\cdots,21} = 0, \quad
\lambda_{22,23} = \pm \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \phi \, \alpha \,e, \quad
\lambda_{24,25,\cdots,29} = +\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \phi \, \alpha, \quad
\lambda_{30,31,\cdots,35} = -\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \phi \, \alpha.$$ The associated 35 right eigenvectors of the reduced FO-CCZ4 system in the dynamic variables $\boldsymbol{U}^T=(\tilde{A}_{ij},K,\Theta,
\hat{\Gamma}^i, A_k, D_{kij}, P_k)$, following the ordering chosen in equation , read $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{r}_1^T & = &
\left( \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{2}^T & = & \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, \phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}, \phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}, \phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_3^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_4^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{5}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,\phantom{-} {\frac {{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}}{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},-{\frac {{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}}{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}}, -\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},1,
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{6}^T & = & \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-{\frac {{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}}{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},\phantom{-} {\frac {{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}}{
\tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{7}^T & = & \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,\phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}, \phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}, \phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{8}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{9}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{10}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0
,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{11}^T & = & \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{12}^T & = & \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{13}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,\phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}, \phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}, \phantom{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{14}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{15}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}, 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{16}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{17}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{18}^T & = & \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{19}^T & = & \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\tilde{\gamma}^{11}(2\tilde{\gamma}_{11}\tilde{\gamma}^{11} +3\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}+3\tilde{\gamma}_{13}\tilde{\gamma}^{13}),
-\tilde{\gamma}^{12}(\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}+\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} )+\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}\tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\tilde{\gamma}^{13}(\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}+\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} )+\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}\tilde{\gamma}^{11},
0,0,0,0,0,0,\tilde{\gamma}_{22},\tilde{\gamma}_{23},\tilde{\gamma}_{33},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{20}^T & = &
\left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\tilde{\gamma}^{12}(2\tilde{\gamma}_{11}\tilde{\gamma}^{11} +3\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}+3\tilde{\gamma}_{13}\tilde{\gamma}^{13}),
-\tilde{\gamma}^{22}(\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}+\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} )+\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}\tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\tilde{\gamma}^{23}(\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}+\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} )+\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}\tilde{\gamma}^{12},
0,0,0,0,0,0,
\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0,1,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{21}^T & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\tilde{\gamma}^{13}(2\tilde{\gamma}_{11}\tilde{\gamma}^{11} +3\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}+3\tilde{\gamma}_{13}\tilde{\gamma}^{13}),
-\tilde{\gamma}^{23}(\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}+\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} )+\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}\tilde{\gamma}^{13},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\tilde{\gamma}^{33}(\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}+\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} )+\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}\tilde{\gamma}^{13},
0,0,0,0,0,0,
\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0,1 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{22,23}^T & = & \left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,\mp \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} e \phi, \tilde{\gamma}^{11} , \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\tilde{\gamma}^{13},1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{24,30}^T & = &
\left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,\mp 3 \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,-4 \tilde{\gamma}^{11},-4 \tilde{\gamma}^{12},-4 \tilde{\gamma}^{13},-3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{25,31}^T & = &
\left( \mp
2 \phi \tilde{\gamma}^{12} / \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, -2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} ,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{26,32}^T & = &
\left(
\mp 2 \phi \tilde{\gamma}^{13} / \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,1,0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{27,33}^T &=&
\left(
\phantom{2} \mp \phi \tilde{\gamma}^{22}/\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,
\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,0,0,0, -\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{28,34}^T &=&
\left( \mp
2 \phi \tilde{\gamma}^{23}/\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0, \pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0
,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-2\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{r}_{29,35}^T & = &
\left( \phantom{2}
\mp \phi \tilde{\gamma}^{33} / \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0, \pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0
,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\label{eqn.revc1}\end{aligned}$$ The associated 35 left eigenvectors, which define the inverse of the right eigenvector matrix ($\boldsymbol{L} = \boldsymbol{R}^{-1}$), read $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{l}_1 & = &
\left( \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}, \frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}, \frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}, \frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}, \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
0,0,0,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{2} & = &
\left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{2}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} + \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_3 & = &
\left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{32}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_4 & = &
\left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}- \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} - \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_5 & = &
\left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{6} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{7} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{8} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{9} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{10} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{11} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{12} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{13} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{14} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{15} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{16} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{17} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{18} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{19} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,
-\frac{1}{3} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}, 0, 0,
\frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{2}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3},
-\frac{4}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{4}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{20} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{21} & = &
\left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 \right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{22,23} & = &
\left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\mp \frac{ 1 }{ e \phi } \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{24,30} &=& \left(
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
\mp \frac{ 1 }{ 6 \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\frac{1}{6} \frac{1}{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0, 0,
- \frac{1}{6} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{3} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{1}{6} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{2}{3} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{2}{3} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{2}{3} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{25,31} &=& \left(
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} } \pm \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
0, 0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{4 } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{4 } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{32}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } + \frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \frac{1}{2},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } - \frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{26,32} &=& \left(
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} } \pm \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
0, 0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{12} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{4 } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{4 } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } + \frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}+ \frac{1}{2},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }- \frac{1}{4} \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{27,33} &=& \left(
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} } \pm \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
0, 0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
+\frac{1}{6 } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}, 0, 0,
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}+ \frac{1}{2},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{28,34} &=& \left(
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} }\pm \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
0, 0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
+\frac{1}{6 } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}, 0, 0,
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}+ \frac{1}{2},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }
\right) \nonumber \\
\boldsymbol{l}_{29,35} &=& \left(
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{3} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \frac{1}{6} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} }\pm \frac{1}{2} \frac{1}{\phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0, 0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
+\frac{1}{6 } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}, 0, 0,
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{22},
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{33}+ \frac{1}{2},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{3 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }+ \frac{1}{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{1}{6 } \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }
\right) \end{aligned}$$
For completeness, we also report the eigenvectors for the non-standard case $c=0$, which in the original Z4 and CCZ4 framework is *not* strongly hyperbolic, see the analysis provided in [@Bona:2003qn; @Bona:2004yp]. However, in the case $c=0$ the FO-CCZ4 system can be made strongly hyperbolic by choosing a faster cleaning speed $e > 1$. For $c=0$ all eigenvectors are the same as in , apart from the pair $\boldsymbol{r}_{22,23}$, which in this case reads $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{r}_{22,23}^T & = & \left( \mp \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}} \left( 2 \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} + 3\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + 3\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right) e \phi,
\pm \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} e \phi,
\pm \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} e \phi,
\pm \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \tilde{\gamma}_{22} e \phi,
\pm \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} e \phi, \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\pm \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} e \phi,
\mp 3 \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} e \phi,
\mp \frac{3}{2} \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} (e^2-1) e \phi,
(3e^2-7)\tilde{\gamma}^{11},
(3e^2-7)\tilde{\gamma}^{12},
(3e^2-7)\tilde{\gamma}^{13},
-3,0,0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-1/{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \left( 2\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} + 3\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + 3 \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right),
\tilde{\gamma}_{12},
\tilde{\gamma}_{13},
\tilde{\gamma}_{22},
\tilde{\gamma}_{23},
\tilde{\gamma}_{33},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 \right) \end{aligned}$$ and which is linearly independent of the other right eigenvectors only for $e \neq 1$. The associated left eigenvectors contain a factor $e^2-1$ in the denominator, which underlines the necessity of choosing $e \neq 1$ in the non-standard case $c=0$, but they are not reported here.
Gamma driver shift condition with 1+log slicing
-----------------------------------------------
Here we present the 47 eigenvalues as well as the complete set of 47 linearly independent right eigenvectors of the reduced dynamic system in the most general case when the gamma driver shift condition is used, combined with the 1+log slicing for the lapse ($g(\alpha)=2/\alpha$). We recall that in this case the vector of dynamic quantities is $\boldsymbol{U}^T :=\left( \tilde A_{ij}, K, \Theta,
\hat\Gamma^i, b^i, A_k, B^i_k, D_{kij}, P_k \right)$. Here, we have used the standard setting $e=c=1$. In the final expressions we have used the property $\textnormal{det}(\tilde{\gamma}_{ij})=1$. Note that for $\alpha=\phi=1$ the eigenvectors $\mathbf{r}_{16,22}$ are linearly independent of the others only for $f \neq \frac{3}{4}$. The eigenvalues read $$\lambda_{1,2,3,\cdots,14,15} = -\beta^1, \qquad
\lambda_{16,17,18,19,20,21} = -\beta^1 + \sqrt{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } \phi \alpha, \qquad
\lambda_{22,23,24,25,26,27} = -\beta^1 - \sqrt{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } \phi \alpha, \qquad$$ $$\lambda_{28,29} = -\beta^1 \pm \sqrt{2} \sqrt{ \alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } \phi, \qquad
\lambda_{30,31} = -\beta^1 \pm \sqrt{ \frac{4}{3} f \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }, \qquad$$ $$\lambda_{32,33} = -\beta^1 + \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } \alpha, \qquad
\lambda_{34,35} = -\beta^1 - \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } \alpha,$$ $$\lambda_{36,37} = -\beta^1 + \sqrt{ f \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }, \qquad
\lambda_{38,39} = -\beta^1 - \sqrt{ f \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },$$ $$\lambda_{40,41,42,43} = -\beta^1 + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } \alpha, \qquad
\lambda_{44,45,46,47} = -\beta^1 - \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } \alpha.$$ The associated right eigenvectors are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{r}_1^T &=& \left( 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,-\frac{\left(\tilde{\gamma}^{12}\right)^3}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 \left(2 \tilde{\gamma}_{33} + \left(\tilde{\gamma}^{12}\right)^2 \right) }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
-\frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} - \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \right) }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 }
0,
\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
-\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} }, 0,0,
\frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} },0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_2^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\tilde{\gamma}^{11} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 3 \right),
\tilde{\gamma}^{12} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 1 \right),
\tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 1 \right),
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0,0,\tilde{\gamma}_{22},\tilde{\gamma}_{23},\tilde{\gamma}_{33},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 \right)
\nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_3^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 2 \right),
\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \right) + \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} - \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \right) - \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,
\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,0,0,0,0,0, \frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1
\right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_4^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-2 \frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} + \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right) }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
-2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} - \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right) }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-2 \frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23}^2}{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,
2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_5^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\tilde{\gamma}^{12} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 2 \right),
\frac{-\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{23}^2 \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{33} + \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 \right) + \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} \right) \right) - \tilde{\gamma}_{33} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \right) + \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,
-\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{1}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_6^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
0,0,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_7^T &=& \left(
1 -\frac{13}{30} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{13}{30} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{13}{30} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{13}{30} \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{13}{30} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
-\frac{13}{30} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\frac{13}{10} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{1}{2} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
0,0,
\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
0,0,
\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_8^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
2 ( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \tilde{\gamma}_{33} ),
2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
0,0,\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_9^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-2 \frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} + \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right) }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
-2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} - \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right) }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23}^2}{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
-2 \frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,1,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{10}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23},
2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{33},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,
0,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{11}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{12}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right)^3 }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\left( -\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} + \tilde{\gamma}^{33} \right)
\left( -\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} + \tilde{\gamma}^{23} \right),
-\left( -\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} + \tilde{\gamma}^{33} \right)
\left( +\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} + \tilde{\gamma}^{33} \right),
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{\mu \alpha^2}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
\frac{\mu \alpha^2}{f} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 } + \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{33} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,0,1,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{13}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\tilde{\gamma}^{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
,0, \cdots ,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{14}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( 2 \tilde{\gamma}_{33} + \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 \right) }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( - \tilde{\gamma}_{23} + \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} \right) }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
0,
-\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,1,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{15}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( -\tilde{\gamma}_{23} + \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} \right) }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{22} + \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} \right) }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
0,
\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{\alpha^2 \mu}{f} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right)^2 }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
0,
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{16,22}^T &=& \left(
\mp \frac{1}{3} f \phi \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 3}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\mp \frac{1}{3} f \phi \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\mp \frac{1}{3} f \phi \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\mp \frac{1}{3} f \phi \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\mp \frac{1}{3} f \phi \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\mp \frac{1}{3} f \phi \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\pm (4 f - 3 \alpha^2 \phi^2) \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\pm \frac{1}{2} (4 f - 3 \alpha^2 \phi^2) \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \alpha^2 \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- \alpha^2 \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- \alpha^2 \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
- \alpha^2 \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- \alpha^2 \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \alpha^2 \phi^2 \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
0,0,0,
\pm \alpha \phi f \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,
\pm \alpha \phi f \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,
\pm \alpha \phi f \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0, \left( \alpha^2 \phi^2 - f \right),0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{17,23}^T &=& \left(
\mp 2 \phi \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} ,1,0,0,0,0,
0,\cdots, 0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{18,24}^T &=& \left(
\mp 2 \phi \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,1,0,0,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{19,25}^T &=& \left(
\mp \phantom{2} \phi \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,
\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
- \phantom{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,1,0,0,0,
\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{20,26}^T &=& \left(
\mp 2 \phi \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,0,
\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}
,0,0,0,1,0,0,\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{21,27}^T &=& \left(
\mp \phantom{2} \phi \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,0,0,
\pm \phi \sqrt{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
- \phantom{2} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},0,0,0,0,1,0,
\cdots,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{28,29}^T &=& \left(
\pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{\alpha \phi} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 3 }{\sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{\alpha \phi} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{\alpha \phi} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{\alpha \phi} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{\alpha \phi} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\pm \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3} \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{\alpha \phi} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\mp \sqrt{2} \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{\alpha \phi} \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
0,
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
-2 \, \frac{3 \alpha \phi^2 - 2 f}{ \alpha^2 \phi^2 }
0,0,
\pm \frac{2 \sqrt{2} f}{\alpha \phi} \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,
\pm \frac{2 \sqrt{2} f}{\alpha \phi} \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,
\pm \frac{2 \sqrt{2} f}{\alpha \phi} \sqrt{\alpha \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 3 }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{12},
\tilde{\gamma}_{13},
\tilde{\gamma}_{22},
\tilde{\gamma}_{23},
\tilde{\gamma}_{33},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{30,31}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
0,0,0,
\pm 2 \sqrt{3} f \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{ \sqrt{f \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
0,0,
\pm 2 \sqrt{3} f \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{ \sqrt{f \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,
\pm 2 \sqrt{3} f \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{ \sqrt{f \tilde{\gamma}^{11}} },
0,0,
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 3 }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{12},
\tilde{\gamma}_{13},
\tilde{\gamma}_{22},
\tilde{\gamma}_{23},
\tilde{\gamma}_{33},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{32,34}^T &=& \left(
\mp 3 \sqrt{2} \frac{\mu \phi^2 }{2 \phi^2 - \mu } \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\pm \frac{3}{2} \sqrt{2} \frac{\mu \phi^2 }{2 \phi^2 - \mu } \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
- \frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,
\mp 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\pm 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\mp \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha}{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f} \frac{ 3 \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 - \tilde{\gamma}_{33} f }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\pm 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\frac{\mp \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha}{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f} \frac{ 3 \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \right) + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} f }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\pm 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) + 6 \mu \alpha^2 \left( \mu - \phi^2 \right) + 2 f \left( 4 \phi^2 - 5 \mu \right) \right) }{\left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \frac{ 2 \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) - 3 \mu^2 \alpha^2 + 4 ( \phi^2 + \mu ) \, f }{ 2 \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
- \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} -3}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{12},
\tilde{\gamma}_{13},
\tilde{\gamma}_{22},
\tilde{\gamma}_{23},
\tilde{\gamma}_{33},
0,0,0,0,0,0,
- \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
1,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{33,35}^T &=& \left(
\mp 3 \sqrt{2} \frac{\mu \phi^2 }{2 \phi^2 - \mu } \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\pm \frac{3 \sqrt{2}}{2} \frac{\mu \phi^2 }{2 \phi^2 - \mu } \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\mu \alpha^2 }{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f } \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,0,
\mp 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\pm 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\mp \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha}{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f} \frac{ 3 \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{23} + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \right) + \tilde{\gamma}_{23} f }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\pm 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{\mp \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha}{\mu \alpha^2 - 2 f} \frac{ 3 \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{33} - \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \right) - \tilde{\gamma}_{22} f }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
0,
\pm 3 \sqrt{2} \mu \alpha \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{- \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \right)^2 } \frac{ \left( \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 6 \right) \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) + 6 \phi^2 \right) \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) - 2 f \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) }{ \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) },
- \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \frac{ 2 \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} + 1 \right) \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) - \left( 4 \phi^2 + \mu \right) \mu \alpha^2 + 12 \phi^2 f }{ 2 \left( \mu \alpha^2 - 2 f \right) \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0,0,
\frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 3}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\tilde{\gamma}_{12},
\tilde{\gamma}_{13},
\tilde{\gamma}_{22},
\tilde{\gamma}_{23},
\tilde{\gamma}_{33},
-\frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,1 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{36,38}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
-2 \tilde{\gamma}_{23} ,
2 \tilde{\gamma}_{22} ,
0,
-2 \tilde{\gamma}_{23} ,
2 \tilde{\gamma}_{22} ,
0,0,0,0,0,0,
\pm 2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \sqrt{ f \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,
\mp 2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \sqrt{ f \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,
- 2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 ,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{37,39}^T &=& \left(
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
2 \tilde{\gamma}_{33} ,
-2 \tilde{\gamma}_{23} ,
0,
2 \tilde{\gamma}_{33} ,
-2 \tilde{\gamma}_{23} ,
0,0,0,0,0,0,
\mp 2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ f \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,
\pm 2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \sqrt{ f \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
0,0,
- 2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{40,44}^T &=& \left(
\mp \frac{2}{3} \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{3 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} - \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\pm \frac{2}{3} \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \left( 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\pm \frac{2}{3} \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\mp \frac{2}{3} \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \left( 2 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\pm \frac{2}{3} \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\pm \frac{2}{3} \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\mp 2 \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\mp \phi^2 \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
- \alpha^2 \left( 32 \phi^2 - 7 \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- \alpha^2 \left( 32 \phi^2 - 7 \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- \alpha^2 \left( 32 \phi^2 - 7 \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
- \alpha^2 \left( 32 \phi^2 - 7 \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11},
- \alpha^2 \left( 32 \phi^2 - 7 \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{12},
- \alpha^2 \left( 32 \phi^2 - 7 \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{13},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,
\pm \mu \alpha \frac{ \left( 3 \alpha^2 \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) + 2 f \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
0,0,
\pm 2 \alpha \frac{ \left( 3 \alpha^2 \mu \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) + \left( 9 \mu - 32 \phi^2 \right) f \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\mp \alpha \frac{ \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
0,
\pm \alpha \frac{ \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) + 2 \mu f \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} -
\left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }
{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\alpha \frac{ \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }
{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{\mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} } },
0,
\frac{T}{\mu \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \left( 4 \phi^2 - 3 \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}^{12} - 2 \mu \left( \alpha^2 ( 8 \phi^2 - \mu ) - 4 f \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}_{12} }{\mu \tilde{\gamma}_{33} },
\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \left( \alpha^2 \left( 8 \phi^2 - \mu \right) - 4 f\right),
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{ \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} + \left( 4 \alpha^2 \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) + 12 f \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{33} }
{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} },
\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \left( \alpha^2 \left( 8 \phi^2 - \mu \right) - 4 f\right),
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \left( \alpha^2 \left( 8 \phi^2 - \mu \right) - 4 f\right),
- \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
\frac{1}{2} \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \left( 3 \mu \alpha^2 - 16 f \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\left( \alpha^2 \left( 8 \phi^2 - \mu \right) - 4 f\right),0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{41,45}^T &=& \left(
\pm 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 2 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
0,0,0,0,0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\mp 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\pm 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{13}}{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}_{33}}{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
- 4 \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\frac{ 2 \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} + \mu \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\mu \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-2\mu \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
-\mu,
0,
-2 \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} },
0,0,0,0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
-2 \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right),0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{42,46}^T &=& \left(
\pm 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 2 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
0,0,0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\pm 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- 4 \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-\frac{ 2 \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \tilde{\gamma}_{23} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} + \mu \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
-2 \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{12}}{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}},
-2\mu \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33}},
-\mu,
0,
2 \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} },
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} },
\left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right),
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\
\mathbf{r}_{43,47}^T &=& \left(
\pm 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{12}\right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}_{33} - \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{13}\right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
0,
\mp 4 \mu \phi^2 \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{11}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
0,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,
\pm 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{12}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\pm 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{23}}{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
\mp 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}_{23} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\mp 2 \mu \alpha \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{ \sqrt{ \mu \tilde{\gamma}^{11} }},
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
- 4 \left( 2 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{ \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{12} \right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}_{33} - \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \right)^2 \tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{
\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
\left( 4 \phi^2 - 3\mu \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \left( 4 \phi^2 - 3\mu \right) \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{ \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
2 \mu \frac{ \tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{ \tilde{\gamma}_{33} },
0,
-2 \mu,
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
2 \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} \tilde{\gamma}^{12} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
- \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}_{22} }{\tilde{\gamma}_{33} },
0,0,0,0,
-2 \left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right) \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{13} }{\tilde{\gamma}^{11} },
0,\left( 4 \phi^2 - \mu \right),0,0,0,0,0,0
\right) \nonumber \\ \end{aligned}$$ where we have used the abbreviation $$\begin{aligned}
T &=& -64 f \phi^2 \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 + \mu f \left( 4 \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \left( -2 \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - \tilde{\gamma}_{13} \tilde{\gamma}^{13} \right)
+ 4 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \left( 8 \tilde{\gamma}^{12} - \tilde{\gamma}_{12}\tilde{\gamma}_{33} \right) \right)
\nonumber \\
&&
+ \alpha^2 \phi^2 \mu \left( 36 \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 +
8 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \left( -2 \tilde{\gamma}^{22} + \tilde{\gamma}_{13}^2 \right) \right)
- \mu^2 \alpha^2 \left( \tilde{\gamma}_{33} \tilde{\gamma}_{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{11} - 6 \tilde{\gamma}^{11} \tilde{\gamma}^{22} + 12 \left( \tilde{\gamma}^{12} \right)^2 \right). \end{aligned}$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Victor Churchill\
Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College
bibliography:
- 'project.bib'
title: Use of convexity in contour detection
---
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
--------
In this paper, we formulate a simple algorithm that detects contours around a region of interest in an image. After an initial smoothing, the method is based on viewing an image as a topographic surface and finding convex and/or concave regions using simple calculus-based testing. The algorithm can achieve multi-scale contour detection by altering the initial smoothing. We show that the method has promise by comparing results on several images with the watershed transform performed on the gradient images.
Introduction
============
In its first application, the watershed transform was performed on the gradient modulus of an image in order to detect contours around catchment basins, [@beucher1979use]. In this paper, a simple method for detecting similar contours is presented. In particular, contours at the boundary of convex and concave regions in the image are detected. This is achieved by locating zero crossings of Gaussian curvature in the image when viewed as a topographic surface. To identify depressions in the topography, convex regions of the surface are located. To identify protrusions, concave regions are located. In the proposed method these two region types can be viewed separately or together depending on the application.
The paper begins by considering convex regions in differentiable functions. In general, a twice differentiable function of $n$ variables $f$ is convex at a point if and only if Hessian matrix is positive semidefinite at that point, [@boyd2004convex]. Similarly $f$ is concave if and only if the Hessian matrix is negative semidefinite. This condition can be interpreted geometrically as the requirement that $f$ has positive (upward or downward, respectively) Gaussian curvature at each point $x$. If we were considering both convex and concave regions, this is where the surface has positive Gaussian curvature. For bivariate functions, these tests for convexity and concavity are performed by considering the behavior of the determinant of the Hessian matrix as well the second derivative with respect to the first variable. In order to formulate perform these convexity and concavity tests on a digital image, a pre-processing smoothing is performed so that the image better approximates a differentiable function. The size of the smoothing kernel determines the size of the features around which contours are formed.
The results show that this contour detection method provides several advantages over the watershed transform. The boundaries are always closed contours for segmentation, as it is impossible to move from from positive to negative Gaussian curvature without crossing zero. The method generally avoids oversegmentation that occurs with the watershed and any potential region-merging, user-defined markers [@meyer2012watershed], or geodesic correction [@najman1996geodesic]. The other core advantage of this technique is algorithmic and code simplicity. Unlike the watershed transform, we don’t need any notions of flooding, topographic distance [@meyer1994topographic], or graph theory [@vincent1991watersheds]. The results are achieved using simple calculus-based testing. This enables a very fast computation. In our results, we compare with the watershed transform performed on the gradient modulus of the image of interest.
Methods
=======
Contour detection via convexity for functions
---------------------------------------------
Convexity of smooth bivariate functions can be determined by performing the second partial derivative test at every point in the domain. Images inherently have two dimensions, so it makes intuitive sense that the second partial derivative test for functions of two variables should have a connection with concavity in images.
Let $f(x,y)$ be a differentiable real-valued function of two variables whose second partial derivatives exist. The Hessian matrix of $f$ is $$\begin{aligned}
H(x,y) &= \left[\begin{matrix}
f_{xx}(x,y) & f_{xy}(x,y)\\
f_{yx}(x,y) & f_{yy}(x,y)
\end{matrix}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Define $D(x,y)$ as the determinant of $H(x,y)$ $$\begin{aligned}
D(x,y) := f_{xx}(x,y)f_{yy}(x,y)-(f_{xy}(x,y))^2.\end{aligned}$$ The following conditions define convexity for bivariate functions.
1. If $D(x,y)>0$ and $f_{xx}(x,y)>0$ then $f$ is convex at $(x,y)$.
2. If $D(x,y)>0$ and $f_{xx}(x,y)<0$ then $f$ is concave at $(x,y)$.
Note that these two conditions are equivalent to $H(x,y)$ being positive semidefinite and negative semidefinite, respectively. This can also be viewed as a condition on the Gaussian curvature, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
K(x,y) = \frac{D(x,y)}{(1+(f_x(x,y))^2+(f_y(x,y))^2)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ As the denominator is greater than zero, $\text{sgn}(D) = \text{sgn}(K)$. Hence if we wish to look at convex and concave regions as a single unit, we only need to find $D(x,y)>0$, which corresponds precisely to regions with positive Gaussian curvature. Note that Gaussian curvature is rotation-invariant, so it suffices to consider partial derivatives in the cardinal directions.
### Example {#example .unnumbered}
As an example of finding convex and concave regions in a differentiable function of two variables whose second partial derivatives exist, we consider the function $$\begin{aligned}
z(x,y) = 3(1-x)^2e^{-x^2 - (y+1)^2} - 2(x - 5x^3 - 5y^5)e^{-x^2-y^2} - \frac13 e^{-(x+1)^2 - y^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The function and its topographic surface are shown in Figure \[fig:peaks\], and its convex and concave regions and their boundary contours are shown in Figure \[fig:peaksregions\]. Note that the majority region where the function is neither convex nor concave corresponds to negative Gaussian curvature. That is, in these areas the principal curvatures are of differing signs.
![Image and surface plot of $z(x,y)$.[]{data-label="fig:peaks"}](peaks_2D-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Image and surface plot of $z(x,y)$.[]{data-label="fig:peaks"}](peaks-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![Convex (blue) and concave (red) regions of $z(x,y)$ and their boundaries.[]{data-label="fig:peaksregions"}](peaks_allregions-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Convex (blue) and concave (red) regions of $z(x,y)$ and their boundaries.[]{data-label="fig:peaksregions"}](peaks_allregionsbdry-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
Contour detection via convexity for images
------------------------------------------
Digital space is fundamentally different than function space. There are no infinitely small elements that are required for calculus. Hence an image needs to be pre-processed before the convexity test can be performed. Without pre-processing, the test typically generates very small scale closed contours which are not typically useful. Here, this is addressed by performing a smoothing whereby the image is convolved with a Gaussian kernel defined by $$\begin{aligned}
k(x,y) = \frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2}e^{-\frac{x^2+y^2}{2\sigma^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $\sigma$ determines the size of the smoothing kernel. As $\sigma$ increases, increasingly large convex and concave regions are typically flattened and hence not detected by the test. Hence, as shown later in the results, there is an inherent opportunity to detect contours at multiple scales in the same image by performing boundary detection on two differently smoothed versions of the same image. This can be seen in Figures \[fig:nuclei\] and \[fig:multiscale\]. The algorithm for contour detection is written out fully in Algorithm \[alg:contour\].
Smooth the image $f$ using a Gaussian kernel of size $\sigma$ to obtain $f^\sigma$. Compute $D(x,y)$ at each pixel in $f^\sigma$. If $(p,q)$ is a pixel such that $D(p,q)>0$ and $f^\sigma_{xx}(p,q)>0$, label it with a $0$. Otherwise, $1$. Consider the exterior boundary of the region found in the previous step.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section, we compare the simple convexity-based contour detection algorithm with the watershed transform as formed in [@meyer1994topographic] applied to gradient images. In the original paper on watersheds, [@beucher1979use], one application considered was bubble detection in a radiographic plate, [@beucher1992morphological]. This example is repeated in Figures \[fig:bubble\]. We also look at detecting dark circular shapes in a gel electrophoresis image in Figure \[fig:gel\], where many more dark, and overlapping, spots are present. Figure \[fig:nuclei\] shows the ability of the method to detect features of different scales using $\sigma=7.5,15,30$. Figure \[fig:multiscale\] combines the $\sigma=7.5$ and $30$ results to depict multi-scale features of the original image. Small features are shown as filled in regions and large scales are shown as boundaries. Finally, Figure \[fig:galaxies\] shows a large ($1200\times1200$ pixel) image of galaxies from which concave regions have been detected such that individual galaxies are identified by bounding contours.
![Bubble detection in a radiographic plate [@watershedcmm] via watershed (left) and convexity (right).[]{data-label="fig:bubble"}](blobsw-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Bubble detection in a radiographic plate [@watershedcmm] via watershed (left) and convexity (right).[]{data-label="fig:bubble"}](blobs2-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![Contours on an electrophoresis gel image [@watershedcmm] via watershed (left) and convexity (right).[]{data-label="fig:gel"}](gelw-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Contours on an electrophoresis gel image [@watershedcmm] via watershed (left) and convexity (right).[]{data-label="fig:gel"}](gel-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![Contour detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using three different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:nuclei"}](nuclei3-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Contour detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using three different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:nuclei"}](nuclei3up-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Contour detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using three different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:nuclei"}](nuclei1-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Contour detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using three different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:nuclei"}](nuclei2up-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Contour detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using three different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:nuclei"}](nuclei2-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Contour detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using three different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:nuclei"}](nuclei1up-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![Multi-scale detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using two different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:multiscale"}](nuclei4-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Multi-scale detection via convexity in an image of nuclei [@cellsegmentation] using two different-sized smoothing kernels. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:multiscale"}](nuclei4up-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
![Galaxy contour detection on an image from the Hubble Space Telescope, [@hubblespacetelescope_2014]. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:galaxies"}](galaxies-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![Galaxy contour detection on an image from the Hubble Space Telescope, [@hubblespacetelescope_2014]. Right is a closeup of the full image on the left.[]{data-label="fig:galaxies"}](galaxies_closeup-eps-converted-to.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
Conclusion and Future Work {#sec:conclusion}
==========================
This paper presented a contour detection algorithm that identifies convex and concave regions of an image. The results show several advantages of the proposed method for contour detection over the gradient watershed which we summarize below. First, the method typically does not oversegment if a reasonable smoothing parameter is chosen. Even if extraneous convex or concave regions are identified, they are always in the form of closed contours, and pruning based on size could be performed as post-processing. Foreground and background are much more clearly separated than by the gradient watershed. This method also has the advantage of providing multi-scale feature information in the image through the use of multiple smoothing kernels of different sizes. The simplicity of the method is superior both heuristically and in the code, an example of which is shown in the Appendix. This simplicity enables a very fast execution. A final advantage is how easily extended this method is to higher dimensions. As mentioned in the introduction, the convexity of an $n$-dimensional function is determined by the Hessian being positive semidefinite, or negative semidefinite for concavity. This simply-evaluated condition will allow contour and region detection on 3D and 4D datasets that have been appropriately smoothed as well. Finally, it is the author’s hope that this technique will also aid in the problem of change detection, where a time-differenced image of the same scene can be smoothed and areas where change has occurred will be highlighted for further inspection.
Appendix - MATLAB Code Example {#appendix---matlab-code-example .unnumbered}
==============================
% load image of type double
im_original = imread('image');
% smooth image
sigma = 10;
im = imgaussfilt(im_original,sigma);
% compute Hessian determinant
[imx,imy] = imgradientxy(im);
[imxx,imxy] = imgradientxy(imx);
[~,imyy] = imgradientxy(imy);
D = imxx.*imyy - imxy.^2;
% find convex and concave regions
logical = D > 0;
% consider the exterior boundary
dilate = imdilate(logical,ones(3));
boundary = and(~logical,dilate);
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We report an investigation of transverse Hall resistance and longitudinal resistance on Pt thin films sputtered on epitaxial LaCoO$_3$ (LCO) ferromagnetic insulator films. The LaCoO$_3$ films were deposited on several single crystalline substrates \[LaAlO$_3$ (LAO), (La,Sr)(Al,Ta)O$_3$ (LSAT), and SrTiO$_3$ (STO)\] with (001) orientation. The physical properties of LaCoO$_3$ films were characterized by the measurements of magnetic and transport properties. The LaCoO$_3$ films undergo a paramagnetic to ferromagnetic (FM) transition at Curie temperatures ranging from 40 K to 85 K, below which the Pt/LCO hybrids exhibit significant extraordinary Hall resistance (EHR) up to 50 m$\Omega$ and unconventional magnetoresistance (UCMR) ratio $\Delta$$\rho$/$\rho_0$ about $1.2 \times 10^{-4}$, accompanied by the conventional magnetoresistance (CMR). The observed spin transport properties share some common features as well as some unique characteristics when compared with well-studied Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$-based Pt thin films. Our findings call for new theories since the extraordinary Hall resistance and magnetoresistance cannot be consistently explained by the existing theories.
PACS number(s)
: 72.25.Mk, 75.70.-i, 75.47.-m, 75.76.+j
author:
- 'T. Shang'
- 'Q. F. Zhan'
- 'H. L. Yang'
- 'Z. H. Zuo'
- 'Y. L. Xie'
- 'Y. Zhang'
- 'L. P. Liu'
- 'B. M. Wang'
- 'Y. H. Wu'
- 'S. Zhang'
- 'Run-Wei Li'
title: 'Extraordinary Hall resistance and unconventional magnetoresistance in Pt/LaCoO$_3$ hybrids'
---
\[sec:level1\]INTRODUCTION
==========================
The interplay between spin and charge transport in nonmagnetic metal/ferromagnetic insulator (NM/FMI) hybrids gives rise to various interesting phenomena, such as spin injection [@Ohno1999; @Jedema2001], spin pumping [@Heinrich2011; @Rezende2012; @Kajiwara2010], and spin Seebeck [@Uchida2008; @Uchida2010]. The previous investigations on NM/FMI hybrids, e.g., Pt/Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$, Pt/CoFe$_2$O$_4$, Pd/Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$, and Ta/Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$, demonstrated a new-type of magnetoresistance (MR) [@Miao2014; @Althammer2013; @Isasa2014; @Lin2014; @Hahn2013] in which the resistivity of the film, $\rho$, has an unconventional angular dependence, namely, $$\rho = \rho_0 - \Delta \rho \left[\hat{\bf m} \cdot (\hat{\bf z}\times \hat{\bf j}) \right]^2$$ where $\hat{\bf m}$ and $\hat{\bf j}$ are unit vectors in the directions of the magnetization and the current, respectively, and $\hat{\bf z}$ represents the normal vector perpendicular to the plane of the layers. The above unusual angular dependent resistivity differs from the conventional magnetoresistance (CMR) in which $\rho = \rho_0 + \Delta \rho (\hat{\bf m} \cdot \hat{\bf j})^2$, and thus several theoretical models have been developed to explain the effect. One of the most successful models is spin Hall magnetoresistance (SMR) which is built on the spin Hall and inverse spin Hall effects [@Hirsch1999; @Wunderlich2005; @Kato2004; @Tatara2006; @Kajiwara2006; @Kimura2007; @Nakayama2013; @Chen2013]: an electric current (${\bf j}_e$) induces a spin current ${\bf j}_s = \theta_\textup{SH} {\bf j}_e \times \boldsymbol{\sigma}$, where $\theta_\textup{SH}$ is the spin Hall angle and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ is the spin of the conduction electron. Such induced spin current in turn generates an electric current whose direction is opposite to the original ${\bf j}_e$, and thus the spin Hall and inverse spin Hall effects increase the resistivity by a factor of $1+\theta_\textup{SH}^2$. However, in the case of a thin film in contact with a magnetic insulator, the spin current may be either reflected back, which would reduce the spin current in the film, or absorbed via spin transfer torques, which would preserve the spin current in the film [@Nakayama2013; @Chen2013]. The reflection is strongest when the magnetization direction of the insulator is parallel to the spin current, therefore the spin current is least when $\hat{\bf m}$ is parallel to $\hat{\bf z}\times \hat{\bf j}$, leading to the minimum resistivity as described in Eq. (1). Another model is based on the spin-dependent scattering and Rashba spin-orbit coupling (SOC) [@Zhang2014-2; @Grigoryan2014]. When the electron scatters off the magnetic interface, the resistivity for spin up and down relative to the direction of the magnetization is different. In the presence of interface Rashba spin-orbit interaction, two spin channels are mixed and an additional resistance appears. It has been found that such mechanism also gives rise to an unconventional magnetoresitance (UCMR) and an extraordinary Hall resistance (EHR) [@Zhang2014-2; @Grigoryan2014].
![(Color online) Three representative 2$\theta$-$\omega$ XRD patterns for Pt/LCO/LAO (a), Pt/LCO/LSAT (b), and Pt/LCO/STO (c) hybrids. The enlarged plot of (002) reflections are plotted in the right panel of (a)-(c). (d) The XRR spectrum of a representative Pt/LCO hybrid. The solid red line is a fit to the experimental data. The inset shows the $\varphi$-scan of Pt/LCO/STO hybrid. (e) Three dimensional plot of the AFM image for Pt/LCO/STO hybrid.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="3.4in"}
However, the other spin transport properties are not obviously supporting the SMR picture. The EHR has shown rich characteristics such as unusual temperature dependence of Hall conductivity whose magnitude and sign are highly non-trivial [@Miao2014; @Huang2012]. If one were to apply the SMR model, one would have to use an unphysical imaginary part of the spin mixing conductance parameter. In particular, it requires an arbitrary temperature dependent mixing parameter to qualitatively fit the EHR data. Furthermore, the recent magnetoresistance data at high magnetic field reveals that the UCMR in the form of Eq. (1) persists even after the magnetization is saturated [@Miao2014]. Such high field UCMR and unusual EHR data indicate that the transport properties in NM/FMI hybrids are far from understood.
Up to now, most of the UCMR has been reported in the Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$ (YIG)-based NM/FMI hybrids [@Miao2014; @Althammer2013; @Isasa2014; @Lin2014; @Hahn2013]. The large difference of magnitude of UCMR observed in Pt/YIG indicates the importance of interface quality [@Althammer2013]. In order to clarify the nature of the UCMR and EHR, it is highly desirable to investigate other NM/FMI hybrids. Ferromagnetic (FM) transition below $T_\textup{C} \approx$ 85 K has been recently observed in a perovskite-type LaCoO$_3$ (LCO) epitaxial film [@Fuchs2007; @Fuchs2008; @Herklotz2009; @Mehta2015], and its FM insulating ground state has been theoretically proposed and experimentally observed [@Freeland2008; @Hsu2012]. In contrast to the YIG film, which exhibits extreme high Curie temperature ($T_\textup{C} \approx$ 540 K) [@Uchida2015], it is much easier to investigate the difference of spin transport properties between the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic states in LCO-based hybrids. Moreover, the LCO exhibits much simper crystal structure and can be deposited on various single crystalline substrates, and its Curie temperature can be tuned by epitaxial strain [@Fuchs2008]. We first found that the UCMR and EHR disappear in the paramagnetic state of LCO insulating films. In this paper, the temperature, magnetic field and angular dependence of transverse Hall resistance R$_{xy}$ and longitudinal resistance R$_{xx}$ were investigated in Pt/LCO hybrids with various Pt thicknesses. The paper is organized as follows: After the introduction, we describe the sample growth and detailed experimental procedures in Sec. II. Section III(A) characterizes the structure information of Pt/LCO hybrids and Sec. III (B) describes the magnetic and transport properties of LCO films deposited on different single crystalline substrates. In Secs. III (C) and III (D), we present the experimental results of transverse Hall resistance R$_{xy}$ and longitudinal resistance R$_{xx}$. Finally, discussion and summary are given in Sec. III (E) and Sec. IV, respectively.
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of field-cooled magnetization for LCO/STO film (a) and LCO/LAO film (c). The inset of (c) plots the derivative of in-plane magnetization with respect to temperature d$M$/d$T$. (b) and (d) show the field dependence of magnetization normalized to the saturated magnetization $M_\textup{s}$ for LCO/STO and LCO/LAO films measured at $T$ = 2 K, respectively; the low insets expand the low field regions. For the in-plane (out-of-plane) magnetization, the magnetic field was applied parallel (perpendicular) to the film surface.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="3.4in"}
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
====================
The Pt/LCO hybrids were prepared in a combined ultra-high vacuum (10$^{-9}$ Torr) pulse laser deposition (PLD) and magnetron sputter system. The high quality LCO films with a thickness of approximately 50 nm were epitaxially grown on various (001)-orientated single crystalline substrates via PLD technique, i.e., LaAlO$_3$ (LAO), (La,Sr)(Al,Ta)O$_3$ (LSAT), and SrTiO$_3$ (STO). The stoichiometric sinter LCO target was used for epitaxial deposition. The deposition temperature and the oxygen background pressure were kept at 750 $^\circ$C and 50 mTorr, respectively. After deposition, the films were annealed at this deposition condition for one hour to ensure a complete and homogeneous oxygenation. The polycrystalline Pt films were sputtered at room temperature in 4 mTorr argon atmosphere in an in situ process with the Pt thickness in a range of 2 nm $\leq$ t$_\textup{Pt}$ $\leq$ 15 nm. All films were patterned into Hall bar geometry (central area: 0.3 mm $\times$ 10 mm and electrode: 0.3 mm $\times$ 1 mm). The thickness and crystal structure of films were characterized by using Bruker D8 Discover high-resolution x-ray diffractometer (HRXRD). The thickness was estimated by using the software package LEPTOS (Bruker AXS). The surface topography of the films was measured in Bruker icon atomic force microscope (AFM). The magnetic properties of the films were studied by using quantum-design magnetic properties measurement system (SQUID VSM-7 T). The measurements of transverse Hall resistance R$_{xy}$ and longitudinal resistance R$_{xx}$ were carried out in quantum-design physical properties measurement system with a rotating state (PPMS-9 T) at a temperature range of 2-300 K.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
======================
Structural characterization
---------------------------
Figures 1(a)-(c) plot representative room temperature 2$\theta$-$\omega$ XRD scans of LCO films deposited on (001)-oriented LAO (top), LSAT (middle) and STO (bottom) single crystalline substrates, with other films showing similar patterns. No indication of impurities or misorientation was detected in the full range of 2$\theta$-$\omega$ scan (10-80 degree). The enlarged plot of (002) reflections are presented in the right panel of Figs. 1(a)-(c), where the arrows mark the reflection peak of LCO films. Clear Lauer oscillations indicate high quality and uniformity of epitaxial LCO films on LSAT and STO substrates. Whereas, no oscillation can be found on LAO substrate. One possible reason is that the mismatch of lattice parameters between LCO film and substrate is much larger on LAO substrate than on LSAT or STO substrate. The difference of 2$\theta$ value $\Delta_{2\theta}$ ($\Delta_{2\theta}$ = $2\theta_\textup{LCO}$ - $2\theta_\textup{LAO}$) between LCO and LAO (004)-reflection peak is -0.868 degree, while for LSAT and STO substrates, the $\Delta_{2\theta}$ value are -0.344 and +0.526 degree, respectively. The film thickness was determined by fitting the x-ray reflectivity (XRR) spectra. For instance, we plot XRR spectrum of Pt(5.2 nm)/LCO(53.9 nm)/STO hybrid in Fig. 1(d). It is noted that the actual Pt thicknesses derived from the simulations of XRR spectra are almost identical to the nominal thicknesses. For clarity, the nominal Pt thicknesses rather than actual thicknesses are used in this paper. The epitaxial nature of LCO films was characterized by $\varphi$-scan measurement with a fixed 2$\theta$ value at the (011) reflection of substrate and LCO film. For instance, the $\varphi$-scans of Pt/LCO/STO hybrid are plotted in the inset of Fig. 1(d), with the other hybrids showing similar patterns. The atomic force microscope surface topographies of Pt/LCO/LAO (PLL), Pt/LCO/LSAT (PLLA), and Pt/LCO/STO (PLS) hybrids reveal the surface roughness ranging from 0.2 nm to 0.6 nm, indicating atomical flat of prepared films. Figure 1(e) plot a representative three dimensional AFM topography of PLS hybrid.
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity of LCO films. The thickness of LCO films is about 50 nm. The electrical resistivity was measured down to 2 K. The inset plots the logarithmic electrical resistivity ln$\rho$ versus 1/$T$. The solid black lines are fits to $\rho$ = $\rho_0$ e$^{\varepsilon/\textup{k}_BT}$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="3.4in"}
Physical properties of LaCoO$_3$ films
--------------------------------------
![(Color online) (a) Structure of prepared thin films. (b)-(c) Schematic plot of longitudinal resistance (R$_{xx}$) and transverse Hall resistance (R$_{xy}$) measurements and notations of different field scans in the patterned Hall bar Pt/LCO hybrids. The magnetic field can be applied in the $xy$, $xz$, and $yz$ planes with angles $\theta_{xy}$, $\theta_{xz}$, and $\theta_{yz}$ relative to the $y$-, $z$-, and $z$-axis.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4.eps){width="3.4in"}
![(Color online) (a) The extraordinary Hall resistance R$_\textup{EHR}$ of 2 nm Pt thin film sputtered on LCO/LAO film at different temperatures down to 2 K. (b) The R$_\textup{EHR}$ of Pt/LCO/LAO hybrids with different Pt thickness, i.e., 2, 3, 5, and 10 nm, which were measured at 2 K. The R$_\textup{EHR}$ can be derived by subtracting the linear background of ordinary Hall resistance.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5.eps){width="3.4in"}
According to the previous investigations, the magnetic properties and insulating nature of LaCoO$_3$ film can be tuned by epitaxial strain on different single crystalline substrates [@Fuchs2007; @Fuchs2008; @Herklotz2009; @Mehta2015]. We have carefully optimized the depositing conditions by measuring the magnetic and transport properties to get ferromagnetic insulating LCO films. The ferromagnetic ordering temperatures of LCO epitaxial films are reproducible. The dc magnetization of LCO films were measured as functions of temperature and magnetic field. Figures 2(a) shows the temperature dependence of the magnetization for LCO/STO film, which was measured in a magnetic field of $\mu_0$$H$ = 500 Oe applied both parallel to the film surface (in-plane, black line) and perpendicular to the film surface (out-of-plane, red line). Both in-plane and out-of-plane magnetization exhibit a sharp increase at $T_\textup{C} \approx 85$ K, indicating that the LCO/STO film undergoes a FM transition at Curie temperature $T_\textup{C}$, whose value can be obtained from the d$M$/d$T$ \[see inset of Fig. 2(c)\]. The ferromagnetic ground state can be further corroborated by a hysteresis loop in $M(H)$. As shown in Fig. 2(b), both in-plane and out-of-plane magnetization show an obvious saturated hysteresis loop at $T = 2$ K, with the saturation field reaching 30 KOe. Magnetization of LCO film on LAO substrate, measured in a magnetic field of $\mu_0$$H$ = 500 Oe, are presented in Fig. 2(c). In contrast to a sharp FM transition in LCO/STO film, both in-plane and out-of-plane magnetization of LCO/LAO film show a broad transition around $T_\textup{C} \approx 40$ K, as the arrow indicated in the inset of Fig. 2(c). The hysteresis loops at $T = 2$ K with saturation field of 30 KOe shown in Fig. 2(d) also confirm a FM state in LCO/LAO film. Finally, the LCO film on LSAT substrate exhibits similar behaviors to the LCO/LAO film with a Curie temperature of 75 K (not show here). It is noted that the in-plane lattice parameter of LAO, LSAT, and STO substrates are 3.810${\AA}$, 3.868${\AA}$, and 3.905${\AA}$, respectively. Thus, the Curie temperatures $T_\textup{C}$ of LCO film increases with the in-plane film lattice parameter, consistent with previous results [@Fuchs2008]. As shown in the insets of Fig. 2(b) and (d), all LCO films have similar low coercivity and remanence, indicating weak magnetic anisotropy in the epitaxial LCO films.
In order to check the insulating nature of deposited LCO films, we also carried out the measurements of electrical resistivity as a function of temperature. As shown in Fig. 3, though the LCO/STO exhibits a sharp FM transition, the electrical resistivity displays an extreme insulating state below 350 K, where the electrical resistivity is too large to be measured in the PPMS systems. In comparison, the electrical resistivity of LCO/LAO and LCO/LSAT films are much smaller than LCO/STO film, but they also exceed the measurement limit below 170 K and 220 K, respectively. Above these measurable temperatures, the electrical resistivity of LCO films can be formulated by $\rho$ = $\rho_0$ e$^{\varepsilon/\textup{k}_BT}$ (see solid black lines in the inset of Fig. 3), where $\varepsilon$ and k$_\textup{B}$ are activation energy and Boltzmann constant. The estimated energy gaps are $\varepsilon$ = 149.87 meV, 205.36 meV, and 300.04 meV for LCO/LAO, LCO/LSAT, and LCO/STO, respectively. Thus, the transport properties of Pt/LCO hybrids are only associated with Pt films below there temperatures.
![(Color online) (a) The R$_\textup{EHR}$ as a function of temperature for PLL2, PLLA2, and PLS2 hybrids. (b) Thickness dependence of R$_\textup{EHR}$ for PLL, PLLA, and PLS hybrids at 2 K. The inset of (b) plots the R$_\textup{EHR}$ versus 1/t$_\textup{Pt}$. All R$_\textup{EHR}$ are averaged by \[R$_\textup{EHR}$(7 T)- R$_\textup{EHR}$(-7 T)\]/2. The “star” symbols represent the data derived from the fitting results in Fig. 7(b). The dashed lines are guide to the eyes. The error bars are a result of subtracting ordinary Hall resistance in different field ranges.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Fig6.eps){width="3.2in"}
Transverse Hall resistance of Pt/LCO hybrids
--------------------------------------------
As shown in Fig. 4, all the Pt/LCO hybrids were patterned into Hall bar geometry and the electric current is applied along the $x$-axis. The $\theta_{xy}$, $\theta_{xz}$, and $\theta_{yz}$ are defined as angles between the applied magnetic field and the electric current. The $\theta_{xy}$ scan accesses the longitudinal ($\rho_\parallel$, $H \parallel$ $x$) and the transverse resistivity ($\rho_\textup{T}$, $H \parallel$ $y$), while the $\theta_{xz}$ and $\theta_{yz}$ scans can reach the perpendicular resistivity ($\rho_\perp$, $H \parallel$ $z$).
![(Color online) Planar Hall resistance under various magnetic fields at temperatures of 100 K (a) and 10 K (b) for Pt(2 nm)/LCO/LAO hybrid. The solids lines through the data are fits to R$_\textup{xy}$ = R$_1$sin$\theta$cos$\theta$. Angular dependence of the Hall resistance R$_\textup{xy}$ under various magnetic fields at temperatures of 100 K (c) and 10 K (d) for Pt(2 nm)/LCO/LAO hybrid; The magnetic field sweeps within $yz$-plane.[]{data-label="fig7"}](Fig7.eps){width="3.0in"}
In this section, we discuss the results of transverse Hall resistance R$_\textup{xy}$ of Pt/LCO hybrids with perpendicular magnetic field ranging from -70 KOe to 70 KOe and temperature ranging from 2 K to 300 K. In Pt thin film, the ordinary hall resistance (OHR) R$_\textup{OHR}$, which is proportional to the external field, is subtracted from the measured R$_\textup{xy}$, i.e., R$_\textup{EHR}$ = R$_{xy}$ - R$_\textup{OHR}$$\times \mu_0H$, R$_\textup{EHR}$ is extraordinary Hall resistance. In a ferromagnetic metal, R$_\textup{EHR}$ is proportional to the out-of-plane magnetization. The resulting R$_\textup{EHR}$ as a function of magnetic field for Pt(2 nm)/LCO/LAO (PLL2) hybrid are exhibited in Fig. 5(a) in a temperature range of 2-300 K, with the Pt(2 nm)/LCO/LSAT (PLLA2) and Pt(2 nm)/LCO/STO (PLS2) hybrids showing similar behaviors. R$_\textup{EHR}$ saturates for $\mu_0H > 30$ KOe, consistent with the $M(H)$ results in Fig. 2. Upon decreasing the temperature, the PLL2 shows obvious R$_\textup{EHR}$ below the Curie temperature of LCO film. For examples, at $T$ = 2 K, the saturated R$_\textup{EHR}$ reaches 45.8 m$\Omega$, 52.4 m$\Omega$, and 49.8 m$\Omega$ for PLL2, PLLA2, and PLS2 hybrids, respectively. However, at temperatures above the Curie temperature of LCO film, e.g., $T$ = 100 K, no sizable R$_\textup{EHR}$ can be found for all hybrids, implying intimate relationship between R$_\textup{EHR}$ and LCO ferromagnetism. The temperature dependence of the derived R$_\textup{EHR}$ for PLL2, PLLA2, and PLS2 hybrids are summarized in Fig. 6 (a). As can be seen, the R$_\textup{EHR}$ is significantly temperature dependent. Below the Curie temperature of LCO film, the R$_\textup{EHR}$ increases sharply as decreasing the temperature and the R$_\textup{EHR}$ changes its sign below 50 K, similar behaviors were previously reported in Pt/YIG hybrids [@Miao2014; @Huang2012]. We also plot the R$_\textup{EHR}$ of PLL hybrids with different Pt thickness at $T$ = 2 K in Fig. 5(b). As the Pt thickness increased, the R$_\textup{EHR}$ dramatically decreases, and becomes almost negligible for t$_\textup{Pt} >$ 10 nm. For example, for Pt(15 nm)/LCO/STO hybrid, the R$_\textup{EHR}$ is about 0.46 m$\Omega$ at 2 K, which is two orders of magnitude less than PLS2 hybrid. The thickness dependence of the R$_\textup{EHR}$ are summarized in Fig. 6(b). The R$_\textup{EHR}$ scales as 1/t$_\textup{Pt}$ \[see inset of Fig. 6(b)\], indicating interfacial contributions dominate the R$_\textup{EHR}$. Similar behaviors were also reported previously in Pd/YIG hybrid [@Lin2013].
![(Color online) Fitting parameters of equations discussed in the context. Different symbols represent different hybrids: PLL (square), PLLA (triangle), and PLS (circle). The dashed lines represent linear fits to the magnetic field. The solid symbols represent the data at 100 K, while the open ones represent the 10 K data.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Fig8.eps){width="3.2in"}
Next, we carried out the measurements of angular dependence of R$_\textup{xy}$ at temperatures of 100 K and 10 K. For clarity, only the data of PLL2 are presented, with the PLLA2 and PLS2 showing similar behaviors. When the magnetization is in the plane, the angular dependence of R$_\textup{xx}$ and R$_\textup{xy}$ take the following formulas [@McGuire1975]: $$R_\textup{xx} \propto \rho_\textup{T} +(\rho_\parallel - \rho_\textup{T})\textup{cos}^2\theta$$ $$R_\textup{xy} \propto (\rho_\parallel - \rho_\textup{T})\textup{sin} \theta \textup{cos}\theta$$ Equation (2) is known as anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) and Eq. (3) is known as planar Hall effect (PHE). Figures 7(a)-(b) plot the angular dependence of $R_\textup{xy}$ in magnetic fields up to 60 KOe. As the solid lines shown, R$_\textup{xy}$ can be well described by R$_1$sin$\theta$cos$\theta$, where R$_1$ is proportional to the difference between parallel and transverse resistance. The derived magnitude R$_1$ for all hybrids, including PLL2, PLLA2, and PLS2, are summarized as a function of magnetic field in Fig. 8 (a). For $T$ = 10 K, which is far below the Curie temperature of LCO film, R$_1$ is almost 7 times larger than that of 100 K. Such enhanced R$_1$ value is likely caused by the induced interfacial moments due to the magnetic proximity effect (MPE) at the Pt/LCO interface at low temperatures. It is noted that, at $T$ = 10 K, for $\mu_0$H $>$ 30 KOe, R$_1$ is linear in field, which is consistent with saturated field in the magnetization (see details in Fig. 2).
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity for PLL2, PLLA2, and PLS2 hybrids. The solid lines are fits to Eq. (4) in the text.[]{data-label="fig9"}](Fig9.eps){width="3.2in"}
The angular dependence of transverse Hall resistance with the magnetic field rotating within $xz$- and $yz$-plane were also measured. R$_\textup{xy}$ as a a function of angle $\theta_{yz}$ for various magnetic field up to 60 KOe are shown in Figs. 7(c)-(d), with R$_\textup{xy}$($\theta_{xz}$) showing similar behaviors. As the solid lines shown, R$_\textup{xy}$($\theta_{yz}$) at different magnetic fields can be well described by R$_\textup{xy}$ = R$_2$cos$\theta$. In contrast to Pt/YIG, no additional higher than linear order contributions (cos$^3$$\theta$) was observed in Pt/LCO hybrids [@Meyer2015]. The field dependence of R$_2$ for all hybrids, including PLL2, PLLA2, and PLS2, are summarized in Fig. 8 (b). It can be clearly seen that the R$_2$ changes its sign as the temperature decreases, similar to the results in Fig. 5. The EHR contribution to R$_\textup{xy}$ can be separated from OHR contribution by fitting the data to R$_2$ = R$_\textup{EHR}$ + R$_\textup{OHR}$$\times$$\mu_0H$. The derived R$_\textup{EHR}$ are also shown in Fig. 6(a) (see open star symbols) as a function of temperature, which are consistent with the field dependence measurements of R$_\textup{xy}$.
Longitudinal resistance of Pt/LCO hybrids
-----------------------------------------
![(Color online) (a) Angular dependence of the MR for Pt (3 nm)/LCO/LAO hybrid for $\theta_{xy}$, $\theta_{xz}$, and $\theta_{yz}$ scans. The data were measured at 10 K (solid symbols) and 100 K (open symbols) in a field of $\mu_0$H = 40 KOe. The solid lines through the data are fits to (cosine)$^2$ with 90 degree phase shift. (b) The field dependence of longitudinal ($\rho_\parallel$) and transverse ($\rho_\textup{T}$) MR ratio for Pt (3 nm)/LCO/LAO hybrid measured at $T$ = 2 K.[]{data-label="fig10"}](Fig10.eps){width="3.2in"}
![(Color online) Angular dependence of MR for Pt/LCO/LAO hybrid with different Pt thickness for $\theta_{xy}$ (a), $\theta_{xz}$ (b), and $\theta_{yz}$ (c) scans. The data were measured at 10 K in a field of $\mu_0$H = 40 KOe, which is sufficiently strong to saturate the LCO magnetization.[]{data-label="fig11"}](Fig11.eps){width="3.2in"}
Figure 9 shows temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity for PLL2, PLLA2, and PLS2 hybrids. The electrical resistivity in all films increases linearly with temperature, exhibiting typical metallic behavior. The temperature dependence of the electrical resistivity can be well described by the Bloch-Grüneisen relation [@Meaden1969]: $$\rho(T) = \rho_R + \frac{4R}{\Theta_R}(\frac{T}{\Theta_R})^5\int_0^{\frac{\Theta_R}{T}}\frac{x^5}{(e^x-1)(1-e^{-x})}dx$$ where $\rho_R$ is the residual resistivity due to the static defects in the crystal lattice; second term represents the contribution of electron-phonon scattering, in which $\Theta_R$ is the Debye temperature and $R$ is the electron-phonon coupling constant. The solid lines through the data in Fig. 9 are fits to Eq. (4) and the fitting parameters are summarized in Table. I. The Debye temperatures $\Theta_R$ from the fit are much smaller than the value derived from electrical resistivity ($\Theta_R$ $\approx$ 240 K) and specific heat ($\Theta_D$ $\approx$ 225 K) of bulk Pt metal [@Meaden1969; @tari2003], again indicating the interfacial scattering contributes mostly to the electrical resistivity.
------- ------- ------ ------- --
PLL2 0.215 5.76 157.5
PLLA2 0.294 6.08 153.0
PLS2 0.265 8.46 176.0
------- ------- ------ ------- --
: The values of $\rho_R$, $R$, and $\Theta_R$ derived from fittings to Eq. (4).[]{data-label="tab:table1"}
We also measure the angular and field dependence of MR for PLL and PLS hybrids. Both hybrids exhibit similar behaviors, for clarity, only the results of PLL hybrids are presented in Figs. 10 and 11. Figure 10 (a) plots the angular dependence of MR for Pt(3 nm)/LCO/LAO (PLL3) hybrid at 10 K and 100 K. The anisotropic magnetoresistance is defined as $\Delta$$\rho$/$\rho_0$ = \[$\rho$(M $\parallel$ I) - $\rho$(M $\perp$ I)\]/$\rho_0$, $\rho_0$ is zero field resistivity. According to Eq. (1), when magnetic field scans within $xy$-plane, both CMR and UCMR contribute to the total AMR, and it is difficult to separate these two contributions from each other; for $xz$-plane, the magnetic field is always perpendicular to the $\bf m$$_y$, $\bf m$$_y$ is the $y$ component of magnetization unit vector, the UCMR should remain constant, and any resistance change can be attributed to CMR; for $yz$-plane, the electrical current is always perpendicular to the magnetization, the CMR should remain constant, and only UCMR can be achieved. The PLL3 hybrid demonstrates clear UCMR below the Curie temperature of LCO film, with the amplitude exceeding 7 $\times$ 10$^{-5}$ \[see $\theta_{yz}$ scan in Fig. 10(a)\]; the $\theta_{xz}$ scans also show obvious CMR, indicating the existence of induced ferromagnetism at the Pt/LCO interface. Similar behaviors were also observed in Pd/YIG hybrid, where the amplitude of $\theta_{xz}$ scan increases as decreasing the temperature, as expected from the MPE induced ferromagnetism [@Lin2014]. However, at the temperatures above the $T_\textup{C}$ of LCO film, no MR oscillation can be found for all three field scans, and the resistance is almost independent of angle $\theta$, implying that the AMR observed in Pt/LCO hybrids is entangled with the ferromagnetism of LCO film. As shown in Fig. 10(b), the field dependence of longitudinal ($\rho_\parallel$, $H \parallel$ $x$) and transverse ($\rho_\textup{T}$, $H \parallel$ $y$) MR for Pt (3 nm)/LCO/LAO hybrid measured at $T$ = 2 K are presented. Here the MR ratio is defined as MR = \[$\rho$($H$) - $\rho_0$\]/$\rho_0$. According to Eq. (1), the difference between longitudinal and transverse resistivity ($\Delta$$\rho$ = $\rho_\parallel$ - $\rho_\textup{T}$) depends on the relative angle between magnetization and current direction. So the $\Delta$$\rho$ should be a constant after LCO has been saturated for $\mu_0$H $>$ 30 KOe (see details in Fig. 2). However, the $\Delta$$\rho$ continuously increases as increasing the magnetic field, which is twice larger at 70 KOe (2.6 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$) than at 40 KOe (1.3 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$). Such unsaturated MR was also observed in Pt/YIG hybrid [@Miao2014], though it is believed to be caused by the MPE at Pt/YIG interface, but its nature is still far from understood. We also studied the angular dependence of MR for PLL hybrids with different Pt thickness. As shown in Fig. 11, where exhibits all $\theta_{xy}$, $\theta_{xz}$, and $\theta_{yz}$ scans at 10 K, the UCMR was observed in all hybrids with its magnitude $\Delta$$\rho$/$\rho_0$ reaching the maximum value of 1.2 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$. For all three scans, the magnitude $\Delta$$\rho$/$\rho_0$ monotonically decreases as increasing the Pt thickness, which is different from the case of Pt/YIG, where the $\Delta$$\rho$/$\rho_0$ shows a maximum around t$_\textup{Pt}$ $\sim$ $\lambda_\textup{Pt}$ ($\lambda_\textup{Pt}$ is spin diffusion of Pt) [@Althammer2013]. For t$_\textup{Pt}$ $>$ 10 nm, there is no measurable oscillation for all three field scans.
Discussion
----------
Based on the above experimental data, we conclude that the observed extraordinary Hall resistance and unconventional magnetoresistance in Pt thin films are entangled with the ferromagnetism of LCO insulator. However, these spin transport properties can not be generally explained by the existing theory. The recent theoretical model, namely, SMR has been proposed to explain the observed UCMR in Pt/YIG hybrid, which is built on the spin Hall and inverse spin Hall effects and involves a conversion between the charge and spin current [@Nakayama2013; @Chen2013]. However, the SMR model is unable to describe the unusual temperature dependence of EHR whose magnitude and sign are highly non-trivial and the unsaturated UCMR at high fields [@Miao2014; @Huang2012]. There are at least three contributions to the observed EHR in Pt/LCO hybrids: magnetic proximity effect, spin Hall based SMR, and spin-dependent interface scattering. The Pt is near the stoner ferromagnetic instability and could become magnetic when contacts with ferromagnetic materials, as shown experimentally by x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) and theoretically by first principle calculation in Pt/YIG hybrids [@Lu2013; @Qu2013]. By injecting the Au layer, no measurable EHR can be detected for Pt(3 nm)/Au(6 nm)/YIG, indicating the important role of MPE [@Miao2014]. However, our observed EHR which shows a significantly enhanced EHR at lower temperature cannot be simply explained by MPE since the XMCD measurements in Pt/YIG has revealed a slight decreased average Pt moment at room temperature (0.054 $\mu_\textup{B}$) compared to low temperature (0.076 $\mu_\textup{B}$ at 10 K) [@Lu2013]. The SMR model based on spin Hall effect predicts an anomalous Hall-like resistance whose magnitude is determined by the imaginary part of the spin mixing conductance [@Chen2013]. However, the SMR model fails to explain the EHR behaviors in our Pt/LCO as well as previously reported Pt/YIG hybrids: an arbitrary temperature dependence of the imaginary part of the spin mixing conductance parameter is required to qualitatively describe the temperature dependent EHR data. Particularly, the sign reversal cannot even be qualitatively explained. Finally, spin-dependent scattering at the interface, combined with the conventional skew-scattering and side-jump mechanisms [@Nagaosa2010], can also give rise to EHR in our Pt/LCO hybrids. However, there is no existing quantitative theory to compare with our results. We conclude that non-trivial EHR observed in Pt/LCO and other similar hybrids demands further theoretical and experimental investigations in order to clarify the dominating mechanisms. On the hand, it is also interesting to investigate the impacts of possible spin state change in LCO film on the spin transport properties of Pt/LCO hybrids.
CONCLUSION
==========
In summary, we carried out the measurements of transverse Hall resistance R$_{xy}$ and longitudinal resistance R$_{xx}$ on Pt/LCO hybrids. All three types of hybrids, including Pt/LCO/LAO, Pt/LCO/LSAT, and Pt/LCO/STO, exhibit extraordinary Hall resistance and unconventional magnetoresistance below the Curie temperature of LCO films. The amplitude of unconventional magnetoresistance and the extraordinary Hall resistance on Pt/LCO hybrids are comparable to Pd/YIG and Pt/YIG hybrids. However, the observed spin transport properties can not be consistently explained by the existing theories, further investigations are needed to clarify this issue.
This work is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11274321, 11404349, 11174302, 51502314). S. Zhang was partially supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. ECCS-1404542).
[10]{}
Y. Ohno, D. K. Young, B. Beschoten, F. Matsukura, H. Ohno, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature (London) **402**, 790 (1999).
F. J. Jedema, A. T. Filip, and B. J. van Wees, Nature (London) **410**, 345 (2001).
B. Heinrich, C. Burrowes, E. Montoya, B. Kardasz, E. Girt, Y. Y. Song, Y. Y. Sun, and M. Z. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 066604 (2011).
S. M. Rezende, R. L. Rodríguez-Suárez, M. M. Soares, L. H. Vilela-Leão, D. Ley Domínguez, and A. Azevedo, Appl. Phys. Lett. **102** , 012402 (2013).
Y. Kajiwara, K. Harii, S. Takahashi, J. Ohe, K. Uchida, M. Mizuguchi, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, K. Ando, K.Takanashi, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Nature (London) **464**, 262 (2010).
K. Uchida, S. Takahashi, K. Harii, J. Ieda, W. Koshibae, K. Ando, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Nature (London) **455**, 778 (2008).
K. Uchida, J. Xiao, H. Adachi, J. Ohe, S. Takahashi, J. Ieda, T. Ota, Y. Kajiwara, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, G. E. W. Bauer, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Nat. Mater. **9**, 894 (2010).
B. F. Miao, S. Y. Huang, D. Qu, and C. L. Chien, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 236601 (2014).
M. Althammer, S. Meyer, H. Nakayama, M. Schreier, S. Altmannshofer, M. Weiler, H. Huebl, S. Geprägs, M. Opel, R. Gross, D. Meier, C. Klewe, T. Kuschel, J. M. Schmalhorst, G. Reiss, L. M. Shen, A. Gupta, Y. T. Chen, G. E. W. Bauer, E. Saitoh, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 224401 (2013).
M. Isasa, A. B.Pinto, S. Vélez, F. Golmar, F. Sánchez, L. E. Hueso, J. Fontcuberta and F. Casanova, Appl. Phys. Lett. **105**, 142402 (2014).
T. Lin, C. Tang, H. M. Alyahayaei, and J. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 037203 (2014)..
C. Hahn, G. de Loubens, O. Klein, M. Viret, V. V. Naletov, and J. Ben Youssef, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 174417 (2013).
J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 1834 (1999).
J. Wunderlich, B. Kaestner, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 047204 (2005).
Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Awschalom, Science **306**, 1910 (2004).
E. Saitoh, M. Ueda, H. Miyajima and G. Tatara, Appl. Phys. Lett. **88**, 182509 (2006).
Y. Kajiwara, K. Harii, S. Takahashi, J. Ohe, K. Uchida, M. Mizuguchi, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, K. Ando, K. Takanashi, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Nature (London) **442**, 176 (2006).
T. Kimura, Y. Otani, T. Sato, S. Takahashi, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 156601 (2007).
H. Nakayama, M. Althammer, Y. T. Chen, K. Uchida, Y. Kajiwara, D. Kikuchi, T. Ohtani, S. Geprägs, M. Opel, S. Takahashi, R. Gross, G. E. W. Bauer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and E. Saitoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 206601 (2013).
Y. T. Chen, S. Takahashi, H. Nakayama, M. Althammer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, E. Saitoh, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 144411 (2013).
S. S. -L. Zhang and S. Zhang, J. Appl. Phys. **115**, 17C703 (2014).
V. L. Grigoryan, W. Guo, G. E. W. Bauer, and Jiang Xiao, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 161412(R) (2014).
S. Y. Huang, X. Fan, D. Qu, Y. P. Chen, W. G. Wang, J. Wu, T. Y. Chen, J. Q. Xiao, and C. L. Chien, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 107204 (2012).
D. Fuchs, C. Pinta, T. Schwarz, P. Schweiss, P. Nagel, S. Schuppler, R. Schneider, M. Merz, G. Roth, and H. v. Löhneysen, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 144402 (2007).
D. Fuchs, E. Arac, C. Pinta, S. Schuppler, R. Schneider, and H. v. Löhneysen, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 014434 (2008).
A. Herklotz, A. D. Rata, L. Schultz, and K. Dörr, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 092409 (2009).
V. V. Mehta, N. Biskup, C. Jenkins, E. Arenholz, M. Varela, and Y. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. B **91**, 144418 (2015).
J. W. Freeland, J. X. Ma, and J. Shi, Appl. Phys. Lett. **93**, 212501 (2008).
H. Hsu, P. Blaha, and R. M. Wentzcovitch, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 140404(R) (2012).
K. Uchida, Z. Y. Qiu, T. Kikkawa, R. Lguchi, and E. Saitoh, Appl. Phys. Lett. **106**, 052405 (2015).
T. Lin, C. Tang, and J. Shi, Appl. Phys. Lett. **103**, 132407 (2013).
T. R. McGuire and R. I. Potter, IEEE Trans. Magn. **11**, 1018 (1975).
S. Meyer, R. Schlitz, S. Geprägs, M. Opel, H. Huebl, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Appl. Phys. Lett. **106**, 132402 (2015).
G. T. Meaden, *Electrical resistance of metals*, (Heywood, 1969).
A. Tari, *The specific heat of matter at low temperatures*, (World Scientific, 2003).
Y. M. Lu, Y. Choi, C. M. Ortega, X. M. Cheng, J. W. Cai, S. Y. Huang, L. Sun, and C. L. Chien, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 147207 (2013).
D. Qu, S. Y. Huang, J. Hu, R. Q. Wu, and C. L. Chien, **110**, 067206 (2013).
N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 1539 (2010) and reference therein.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper we design and prove correct a fully dynamic distributed algorithm for maintaining an approximate Steiner tree that connects via a minimum-weight spanning tree a subset of nodes of a network (referred as Steiner members or Steiner group) . Steiner trees are good candidates to efficiently implement communication primitives such as publish/subscribe or multicast, essential building blocks for the new emergent networks (e.g. P2P, sensor or adhoc networks).
The cost of the solution returned by our algorithm is at most $\log |S|$ times the cost of an optimal solution, where $S$ is the group of members. Our algorithm improves over existing solutions in several ways. First, it tolerates the dynamism of both the group members and the network. Next, our algorithm is self-stabilizing, that is, it copes with nodes memory corruption. Last but not least, our algorithm is *superstabilizing*. That is, while converging to a correct configuration (i.e., a Steiner tree) after a modification of the network, it keeps offering the Steiner tree service during the stabilization time to all members that have not been affected by this modification.
author:
- 'Lélia Blin$^{1,2}$'
- 'Maria Gradinariu Potop-Butucaru$^{2,3}$'
- Stéphane Rovedakis$^1$
bibliography:
- 'SS\_Steiner\_Bib.bib'
title: 'A Superstabilizing $\log(n)$-Approximation Algorithm for Dynamic Steiner Trees'
---
Introduction
============
The design of efficient distributed applications in the newly distributed emergent networks such as MANETs, P2P or sensor networks raises various challenges ranging from models to fundamental services. These networks face frequent churn (nodes and links creation or destruction) and various privacy and security attacks that cannot be easily encapsulated in the existing distributed models. Therefore, new models and new algorithms have to be designed.
Communication services are the building blocks for any distributed system and they have received a particular attention in the lately years. Their efficiency greatly depends on the performances of the underlying routing overlay. These overlays should be optimized to reduce the network overload. Moreover, in order to avoid security and privacy attacks the number of network nodes that are used only for the overlay connectivity have to be minimized. Additionally, the overlays have to offer some quality of services while nodes or links fail.
The work in designing optimized communication overlays for the new emergent networks has been conducted in both structured (DHT-based) and un-structured networks. Communication primitives using DHT-based schemes such as Pastry, CAN or Chord [@CDCHR03] build upon a global naming scheme based on hashing nodes identifiers. These schemes are optimized to efficiently route in the virtual name space however they have weak energy performances in MANETs or sensor networks where the maintenance of long links reduces the network perennial. Therefore, alternative strategies [@KS07], mostly based on gossip techniques, have been recently considered. These schemes, highly efficient when nodes have no information on the content and the topology of the system, offer only probabilistic guarantees on the message delivery.
In this paper we are interested in the study of overlays targeted to efficiently connect a group of nodes that are not necessarily located in the same geographical area (e.g. sensors that should communicate their sensed data to servers located outside the deployment area, P2P nodes that share the same interest and are located in different countries, robots that should participate to the same task but need to remotely coordinate). Steiner trees are good candidates to implement the above mentioned requirements since the problem have been designed for efficiently connect a subset of the network nodes, referred as Steiner members.
#### The Steiner tree problem.
The Steiner tree problem can be informally expressed as follows: given a weighted graph in which a subset $S$ of nodes is identified, find a minimum-weight tree spanning $S$. The Steiner tree problem is one of the most important combinatorial optimization problems and finding a Steiner tree is NP-hard.
A survey on different heuristics for constructing Steiner trees with different competitiveness levels can be found in [@thesis96; @Steiner_survey]. In our work we are interested in dynamic variants of Steiner trees first addressed in [@ImaseWaxman91] in a centralized online setting. They propose a $\log |S|$-approximation algorithm for this problem that copes only with Steiner member arrivals. This algorithm can be implemented in a decentralized environment (see [@GataniRG05]).
Our work considers the fully dynamic version of the problem where both Steiner members and ordinary nodes can join or leave the system. Additionally, our work aims at providing a superstabilizing approximation of a Steiner tree. The property of self-stabilization [@Dij74; @Dol00] enables a distributed algorithm to recover from a transient fault regardless of its initial state. The superstabilization [@Dolev_SuperStab] is an extension of the self-stabilization property for dynamic settings. The idea is to provide some minimal guarantees while the system repairs after a topology change.
To our knowledge there are only two self-stabilizing approximations of Steiner trees [@SS_Steiner02; @Kakugawa_Steiner_journal]. Both works assume the shared memory model and an unfair centralized scheduler. In [@SS_Steiner02] the authors propose a self-stabilizing algorithm based on a pruned minimum spanning tree. The computed solution has a competitiveness of $|V|-|S|+1$ where $V$ is the set of nodes in the network. In [@Kakugawa_Steiner_journal], the authors proposed a four-layered algorithm that builds upon the techniques proposed in [@WuWW86] in order to obtain a $2$ approximation.
The above cited algorithms work only for static networks.
#### Our results.
We describe a super-stabilizing algorithm for the Steiner tree problem. This algorithm has the following properties:
- First, it is distributed, i.e., completely decentralized. That is, nodes locally self-organize in a Steiner tree. The cost of the constructed Steiner tree is at most $\log |S|$ times the cost of an optimal solution, where $S$ is the Steiner group.
- Second, our algorithm is specially designed to cope with user dynamism. In other words, our solution withstand when nodes (or links) join and leave the system.
- Third, our algorithm includes self-stabilization policies. Starting from an arbitrary state (nodes local memory corruption, counter program corruption, or erroneous messages in the network buffers), our algorithm is guaranteed to converge to a tree spanning the Steiner members.
- Fourth, our algorithm is *superstabilizing*. That is, while a topology change occurs, i.e., during the restabilization period, the algorithm offers the guarantee that only the subtree connected through the crashed node/edge is reconstructed.
Table \[tableresume\] summarizes our contribution compared to previous works. Hence, our algorithm is the first superstabilizing algorithm for the Steiner tree problem. Its approximation ratio is logarithmic, which is not as good as the 2-approximation algorithm by Kamei and Kakugawa in [@Kakugawa_Steiner_journal]. However, this latter algorithm is not superstabilizing. Designing a superstabilizing 2-approximation algorithm for the Steiner tree problem is a challenge. Indeed, all known 2-approximation distributed algorithms (self-stabilizing or not) for the Steiner tree problem use a minimum spanning tree (MST), and the design of a superstabilizing algorithm for MST is a challenge by itself.
Model and notations {#sec:model}
===================
We consider an undirected weighted connected network $G=(V,E,w)$ where $V$ is the set of nodes, $E$ is the set of edges and $w: E \rightarrow
{\mathbb R}$ is a cost function. Nodes represent processors and edges represent bidirectional communication links. Each node in the network has an unique identifier. $S \subseteq V$ defines the set of members we have to connect. For any pair of nodes $u,v \in V$, we note $d(u,v)$ the distance of the shortest path $P(u,v)$ between $u$ and $v$ in $G$ (i.e. $d(u,v)=\sum_{e \in P(u,v)} w(e)$). For a node $v \in V$, we denote the set of its neighbors ${\mathcal N(v)}=\{u, (u,v) \in E\}$. A Steiner tree, $T$ in $G$ is a connected acyclic sub-graph of $G$ such that $T=(V_{T},E_{T})$, $S \subseteq V_{T} \subseteq V$ and $E_{T} \subset E$. We denote by $W(T)$ the cost of a tree $T$, i.e. $W(T)=\sum_{e \in T} w(e)$.
We consider an asynchronous communication message passing model with FIFO channels (on each link messages are delivered in the same order as they have been sent).
A [*local state*]{} of a node is the value of the local variables of the node and the state of its program counter. We consider a fined-grained communication atomicity model [@BK07; @Dol00]. That is, each node maintains a local copy of the variables of its neighbors. These variables are refreshed via special messages (denoted in the sequel ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}$) exchanged periodically by neighboring nodes. A [*configuration*]{} of the system is the cross product of the local states of all nodes in the system plus the content of the communication links. The transition from a configuration to the next one is produced by the execution of an atomic step at a node. An [*atomic step*]{} at node $p$ is an internal computation based on the current value of $p$’s local variables and a single communication operation (send/receive) at $p$. An [*execution*]{} of the system is an infinite sequence of configurations, $e=(c_0, c_1, \ldots c_i, \ldots)$, where each configuration $c_{i+1}$ follows from $c_i$ by the execution of a single atomic step.
In the sequel we consider the system can start in any configuration. That is, the local state of a node can be corrupted. Note that we don’t make any assumption on the bound of corrupted nodes. In the worst case all nodes in the system may start in a corrupted configuration. In order to tackle these faults we use [*self-stabilization*]{} techniques.
Given $\mathcal{L_{A}}$ a non-empty *legitimacy predicate*[^1] an algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ is *self-stabilizing* iff the following two conditions hold: Every computation of $\mathcal{A}$ starting from a configuration satisfying $\mathcal{L_A}$ preserves $\mathcal{L_A}$ (*closure*). Every computation of $\mathcal{A}$ starting from an arbitrary configuration contains a configuration that satisfies $\mathcal{L_A}$ (*convergence*).
A [*legitimate configuration*]{} for the Steiner Tree is a configuration that provides an instance of a tree $T$ spanning $S$. Additionally, we expect a competitiveness of $\log(z)$, i.e. $\frac{W(T)}{W(T^*)} \leq \log(z)$, with $|S|=z$ and $T^*$ an optimal Steiner tree.
In the following we propose a self-stabilizing Steiner tree algorithm. We expect our algorithm to be also [*superstabilizing*]{} [@Dolev_SuperStab]. That is, given a class of topology changes $\Lambda$ and a passage predicate, an algorithm is superstabilizing with respect to $\Lambda$ iff it is self-stabilizing, and for every execution[^2] $e$ beginning at a legitimate state and containing a single topology change event of type $\Lambda$, the passage predicate holds for every configuration in $e$.
In the following we propose a self-stabilizing Steiner tree algorithm and extend it to a superstabilizing Steiner tree algorithm that copes with the Steiner members and tree edges removal. During the tree restabilization the algorithm verifies a passage predicate detailed below. Then, we discuss the extension of the algorithm to fully dynamic settings (the add/removal of members, nodes or links join/leave). This second extension offers no guarantees during the restabilization period.
The Superstabilizing Algorithm [[s3t]{}]{}
==========================================
The section describes a superstabilizing algorithm for the Steiner tree problem, called [[s3t]{}]{}. It implements the technique proposed by Imase and Waxman [@ImaseWaxman91], in a stabilizing manner. That is, each Steiner member is connected to the existing Steiner tree via a shortest path. Note that in a stabilizing setting the initial configuration may be arbitrary hence nodes have to perpetually verify the coherency of their state: a Steiner member has to be connected to the Steiner tree via a shortest path while a not Steiner node which does not serve for the tree connectivity has to be recognized as disconnected. In our implementation we assume a special node that acts as the root of the Steiner tree. To this end, we assume an underlying overlay that elects a leader within the Steiner group. That is, we assume a leader oracle that returns to every node in the system its status: leader or follower. The leader of the system is a node in the Steiner group. Note that the implementation of a leader oracle is beyond the scope of the current work. Several implementations fault-tolerant and self-stabilizing can be found in [@DDF07]. Recently, algorithms that implement leader oracles in dynamic settings are proposed in [@Baldoni08] for example.
Detailed description
--------------------
### Variables and Predicates
For any node $v \in V(G)$, $N(v)$ is the neighbors set of $v$ in the network $G$ (our algorithm is built upon an underlying self-stabilizing protocol that regularly updates the neighbor set of every node). We denote by ${\mbox{ID}}_v \in \mathbb{N}$ the unique network identifier of $v$. Every node $v$ maintains seven variables for constructing and maintaining a Steiner tree. Three of them are integers, and the others are booleans.
- ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v$: ${\mbox{ID}}$ of the parent of node $v$ in the current tree;
- ${\mbox{\sf level}}_v$: number of nodes on the path between the root and $v$ in spanning tree;
- ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v$: the shortest distance to a node already connected to the current tree;
- ${\mbox{\sf member}}_v$: *true* if $v \in S \subseteq V$, *false* otherwise (this is not a variable wrote by the algorithm but only read);
- ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v$: *true* if $v \in S \subseteq V$ or $v$ has a descendant which is a member, *false* otherwise;
- ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v$: *true* if $v$ is in the current tree, *false* otherwise;
- ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v$: *true* if $v$ is a member or $v$ has more than one children in the current tree, *false* otherwise.
### Description of the algorithm {#sec:algo}
Every node $v \in V$ sends periodically its local variables to each of its neighbors using ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}$ messages. Upon the reception of this message a neighbor updates the local copy of its neighbor variables. The description of a ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}$ message is as follows:\
${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}_v[u]=\langle{\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}},{\mbox{\sf parent}}_v,{\mbox{\sf level}}_v,{\mbox{\sf dist}}_v,{\mbox{\sf need}}_v,{\mbox{\sf connected}}_v,{\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v \rangle.$
Our algorithm is a four phase computation: (1) first nodes update their distance to the existing Steiner tree, then (2) nodes request connection (if they are members or they received a connection demand), then (3) they establish the connection, and finally (4) they update the state of the current Steiner tree. These phases have to be performed in the given order. That is, a node cannot initiate a request for connection for example if it has not yet updated its distance.
Note that if a node detects a distance modification in its neighborhood, it can change its connection to the current tree. Therefore a node before computing any other action must update its distance to the current tree.
Every node in the network, maintains a parent link. The parent of a node is one of its neighbors having the shortest distance to the current tree. Note that erroneous initial configurations may create cycles in the parent link. To break these cycles, we use the notion of tree level, defined by the variable : the root has the level zero and each node has the level equal to its parent level plus one.
When a member tries to connect to the tree, it sets its variable to *true*. When a node in the current tree receives a demand for connection, an acknowledgment is sent back along the requesting path enabling every node along this path to set a variable to *true*. Nodes with set *true* are called “connected nodes”.
Whenever a node detects an incoherency in its neighborhood it disconnects from the current tree.
In order to give a $\log(z)$-approximate Steiner tree, we introduce a variable . This variable signals if a node is a connection point or not. A connection point is a connected node which is a member or has more than one connected child.
####
Upon the reception of a ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}$ nodes correct their local state via the rules explained below then broadcast their new local state in their local neighborhood.
####
In a coherent state the root has a distance and a level equal to zero, variables ${\mbox{\sf need}}$ and ${\mbox{\sf connected}}$ are *true* since the root is always connected (it always belongs to the Steiner tree). Variable ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}$ is *true* because the root is a member so a connection point. Whenever the state of the root is incoherent the Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{} below is enabled.
[$\mathcal{RR}$]{}: (Root reinitialization)
: \
**If** ${\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf CRoot}}(v)$ **then**\
${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v:=0;$ ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v:={\mbox{ID}}_v;$ ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v:=true\/; $ ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v:=true;$\
${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v:=true;$ $ {\mbox{\sf level}}_v:=0;$
####
Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} enables to a not connected node to compute its shortest path distance to the Steiner tree as follows: Take the minimum between the edge weights with connected neighbors and the distances with not connected neighbors. If a not connected node detects it has a better shortest path (see Predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}$) then it updates its distance (using Predicates and ) and changes its other variables accordingly.
The same rule is used to reinitiate the state of a node if it observes that its parent is no more in its neighborhood.
Similarly, Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{} enables to a connected node to compute its shortest path distance. In order to execute this rule a connected node must have a stabilized connection. The distance is computed as for a not connected node but a connected node compares this distance with its local distance towards its connection point and takes the minimum.
[$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{}: (Distance stabilization for not connected nodes)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge [(\neg {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v)) \vee \neg {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v)]$ **then**\
${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v:={\mbox{\sf distNotConnect}}(v);$ ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v:={\mbox{\sf parentNotConnect}}(v);$\
$ {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v:=false;{\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v:=false;$ ${\mbox{\sf level}}_v:=Level_{{\mbox{\sf parent}}_v}+1;$
[$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{}: (Distance stabilization for connected nodes)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v)$ **then**\
${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v:={\mbox{\sf distConnect}}(v);$ ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v:={\mbox{\sf parentConnect}}(v);$\
$ {\mbox{\sf level}}_v:=Level_{{\mbox{\sf parent}}_v}+1;$
####
Variable ${\mbox{\sf need}}$ is used by a not connected node to ask to its parent a connection to the current Steiner tree. Since a member must be connected to the Steiner tree, each member sets this variable to *true* using Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_1$]{}. A not member and not connected node which detects that a child wants to be connected (see Predicate ${\mbox{\sf Asked\_Connection}}$) changes its variable ${\mbox{\sf need}}$ to *true*. This connection request is forwarded in the spanning tree until a not connected node neighbor of a connected node is reached.
A not connected node sets its variable ${\mbox{\sf need}}$ to *false* using Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_2$]{} if it is not a member and it has no child requesting a connection.
[$\mathcal{NR}_1$]{}: (Nodes which need to be connected)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf need}}_v \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v) \wedge [{\mbox{\sf member}}_v \vee (\neg {\mbox{\sf member}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf Asked\_Connection}}(v))]$\
**then** ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v:=true;$
[$\mathcal{NR}_2$]{}: (Nodes which need not to be connected)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf need}}_v \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf member}}_v \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf Asked\_Connection}}(v) \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v)$\
**then** ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v:=false;$
####
When a not connected node neighbor of a connected node (i.e. which belongs to the Steiner tree) detects a connection request from a child (i.e. Predicate ${\mbox{\sf Asked\_Connection}}$ is *true*), an acknowledgment is sent backward using variable ${\mbox{\sf connected}}$ along the request path. Therefore every not connected node on this path uses Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_1$]{} and sets ${\mbox{\sf connected}}$ to *true* until the member that asked the connection is connected. Only a node that has (1) no better path, (2) its variable ${\mbox{\sf need}}=true$ and (3) a connected parent can use Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_1$]{}.
A connected node becomes not connected if its connection path is no more stabilized (i.e. Predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}$ is false). Therefore, it sets ${\mbox{\sf connected}}$ to *false* using Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_2$]{}.
The parent distance is used for the disconnection of a subtree whenever a fault occurs in the network. If a fault occurs (parent distance is infinity), a connected node in the subtree below a faulty node or edge in the spanning tree must be disconnected using Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{}. So the node sets ${\mbox{\sf connected}}$ to false and ${\mbox{\sf dist}}$ to infinity and waits until all its subtree is disconnected (i.e. it has no connected child).
[$\mathcal{CR}_1$]{}: (Nodes which must be connected)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v) \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v)$\
**then** ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v:=true;$
[$\mathcal{CR}_2$]{}: (Nodes which must not be connected)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf dist}}_{{\mbox{\sf parent}}_v}\neq \infty$ **then** ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v:=false;$
[$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{}: (Consequence of a deletion)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf dist}}_{{\mbox{\sf parent}}_v}= \infty $ **then** ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v:=false; {\mbox{\sf dist}}_v:=\infty;$ ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v:=false; $\
send ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}_v$ to all $u \in N(v)$ and wait until ($\not \exists u\in N(v), {\mbox{\sf parent}}_u=$\
${\mbox{ID}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf connected}}_u$)
####
Since we use shortest paths to connect members to the existing Steiner tree, we must maintain distances from members to connection points. A connection point is a connected member or a connected node with more than one connected children, i.e. the root of the branch connecting a member. Every connected node updates its distance if it has a better path. So thanks to connection points and distance computation, we maintain a shortest path between a member and the Steiner tree in order to respect the construction in [@ImaseWaxman91]. Rule [$\mathcal{TR}$]{} is used by a connected node to change its variable ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}$ and to become or not a connection point. This rule is executed only if the connected node has a stabilized connection path (i.e. Predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}$ is *true*).
[$\mathcal{TR}$]{}: (Connected path stabilization)
: \
**If** $\neg {\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf connected}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v) \wedge \neg {\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v)$\
**then** **If** ${\mbox{\sf member}}_v$ **then** ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v:=true;$\
**Else** ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v := |\{u:u\in N(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf parent}}_u = {\mbox{ID}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf connected}}_u\}|>1;$
Correctness and proof in Static setting {#sec:correction}
=======================================
\[def:legitimate\_state\] A configuration of algorithm is legitimate iff each process $v \in V$ satisfies the following conditions:
1. a Steiner tree $T$ spanning the set of members $S$ is constructed;
2. a shortest path connects each member $v \in S$ to the existing tree.
\[lem:correct1\] Eventually the node’s parent relation constructs a rooted spanning tree in the network.
Function ${\mbox{\sf Is\_Root}}(v)$ is a perfect oracle which returns true if $v$ is the root of the tree and false otherwise. So we assume that there is a time after which only one root exists in the network. Moreover Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{} is only used by the root to correct its corrupted variables.
Since there is only one root in the network, to have a spanning tree we must show that each node has one parent and there is no cycle. First note that each node $v$ could have at each time only one parent in its neighborhood (see predicate ${\mbox{\sf CParent}}(v)$) designed by variable ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v$, only root has its parent equal to itself. Each node maintains its level stored in variable ${\mbox{\sf level}}_v$ which is updated by Rules [$\mathcal{RR}$]{}, [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} and [$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{}. The level of each node is equal to the level of its parent plus one, except for the root which has a level at zero (see Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{}). Suppose there is a cycle in the node’s parent relation. This implies that there is a time after which we have a sequence of nodes with a growing sequence of levels. But there is at least one node $x$ with a smaller level than its parent $y$ in the cycle. That is, for $x$ we have ${\mbox{\sf level}}_x \neq {\mbox{\sf level}}_y +1$ and for $y$ we have ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_x=ID_y \wedge {\mbox{\sf level}}_x \neq {\mbox{\sf level}}_y +1$. So predicate ${\mbox{\sf CParent}}$ is false for $x$ and $y$, thus $x$ and $y$ can execute Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} to reset their variables and break the cycle. Therefore, there is a time after which no cycle exists in the structure described by the node’s parent relation. Since there is only one root in the network (i.e. ${\mbox{\sf level}}_v=0$ and ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v=ID_v$) and there is no cycle, thus the node’s parent relation describe one tree spanning the network.
\[lem:correct1bis\] Eventually each non-connected node knows its distance to the current tree.
A node $v$ is connected iff ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=true$. There is at least one connected node because the root is always connected (see Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{}), otherwise there is a time where the root corrects its variables using Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{}. According to Lemma \[lem:correct1\], a tree spanning the network is constructed. Let $x$ be a non-connected node, $d_x$ the distance of the shortest path from $x$ to any connected node and $y$ the neighbor on this shortest path. Suppose ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_x>d_x$, thus it exists a time after which a neighbor offers a better path and $x$ can execute Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} because predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(x)$ is true. So $x$ corrects ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_x$ as the minimum distance in its neighborhood (see function ${\mbox{\sf distNotConnect}}(x)$). Therefore there is a time after which ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_x=d_x$. Moreover, at each time $x$ executes Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} the variable ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_x$ is modified respectively to variable ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_x$ (see function ${\mbox{\sf parentNotConnect}}(x)$) and thus ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_x$ stores the neighbor of $x$ which offers to $x$ the shortest path to any connected node. Therefore, there is a time after which when we have ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_x=d_x$ then ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_x=y$.
\[lem:correct2\] Eventually each Steiner member is linked to root via a connected path.
A node $v$ is connected iff ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=true$. There is at least one connected node because the root is always connected (see Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{}), otherwise there is a time where the root corrects its variables using Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{}. Moreover, according to lemma \[lem:correct1\], there is only one root and a rooted tree spanning the network is constructed. Thus it exists a path between each member and the root.
To prove the lemma, we first show that for each node $v$ on the path connecting a member we have ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$.
Each node $v$ (except the root) can change the value of its variable ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v$ or ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v$ to true respectively with Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_1$]{} and [$\mathcal{NR}_2$]{} only when $v$ has no neighbor with a lower distance than its parent (i.e. $v$ has no better path so [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} and [$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{} are not executable). Otherwise ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v)$ returns true and Rules [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} or [$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{} are uppermost used to correct ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v$ and ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v$. So we suppose that ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v)$ returns false.
Note that for any member $v$ we must have ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$ otherwise $v$ executes Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_1$]{} to correct ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v$. Since there is a path from each member $v$ to the root, the parent $u$ of a member will execute Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_1$]{} because according to procedure ${\mbox{\sf Asked\_Connection}}(u)$, $u$ has at least a child $v$ s.t. ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$. Thus $u$ changes the value of its variable ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v$ if necessary. Therefore one can show by induction using the same scheme that for each node $v$ on the path between a member and the root we have ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$.
Each node $v$ (except the root) with ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=false$ can correct its variable ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v$ only when Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_1$]{} is not executable (i.e. ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$) because predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)=false$ and Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_1$]{} can not be executed. Since the root $u$ is always connected (i.e. ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_u=true$), each child $v$ of the root with ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$ and ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=false$ can execute Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_1$]{} to change the value of its variable ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v$ if necessary because predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)$ is satisfied. Thus one can show by induction that for any node on the path between a member and the root we have ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=true$.
\[lem:correct3\] Eventually ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v)$ is true for every connected node $v$ on the path between each member and the root in the network.
According to Lemma \[lem:correct2\], there is a time after which we have paths of connected nodes between members and the root. Note that in this case predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)$ is true.
Suppose that ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v)$ for a connected node $v$ is false. If $v$ is a member then this implies that ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v = false$ (see predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v)$), so $v$ can execute Rule [$\mathcal{TR}$]{} to change the value of ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v$ to true and we have ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)=true$. Otherwise, let $v$ be the parent of a member $u$ on the path of connected nodes connecting $u$ to the root. This implies that ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v \neq |\{u:u\in N(v) \wedge {\mbox{\sf parent}}_u = {\mbox{ID}}_v \wedge {\mbox{\sf connected}}_u\}|>1$ (see predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v)$), so $v$ can execute Rule [$\mathcal{TR}$]{} to update ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_v$ and we have ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)=true$. Thus one can show by induction on the height of the tree that it exists a time where ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)$ is true for every connected node $v$ on the path between each member and the root.
\[lem:correct4\] Eventually each member is connected by a shortest path to the current tree.
Let $T_{i-1}$ be the tree constructed by the algorithm before the connection of the member $v_i$. To prove the lemma, we must show that for any member $v_i$ we have a shortest path from $v_i$ to $T_{i-1}$ when ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v_i)=true$ and ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v_i)=false$ (i.e. Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{} can not be executed by a member and so there is no better path to connect the member).
Initially, according to Rule [$\mathcal{RR}$]{} the root $v_0$ is always connected and we have ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v_0)=true$ and ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v)=false$ (because ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v=0$). We show by induction on the number of members that the property is satisfied for each member. At iteration $1$, let $v_1$ be a not connected member then according to Lemma \[lem:correct1bis\] the path $P_1$ from $v_1$ to $v_0$ in the spanning tree is a shortest path, so there is a time s.t. ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v_1)=true$ (see Lemma \[lem:correct3\]) since $P_1$ is a shortest path between $v_1$ and $v_0$ (i.e. $T_0$), we have ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v_1)=false$, thus the property is satisfied for $v_1$. We suppose that the tree $T_i$ satisfies the desired property for every member $v_j, j \leq i$. At iteration $i+1$, when member $v_{i+1}$ is not connected, according to Lemma \[lem:correct1bis\] the path $P_{i+1}$ from $v_{i+1}$ to $T_i$ is a shortest path, so there is a time s.t. ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Pt\_Stab}}(v_{i+1})=true$ (see Lemma \[lem:correct3\]). Since $P_{i+1}$ is a shortest path between $v_{i+1}$ and $T_i$, we have ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v_{i+1})=false$ and the property is satisfied for $v_{i+1}$.
Note that a member $v_{i+1}$ can create a connection point $u$ (i.e. ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_u=true$) on the path $P_j$ connecting a member $v_j, j \leq i$. In this case, the property is still satisfied for $v_j$ because the path between $u$ and $v_j$ is part of $P_j$ so it is a shortest path since a subpath of a shortest path is a shortest path. Moreover, when we have ${\mbox{\sf connect\_pt}}_u=true$ for $u$ then all nodes on the path between $u$ and $v_j$ update their distance with Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{} (see predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}$).
\[lem:correct5\] Eventually a Steiner tree is constructed.
According respectively to Lemmas \[lem:correct1\] and \[lem:correct2\] a spanning tree is constructed (i.e. $S$ is also spanned) and there is a path of connected nodes between each member and the root. To prove the lemma we must show that every leaf of $T$ is a member.
Consider the connected node $v$ (i.e. ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$ and ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=true$), such that $v$ is a leaf of $T$. Since $v$ is a leaf, this implies that $v$ has no connected child in $T$, so predicate ${\mbox{\sf Asked\_Connection}}(v)$ is false.\
Suppose that $v$ is not a member. Thus $v$ can execute Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_2$]{} and change the value of ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v$ to false. As a consequence predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)$ is false and $v$ can then execute Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_2$]{} which changes the value of ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v$ to false. Therefore $v$ is not connected and is no more a leaf of $T$. By using the same scheme we can show by induction on the height of $T$ that every node on a path of connected nodes which contains no member nodes can not belong to $T$ after a finite bounded of time.\
Now suppose that $v$ is a member, the guard of Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_2$]{} is not satisfied so ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v$ remains true. Since ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v=true$, predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(v)$ remains true too and $v$ is maintained by the algorithm as a leaf of $T$.
\[lem:convergence\] Starting from an illegitimate configuration eventually the algorithm reaches in a finite time a legitimate configuration.
Let $C$ be an illegitimate configuration, i.e. $C \not \in
\mathcal{L}$. According to Lemmas \[lem:correct1\], \[lem:correct4\] and \[lem:correct5\], in a finite time a legitimate state is reached for any process $v \in V$. Therefore in a finite time a legitimate configuration is reached in the network.
The set of legitimate configurations is closed.
According to the model, ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}$ messages are exchanged periodically with the neighborhood by all nodes in the network, so ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}$ messages maintain up to date copies of neighbor states. Thus starting in a legitimate configuration the algorithm maintains a legitimate configuration.
Correctness and proof in Dynamic setting
========================================
In this section, we consider dynamic networks and we prove that topology changes can be correctly treated by extending our algorithm, given in Figure \[fig:algo\_dynamic\]. Moreover, we show that a passage predicate is satisfied during restabilizing execution of given algorithm.
In the following, we define the topology change events, noted $\varepsilon$, that we must consider:
- an add (resp. a removal) of a member $v$ ($v$ remains in the network) noted ${\tt add}_v$ (resp. ${\tt del}_v$);
- an add (resp. a removal) of edge $(u,v)$ in the network noted ${\tt recov}_{uv}$ (resp. ${\tt crash}_{uv}$);
- an add (resp. a removal) of a neighbor node $u$ of $v$ in the network noted ${\tt recov}_u$ (resp. ${\tt crash}_u$).
Algorithm given in Figure \[fig:algo\_dynamic\] completes the self-stabilizing algorithm described in precedent sections and allows to a node $v$ to take into account topology change events.
In the sequel we suppose that after every topology change the network remains connected. We prove in the next subsection that algorithm of Figure \[fig:algo\_dynamic\] has a superstabilizing property.
Correctness under restricted dynamism
-------------------------------------
We provide below definitions of the topology change events class $\Lambda$ and passage predicate for protocol given in Figure \[fig:algo\_dynamic\].
${\tt del}_v, {\tt crash}_{uv}$ and ${\tt crash}_v$ compose the class $\Lambda$ of topology change events.
\[def:passage\_predicate\] Parent relations can be modified for nodes in the subtree connected by the removed member, edge or node, and parent relations are not changed for any other node in the tree.
\[lem:dyn\_suppression\] Starting from a legitimate configuration, if a member $x$ leaves the set of members $S$ or node $x$ or edge $(y,x)$ is removed from the network then each connected node $v$ in the subtree of $x$ is disconnected from the tree and a legitimate configuration is reached by the system.
According to the description of the complete algorithm, when a member $x$ leaves the set of members $S$ then $x$ changes first its variables as following: ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_x=false$ and ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_x=\infty$, then $x$ sends its state to its neighborhood and finally $x$ waits until it has no connected child. In the same way, if a node $x$ (resp. edge $(y,x)$ (assume ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_x=ID_y$)) is removed from the network then each child $v$ of $x$ (resp. $x$) changes first its variables as following: ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=false$ and ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v=\infty$ (resp. ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_x=false$ and ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_x=\infty$), then $v$ (resp. $x$) sends its state to its neighborhood and finally $v$ (resp. $x$) waits until it has no connected child.
When a connected child $u$ of $v$ (resp. of $x$) receives message ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}_v$ from $v$ (resp. ${\mbox{\tt InfoMsg}}_x$ from $x$), since predicate ${\mbox{\sf Connect\_Stab}}(u)$ is false (because ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_{parent_u}=false$) and ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_{parent_u}=\infty$ the node $u$ executes Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{} changing the variables of $u$ like $v$’s or $x$’s variables, sends its state to its neighborhood and waits until it has no connected child. According to Lemma \[lem:no\_deadlock\], no node in the subtree of $x$ executing Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{} perpetually waits it has no connected child. As a consequence, after a finite time every connected node $v$ in the subtree of $x$ is no more connected.
Since each node in the subtree of $x$ is not connected, there is at least one of those nodes $v$ such that predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}(v)$ is true. Thus $v$ can execute Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{}. According to Lemmas \[lem:correct1\] and \[lem:correct1bis\], there is a time after which each node in the subtree of $x$ knows its correct shortest path distance to a connected node. Moreover, by Lemmas \[lem:correct2\] and \[lem:correct4\] each not connected member will be connected by a shortest path to a connected node in the existing Steiner tree. Therefore, in a finite number of steps the system reaches a legitimate configuration $C' \in \mathcal{L}$.
\[lem:2\] The proposed protocol is superstabilizing for the class $\Lambda$ of topology change events, and the passage predicate (Definition \[def:passage\_predicate\]) continues to be satisfied while a legitimate configuration is reached.
Consider a configuration $\Delta \vdash \mathcal{L}$. Suppose $\varepsilon$ is a removal of edge $(u,v)$ from the network. If $(u,v)$ is not a tree edge then the distances of $u$ and $v$ are not modified neither $u$ nor $v$ changes its parent, thus no parent relation is modified. Otherwise let ${\mbox{\sf parent}}_v=u$, $u$’s distance and $u$’s parent are not modified, it is true for any other node not contained in the subtree of $v$ since the distances are not modified (i.e. predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}$ is not satisfied). However, $u$ is no more a neighbor of $v$ so according to the handling of an edge removal by the algorithm $v$’s variables are reseted. Then $v$ sends its state to its neighborhood and waits until it has no connected child. According to Lemma \[lem:dyn\_suppression\], all its children will become not connected and eventually change their parent by executing Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} because there is a better path (i.e. predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}$ is satisfied). Therefore, only any node in the subtree connected by the edge $(u,v)$ may change its parent relation.
Suppose $\varepsilon$ is a removal of node $u$ from the network. Any node not contained in the subtree of $u$ do not change its parent relation because the distances are not modified (i.e. predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}$ is not satisfied). Consider each edge $(u,v)$ between $u$ and its child $v$, we can apply the same argument described above for an edge removal. Therefore, only any node contained in the subtree connected by $u$ may change its parent relation.
A fault which occurs in the network is detected using a distance with an infinity value. To handle a fault, we introduce Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{} to bootstrap connected nodes in the subtree below a faulty node/edge. We show in Lemma \[lem:no\_deadlock\] that even Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{} is executed when no fault occurs in the network then no node perpetually waits (no deadlock) because of Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{}.
Starting from an arbitrary configuration, Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{} introduces no deadlock in the network. \[lem:no\_deadlock\]
Consider a configuration which simulates the presence of a fault in the network (but there is not really a fault) and allows the execution of Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{} by a node $v$, i.e. $v$ is a connected node and has a not connected parent $u$ with ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_{{\mbox{\sf parent}}_v}=\infty$. According to Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{}, $v$ becomes a not connected node and sets its distance to infinity (i.e. ${\mbox{\sf connected}}_v=false$ and ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v=\infty$), then it sends its state to its neighbors and waits until it has no connected child. There are two cases: (1) $v$ has no connected child or (2) $v$ has at least one connected child. In case (1), $v$ is a leaf of the connected subtree and does not wait. Otherwise, in case (2) the subtree of connected nodes rooted in $v$ has a finite height so we can show by induction that in a finite time every node in the subtree executes Rule [$\mathcal{CR}_3$]{}. According to case (1), there is no deadlock for the leaves of the connected subtree. Therefore, we can show by induction on the height of the subtree rooted in $v$ that after a finite time there is no connected node and $v$ wakes up.
Correctness under fully dynamism assumptions {#correctness-under-fully-dynamism-assumptions .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------
In the precedent subsection guarantees are given on the conservation of the tree structure, only for removal topology events. Here, we consider all the different topology change events presented in Section \[sec:correction\] (i.e. add/removal of members, nodes or edges). We must maintain a quality of service on the weight of the structure reserved to interconnect all members. Therefore, legitimate configurations take into account a global constraint on the Steiner tree weight. As a consequence, we can not give any guarantees on the tree structure during the stabilization of protocol defined by the presented rules and algorithm of Figure \[fig:algo\_dynamic\] (i.e. no passage predicate is satisfied) if an add of a member, node or edge arises in the network. However to maintain a quality of service on the structure weight, we show here that the protocol is able to restabilize when one of the previous mentioned topology change events arises in the network.
Lemma \[lem:dyn\_suppression\] proves that a legitimate configuration is reached starting from an arbitrary configuration if removal topology change events arises in the network. The following lemma considers add topology change events and shows that a legitimate configuration is reached too.
\[lem:dyn\_ajout\] Starting from a legitimate configuration, after a member add to $S$ or a node or edge add in the network, eventually the algorithm leads in a finite number of steps to a legitimate configuration.
We must consider three cases: an edge add, a node add and the add of a path in the network.
Consider the add of an edge between two existing nodes $u$ and $v$ with a weight $w(u,v)$. If predicate ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}$ is false for $u$ and $v$ (i.e. ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_u \leq {\mbox{\sf dist}}_v + w(u,v)$ and ${\mbox{\sf dist}}_v \leq {\mbox{\sf dist}}_u +
w(u,v)$) then the system is still in a legitimate configuration $C'
\in \mathcal{L}$. Otherwise ${\mbox{\sf Better\_Path}}$ is true and Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{} (resp. [$\mathcal{DR}_2$]{}) can be executed if $u$ or $v$ is not connected (resp. connected) to correct its distance. In the same way, other tree nodes $u$ or $v$ correct their distances, thus after a finite number of steps the system reaches a legitimate configuration $C' \in
\mathcal{L}$.
Consider the add of a node $v$ to an existing node $u$ by an edge $(u,v)$. $v$ corrects its variables by executing Rule [$\mathcal{DR}_1$]{}. If $v$ is not a member, variable ${\mbox{\sf need}}_v$ is corrected if necessary with Rule [$\mathcal{NR}_2$]{} otherwise according to Lemmas \[lem:correct2\], \[lem:correct3\] and \[lem:correct4\] $v$ is connected by a shortest path to the existing tree, which leads the system to a legitimate configuration $C' \in \mathcal{L}$.
Consider the add of a path $P$. If $P$ is a path between an existing node $u$ and a new node $v$ then all nodes of $P$ behave like the case of a node add $v$ to an existing node $u$. Otherwise $P$ is a path between two existing nodes $u$ and $v$, all nodes of $P$ behave like the case of a node add to an existing node and $u$ and $v$ behave like the case of an edge add if $P$ offers a better path. Thus, in a finite number of steps the system reaches a legitimate configuration $C' \in
\mathcal{L}$.
Complexity and Cost Issues {#complexity-and-cost-issues .unnumbered}
==========================
Using the notation of Theorem \[theo1\], Algorithm [[s3t]{}]{} performs in $O(D\cdot |S|)$ rounds where $D$ is the current diameter of the network. It uses $O(\Delta \log n)$ bits of memory in the send/receive model[^3], where $\Delta$ is the current maximal degree of the network.
We consider the worst case in which all the tree must be reconstructed because of topological or member set modifications. Let $T_i=(V_{T_i},E_{T_i})$ be a tree constructed at some step $i$ of the algorithm. Our algorithm can be viewed as a special case of a shortest path tree construction in which all nodes $v \in V_{T_i}$ are considered as a single virtual root and all nodes $v \not \in V_{T_i}$ computes the shortest distance from this virtual root. So we can show by induction that the algorithm connects in at most $O(D)$ rounds the nearest member to the tree $T_i$. Initially when the root $r$ is stabilized and connected to $T_0$, $r$ initiates a classic shortest path computation. So after $3D$ rounds the algorithm connects the nearest member to the root (we need at most $D$ rounds to compute the shortest path to the root and at most $2D$ rounds for the nodes on the path to change their states from not connected to connected). We assume that following the first $3iD$ rounds $i$ members are connected to the tree $T_i$. We prove that after $3D$ additional rounds $i+1$ members are connected. In at most $D$ rounds all nodes $v \not \in
T_i$ compute their shortest path to $T_i$, in additional $2D$ rounds all nodes on the path from the nearest member $v \not \in T_i$ to $T_i$ change their state to connected. So after $3(i+1)D$ rounds $i+1$ members are connected in tree $T_{i+1}$. Thus as $0 \leq i \leq z$ the algorithm connects all members in at most $O(zD)$ rounds.
In the following we analyze the memory complexity of our solution. Each node maintains a constant number of local variables of size $O(\log n)$ bits. However, due to specificity of our model (the send/receive model) the memory complexity including the copies of the local neighborhood is $O(\delta \log n)$ where $\delta$ is the maximal degree of the network.
Since we use the shortest distance metric between nodes in the network, any network can be represented by a complete graph so the following Lemma can be applied.
\[lem:ImaseWaxman91\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a complete graph with a cost function $C:E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ satisfying the triangle inequality, and let $S$ be any nonempty subset of $V$ with $|S|=z$. If $2P$ is the cost of an optimal tour for $S$ and $l:V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ satisfying the following conditions:
1. $d(u,v) \geq \min(l(u),l(v))$ for all nodes $u,v \in S$, and
2. $l(v) \leq P$ for all nodes $v \in S$,
then $(\sum_{v \in S}l(v))-\max_{v \in S} l(v) \leq (\lceil \log z \rceil)P$.
\[theo1\] Let $G=(V,E,w)$ be a dynamic network, and let $S$ be a set of members. Algorithm [[s3t]{}]{} is a superstabilizing algorithm that returns a steiner tree $T$ for $S$ satisfying $\frac{W(T)}{W(T^*)} \leq \lceil \log |S| \rceil$, where $T^*$ is an optimal Steiner tree for $S$.
Let a set $S$ of members, and $z=|S|$. According to Lemmas \[lem:correct4\] and \[lem:correct5\], when our algorithm completes each member $v \in S$ is connected in $T$ by a shortest path to a node $u$, such that $u$ has been connected in $T$ before $v$. Let $T_{i-1}$ the tree constructed by our algorithm before the connection of a member $v_i \in S$. As in [@ImaseWaxman91] (proof of theorem 2), if we let $l(v_i)= \min_{0 \leq j < i} d(v_i,v_j)$ for $1 \leq i \leq z$, then the cost of the path selected by the algorithm to connect $v_i$ to $T_{i-1}$ is less than or equal to $l(v_i)$. Let $l(v_0)=\max_{1 \leq j \leq z} d(v_0,v_j)$, so $l(v_0) \geq \max_{0 \leq j \leq i} l(v_j)$. Thus we have $W(T) \leq (\sum_{j=0}^{z} l(v_j))-l(v_0)$. Moreover for any pair of nodes $v_j,v_k$, according to definition of function $l$ we have $l(v_k) \leq d(v_j,v_k)$ so (1) of lemma \[lem:ImaseWaxman91\] holds. Note that a tour of set $S$ can be constructed from a Steiner tree for $S$ of cost of $P$ such that the cost of the tour is no more than twice the cost of the Steiner tree. Since $l(v_j) \leq P$ for all $j$, $0 \leq j \leq z$, (2) of lemma \[lem:ImaseWaxman91\] holds and according to lemma \[lem:ImaseWaxman91\] the theorem follows.
Since $S$ is a dynamic set of member, we must consider two cases: the add of a member and the removal of a member. Consider the add of a new member $v$ to $S$. By Lemma \[lem:dyn\_ajout\], the system reaches a legitimate configuration. Thus, $v$ is connected by a shortest path to the existing Steiner tree and $W(T) \leq (\sum_{j=0}^{z} l(v_j))-l(v_0)$ is still satisfied. The same argument is true for the add of a node or an edge of the network. Consider the removal of a member $v$ from $S$. By Lemma \[lem:dyn\_suppression\], the system reaches a legitimate configuration. Thus, each member $v$ of $S$ is connected by a shortest path to a connected member in the Steiner tree and $W(T) \leq (\sum_{j=0}^{z} l(v_j))-l(v_0)$ is satisfied again. The same argument is true for the removal of a node or an edge of the network. Therefore, considering a dynamic network $G$ and a dynamic set of members the theorem is always satisfied.
Conclusion
==========
We propose a self-stabilizing algorithm for the Steiner tree problem, based on the heuristic proposed in [@ImaseWaxman91], and achieves starting from any configuration a competitiveness of $log(z)$ in $O(zD)$ rounds with $z$ the number of members and $D$ the diameter of the network. Additionally, we show that our algorithm works for dynamic networks in which a fault may occur on a node or edge. Moreover, we prove that if a fault occurs in a legitimate configuration our algorithm is superstabilizing and is able to satisfy a “passage predicate” about the tree structure.
For future works, it will be interesting to design a self-stabilizing algorithm in dynamic networks for the Steiner tree problem, which achieves a constant competitiveness of 2. For example, by using the self-stabilizing algorithm proposed in [@Kakugawa_Steiner_journal] and extending it for dynamic networks or by using another heuristic.
[^1]: A legitimacy predicate is defined over the configurations of a system and is an indicator of its correct behavior.
[^2]: [@Dolev_SuperStab] use the notion of trajectory which is the execution of a system enriched with dynamic actions.
[^3]: In the classical message passing model the memory complexity is $O(\log |S|)$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We consider the Poisson Boolean model of continuum percolation on a homogeneous space $M$. Let $\lambda$ be the intensity of the underlying Poisson process. Let $\lambda_u$ be the infimum of the set of intensities that a.s. produce a unique unbounded component. First we show that if $\lambda>\lambda_u$ then there is a.s. a unique unbounded component at $\lambda$. Then we let $M=\hyp\times
\R$ and show that at $\lambda_u$ there is a.s. not a unique unbounded component. These results are continuum analogies of theorems by Häggström, Peres and Schonmann.
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Division of Mathematical Statistics, Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University, S-412 96 '
author:
- 'Johan H. Tykesson'
title: Continuum percolation at and above the uniqueness treshold on homogeneous spaces
---
Introduction and results
========================
In this paper we show continuum analogies to some theorems concerning the uniqueness phase in the theory of independent bond and site percolation on graphs. Before turning to our results, we review these theorems.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be an infinite transitive graph with vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$. Keep each edge with probability $p$ and delete it otherwise, independently for all edges. We call this independent bond percolation on $G$ at level $p$, and let $\P_p$ be the corresponding probability measure on the subgraphs of $G$. A connected component in the random subgraph obtained in percolation is called a cluster. Let $$p_c(G):=\inf\{p\,:\,\P_p-\mbox{a.s. there is an infinite
cluster}\}$$ be the critical probability for percolation.
In what follows we will discuss percolation at different levels, and when we do this, we always use the following coupling. To each $e\in
E$ we associate an independent random variable $U_e$ which is uniformly distributed on $[0,1]$. Then say that $e$ is kept at level $p$ if $U_e<p$ and deleted otherwise. Using this construction, we have that if $p_1<p_2$ then any edge kept at level $p_1$ is also kept at level $p_2$. Therefore we call this coupling the monotone coupling.
Now suppose that $p_c<p_1<p_2$ and use the monotone coupling. We say that an infinite cluster at level $p_2$ is $p_1$-stable if it contains an infinite cluster at level $p_1$. Häggström and Peres [@haggperes] showed the following theorem:
\[hpsats\] Suppose $G$ is a transitive unimodular graph and that $p_c(G)<p_1<p_2\le 1$. Then any infinite cluster at level $p_2$ is a.s. $p_1$-stable.
The proof of \[hpsats\] relies on a technique called the mass transport principle, which is not available in the non-unimodular setting. However, Schonmann [@schonmann] was able to avoid the use of the mass transport principle and showed:
\[schonmannsats\] Suppose $G$ is a transitive graph and that $p_c(G)<p_1<p_2\le 1$. Then any infinite cluster at level $p_2$ is a.s. $p_1$-stable.
Theorem \[schonmannsats\] has the following immediate consequence. Let $$p_u(G):=\inf\{p\,:\,\P_p-\mbox{a.s. there is a unique infinite
cluster}\}$$ be the uniqueness treshold for percolation.
\[schonmanncor\] Suppose $G$ is a transitive graph and that $p>p_u(G)$. Then $\P_p[\mbox{there is a unique
infinite cluster}]=1$.
So Corollary \[schonmanncor\] settles what happens above $p_u$. But there is also the question what happens at $p_u$. It turns out that the answer depends on the graph. The following theorem of Peres [@peres] is of special interest to us:
\[peressats\] Let $G=(V_G,E_G)$ and $H=(V_H,E_H)$ be two infinite transitive graphs and suppose $G$ is nonamenable and unimodular. Then at $p_u(G\times H)$ there is a.s. not a unique unbounded component.
In contrast to this result, Benjamini and Schramm [@itai1] showed that on any planar, transitive unimodular graph with one end, there is a.s. a unique infinite cluster at $p_u$.
We will now discuss analogues of Theorems \[hpsats\], \[schonmannsats\] and \[peressats\] in a continuum percolation setting. A Riemannian manifold $M$ is said to be a (Riemannian) homogeneous space if for each $x,y\in M$ there is an isometry that takes $x$ to $y$. Throughout this paper we assume that $M$ is an unbounded homogeneous space, with metric $d_M$ and volume measure $\mu_M$. When it is clear which space we are working with we will write $d=d_M$ and $\mu=\mu_M$. We let $0$ denote the origin of the space.
For one of the main results below it is possible to give a shorter proof under the additional assumption that $M$ is a symmetric space. A connected Riemannian manifold $M$ is said to be a (Riemannian) symmetric space if for each point $p\in M$ there is an isometry $I_p$ such that $I_p(p)=p$ and $I_p$ reverses geodesics through $p$. The most important symmetric spaces where it makes sense to study continuum percolation are arguably $n$-dimensional Euclidean space ${\mathbb R}^n$ and $n$-dimensional hyperbolic space $\hypn$. Also products of symmetric spaces are symmetric spaces, for example $\hyp\times {\mathbb R}$. Any symmetric space is homogeneous. For an example of a noncompact space which is homogeneous but not symmetric, one may consider certain Damek-Ricci spaces, see [@berndt]. Next we introduce the Poisson Boolean model of continuum percolation.
Let $S(x,r):=\{y\in M\,:\,d_M(x,y)\le r\}$ be the closed ball with radius $r$ centered at $x$. Let $X^{\lambda}$ be a Poisson point process on $M$ with intensity $\lambda$. Around every point of $X^{\lambda}$ we place a ball of unit radius, and denote by $C^{\lambda}$ the region of the space that is covered by some ball, that is $C^{\lambda}:=\cup_{x\in X^{\lambda}}S(x,1)$. We remark that all proofs below work if we instead consider the model with some arbitrary fixed radius $R$. Write $\P_{\lambda}$ for the probability measure corresponding to this model, which is called the Poisson Boolean model with intensity $\lambda$.
Next we introduce some additional notation. Let $V^{\lambda}:=(C^{\lambda})^c$ be the vacant region. Let $C^{\lambda}(x)$ be the component of $C^{\lambda}$ containing $x$. $C^{\lambda}(x)$ is defined to be the empty set if $x$ is not covered. Let $X^{\lambda}(A)$ be the Poisson points in the set $A$. Furthermore denote by $C^{\lambda}[A]$ the union of all balls centered within the set $A$. With $N_C$ and $N_V$ we denote the number of unbounded connected components of $C^{\lambda}$ and $V^{\lambda}$ respectively. The number of unbounded components for the Poisson Boolean model on a homogeneous space is an a.s. constant which equals $0$, $1$ or $\infty$. The proof of this is very similar to the discrete case, see for example Lemma 2.6 in [@jonasson2]. As in the discrete case, we introduce two critical intensities. Let $$\lambda_c(M):=\inf\{\lambda\,:\,N_C>0\mbox{ a.s.}\} \mbox{ and
}\lambda_u(M):=\inf\{\lambda\,:\,N_C=1\mbox{ a.s.}\}$$
be the critical intensity for percolation and the uniqueness treshold for the Poisson Boolean model.
[**Remark.**]{} Obviously it is only interesting to study what happens at and above $\lambda_u$ when $\lambda_u<\infty$. For example this is case for $\hyp\times {\mathbb R}$ and may be proved by adjusting the arguments for the $\hyp$ case, see [@tykesson]. Simple modifications (just embed a different graph in the space) of the arguments in Lemma 4.8 in [@tykesson] shows that for $\lambda$ large enough there are a.s. unbounded components in $C^{\lambda}$ but a.s. no unbounded components in $V^{\lambda}$. Since any two unbounded components in $C^{\lambda}$ must be separated by some unbounded component in $V^{\lambda}$ it follows that for $\lambda$ large enough there is a.s. a unique unbounded component in $C^{\lambda}$.
We will often work with the model at several different intensities at the same time. Suppose we do this at the intensities $\lambda_1<\lambda_2<...<\lambda_n$. Then we will always assume that $C^{\lambda_{i+1}}$ is the union of $C^{\lambda_i}$ and balls centered at the points of a Poisson process with intensity $\lambda_{i+1}-\lambda_{i}$. We call this the monotone coupling and is obviously the analogy of the discrete coupling described earlier.
Now suppose $\lambda_1<\lambda_2$ and use the monotone coupling. We say that an unbounded component in $C^{\lambda_2}$ is $\lambda_1$-stable if it contains some unbounded component in $C^{\lambda_1}$. We now state a continuum version of Theorem \[hpsats\].
\[uniqmon1\] Consider the Poisson Boolean model on the homogeneous space $M$. Suppose $\lambda_c(M)<\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\infty$. Then a.s. any unbounded $\lambda_2$-component is $\lambda_1$-stable.
From Theorem \[uniqmon1\], the following corollary is immediate.
\[uniqcor1\] Consider the Poisson Boolean model on the homogeneous space M. Suppose $\lambda_u(M)<\lambda$. Then $\P_{\lambda}[N_C=1]=1$.
[**Remark.**]{} Corollary \[uniqcor1\] is known in the cases $M={\mathbb R}^n$ for any $n\ge 2$ (see [@meester]) and $M=\hyp$ (see [@tykesson]).
We will present two proofs of Theorem \[uniqmon1\]. The first is inspired by the proof of Theorem \[hpsats\] and the second is inspired by the proof of Theorem \[schonmannsats\]. To get a continuum analogy to Theorem \[peressats\] we consider the Poisson Boolean model on a product space.
\[htimesrsats\] Consider the Poisson-Boolean model on $\hyp\times \R$. At $\lambda_u$ there is a.s. not a unique unbounded component.
Note that if one instead considers the model on $\hyp$, then Corollary 5.10 in [@tykesson] says that at $\lambda_u$ there is a.s. a unique unbounded component. We now move on to the proofs.
Uniqueness monotonicity
=======================
In this section we first present a short proof for Theorem \[uniqmon1\] in the symmetric case, and then a proof which only needs the assumption that the space is homogeneous.
First we present an essential ingredient to the first proof, the mass transport principle which is due to Benjamini and Schramm [@itai1]. We denote the group of isometries on the symmetric space $M$ by Isom($M$).
\[diagonalinv\] A measure $\nu$ on $M\times M$ is said to be *diagonally invariant* if for all measurable $A,\,B\subset M$ and $g\in$*Isom(M)* $$\nu(g A\times g B)=\nu(A\times
B).$$
([Mass Transport Principle on M]{}) \[masstransport\] If $\nu$ is a positive diagonally invariant measure on $ M\times M$ such that $\nu(A\times M)<\infty$ for some open $A\subset M$, then $$\nu(B\times M)=\nu(M \times B)$$ for all measurable $B\subset
M$.
Actually the mass transport principle is proved in [@itai1] for the case when $M=\hyp$, but as is remarked there, it holds for any symmetric space.
[*Proof of Theorem \[uniqmon1\] in the symmetric case:*]{} Suppose $\lambda_c<\lambda_1<\lambda_2$. We couple $C^{\lambda_1}$ and $C^{\lambda_2}$ using the monotone coupling. We are done if we can show that any unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_2}$ contains an unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_1}$. Since any ball in $C^{\lambda_1}$ is also present in $C^{\lambda_2}$, this is equivalent to show that any unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_2}$ intersects an unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_1}$. For any point $x\in M$ let $$D(x):=\inf\{d(x,y)\mbox{ : }y\mbox{ is in an unbounded component
of }C^{\lambda_1}\}$$ and let $$\tilde{D}(x):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \inf_{y\in
C^{\lambda_2}(x)}D(y), & \mbox{if }x\in C^{\lambda_2} \\ D(x), \mbox{ otherwise}
\end{array} \right.$$ Define the random set $H$ to be the set of all points $x$ satisfying the conditions
- $C^{\lambda_2}(x)$ is a $\lambda_1$-unstable unbounded component
- $D(x)\le \tilde{D}(x)+1/2$
and write $B(x)$ for the event that $x\in H$. Suppose that $C^{\lambda_2}$ contains an unbounded component which does not intersect an unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_1}$. Then this unbounded component contains regions of positive volume in $H$, so it suffices to show that $\P[B(x)]=0$. Let $H(x)$ be the connected component of $H$ containing $x$. Let $B^{\infty}(x):=B(x)\cap \{\mu(H(x))=\infty\}$ and $B^f
(x):=B(x)\cap\{\mu(H(x))<\infty\}$. The events $B^f$ and $B^{\infty}$ partition $B$. First we show that $\P[B^f(x)]=0$ using the mass transport principle.
In any unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_2}$ not intersecting an unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_1}$ we put mass of unit density. Then all mass in the unbounded component is transported to the regions in the unbounded component which are in $H$. Let $\nu(A\times B)$ be the expected mass sent from the set $A$ to the set $B$. Then $\nu$ is easily seen to be a positive diagonally invariant measure on $M\times M$. If $\P[B^f(x)]>0$ then if $A$ is some connected set of finite positive volume, $A$ will get an infinite amount of incoming mass with positive probability, that is $\nu(M\times A)=\infty$. On the other hand, $\nu(A\times M)$, the amount of mass going out from $A$, is at most $\mu(A)<\infty$. Thus by the mass transport principle $\P[B^f(x)]=0$.
Next we show $\P[B^{\infty}(x)]=0$ by showing $\P[B^{\infty}(x)|\tilde{D}(x)=r]=0$ for any $r$. Fix $r$. Suppose $\{\tilde{D}(x)=r\}$ happens. Then for $B^{\infty}(x)$ to happen, there must be infinitely many balls in $C^{\lambda_2}(x)$ centered at distance between $r+1$ and $r+1+1/2$ from unbounded components in $C^{\lambda_1}$. However, this is not possible, as is seen by “building” up the process as follows. Condition on $C^{\lambda_1}$ and then on those balls in $C^{\lambda_2}$ that are centered at distance at least $r+1$ from unbounded components in $C^{\lambda_1}$. We have then not conditioned on the balls that are not present in $C^{\lambda_1}$ but in $C^{\lambda_2}$, and centered at a distance between $0$ and $r+1$ from unbounded components of $C^{\lambda_1}$. These balls are centered at a Poisson process of intensity $\lambda_2-\lambda_1>0$ in this region, and this Poisson process is independent of everything else we have previously conditioned on. Thus if there are infinitely many balls in $C^{\lambda_2}(x)$ centered at distance between $r+1$ and $r+3/2$ from unbounded components in $C^{\lambda_1}$, then balls centered at the points of the previously mentioned Poisson process will almost surely connect $C^{\lambda_2}(x)$ to some unbounded component in $C^{\lambda_1}$. Thus $\P[B^{\infty}(x)|\tilde{D}(x)=r]=0$ for any $r$ and consequently $\P[B^{\infty}(x)]=0$. [$\Box$ ]{}
For the second proof of Theorem \[uniqmon1\], we need some preliminary results. First we describe a method to find the component of $C^{\lambda}$ containing $x$. This may be considered to be the continuum version of the algorithm described in for example [@schonmann] for finding the cluster of a given vertex in discrete percolation.
At $x$, we grow a ball with unit speed until it has radius $1$, when the growth of the ball stops. Whenever the boundary of this ball hits a Poisson point, a new ball starts to grow with unit speed at this point until it has radius $2$. In the same way, every time a new Poisson point (which has not already been found) is hit by the boundary of a growing ball, a ball starts to grow at this point until it has radius $2$ and so on. Let $L_t^{\lambda}(x)$ denote the set which has been passed by the boundary of some ball at time $t$. If $C^{\lambda}(x)$ is bounded, then $L_t^{\lambda}(x)$ stops growing at some random time $T$. In this case $C^{\lambda}[L_T^{\lambda}(x)]=C^{\lambda}(x)$ and $L_T^{\lambda}(x)$ is the $1$-neighbourhood of $C^{\lambda}(x)$. (If the first ball does not hit any Poisson point, then $C^{\lambda}(x)$ is the empty set). If $C^{\lambda}(x)$ is unbounded, then $L_t^{\lambda}(x)$ never stops growing. We will refer to this procedure to as “growing the component containing $x$”.
In what follows we will make use of the following lemma, which may be considered intuitively clear. The proof is inspired by the proof of the corresponding lemma for the discrete situation which is Lemma 1.1 of [@schonmann].
\[ballemma\] Consider the Poisson Boolean model on a homogeneous space $M$. Let $R>0$ and let $\lambda>\lambda_c$. Any unbounded component of $C^{\lambda}$ contains balls of radius $R$.
For the proof we need to introduce some further notation. For a connected set $A$ containing $x$ we let $C^{\lambda}(x,A)$ be all points in $A$ which can be connected to $x$ by some curve in $C^{\lambda}\cap A$. Let $E_r(x)$ be the union of all balls centered within $S(x,r+1)$ that are connected to $x$ via a chain of balls centered within $S(x,r+1)$. Note that $C^{\lambda}(x,S(x,r))\subset
E_r(x)$.
Let $\delta_r(x):=\sup_{y\in E_r(x)\setminus S(x,r)}d(y,\partial
S(x,r))$ where the supremum is defined to be $0$ if $E_r(x)\setminus
S(x,r)$ is the empty set. Let $\{A\leftrightarrow B\}$ be the event that there is some continuous curve in $C^{\lambda}$ which intersects both the set $A$ and the set $B$. Let $A^o$ be the interior of the set $A$.
Fix a point $x\in M$. Since the case $R\le 1$ is trivial, we suppose $R>1$. For any $r>0$ let $F_r(x):=\{x\leftrightarrow
\partial S(x,r)\}$ and let $$G_r(x):=\{C^{\lambda}(x,S(x,r))\mbox{
does not contain a ball of radius }R\}.$$ Let $D_r(x):=F_r(x)\cap
G_r(x)$. Let $D(x)$ be the event that $x$ is an unbounded component that does not contain a ball of radius $R$. Then $D_r(x)\downarrow
D(x)$ so it is enough to show that $\P[D_r(x)]\rightarrow 0$ as $r\rightarrow \infty$. Note that $D_r(x)$ is independent of the Poisson process outside $S(x,r+1)$. Also note that $\delta_{r}(x)\in[0,2]$.
If $D_r(x)\cap \{\delta_{r}(x)< 1/2\}$ occurs, then there is a ball centered in $S(x,r-1/2)^o\setminus S(x,r-1)^o$ which is connected to $x$ by a chain of balls centered in $S(x,r-1/2)^o$. All these balls are also included in the set $E_{r-1/2}(x)$, and one of these balls is centered at a distance at most $1/2$ from $\partial
S(x,r-1/2)$. This gives $$\label{incleq}D_r(x)\cap \{\delta_r(x)<1/2\}\subset
D_{r-1/2}(x)\cap \{\delta_{r-1/2}(x)\ge 1/2\}.$$
We will now proceed by contradiction. Suppose that $\P[D(x)]>0$ and that $\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}\P[\delta_{r}(x)<1/2|D_r(x)]=1.$ These assumptions imply that $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{r\rightarrow
\infty}\P[D_r(x)\cap
\{\delta_r(x)<1/2\}]\\=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\P[\delta_{r}(x)<1/2|D_r(x)]\P[D_r(x)]=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\P[D_r(x)]=\P[D(x)]>0.\end{gathered}$$ However, by (\[incleq\]) we get that $$\begin{gathered}
\limsup_{r\rightarrow
\infty}\P[\delta_{r-1/2}(x)\ge
1/2|D_{r-1/2}(x)]\ge\limsup_{r\rightarrow
\infty}\P[D_{r-1/2}(x)\cap\{\delta_{r-1/2}(x)\ge
1/2\}]\\\ge\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\P[D_r(x)\cap
\{\delta_r(x)<1/2\}]>0,\end{gathered}$$ so that in particular $\P[\delta_r(x)\ge 1/2|D_r(x)]$ does not go to $0$ as $r\rightarrow
\infty$ which contradicts the assumption $\lim_{r\rightarrow
\infty}\P[\delta_{r}(x)<1/2|D_r(x)]=1.$ Thus we conclude that $\P[D(x)]=0$ or/and $\liminf_{r\rightarrow
\infty}\P[\delta_r(x)<1/2|D_r(x)]<1.$ We now assume $\liminf_{r\rightarrow \infty}\P[\delta_r(x)<1/2|D_r(x)]<1$ and show that this implies $\P[D(x)]=0$. By the assumption, we may pick a constant $c_1>0$ and a sequence of positive numbers $\{a_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ such that $a_{k+1}-a_k\ge 2R+1$ and $\P[\delta_{a_k}(x)\ge 1/2|D_{a_k}(x)]\ge c_1$ for all $k$. On the event $D_{a_k}(x)$ we may pick a point $Y$ on $\partial
S(x,a_k+R+1)$ such that if $S(Y,R+\max(0,1-\delta_{a_k}(x)))$ is completely covered by balls centered within $S(Y,R)$, then $D_{a_{k+1}}(x)^c$ occurs since a ball of radius $R$ has been found in $C(x,S(x,a_{k+1}))$ (this ball is contained in $C(x,S(x,a_{k+1}))$ since $a_{k+1}-a_k\ge 2R+1$ and $R>1$). The configuration of balls within $S(Y,R)$ is independent of the Poisson process within $S(x,a_k+1)$. Now let $\Delta_k$ be a random variable with the same distribution as the conditional distribution of $\delta_k(x)$ given the event $D_k(x)$. By the above observations we get that $$\P[D_{a_{k+1}}(x)^c|D_{a_k}(x)]\ge\P[S(0,R+\max(0,1-\Delta_k))\subset
C^{\lambda}[S(0,R)]]\ge c_2$$ for some constant $c_2>0$ for all $k$. This implies $\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\P[D_{a_k}(x)]=0$ and consequently $\P[D(x)]=0$.
[*Proof of Theorem \[uniqmon1\]:*]{}
We consider the monotone coupling of the model at intensities $\lambda_1<\lambda_2$, and we write $C=(C^{\lambda_1},C^{\lambda_2})$. Let $$E(x):=\{x\mbox{ is in an unbounded $C^{\lambda_2}$ component which
is $\lambda_1$-unstable}.\}$$ Let $$E_1(x):=E(x)\cap \{\tilde{D}(x)\le 3\}\mbox{ and
}E_2(x):=E(x)\cap\{\tilde{D}(x)>2\},$$ where $\tilde{D}$ is defined as in the proof of Theorem \[uniqmon1\].
Finally let $E$, $E_1$ and $E_2$ be the events that $E(x)$, $E_1(x)$ and $E_2(x)$ respectively happen for some $x$.
We will first show that $\P[E_2(x)]=0$. Pick $a$ and $R=R(a)$ so that $$\P[S(x,R)\mbox{ intersects an unbounded component of
$C^{\lambda_1}$}]\ge 1-a$$
Let $Z^{'}=(Z^{'\lambda_1},Z^{'\lambda_2})$ and $Z^{''}=(Z^{''\lambda_1},Z^{''\lambda_2})$ be two independent copies of $C$, and let $X^{'}=(X^{'\lambda_1},X^{'\lambda_2})$ and $X^{''}=(X^{''\lambda_1},X^{''\lambda_2})$ be their underlying Poisson processes. A prime will be used to denote objects relating to $Z^{'}$ and a double prime will be used to denote objects relating to $Z^{''}$.
Grow the component of $Z^{'\lambda_2}$ containing $x$ as described above, but if at time $t$ we find that a ball of radius $R$ is contained in $Z^{'\lambda_2}[L_t^{'\lambda_2}(x)]$ we stop the process. Let $T$ denote the random time at which the process stops. Note that $T<\infty$ a.s., since if $Z^{'\lambda_2}(x)$ is unbounded, then $Z^{'\lambda_2}(x)$ contains balls of radius $R$ a.s. by Lemma \[ballemma\]. Let $F_1$ be the event that the process stops when a ball of radius $R$ is found, and note that $Z^{'\lambda_2}(x)$ is a.s. bounded on $F_1^c$. On $F_1$, we may (in some way independent of $Z^{''}$) pick a point $Y$ such that $S(Y,R)$ is covered by $Z^{'\lambda_2}[L_T^{'\lambda_2}(x)]$.
For $i=1,2$ let $$X^{\lambda_i}:=(X^{'\lambda_i}\cap
L_{T}^{'\lambda_2}(x))\cup(X^{''\lambda_i}\cap
L_T^{'\lambda_2}(x)^c)$$ and $Z^{\lambda_i}:=\cup_{x\in
X^{\lambda_i}}S(x,1)$. In this way, $Z^{\lambda_i}$ is a Poisson Boolean model with intensity $\lambda_i$ for $i=1,2$, and any ball present in $Z^{\lambda_1}$ is also present in $Z^{\lambda_2}$.
Now put $$F_2:=F_1\cap \{S(Y,R)\mbox{ intersects an unbounded
component of }Z^{''\lambda_1}\}.$$
But on $F_2$ there is some point in $Z^{\lambda_2}(x)$ which is at distance less than or equal to two from some unbounded $Z^{\lambda_1}$ component, that is $\{\tilde{D}(x)\le2\}$ occurs for $Z$ so that $E_2(x)$ does not occur for $Z$. Since $E_2(x)$ is up to a set of measure $0$ contained in $F_1$ we have that $$\P[E_2(x)]\le\P[F_1\cap F_2^c].$$ Since $Z^{'}$ and $Z^{''}$ are independent it follows that $$\P[F_2|F_1]=\P[S(Y,R)\mbox{ intersects an unbounded component of
}Z^{''\lambda_1}]\ge 1-a$$ and consequently $$\P[F_1\cap
F_2^c]\le\P[F_2^c|F_1]<a.$$ Since we may choose $a$ arbitrary small it follows that $\P[E_2(x)]=0$ as desired.
Next we argue that $\P[E_2(x)]=0$ for all $x$ implies $\P[E_2]=0$. Let $D$ be a countable dense subset of $M$. Then $\P\left[\cup_{x\in
D}E_2(x)\right]=0$. But if $E_2$ occurs then $E_2(x)$ occurs for all $x$ in some unbounded component of $C^{\lambda_2}$, in particular for some $x$ in $D$, so it follows that $\P[E_2(x)]=0$ implies $\P[E_2]=0$.
Next we show that $\P[E_1(x)]=0$. Let $E_1^f(x)$ be the event that $E_1(x)$ occurs and all points in the $\lambda_1$-unstable unbounded $C^{\lambda_2}$-component of $x$ which are at distance less than or equal to three from some unbounded $C^{\lambda_1}$-component are contained in the ball $S(0,N)$ for some random finite $N$. Let $E_1^{\infty}(x)$ be the event that $E_1(x)$ occurs but that there is no such finite $N$. Let $E_1^{f}$ and $E_1^{\infty}$ be the events that $E_1^f(x)$ and $E_1^{\infty}(x)$ respectively happen for some $x$.
First we show that $\P[E_1^f]=0$. Let $E_1^{f,M}:=E_1^f\cap\{N\le
M\}$. We will show that $\P[E_1^f]>0$ implies that $\P[E_2]>0$. So suppose $\P[E_1^f]>0$. Then we may pick $M$ so large that $\P[E_1^{f,M}]>0$. Again let $Z^{'}$ and $Z^{''}$ be independent with the same distribution as $C$. Then for $i=1,2$ let $Z^{\lambda_i}$ be the union of all balls from $Z^{'\lambda_i}$ centered within $S(0,M+1)$ together with the union of all balls from $Z^{''\lambda_i}$ centered within $S(0,M+1)^c$. Then if $\{Z^{'\lambda_2}[S(0,M+1)]=\emptyset\}$ occurs and $E_1^{f,M}$ occurs for $Z^{''}$ then $E_2$ occurs for $Z$. So since $Z^{'}$ and $Z^{''}$ are independent we get $$\P[E_2]\ge\P\left[Z^{'\lambda_2}[S(0,M+1)]=\emptyset\right]\P\left[E_1^{f,M}\right]>0$$ which is a contradiction, so $\P[E_1^f]=0$.
Finally we show that $\P[E_1^{\infty}]=0$. However the event $E_1^{\infty}(x)$ is very similar to the event $B^{\infty}(x)$ in the first proof of Theorem \[uniqmon1\], and is shown to have probability $0$ in the same way. In the same way it then follows that $\P[E_1^{\infty}]=0$. [$\Box$ ]{}
Connectivity
============
In this section we show how $\lambda_u$ can be characterized by the connectivity between big balls. This result will be used when we study the model at $\lambda_u$ on a product space in the next section. Let $$\lambda_{BB}:=\inf\{\lambda:\,\lim_{R\rightarrow
\infty}\inf_{x,y}\P[S(x,R)\leftrightarrow S(y,R)\mbox{ in }C^{\lambda}]=1\}.$$ Note that obviously $\lambda_{BB}\ge \lambda_c$. We will show the following:
\[ballconnect\] For the Poisson Boolean model on a homogeneous space with $\lambda_u<\infty$ we have $\lambda_u=\lambda_{BB}$.
The discrete counterpart of this result is Theorem 3.2 of [@schonmann], and the proof is similar. The proof is also similar to the second proof of Theorem \[uniqmon1\] above. First we show that $\lambda_u\le \lambda_{BB}$.
Suppose that $\lambda_{BB}<\lambda_1<\lambda_2$. We will show that at $\lambda_2$ there is a.s. a unique unbounded component. For $i=1,2$ let $$A_i(x,y):=\{\mu(C^{\lambda_1}(x))=\infty,\,\mu(C^{\lambda_1}(y))=\infty,\,C^{\lambda_i}(x)\neq
C^{\lambda_i}(y)\},$$ and let $$A_i:=\bigcup_{x,y}A_i(x,y).$$
Since $\lambda_{BB}\ge \lambda_c$ we have by Theorem \[uniqmon1\] that any unbounded $\lambda_2$ component a.s. intersects some unbounded $\lambda_1$ component. Therefore $$\label{inklusion1}
\bigcup_{x,y} \{\mu(C^{\lambda_2}(x))=\infty,\,\mu(C^{\lambda_2}(y))=\infty,\,C^{\lambda_2}(x)\neq
C^{\lambda_2}(y)\}\subset A_2\cup N$$ where $N$ is a set of measure $0$. In the same way as in the second proof of Theorem \[uniqmon1\] we have that $\P[A_i(x,y)]=0$ for all $x$ and $y$ implies $\P[A_i]=0$. By \[inklusion1\], $\P[A_2]=0$ implies $\P[\mbox{there is a unique
unbounded component at level }\lambda_2]=1$. Hence it is enough to show that $\P[A_2(x,y)]=0$ for all $x$ and $y$.
Suppose $C_1$ and $C_2$ are two distinct components in the Poisson Boolean model. A pair of Poisson points $x_1\in C_1$ and $x_2\in C_2$ is called a *boundary-connection* between $C_1$ and $C_2$ if $d(x_1,x_2)<4$ (so that the distance between their corresponding balls is $<2$) or there is a sequence of Poisson-points $y_1,\dots, y_n$ such that
- the ball centered around $y_i$ intersects the ball centered around $y_{i+1}$ for all $i$.
- $y_i$ is outside $C_1$ and $C_2$ for all $i$.
- $d(x_1,y_1)<4$ and $d(x_2,y_n)<4$.
Note that if there is a boundary connection between two components, then at most two more balls are needed to merge them into one component.
If $x,y\in C^{\lambda_1}$ and $C^{\lambda_1}(x)\neq C^{\lambda_1}(y)$, let $B(x,y)$ be the number of boundary connections between $C^{\lambda_1}(x)$ and $C^{\lambda_1}(y)$. Let $$A_1^0(x,y):=A_1(x,y)\cap \{B(x,y)=0\},$$ $$A_1^f(x,y):=A_1(x,y)\cap
\{B(x,y)<\infty\},$$ $$A_1^\infty(x,y):=A_1(x,y)\cap
\{B(x,y)=\infty\},$$ and for $t\in\{0,f,\infty\}$ let $A_1^t$ be the event that $A_1^t(x,y)$ happens for some $x$ and $y$. In the same way as before it is seen that $\P[A_1^t(x,y)]=0$ for all $x$ and $y$ implies $\P[A_1^t]=0$.
Next we will argue that $$\label{bondconnect1} \P[A_1^0(x,y)]=0\mbox{ for all }x\mbox{ and }y.$$ Let $Z^{'\lambda_1}$ and $Z^{''\lambda_1}$ be two independent copies of the Poisson Boolean model with intensity $\lambda_1$ and let $X^{'\lambda_1}$ and $X^{''\lambda_1}$ be their underlying Poisson processes. Since $\lambda_1>\lambda_{BB}$ we may for any $a>0$ pick $R=R(a)$ such that $$\inf_{z_1,z_2}\P_{\lambda_1}[S(z_1,R)\leftrightarrow S(z_2,R)]>1-a.$$ Fix $x$ and $y$ and grow the component of $x$ in $Z^{'\lambda_1}$ (as described earlier) but stop if a ball of radius $R$ is found. Do the same for $y$. Let $F_1$ be the event that the processes are stopped when balls of radius $R$ are found, and note that $A_1^0(x,y)$ is up to a set of measure $0$ included in $F_1$. Let $T_x$ and $T_y$ denote the random times at which the processes are stopped. On $F_1$ we pick $X$ and $Y$ in some way independent of $Z^{''\lambda_1}$ such that $S(X,R)\subset Z^{'\lambda_1}[L_{T_x}^{'\lambda_1}(x)]$ and $S(Y,R)\subset Z^{'\lambda_1}[L_{T_y}^{'\lambda_1}(y)]$. Let $$X^{\lambda_1}:=(X^{'\lambda_1}\cap(L_{T_x}^{'\lambda_1}(x)\cup L_{T_y}^{'\lambda_1}(y)))\cup
(X^{''\lambda_1}\cap (L_{T_x}^{'\lambda_1}(x)\cup
L_{T_y}^{'\lambda_1}(y))^c)$$ and $Z^{\lambda_1}:=\cup_{x\in
X^{\lambda_1}}S(x,1)$. The distribution of $Z^{\lambda_1}$ is by construction the distribution of the Poisson Boolean model with intensity $\lambda_1$. Put $$F_2:=F_1\cap \{S(X,R)\leftrightarrow S(Y,R) \mbox{ in
}Z^{''\lambda_1}\}.$$ If we are on $F_2$ then either $\{Z^{\lambda_1}(x)=Z^{\lambda_1}(y)\}$ occurs or $\{B(x,y)\ge 1\}$ occurs and in neither case we are on $A_1^0(x,y)$. Since $$\P[F_2|F_1]=\P[S(X,R)\leftrightarrow S(Y,R)\mbox{ in
}Z^{''\lambda_1}]>1-a$$ it therefore follows that $$\P[A_1^0(x,y)]\le\P[F_1\cap F_2^c]\le \P[F_2^c|F_1]<a$$ proving (\[bondconnect1\]).
Next we show that $$\label{bondconnect2} \P[A_1^f]=0.$$
Let $A_1^{f,N}$ be the event there are two distinct unbounded components in $C^{\lambda_1}$ such there are a finite number of boundary connections between them and they are all contained in the ball $S(0,N)$ for some random finite $N$. Suppose $\P[A_1^f]>0$ and pick $N$ so large that $\P[A_1^{f,N}]>0$. Let $Z^{\lambda_1}$ be the union of the balls from $Z^{'\lambda_1}$ centered outside $S(0,N)$ and the balls from $Z^{''\lambda_1}$ centered inside $S(0,N)$. Now suppose that $A_1^{f,N}$ happens for $Z^{'\lambda_1}$ and that $\{Z^{''\lambda_1}[S(0,N)]=\emptyset\}$ happens. Then we can find two points $\tilde{x}$ and $\tilde{y}$ in separate unbounded components of $Z^{\lambda_1}$ such that there are no boundary connections between them. It follows by the independence of $Z^{'}$ and $Z^{''}$ that $$\P[A_1^0]\ge
\P\left[A_1^{f,N}\right]\P\left[Z^{''\lambda_1}[S(0,N)]=\emptyset\right]>0,$$ a contradiction which proves (\[bondconnect2\]).
Now if $A_1^{\infty}(x,y)$ happens, then there are infinitely many boundary connections between $C^{\lambda_1}(x)$ and $C^{\lambda_1}(y)$ and a.s. no bounded region contains all boundary connections. Therefore $C^{\lambda_1}(x)$ and $C^{\lambda_1}(y)$ will almost surely have been merged into one unbounded component at level $\lambda_2$ by balls that appear in the coupling between level $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. So $\P[A_2(x,y)|A_1^{\infty}(x,y)]=0$. Thus, since $A_2(x,y)\subset A_1(x,y)$ and $A_1(x,y)$ is partitioned by $A_1^f(x,y)$ and $A_1^{\infty}(x,y)$ we conclude $$\P[A_2(x,y)]=\P[A_2(x,y)|A_1^f(x,y)]\P[A_1^f(x,y)]+\P[A_2(x,y)|A_1^{\infty}(x,y)]\P[A_1^{\infty}(x,y)]=0,$$ for all $x$ and $y$ and so $\lambda_u\le \lambda_{BB}$.
Next we show the easier result that $\lambda_u\ge \lambda_{BB}$. Suppose $\lambda>\lambda_u$. By Theorem \[uniqmon1\] there is a.s. a unique unbounded component in $C^{\lambda}$ which we denote by $C_{\infty}^{\lambda}$. By the continuum version of the FKG inequality (see [@meester]) and the fact that there is an isometry mapping $x$ to $y$ it follows that $$\begin{split}\P_{\lambda}[S(x,R)\leftrightarrow
S(y,R)]& \ge\P_{\lambda}[S(x,R)\mbox{ and }S(y,R)\mbox{ intersects
}C_{\infty}^{\lambda}]\\& \ge\P_{\lambda}[S(x,R)\mbox{ intersects
}C_{\infty}^{\lambda}]^2.\end{split}$$ Since $\lim_{R\rightarrow
\infty}\P_{\lambda}[S(x,R)\mbox{ intersects
}C_{\infty}^{\lambda}]=1$ it follows that $\lambda>\lambda_{BB}$ and thus $\lambda_u\ge \lambda_{BB}$.
The situation at $\lambda_u$ on $\hyp \times \R$
================================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[htimesrsats\]. We introduce some new notation: if the points $x,y\in \hyp\times \R$ are in the same component of $C^{\lambda}$ then $d_{X^{\lambda}}(x,y)$ is the smallest number of balls in that component forming a sequence that connects $x$ to $y$. For a set $A$ we let $C^{\lambda}(A)$ be the union of all components of $C^{\lambda}$ that intersect $A$. The length of a curve $\gamma\subset\hyp$ will be denoted by $L(\gamma)$. In this proof $\mu=\mu_{\hyp}$ and $d=d_{\hyp\times {\mathbb R}}$.
As noted earlier, it is the case that $\lambda_u(\hyp\times
\R)<\infty$. Suppose that $\lambda_*$ is such that there is a.s. a unique unbounded component in the Poisson Boolean model with intensity $\lambda_*$ on $\hyp\times \R$. We consider the monotone coupling of the model for all intensities below $\lambda_*$. We will show that there is some intensity below $\lambda_*$ that also a.s. produces a unique unbounded component. Denote the unbounded component at $\lambda_*$ with $C^{\lambda_*}_{\infty}$. For any $r>0$, any positive integer $n$, and any $\lambda\in(0,\lambda_*)$ we define the following three random sets: $$A_1(r):=\{z\in\hyp\times \R\,:\,S(z,r)\cap
C_{\infty}^{\lambda_*}\neq\emptyset\}$$$$A_2(r,n):=\{z\in\hyp\times
\R\,:\,\sup\{d_{X^{\lambda_*}}(s,t)\,:\,s,t\in S(z,r+1/2)\cap
C_{\infty}^{\lambda_*}\}<n\}$$$$A_3(r,n,\lambda):=\{z\in\hyp\times
\R\,:\,S(z,r+2n)\cap(X^{\lambda_*}\setminus
X^{\lambda})=\emptyset\}.$$ Then put $$A(r,n,\lambda):=A_1(r)\cap A_2(r,n)\cap
A_3(r,n,\lambda).$$ Pick $y_1,\,y_2\in {\mathbb R}$ and let $$D:=D(y_1,y_2,r,n,\lambda)=\{x\in \hyp\,:\,(x,y_1)\in
A(r,n,\lambda)\mbox{ and } (x,y_2)\in
A(r,n,\lambda)\}.$$ Then $D$ is a random set in $\hyp$ such that the law of $D$ is Isom($\hyp$)-invariant. Next we will show that we can choose the parameters $r,n$ and $\lambda$ in such a way that $D$ contains unbounded components with positive probability.
To do this, we let $\tilde{C}$ be a Poisson Boolean model in $\hyp$ with intensity $\tilde{\lambda}$. Let $B$ be a bounded connected set in $\hyp$. Choose $\tilde{\lambda}$ so big that $\hyp$, we have $\E[L(B\cap \partial \tilde{C})]<\E[\mu(B\cap \tilde{C})]$. By Lemma 5.2 in [@tykesson], $\tilde{C}$ contains unbounded components with probability $1$. Let $\tilde{C}^D=\tilde{C}^D(y_1,y_2,r,n,\lambda)$ be the union of all balls in $\tilde{C}$ that are completely covered by $D$.
Suppose $E$ is some bounded connected set in $\hyp\times{\mathbb R}$. It is clear that $$\label{grans1}\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}\P[E\subset
A_1(r)]=1,$$ and that for fixed $r$, $$\label{grans2}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\P[E\subset
A_2(r,n)]=1,$$ and that for fixed $r$ and $n$, $$\label{grans3}\lim_{\lambda\uparrow\lambda_0}\P[E\subset
A_3(r,n,\lambda)]=1.$$
Put $\delta:=\E[\mu(B\cap \tilde{C})]-\E[L(B\cap \tilde{C})]$. By (\[grans1\]), (\[grans2\]) and (\[grans3\]) we get that we can find first $r_1$ big enough, and then $n_1$ big enough, and finally $\lambda_1$ close enough to $\lambda_*$ so that $\E[\mu(B\cap
\tilde{C})]-\E[\mu(B\cap \tilde{C}^D)]<\delta/2$ and $\E[L(B\cap
\partial \tilde{C}^D)]-\E[L(B\cap \partial \tilde{C})]<\delta/2.$ With these choices of parameters, $\E[\mu(B\cap \tilde{C}^D)]>\E[L(B\cap
\tilde{C}^D)]$, so by Lemma 5.2 in [@tykesson], we get that $\tilde{C}^D$ contains unbounded components with positive probability. Since $\tilde{C}^D\subset D$, this implies that $D$ contains unbounded components with positive probability. Since the event that $D$ contains unbounded components is Isom($\hyp$)-invariant and determined by the underlying Poisson processes in the model, $D$ contains unbounded components with probability $1$.
So we can find an infinite sequence of points $u_1,u_2,...\in \hyp$ such that they are all in the same component of $D$, $d(u_i,u_{i+1})<1/2$ for all $i$ and $d(u_1,u_i)\rightarrow \infty$ as $i\rightarrow \infty$. Since $(u_i,y_1)\in A_1$ there is some ball $s_i$ in $C^{\lambda_0}_{\infty}$ centered within distance $r_1+1$ from $(u_i,y_1)$. Since $d((u_i,y_1),(u_{i+1},y_1))<1/2$ and $(u_i,y_1)\in A_2$ for all $i$ there is a sequence of at most $n$ balls in $C^{\lambda_0}_{\infty}$ connecting $s_i$ to $s_{i+1}$. Since the distance between the center of any ball in this sequence and $(u_i,y_1)$ is at most $r_1+2n$ and $(u_i,y_1)\in A_3$, all balls in the sequence is present also at level $\lambda_1$. Thus there is an unbounded component in $C^{\lambda_1}$ that comes within distance $r_1$ from $(u_i,y_1)$ for all $i$. In the same way there is an unbounded component in $C^{\lambda_1}$ that comes within distance $r_1$ from $(u_i,y_2)$ for all $i$.
Now choose $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$ so that $\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\lambda_3<\lambda_*$. For $x\in\hyp$ let $D(x)$ be the component of $D$ containing $x$. Then we have from the above that $$\label{ball1}\P[S((x,y_1),r_1)\leftrightarrow
S((x,y_2),r_1)\mbox{ in }C^{\lambda_2}|\mu(D(x))=\infty]=1.$$ This follows from the fact that the two unbounded components at level $\lambda_1$ above will almost surely be connected by balls appearing in the coupling between level $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. Fix $a$ small and let $r_2$ be such that for $x\in\hyp$ the ball $S(x,r_2)$ in $\hyp$ intersects an unbounded component of $D$ with probability at least $1-a/2$. Let $R=r_1+r_2$. If $S(x,r_2)$ intersects an unbounded component of $D$ then by (\[ball1\]) it follows that a.s. $S((\tilde{x},y_1),r_1)\leftrightarrow S((\tilde{x},y_2),r_1)$ in $C^{\lambda_2}$ for some for some point $\tilde{x}\in \hyp$ such that $d_{\hyp}(x,\tilde{x})\le r_2$, so $S((x,y_1),R)\leftrightarrow
S((x,y_2),R)$ in $C^{\lambda_2}$. Thus $$\label{ball2}\P[S((x,y_1),R)\leftrightarrow
S((x,y_2),R)\mbox{ in }C^{\lambda_2}]\ge 1-a/2.$$ Fix two points $z_1=(u_1,v_1)$ and $z_2=(u_2,v_2)$ of $\hyp\times \R$. For $y\in \R$ let $$F_y:=\{S(z_1,R)\leftrightarrow
S((u_1,y),R)\mbox{ in }C^{\lambda_2}\}\cap \{S(z_2,R)\leftrightarrow
S((u_2,y),R)\mbox{ in }C^{\lambda_2}\}$$ By (\[ball2\]) we get $\P[F_y]\ge 1-a$ for all $y$. In particular it follows that with probability at least $1-a$ the set $\{y\in {\mathbb R}\,:\:F_y\mbox{
occurs }\}$ is unbounded. But then the set of points in $C^{\lambda_2}(S(z_1,R))$ that come within distance $2R+d_{\hyp}(u_1,u_2)$ from $C^{\lambda_2}(S(z_2,R))$ is unbounded. But if this occurs then some component in $C^{\lambda_2}$ intersecting $S(z_1,R)$ will a.s. be connected to some component in $C^{\lambda_2}$ intersecting $S(z_2,R)$ by balls occurring in the coupling between level $\lambda_2$ and $\lambda_3$. That is, $$\P[S(z_1,R)\leftrightarrow S(z_2,R)\mbox{ in }C^{\lambda_3}]\ge 1-a.$$ Since $a$ is arbitrary small it follows by Theorem \[ballconnect\] there is a.s. a unique unbounded component in $C^{\lambda_3}$.
[**Remark.**]{} Of course, there is nothing special about ${\mathbb R}$ in the proof of Theorem \[htimesrsats\]. The proof works without any modifications if ${\mathbb R}$ is replaced by any noncompact homogeneous space $M$ such that $\lambda_u(\hyp\times M)<\infty$. Also, it is possible to show a version of Lemma 5.2 in [@tykesson] for ${\mathbb H}^n$ for any $n\ge 3$. Therefore Theorem \[htimesrsats\] holds for $\hypn\times M$ for any $n\ge 2$ and any noncompact homogeneous space if $\lambda_u(\hypn\times M)<\infty$.
Further problems
================
In this section we list some open problems.
1\. For which manifolds is $\lambda_u<\infty$?
2\. In [@tykesson] it is shown that $\lambda_c(\hypn)<\lambda_u(\hypn)$ for any $n\ge 2$ if the radius of the percolating balls is big enough (for $n=2$ this is shown for any radius). For which manifolds is $\lambda_c<\lambda_u$?
3\. For which manifolds with $\lambda_u<\infty$ is there a.s. a unique unbounded component at $\lambda_u$? For which manifolds is there a.s. not a unique unbounded component at $\lambda_u$?
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} I want to thank Johan Jonasson, my advisor, for useful discussions and comments.
I. Benjamini and O. Schramm, *Percolation in the hyperbolic plane*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**14**]{} (2001), 487-507.
J. Berndt, F. Tricerri, L. Vanhecke, *Generalized Heisenberg groups and Damek-Ricci harmonic spaces*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1598, Springer, 1995.
J.W. Cannon, W.J. Floyd, R. Kenyon and W.R. Parry. Hyperbolic geometry. In *Flavors of geometry*, pages 59-115. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
G. Grimmett, *Percolation (2nd ed.)*, Springer-Verlag, 1999.
O. Häggström and J. Jonasson, *Uniqueness and non-uniqueness in percolation theory*, to appear in Probability Surveys.
P. Hall, *On continuum percolation*, Ann. Probab. [**13**]{} (1985), 1250-1266.
O. Häggström and Y. Peres, Probab. Th. Rel. Fields, *Monotonicity of uniqueness for percolation on transitive graphs: all infinite clusters are born simultaneously*, [**113**]{} (1999), 273-285.
R. Meester and R. Roy, *Continuum Percolation*, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996.
Y. Peres, *Percolation on nonamenable products at the uniqueness treshold*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré, Probab. Stat. [**36**]{} (2000), 395-406.
R.H. Schonmann, *Stability of infinite clusters in supercritical percolation*, Probab. Th. Rel. Fields [**113**]{} (1999), 287-300.
J. Tykesson, *The number of unbounded components in the Poisson Boolean model of continuum percolation in hyperbolic space*, Electron. J. Probab. [**12**]{} (2007), 1379-1401.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that any point in the convex hull of each of $(d+1)$ sets of $(d+1)$ points in $\R^d$ is contained in at least $\left\lfloor {(d+2)^2}/{4}\right\rfloor$ simplices with one vertex from each set.'
address:
- ' Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6. '
- ' Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5A3 Canada. '
author:
- Tamon Stephen
- Hugh Thomas
title: A quadratic lower bound for colourful simplicial depth
---
[^1]
¶ §
Introduction
============
Given a set $S$ of points in $\R^d$ and an additional point $p$, the [*simplicial depth*]{} of $p$ with respect to $S$, denoted $\sd_S(p)$, is the number of closed $d$-simplices generated from points of $S$ that contain $p$. This can be viewed as a statistical measure of how representative $p$ is of $S$ [@FR05]. In [@DHST05] the authors consider configurations of $d+1$ points in each of $d+1$ colours in $\R^d$. They define the [*colourful simplicial depth*]{} of $p$ with respect to a configuration $\S$, denoted $\csd_{\S}(p)$, as the number of $d$-simplices containing $p$ generated by sets of points from $\S$ that contain one point of each colour. Given a configuration $\S = \{S_1, \ldots, S_{d+1}\}$ the [*core*]{} of the configuration is the intersection of the convex hulls of the individual colours, i.e. $\bigcap_{i=1}^{d+1} \conv(S_i)$. Define: $$\label{eq:mu}
\mu(d)= \min_{\text{configurations } \S \text{ in } \R^d,
~ p \in \core(\S)} \csd_S(p)$$ The quantity $\mu(d)$ was introduced in [@DHST05]. In that paper, it was shown that $2d \le \mu(d) \le d^2+1$, and conjectured that $\mu(d)=d^2+1$. In this paper we prove
\[th:main\] $\mu(d) \ge \left\lfloor {(d+2)^2}/{4} \right\rfloor$.
In particular, this shows that $\mu(d)$ is quadratic. The quantity $\mu(d)$ is used in bounding the depth of a monochrome simplicial median (i.e. point of maximum simplicial depth) for $n$ points in $\R^d$ via the method of [@Bar82] as described in [@DHST05]. We remark also that in optimization, $\mu(d)$ represents the minimum number of solutions to the colourful linear programming feasibility problem proposed in [@BO97] and discussed in [@DHST06].
Preliminaries {#se:prelim}
=============
We consider only configurations that have a non-empty core. Since we compute depths using [*closed*]{} simplices, degeneracies that cause $p$ to lie on the boundary of a colourful simplex can only increase the colourful simplicial depth by allowing $p$ to lie in different simplices with disjoint interior. Thus, since we are minimizing, we can assume that the core is full-dimensional and the points of $\S$ lie in general position in $\R^d$.
We also assume without loss of generality that the minimum in Equation (\[eq:mu\]) is attained at the origin, $p=\zero$. We note that if some point in $\S$ is $\zero$ then we are done since all the $(d+1)^d$ colourful simplices using this point contain $\zero$. Thus we can rescale the non-zero points of $\S$ so that they lie on the unit sphere, $\Sph^d \subset \R^d$. Since the coefficients in a convex combination expressing $\zero$ can also be rescaled, this does not affect which colourful simplices contain $\zero$.
Indeed, we observe that the colourful set $\{x_1,\ldots,x_{d+1}\}$ generates a colourful simplex containing $\zero$ exactly when the antipode $-x_{d+1}$ of $x_{d+1}$ lies in $\cone(x_1,\ldots,x_d)$, a pointed cone with vertex $\zero$. Our strategy will be to understand how $\Sph^d$ can be covered by $d$-coloured simplicial cones, that is, cones that are generated by $d$ points of different colours. In this vein we can define the [*D-depth*]{} of a point of colour $i$ to be the number of $d$-coloured simplicial cones of colours $D=\{1,\ldots,\hat i,\ldots,d+1\}$ containing the point. We remark that the $D$-depth of any point is at least one. This follows from the result in [@Bar82] that every point in a colourful configuration with $\zero$ in its core is among the generators of at least one colourful simplex containing $\zero$.
Let $e_1, \ldots, e_d$ be the standard coordinate unit vectors in $\R^d$. Recall that the [*standard cross-polytope*]{} is $\conv(\pm e_1, \ldots, \pm e_d)$. We will now define a condition on $2n$ points that means that they “look like” the vertices of a standard cross-polytope, with $\pm e_i$ coloured with colour $i$.
A collection of 2 points in each of $d$ colours is said to be in [*deformed cross position*]{} if the $2^d$ different $d$-coloured simplicial cones generated by the points cover $\mathbb{R}^d$.
Note that some of the $d$-coloured simplicial cones generated by the points in deformed cross position may overlap substantially (not just along boundaries). We conclude with the following Lemma, which is proved in Section \[se:lemma\].
\[le:\] If the colourful simplicial depth of $\zero$ is less than $d^2+d$, then for any choice of a set $D$ of $d$ colours, there must exist a subset of $\S$ in deformed cross position, the colours of whose vertices are given by $D$.
Proof of Theorem \[th:main\]
============================
Assume that the colourful simplicial depth of $\zero$ is less than $d^2+d$, so that the lemma applies.
Choose a set of points $P_1$ in deformed cross position on the colours $\{2,\dots,d+1\}$. Pick a point $v$ from $\S$ with colour $1$. Its antipode is in at least one $\{2,\dots,d+1\}$-coloured simplicial cone generated by vertices of $P_1$. The vertices of that cone together with $v$ yield a colourful simplex containing $\zero$. This procedure yields $d+1$ colourful simplices, one for each element of $\S$ with colour 1.
Now choose a set of points $P_2$ in deformed cross position on the colours $\{1,3,\dots,d+1\}$. Let $v$ be a point from $\S$ with colour 2 which does not appear in $P_1$. There are $d-1$ of these. As before, each of these points, together with some vertices from $P_2$, generate a colourful simplex containing $\zero$. Since we are using vertices of colour 2 which were not used in the first step, the colourful simplices generated at this step are distinct from those generated at the first step. This yields $d-1$ colourful simplices.
Repeat this procedure, at the $i$-th step choosing points in deformed cross position on the colours $\{1,\dots,\hat i,\dots, d+1\}$, and then considering those vertices of colour $i$ which have not appeared in any $P_j$ for $j<i$. This gives $d+1-2(i-1)$ new colourful simplices. Hence the total number of colourful simplices produced is at least: $\displaystyle (d+1)+(d-1)+\dots= \left\lfloor {(d+2)^2}/4\right\rfloor$ as desired.
This improves the lower bound of $2d$ from [@DHST05] starting at $d=4$.
The authors have recently learned that and independently found a quadratic lower bound for $\mu(d)$ [@BM06]. Their bound is $\mu(d) \ge \frac{1}{5}d(d+1)$. They also give a lower bound of $3d$ if $d>2$ which exceeds $(d+2)^2/4$ when $d=3,4,5,6,7$.
Proof of Lemma \[le:\] {#se:lemma}
----------------------
Without loss of generality, let $D=\{1,\dots,d\}$. Consider the $D$-depth of a point in $\Sph^d$. If every point were of $D$-depth at least $d$, then wherever the points coloured $d+1$ are, each of their antipodes is in at least $d$ $D$-coloured simplicial cones, and thus the depth of $\zero$ is at least $d^2+d$.
Assuming the colourful simplicial depth of $\zero$ is less than $d^2+d$, there is some point $x\in \Sph^d$ which is in no more than $d-1$ $D$-coloured cones. Thus, we can choose a set of points $w_1,\dots,w_d$ such that $w_i$ is of colour $i$ and generates no $D$-coloured cone containing $x$. Let $z_1,\dots,z_d$ be the vertices of some $D$-coloured cone containing $x$, with $z_i$ of colour $i$.
We claim that $P=\{z_i\}\cup\{w_i\}$ is in deformed cross position. Let $\P^d$ be the union of $d$-coloured simplices on the set $P$. Consider the map $f$ which maps $\P^d$ to $\Sph^d$ by $x \rightarrow x/||x||$. We want to show that this map is onto. Suppose otherwise. Let $X$ be the simplex of $\P^d$ whose vertices are $\{z_1,\dots,z_d\}$. Let $Y$ be the union of the other simplices of $\P^d$. Let $Z=X\cap Y$ be the boundary of $X$.
Let $A$ be the intersection of $\Sph^d$ with the $D$-coloured cone generated by the $\{z_i\}$. Let $B$ be the boundary of $A$.
By definition, $f(X)=A$. Thus, if $f$ is not onto, there is some point $y \not\in A$ such that $y$ is not in the image of $f$. Also observe that $x \notin f(Y)$, by our choice of points $\{w_i\}$.
Now, define a map $\pi$ which retracts $\Sph^d\setminus\{x,y\}$ onto $B$. Clearly, restricted to $Z$, $(\pi\circ f)|_Z=f|_Z$ is a homeomorphism, and generates the non-zero homology of $B$. But $\pi\circ
f:Y\rightarrow B$ shows that $(\pi\circ f)|_Z$ is null-homotopic, which is a contradiction.
Thus $f$ must be onto, and our set of points is in deformed cross position.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors would like to thank the referees for comments which improved the presentation of the paper.
[1]{}
I. B[á]{}r[á]{}ny, A generalization of [C]{}arathéodory’s theorem, *Discrete Math.* **40** (1982), no. 2-3, 141–152.
I. B[á]{}r[á]{}ny and J. Matou[š]{}ek, Quadratically many colorful simplices, *SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics* **21** (2007), no. 1, 191–198.
I. B[á]{}r[á]{}ny and S. Onn, Colourful linear programming and its relatives, *Math. Oper. Res.* **22** (1997), no. 3, 550–567.
A. Deza, S. Huang, T. Stephen, and T. Terlaky, The colourful feasibility problem, Submitted, 2005. Revised 2006. Preprint available at: arXiv:[ math.CO/0511749]{}.
[to3em]{}, Colourful simplicial depth, *Discrete Comput. Geom.* **35** (2006), no. 4, 597–604. arXiv:[math.CO/0506003]{}.
K. Fukuda and V. Rosta, Data depth and maximal feasible subsystems, Graph Theory and Combinatorial Optimization (D. Avis, A. Hertz, and O. Marcotte, eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005, 37–67.
[^1]: Both authors were supported by NSERC Discovery grants. Additionally, T. Stephen was supported by DFG FG-468 and the Dynamical Systems research focus at the University of Magdeburg.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Modes of speciation have been the subject of a century’s debate. Traditionally, most speciations are believed to be caused by spatial separation of populations ([*allopatry*]{}). Recent observations [@Meyer_1990; @Schliewen_1994; @Schliewen_2001; @Rico_2002] and models [@MaynardSmith_1966; @Antonovics_1971; @Dickinson_1973; @Rosenzweig_1978; @Turner_1995; @Noest_1997; @Geritz_1998; @Kondrashov_1999; @Dieckmann_1999; @Doebeli_2000; @Slatkin_1980], show that speciation can also take place in [*sympatry*]{}. We discuss a comprehensive model of coupled differentiation in phenotype, mating, and space, showing that spatial segregation can be an induced process following a sympatric differentiation. This is found to be a generic mechanism of adaptation to heterogeneous environments, for which we propose the term [*diapatric*]{} speciation [@Greek]. It explains the ubiquitous spatial patching of newly formed species, despite their sympatric origin [@Schliewen_1994; @Schliewen_2001; @Rico_2002].'
author:
- |
Martin Rost$^1$ and Michael Lässig$^2$\
$^1$[*Abteilung Theoretische Biologie, Universität Bonn, Kirschallee 1, 53115 Bonn*]{}\
$^2$[*Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität zu Köln, Zülpicher Straße 77, 50937 Köln*]{}
title: Modes of speciation in heterogeneous space
---
Allopatric speciation occurs in populations extending over a sufficient range in space and time. If subpopulations become spatially isolated, they can diverge in phenotype by adaptation to different environments as well as by genetic drift. A similar divergence is possible while the subpopulations maintain a limited spatial contact [@Dickinson_1973; @Mayr_1963; @Gavrilets_2000; @Bush_1975; @Endler_1977], which is commonly referred to as [*parapatric*]{} speciation. Pre- or post-mating incompatibilities can develop subsequently, leading to reproductive isolation. Neither the primary phenotypic separation nor the secondary reproductive isolation require disruptive selection. Hence, allopatric or classical parapatric speciation may well take too much space and time to account for radiation events and rapid species divergence [@Dieckmann_2002; @Hutchinson_1959].
In recent years, phylogeographic observations have produced convincing evidence for speciation in sympatry. Reproductive isolation has occurred in cichlid populations in African lakes over a few thousand generations [@Meyer_1990; @Schliewen_1994; @Schliewen_2001]. A salmon population is reported to have separated within only 14 generations [@Hendry_2000]. Sympatric speciation thus appears to occur rapidly even in small contiguous environments without spatial barriers. In theoretical models, it is always driven by [*disruptive selection*]{}. A phenotypic split can be favored, for example, if individuals of similar phenotype compete more strongly than distant ones [@Rosenzweig_1978; @Geritz_1998]. In a sexually reproducing population, however, such splits can only happen if the subpopulations become reproductively isolated so that the birth of hybrids is suppressed [@MaynardSmith_1966; @Rosenzweig_1978; @Turner_1995; @Slatkin_1980]. Of course, the sympatric scenario cannot explain the spatial population structure observed in the phylogeographic studies. Spatial patching of subpopulations appears to be ubiquitous. For example, the sister species of cichlids tend to organize themselves into neighboring regions [@Schliewen_2001; @Rico_2002; @Ruber_1999]. Another well-documented case are phytophagous insects, which are found to evolve mating assortativity together with specificity to different host plants [@Bush_1989].
These observations call for a more comprehensive model that captures the divergence in phenotypic traits, mating, and space as a cooperative dynamical process. Only recently IBM simulations in an extended model space with environmental fitness gradient have been presented [@Doebeli_2003] extending previous studies with complete spatial mixing [@Dieckmann_1999; @Doebeli_2000].
The model discussed here addresses parapatric speciation, i.e., generic intermediate cases between sympatry and allopatry. It affords a detailed analysis of the dynamics, allowing us to identify different primary speciation mechanisms and their conditions of occurence. (A concise discussion of classification issues and of the appropriate terminology can be found in Ref. [@Dieckmann_2002].) It turns out that the basic evolutionary forces driving speciation can be captured by a deterministic “reaction-diffusion” approach. We also discuss the role of stochastic effects as they appear in individual-based models. In this way, we recover the well-known mechanisms of allopatric and sympatric speciation. However, there are many environments with inhomogeneities on smaller scales in space and time (such as in the examples quoted above), where spatial variations prevent sympatry and diffusive migration prevents allopatry. Adaptative evolution then operates by a new mechanism, for which we propose the term [*diapatric speciation*]{}. The population reaches a final state of efficient spatial patchiness and phenotypic differentation without hybrids, which is triggered and sustained by assortative mating. This is in contrast to the traditional view of parapatric speciation, where assortative mating takes a merely secondary role in reinforcing an existing boundary between emerging species [@Mayr_1963; @Gavrilets_2000; @Endler_1977; @Dieckmann_2002].
Model {#model .unnumbered}
=====
We consider a population via its [*density*]{} in “internal” and “external” space, $N \equiv N({\bf x}; {\bf r}; t)$. Internal coordinates ${\bf x} = (x_1, \dots, x_n)$ denote phenotypic quantities, e.g., body size, beak length, colour. Internal coordinates can be inherited. This representation is purely phenotypic. A comparison with explicitly genetic models is given below.
External coordinates ${\bf r} = (r_1, \dots, r_d)$ lie in the simplest case in $d$-dimensional Euclidean space. More complicated geometries, e.g., network structures of habitat patches in fragmented landscapes, are also possible. In this work, we focus on habitats with a gradient in quality for different phenotypes, which induce a spatial dependence of the optimal phenotype ${\bf x}_{\rm opt} ({\bf r})$ and a population density $N({\bf x},{\bf r};t)$ with a [*joint*]{} dependence on internal coordinates ${\bf x}$ and external coordinates ${\bf r}$.
![The fitness landscape of a heterogeneous model environment involves a fitness funtion $f(x,r)$ that depends on a trait variable $x$ and a spatial coordinate $r$. ([**a**]{}) The left region ($r < 0$) favors smaller values of $x$, the right region ($r > 0$) larger ones. The optimal trait $x_{\rm opt}(r)$ varies between the values $\pm x_0$ over a spatial interval given by the total size $r_0$. ([ **b**]{}) At a given point $r$, the fitness is maximal at $x_{\rm opt}(r)$ and decays rapidly over a characteristic scale $w_f$, called the niche width.[]{data-label="Figfxr"}](fig2.eps){width="12cm"}
In the simplest version of the model we consider one phenotypic coordinate and a one-dimensional external space of size $r_0$, so $N \equiv N(x,r;t)$ whith $ -r_0/2 \leq r \leq r_0/2$. The phenotype $x$ is directly related to an ecological fitness or carrying capacity, e.g., with the explicit choice $$f(x,r) = f(x - x_{\rm opt}(r)) = \exp \left(- \frac{(x - x_{\rm
opt}(r))^2}{w_f^2} \right)$$ which is taken to be constant in time. It decreases with the distance of $x$ from $x_{\rm opt} = x_0 \sin( \pi r/r_0)$, on a scale $w_f$ in phenotype space. $x_0$ is a measure for habitat heterogeneity and $r_0$ is the spatial scale of variation. For an illustration see Figure \[Figfxr\].
The population $N(x,r;t)$ is subject to the dynamics $$\partial_t N(x,r;t) = \lambda \partial_r^2 N(x,r;t) + R(x,r;t) + \left( f(x,r)
- K(x,r;t) \right) N(x,r;t)
\label{EqPopdyn}$$ which has the form of a reaction-diffusion equation.
The simplest type of motion in the population is diffusion, in Eq. (\[EqPopdyn\]) appearing as the term $\lambda \partial_r^2 N$, to which we restrict ourselves in this work. The prefactor defines a length scale in space, $r_\lambda = \sqrt{\lambda}$, which has to be compared with the habitat size $r_0$.
The special case of eq. (\[EqPopdyn\]) with $R = 0$ describes the dynamics of an asexual or clonal population. It similar to the familiar Lotka-Volterra form. The resource supply $f(x,r)$ and the competition load $$K(x,r;t) = \int \! dy \; \beta(x,y) \; N(y,r;t),$$ which sums up the influence of individuals of trait $y$ on those with trait $x$, combine to the frequency-dependent [*fitness*]{} $f - K$. The competition kernel $$\beta(x,y) = \beta(|x - y|) = \exp \left( - \frac{|x -
y|}{w_\beta} \right)$$ is maximal for $x \! = \! y$ and decays on a scale $w_\beta$ in internal space.
Extending this approach to sexually reproducing populations requires a more detailed model for birth processes, whose rate itself becomes dependent on the maternal and paternal population densities. It is convenient to introduce the [*birth excess*]{} per phenotype, space, and time $$R(x,r;t) = \int \! dy \; dz \; C(x | y,z) \; m(y,z;t) \; N(z,r;t) \; - \;
N(x,r;t).$$ by summing over the density of possible mothers $N(z,r;t)$ multiplied by the probability density $m(y,z)$ for a $z$-female to mate with a $y$-male and the inheritance probability density $C(x | y,z)$ that this couple will have offspring of phenotype $x$. The subtracted term $N(r,t)$ describes the total birth rate in the clonal limit. With the definitions of $C$ and $m$ given below, it is easy to check that $\int \! dx \; R(x,r) = 0$. Hence, the excess birth rate describes the net [*reshuffling*]{} of population density through sexual reproduction, and $f-K$ remains a useful measure of the frequency- and space-dependent fitness. The genetic function $C$ is approximated by a Gaussian, $C(x|y,z) =
\exp(-(x \! - \! \bar x)^2/(2 w_C(\bar x)^2))/\sqrt{2 \pi w_C(\bar x)^2}$, with $\bar x = (y\! + \!z)/2$, so offspring is distributed near the mean of the parents’ phenotype. Moreover the standard deviation $w_C(\bar x)$ changes little over the relevant range of phenotypes. This form can be justified from the hypergeometric model [@Kondrashov_1986; @Doebeli_1996; @Bulmer_1980; @Shpak_1999], where the quantitative trait $x$ is encoded by $L$ independent two-allele loci with equal allele frequencies. However, provided the number of independent loci is sufficiently large, it remains valid more generally, even if (i) the number of loci changes or (ii) the symmetry between the loci is lost [@Barton_2000] because allele frequencies change or linkage disequilibria delevop during the speciation process. Typically this would result in a decrease of $w_C$, but as long as $w_C < w_f$ and $w_C < w_\beta$, variations in $w_C$ do not influence the results significantly. See also the discussion at the end of this Section where we show that this form of $C(x|y,z)$ emerges from a genetically explicit model quite generically.
Mating preference is crucial for the development of any structure in the population. Without it, the mating probability is just proportional to the available males. In this case the entire population is mixing and forms a single cluster in phenotype, see Figure \[PopDynFixedpoints\](a). This changes with an affinity of females towards certain types of males, $$\label{EqMateM}
m(y,z;t) = \frac{\mu(y,z) N(y,r;t)}{\int_w \mu(w,z) N(w,r;t)}.$$ Here we restrict ourselves to assortative mate choice by the ecological trait within a range of width $w_\mu$ $$\mu(y,z) = \mu(|x - y|) = \exp \left( - \frac{|x -
y|^2}{w_\mu^2} \right).$$ With strong enough mating assortativity reproductively isolated subpopulations can coexist, as shown in Figure \[PopDynFixedpoints\](b).
The population dynamics (\[EqPopdyn\]) always leads to a stationary density $\bar N(x,r)$, which reflects the [*primary selection*]{} given by the fitness functions $f$ and $K$. On longer, evolutionary time scales, the population evolves through [*secondary selection*]{}, i.e., by adaptive mutations modifying its mating range $w_\mu$ [@Karlin_1974]. We study this process starting from a spatially uniform initial state with random mating. A single step involves an initially small mutant population that invades the resident population and eventually becomes a new stationary state $\bar N(x,r)$ with different trait and mating characteristics. At each step we evaluate whether a stationary state $\bar N(x,r)$ with given $w_\mu$ is unstable with respect to a small mutant population $n(x,r;t)$ with different mating range. Successful mutants are found to invade the resident population completely, producing a new stationary state. A possible dependence $w_\mu(x)$ due to a linkage disequilibrium, not taken into account here, is expected only to enhance the selection pressure towards assortativity. If adaptive substitutions are sufficiently rare, an evolutionary pathway can be represented as a sequence of intermediate stationary states leading to an evolutionary stable final state $\bar N_{\rm es}(x,r)$ [@Hammerstein_1996]. Along the pathway, the number of adaptive steps parametrizes evolutionary time. More generally, the mating range $w_\mu$ may be thought of as a further quantitative trait, the population state being described by a joint distribution $N(x,w_\mu,r)$. The distribution of $w_\mu$ is strongly peaked, which justifies the approximation of Eq. (\[EqPopdyn\]). The average value of $w_\mu$ evolves along fitness gradients towards the final state. Generic evolutionary stable states are found to have either random or strongly assortative mating.
Interesting variations in the internal structure of the model are related to the mating preference. It can depend on ecologically neutral but inheritable traits such as mating time, marker traits, and in all cases one may observe phenotypic differentiation [@Kondrashov_1999; @Dieckmann_1999; @Doebeli_2000; @Kriener_2003; @Lande_1981]. In smaller populations some individuals may be unable to mate. Assortativity restricts the number of possible mates and should be disfavored under such circumstances. With some modification of Eq. (\[EqMateM\]) this effect can be studied and it turns out that certain types of reproductive isolation are actually favored [@Noest_1997; @Kriener_2003].
Unlike in our model inheritance in sexual population dynamics is often modelled genetically explicit. The classical approach is to consider a locus with two alleles, say $a$ and $A$, and under which conditions preferentially homozygous subpopulations develop [@MaynardSmith_1966]. In computer simulations longer “genomes” can be used, typically two strings of $L$ bits with the “alleles” 0 and 1. Genome space is then very large, $2^{2L}$, and a common way to follow the evolution of a population are simulation of so called individual based models (IBMs), [@Dieckmann_1999; @Doebeli_2000; @Doebeli_2003]. For their evaluation population characteristics are sampled over large populations, long times, and many independent runs.
Based on phenotypes but closely related to genetics is the so called hypergeometric model [@Kondrashov_1999; @Doebeli_1996; @Kondrashov_1986; @Shpak_1999], where the phenotype of an individual with $2L$ loci is a quantitative trait proportional to the number of one type of alleles, e.g.$$x = \sum_{\nu=1}^{2L} \sigma_\nu \in \{0,1,\dots,2L\},
\label{EqGenoPheno}$$ and the alleles are $\sigma_\nu \in \{ 0,1 \}$. If all genotypes mapping onto a phenotype are equally probable in a population, one can derive the probability $C(x|yz)$ for a couple with phenotypes $y$ and $z$ to have offspring with $x$: explicitly for a haploid and to a very good approximation for a diploid genome [@Doebeli_1996; @Kondrashov_1986]. Going one step further away from the underlying genetic concept leads to models of Quantitative Genetics [@Bulmer_1980] one of which is ours.
Generally such models neglect gene fixation. Also the hypergeometric model [@Kondrashov_1999; @Doebeli_1996; @Kondrashov_1986; @Shpak_1999] may be invalidated as the central assumption of equiprobability of the various genotypes contributing to one phenotype can fail [@Barton_2000]. But the same difficulty also arises for IBMs, as e.g. in [@Dieckmann_1999; @Doebeli_2000; @Doebeli_2003], where only a “good” choice of mutation rate, population and genome size allows for meaningful dynamics with respect to the question of speciation. It is in these cases, that the phenotype related hypergeometric model and also quantitative phenotypic models as ours behave similarly and thus remain meaningful.
![Examples of $C(x|y,z)$ sampled from a simulation of 16384 randomly mating individuals with genome length $2L=64$ over $10^7$ generations with mutation probability $10^{-3}$ per locus and generation. (a) Examples for $y = z =
20$, $32$, and $44$. b) Same $z$, but $y = 2L -
z$. (c) Allele frequencies of 1’s at the single loci differ by less than 1% from the average value $1/2$.[]{data-label="FigIBMHygeo"}](fig1.eps){width="8cm"}
In Figure \[FigIBMHygeo\] we show some examples of $C(x|y,z)$ as functions of the offspring’s phenotype $x$ for fixed phenotypes of mother and father, obtained by sampling over an IBM with genome length $2L = 64$, population size $16384$, random mating, run for $10^7$ generations. Phenotypes are given by Eq. (\[EqGenoPheno\]). The children’s phenotypes are distributed around values $\bar x(y,z) = (y+z)/2$ with a (nearly Gaussian) distribution whose widths $w_C$ are practically independent of the parents’ phenotypes. In panel (a) are examples for three values of $z = y$, in panel (b) for values $z =
2L-y$, such that the parents’ mean phenotypes are all identical $\bar x = L$. Panel (c) shows a long time average of the proportion of 1-alleles in the entire model genome compared to the values observed at the $2L$ model loci. These simulations show that the elementary combinatorial rules of inheritance on the genome level used in typical IMB simulations can quite well be approximated on the phenotype level by continuous functions for $C(x|y,z)$. The maximum value $\bar x$ and the width $w_C$ may be subject to corrective terms, but the principle structure of $C(x|y,z)$ remains valid.
In fact it turns out that the precise functional form of the interactions does not matter too much. We have also studied alternative forms of faster or weaker decay, e.g., $f(x,r) \sim \exp(-(x/w_f)^4)$, $\beta(x) \sim
\exp(-(x/w_\beta)^2)$, $\mu(x) \sim \exp(-x/w_\mu)$. Important are the length scales in internal and external space: the inheritance uncertainty $w_C$, the competition range $w_\beta$, the resource width $w_f$, habitat heterogeneity $x_0$, extent of habitatvariation $r_0$, and migration range $r_\lambda$. Their combination and mutual relation decides about reproductive separation of the population into two or more subpopulations.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
We first discuss the special case where $f(x,r) \equiv f(x)$ and $N(x,r;t)
\equiv N(x;t)$ do not depend on the spatial coordinate $r$, which requires $x_0 = 0$, and we consider a spatially averaged “mean field” version of the model. Also in this limit sympatric speciation can become manifest, analogous to the results of the IBM in Refs. [@Dieckmann_1999; @Doebeli_2000] which is set in a similar ecological frame. For all evaluations we assumed the ecological interactions to extend over a wider range than the inheritance uncertainty, $w_C < w_f$ and $w_C < w_\beta$. During its adaptation the assortativity range $w_\mu$ varies, but it remains larger than $w_C$.
Evolving reproductive isolation can lead to separation into subpopulations. Equilibrium profiles of Eq. (\[EqPopdyn\]) are shown in Fig. \[PopDynFixedpoints\], in panel (a) a unimodal population for random mating, in panel (b) a bimodal under mating assortativity after evolutionary adaptation of $w_\mu$. For a large enough relative width of the habitat $w_f/w_\beta > 1.1$ the population evolves into a speciating state as in (b), otherwise it remains unseparated.
![Fixed point configurations for Equation ( \[EqPopdyn\]). (a) weak mating preference gives unimodal population structure, (b) strong mating preference allows for bimodal population structure. The phenotypic scale is indicated by the resource curve $f(x)$ plotted in light gray, the vertical scale of population density is arbitrary.[]{data-label="PopDynFixedpoints"}](popdynfix.eps){width="12cm"}
For given parameters $w_C$, $w_\beta$, $w_f$ there may be a range of $w_\mu$, where both a unimodal (as in Fig. \[PopDynFixedpoints\](a)) and a bimodal population (as in Fig. \[PopDynFixedpoints\](b)) are stable fixed points of Eq. (\[EqPopdyn\]). As assortativity gets stronger (decreasing $w_\mu$) the unimodal profile ( Fig. \[PopDynFixedpoints\](a)) becomes less stable. It is interesting to note that the transition between a unimodal and a bimodal population density is not a [*gradual*]{} process but a [*fast switch*]{} at a critical assortativity range $w_\mu$. The switch occurs on the time scale of population dynamics, much faster than the evolutionary adaptation of $w_\mu$. Under conditions where the evolutionary stable $w_\mu$ can increase again (e.g. slow variation of $w_f$) one finds hysteresis between the jumps from uni- to bimodal populations and back.
A population profile as in Fig. \[PopDynFixedpoints\](b) [*cannot*]{} be a stable fixed point of the asexual version, i.e., the limit $w_\mu \to 0$, of Eq. (\[EqPopdyn\]): The gap between the two parts of the population would fill up resulting in a wider unimodal population profile covering most of the accessible phenotype range [@Noest_1997]. When $w_\mu$ remains finite two peaks in the population profile having widths close to but mutual distance greater than $w_\mu$ are stabilized by sexual reproduction because it accumulates offspring closer to their maxima. By this effect sexual reproduction [*helps*]{} speciation.
We now turn to the general case. The spatial model dynamics generates differentiation of the population, which can be measured in two ways: (i) The [*mating differentiation index*]{} $\delta$ is defined as the actual rate of crossmating between two subpopulations at a given point $r$, normalized by the same rate with random mating. For any population state $N(x,r)$, the mating differentiation index $\delta$ (at the point $r = 0$ and between the subpopulations $x<0$ and $x>0$) is defined by $$1 - \delta = \frac{1}{Z} \int_{y < 0} \! dy \int_{z > 0} \! dz \;
\frac{1}{2} \left[
m(y,z,0) N(y,0) + m(z,y,0) N(z,0) \right],
\label{defdelta}$$ where $Z$ is the same integral evaluated with random mating, i.e., with $\mu(y,z) = 1$ for all $y,z$. (Analogous measures can be defined for different $r$ and different trait subpopulations). Here we monitor the two subpopulations $x < 0$ and $x > 0$ at the boundary between the left and right regions ($r=0$). (ii) The [*spatial differentiation index*]{} $\chi$ is defined in terms of the “trait overlap" between the populations at two different points in space. Phenotypes $x$ that are intrinsically viable at one of these points are distinguished from those that are merely advected by diffusion. The spatial differentiation index $\chi$ (evaluated at the points $-r_0/2$ and $r_0/2$) is defined by $$1 - \chi = \frac{1}{\tilde Z(r_0/2)} \frac{1}{\tilde Z(-r_0/2)}
\int \! dx \; N_v (x,-r_0/2) N_v(x,r_0/2)
\label{defchi}$$ where $\tilde Z(r) = \int \! dx \; N_v (x,r)$. A phenotype $x$ is counted as intrinsically viable at the point $r$ if $w_C \beta(0) N(x,r)^2 - \lambda
\partial^2 N(x,r)/\partial r^2 > 0$, i.e., if a small nonzero population in the interval $[x - w_C(x)/2, x + w_C(x)/2]$ could exist even without diffusive advection. In this case, we set $N_v(x,r) = N(x,r)$, otherwise $N_v(x,r) =
0$. Here we take the points $r = -r_0/2$ in the left region and $r = r_0/2$ in the right region. Both indices vary between $0$ (no differentiation) and $1$ (complete separation).
Following the differentiation in phenotype and space over evolutionary times, three main mechanisms can be identified. They are distinguished by the structure of their evolutionary stable final populations $\bar N_{\rm
es}(x,r)$, measured, for example, by the resulting differentiation indices $\delta_{\rm es}$ and $\chi_{\rm es}$.
![Three mechanisms of speciation can be distinguished by the time dependence of the mating differentiation index $\delta$ and the spatial differentiation index $\chi$ (see text). The initial population has random mating ($\delta =
0$) and is spatially homogeneous ($\chi = 0$). Primary selection with random mating (left part of the diagrams) is followed by secondary selection on the mating range $w_m$ (right part of the diagrams). ([**a**]{}) [**Allopatric speciation:**]{} Continuous evolution by primary selection towards spatial segregation ($\chi_{\rm es} = 1$) without reproductive isolation ($\delta_{\rm es} < 1$). ([**b**]{}) [ **Sympatric speciation:**]{} Discontinuous evolution towards reproductive isolation ($\delta_{\rm es} = 1$) without spatial segregation ($\chi_{\rm es} < 1$). ([**c**]{}) [ **Diapatric speciation:**]{} Discontinuous, cooperative evolution towards reproductive isolation ($\delta_{\rm es} = 1$) and spatial segregation ($\chi_{\rm es} = 1$).[]{data-label="FigDefInd"}](Fig2.eps){width="6cm"}
![Evolutionary stable populations after speciation. Left column: Populated regions in the $(x,r)$ plane, given by $\bar
N_{\rm es}(x,r) > 0$. Intrinsically viable phenotypes (shown in black) are distinguished from those advected by diffusion (grey). Right three columns: trait distributions $\bar N_{\rm es}(x,r\!=\!-r_0/2)$ (left region), $\bar N_{\rm es}(x,r\!=\!0)$ (boundary between left and right region), and $\bar N_{\rm es}(x,r\!=\! r_0/2)$ (right region). ([**a**]{}) [**Allopatric speciation:**]{} One contiguous population cluster, unimodal trait distributions, species boundary with hybrids. ([**b**]{}) [**Sympatric speciation:**]{} Two disjoint clusters, bimodal trait distributions. ([**c**]{}) [**Diapatric speciation:**]{} Two disjoint clusters, trait distributions unimodal within the regions and bimodal at the boundary, species boundary without hybrids.[]{data-label="FigPopStruc"}](Fig3.eps){width="14cm"}
![Phase diagram of speciation, specifying the mechanism as a function of the effective environment heterogeneity $x_0/w_f$, the effective competition range $w_\beta/w_f$, and the diffusion coupling between the regions, $\lambda/r_0^2$. ([**a**]{}) Cross-section in the variables $w_\beta/w_f$ and $x_0/w_f$ at fixed $\lambda/r_0^2 =
0.01$. ([**b**]{}) Cross-section in the variables $\lambda/r_0^2$ and $x_0/w_f$ at fixed $w_\beta/w_f =
2.0$. Diapatric speciation is the generic mechanism in heterogeneous environments with diffusive coupling.[]{data-label="FigPhaseDiag"}](Fig4.eps){width="12cm"}
[*Allopatric speciation*]{} shows a gradual increase of the spatial differentiation index $\chi$ up to $\chi_{\rm es} = 1$, see Fig. \[FigDefInd\](a). This expresses the patching of small-$x$ phenotypes into the left region and large-$x$ phenotypes into the right one. The spatial adaptation of traits involves primary selection by the fitness function $f(x,r)$ only and occurs independently of mating behavior. Since there is no sufficient selection pressure towards assortativity, the mating differentiation $\delta_{\rm es}$ remains small. The corresponding evolutionary stable population $\bar N_{\rm es}(x,r)$ is a contiguous cluster in the $(x,r)$ plane as shown in Fig. \[FigPopStruc\](a). At a given point $r$, the trait distribution is unimodal and centered around the local fitness maximum $x_f(r)$. There is a limited gene flow between the large-$x$ and small-$x$ subpopulations, which is maintained by the intermediate phenotypes near the boundary ($r = 0$).
[*Sympatric speciation*]{} is characterized by an increase of mating differentiation up to complete reproductive isolation; see Fig. \[FigDefInd\](b). The index $\delta$ jumps discontinuously from a value $\delta_0 < 1$ to $\delta_{\rm es} = 1$, implying that stationary population states with $\delta_0 < \delta < 1$ cannot exist. The speciation is driven by secondary selection involving the frequency-dependent fitness $K$, just as in previous models of strict sympatry. Spatial variations are irrelevant, and the spatial differentiation remains incomplete ($\chi_{\rm es} < 1$). The evolutionary stable population $\bar N_{\rm es}(x,r)$ shown in Fig. \[FigPopStruc\](b) consists of two disjoint clusters, corresponding to a bimodal trait distribution at every $r$. The gene flow between these subpopulations is suppressed by assortative mating. In particular, there are no hybrids near the boundary ($r = 0$).
[*Diapatric speciation*]{} is the co-evolution of assortative mating and spatial segregation by secondary selection. The indices $\delta$ and $\chi$ jump to $\delta_{\rm es} = \chi_{\rm es} = 1$ simultaneously, leading to an evolutionary stable state with reproductive isolation and patching into the left and right region, see Fig. \[FigDefInd\](c). Prior to the jump, the spatial segregation is prevented by diffusive coupling between the regions. It becomes possible only once reproductive isolation is established. The population $\bar N_{\rm es}(x,r)$ of Fig. \[FigPopStruc\](c) has two disjoint clusters. The trait distribution is unimodal within both regions and bimodal near the boundary; there are again no hybrids. The suppression of the gene flow between the clusters is now two-fold, by reproductive isolation and by spatial separation.
Does a population actually speciate, and if so, by which mechanism? This turns out to depend largely on only three parameters, the effective environmental heterogeneity $x_0/w_f$, the effective competition range $w_\beta/w_f$, and the diffusive coupling between the regions, $\lambda/r_0^2$. (Here we have chosen $w_f$ and $r_0$ as the basic scales in trait space and real space.) The “phase diagram” of Fig. \[FigPhaseDiag\] shows the mechanism of speciation as a function of these parameters. Allopatric speciation is possible only with a sufficiently large heterogeneity and a sufficiently small diffusive coupling (i.e., small $\lambda$ or large region size $r_0$). Conversely, sympatric speciation requires a sufficiently small heterogeneity, as well as a sufficiently small competition range ($w_\beta/w_f < 1$). Diapatric speciation involves no restriction on the competition range, that is, it works for frequency-dependent as well as for density-dependent selection. It is seen to be the generic mechanism in many realistic environments with heterogeneities and diffusion.
This compares to the recent results of Ref. [@Doebeli_2003] where adaptive speciation is seen to generate a sharp geographical differentiation in an individual based model. Working over a wider range of parameters the present model is able to relate this diapatric mechanism to other modes of speciation by identifying their respective regions in terms of the relevant parameters.
The present model thus allows for a clear identification of the evolutionary mechanisms underlying speciation, of the dynamical patterns, and of the resulting population structures. Examples are the separation indices $\delta$ and $\chi$ (Eqs. (\[defdelta\]) and (\[defchi\])) and the distinction of intrinsically viable populations from populations merely advected by diffusion. Of course, this kind of differential analysis is very difficult in individual-based models, which always suffer from small discrete population sizes. On the other hand, the effect of demographic stochasticity and other fluctuations can also be studied within the framework of Eq. (\[defdelta\]) by adding a stochastic noise term. The evolutionary stable population densities $\bar N_{\rm
es}(x,r)$ are found to be stable under such perturbations. Stability or instability of stationary states $\bar N(x,r)$ become immediately apparent in differential equations such as (\[defdelta\]) by their rates of convergence or divergence. The fast transition between coherent and segregated population states thus explains itself naturally from a simple analysis.
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
In summary, our model suggests that speciation is a highly cooperative process involving the adaptive differentiation of a population in its ecological characters, its mating behavior, and its spatial structure. Diapatric speciation is the generic mechanism of fully coupled differentiation. It reduces to allopatric or sympatric speciation in special cases. All three mechanisms are part of a unified dynamical picture, conceptually different from the old dichotomy between sympatry and allopatry.
In classical observations, the spatial separation of newly formed species has often been regarded as the primary driving force of the speciation process. Our results call for a fresh look at the data and may offer a different interpretation in some cases. The diapatric mechanism involves spatial separation as an induced process, triggered by the reproductive isolation of subpopulations. This two-fold separation in phenotype and space between the emerging species cuts the gene flow more efficiently than the other mechanisms, which involve only one kind of separation.
Diapatric species boundaries are established and maintained by natural selection so no external barriers have to be postulated. They follow regional boundaries and are distinguished from the allopatric case by the efficient suppression of hybrids in the boundary zone during the primary speciation process. (Secondary reproductive isolation can suppress hybrids also in allopatry.) It is crucial to note that reproductively decoupled populations can adapt to spatial heterogeneities of smaller size than interbreeding ones. Diapatric speciation is also remarkably fast, since the loss of interbreeding takes place through an abrupt change of the stationary population state as discussed above. This transition is driven by natural selection, unlike the secondary mating differentiation mechanisms in allopatry, which are expected to operate by genetic drift and hence to be slower. Of course, the genetic fixation of permanent incompatibilities between the emerging species (postzygotic isolation) is always slow. Before that point, both reproductive and the spatial separation are reversible if the environmental conditions change, as has been confirmed by recent observations [@Seehausen_1997]. Hence, diapatric splits appear to be an efficient adaptation mechanism for sexual populations on small scales of space and time. Most of these splits are wiped out again on longer time scales, while a few develop into permanent speciation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We are grateful to N. Barton, A. Hastings, M. Kirkpatrick, A. Kondrashov, and M. Rosenzweig for useful discussions and valuable comments. Particular thanks are due to D. Tautz for numerous comments throughout this work.
Correspondence and requests for materials can be addressed to both authors (emails: [email protected], [email protected]).
[99]{} Meyer, A., Kocher, T.D., Basasibwaki, P., and Wilson, A.C. (1990) [*Nature*]{} [**347**]{}, 550-553. Schliewen, U.K., Tautz, D., Pääbo, S. (1994) [*Nature*]{} [**368**]{}, 629-632. Schliewen, U.K., Raßmann, K., Markmann, M., Markert, J., Kocher, T., and Tautz, D. (2001) [*Molecular Ecology*]{} [**10**]{}, 1471-1488. Riço, C., and Turner, G.F. (2002) [*Mol. Ecol.*]{}[**11**]{} 1585-90. Maynard Smith, J. (1966) [*Am. Nat.*]{} [**100**]{}, 637-650. Antonovics, J. (1971) [*American Scientist*]{} [**59**]{} 593-599. Dickinson, H., and Antonovics, J. (1973) [*American Naturalist*]{} [**l07**]{} 256-274. Rosenzweig, M. (1978) [*Biol. J. Linn. Soc. (London)*]{} [**10**]{}, 275-289. Turner, G.F., and Burrows, M.T. (1995) [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London B*]{} [**260**]{}, 287-292. Noest, A.J. (1997) [*Proc. Royal Soc. London B*]{} [**264**]{}, 1389-1393. Geritz, S.E.H., Kisdi, É., Meszéna, G., and Metz, J.A.J. (1998) [*Evolutionary Ecology*]{} [**12**]{}, 35-57. Kondrashov, A.S., and Kondrashov, F.A. (1999) [*Nature*]{} [**400**]{}, 351-354. Dieckmann, U., and Doebeli, M. (1999) [*Nature*]{} [**400**]{}, 354-357. Doebeli, M., and Dieckmann, U. (2000) [*Am. Nat.*]{} [**156**]{}, S77-S101. Slatkin, M. (1980) [*Ecology*]{} [**61**]{}, 163-177. The Greek prefix $\delta$$\iota$$\alpha$- often describes the process of a separation, e.g., $\delta$$\iota$$\alpha$$\tau$$\rho$$\acute\varepsilon$$\chi$$\varepsilon$$\iota$$\nu$: to run apart. Mayr, E. (1963) [*Animal species and evolution*]{}, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Gavrilets, S., Li, H., and Vose, M.D. (2000) [*Evolution*]{} [**54**]{}, 1126-1134. Bush, G.L. (1975) [*Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics*]{} [**6**]{} 339-364. Endler, J.A. (1977) [*Geographic Variation, Speciation and Clines*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Dieckmann, U., Metz, J.A.J., Doebeli, M., & Tautz, D.(Eds.) (2002) [*Adaptive Speciation*]{} Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, Introduction and Epilogue. Hutchinson, G.E. (1959) [*Am. Nat.*]{} [**93**]{}, 254-59. Hendry, A.P., Wenburg, J.K., Bentzen, P., Volk, E.C., and Quinn, T.P. (2000) [*Science*]{} [**290**]{}, 516-518. Rüber, L., Verheyen, E., and Meyer, A. (1999) [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} [**96**]{}, 10230-10235. Bush, G.L., Feder, J.L., Berlocher, S.H., McPheron, B.A., Smith, D.C., and Chilcote, C.A. (1989) [*Nature*]{} [**339**]{}, 346-349. Doebeli, M., and Dieckmann, U. (2003) [*Nature*]{} [**421**]{}, 259-264. Kondrashov, A.S. (1986) [*Theor. Pop. Biol.*]{} [**29**]{}, 1-15. Doebeli, M. (1996) [*J. Evol. Biol.*]{} [**9**]{}, 893-909. Bulmer, M.G. (1980) [*The Mathematical Theory Of Quantitative Genetics*]{}, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. Shpak, M., and Kondrashov, A.S. (1999) [*Evolution*]{} [**53**]{}, 600-604. Barton, N.H., and Shpak, M. (2000) [*Theor. Pop. Biol.*]{} [**57**]{}, 249-263. Karlin, S., and McGregor, J. (1974) [*Theor. Pop. Biol.*]{} [**5**]{}, 95-103. Hammerstein, P. (1996) [*J. Math. Biol.*]{} [**34**]{}, 511-532. Kriener, B. (2003) Diplomarbeit, University of Cologne, Institute for Theoretical Physics. Landé, R., (1981) [*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} [ **78**]{}, 3721-3725. Seehausen, O., van Alphen, J.J.M., and Witte, F. (1997) [*Science*]{} [**277**]{}, 1808-1811.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove Grothendieck’s Conjecture on Resolution of Singularities for quasi-excellent schemes ${\cal X}$ of dimension three and of arbitrary characteristic. This applies in particular to ${\cal X}=\mathrm{Spec}A$, $A$ a reduced complete Noetherian local ring of dimension three and to algebraic or arithmetical varieties of dimension three. Similarly, if $F$ is a number field, a complete discretely valued field or more generally the quotient field of any excellent Dedekind domain ${\cal O}$, any regular projective surface $X/F$ has a proper and flat model ${\cal X}$ over ${\cal O}$ which is everywhere regular.'
author:
- Vincent Cossart Olivier Piltant
title: 'Resolution of Singularities of Arithmetical Threefolds II.'
---
[ *Dedicated to Shreeram Shankar Abhyankar, in memoriam.*]{}
Introduction.
=============
The Resolution of Singularities conjecture has been, and still is a long standing conjecture since it was formulated by A. Grothendieck in the 1960’s [@EGA2](7.9.6). Grothendieck emphasized its importance for studying homological and homotopical properties of schemes. Even since H. Hironaka’s celebrated theorem [@H1] proved fifty years ago, some new results have bettered our understanding of the problem in equal characteristic zero [@BM][@Vi1][@W]. These results focus on the constructivity and functoriality of their algorithms for Resolution in contrast with Hironaka’s.
In arbitrary characteristic, a major advance towards Grothendieck’s conjecture is due to A.J. de Jong [@dJ] theorem 4.1 and theorem 6.5. He proved a weaker form of the above conjecture for varieties $X$ over a field or a complete discrete valuation ring. A significant difference with Grothendieck’s formulation is that de Jong’s alterations allow a finite extension of the function field. Furthermore, de Jong’s result does not in general provide a regular compactification $\overline{X}$ of some étale covering $U$ of the regular locus $\mathrm{Reg}X$.
Resolution of Singularities in its full birational form was to this date restricted to surfaces [@Ab1][@Ab6][@H2][@L3][@Cu9][@Cu8][@CoJS], only to mention some contributions. In dimension three, some partial results do exist for algebraic varieties over an algebraically closed field $k$ of positive characteristic $p\geq 7$ [@Ab5][@Cu5]. These results extend to all characteristics $p>0$ and fields $k$ with $[k:k^p]<+\infty$ [@CoP1][@CoP2] theorem on p. 1839. For arithmetical schemes (unequal residue characteristic), birational Resolution of Singularities was sofar restricted to surfaces. The first and main purpose of this article is to prove:
\[mainthm\] Let ${\cal X}$ be a reduced and separated Noetherian scheme which is quasi-excellent and of dimension at most three. There exists a proper birational morphism $\pi : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ with the following properties:
- ${\cal X}'$ is everywhere regular;
- $\pi$ induces an isomorphism $\pi^{-1}(\mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}) \simeq \mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}$;
- $\pi^{-1}(\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X})$ is a strict normal crossings divisor on ${\cal X}'$.
If furthermore a finite affine covering ${\cal X}={\cal U}_1\cup {\cal U}_2 \cup \cdots \cup {\cal U}_n$ is specified, one may take $\pi^{-1}({\cal U}_i)\rightarrow {\cal U}_i$ projective, $1\leq i \leq n$.
We emphasize that no assumption is made on the characteristic of ${\cal X}$ in this theorem. A proper birational morphism $\pi$ with property (i) was called a resolution of singularities by Grothendieck [@EGA2](7.9.1), though more recent terminology (this article included) tends to require property (ii) as well. When property (iii) also holds, one says that $\pi$ is a good resolution or a log-resolution. In dimension three, the hard part is to prove (i). The following corollary gives a strong basis for the local study of three dimensional singularities via Resolution of Singularities:
\[completeresolution\] Let $A$ be a reduced complete Noetherian local ring of dimension three. Then ${\cal X}:=\mathrm{Spec}A$ has a good resolution of singularities which is projective.
Since the class of quasi-excellent schemes is stable by morphisms of finite type, theorem \[mainthm\] applies in particular to algebraic varieties and to arithmetical varieties over excellent Dedekind ring. Similarly, theorem \[mainthm\] applies to formal completions of affine Noetherian schemes along quasi-excellent subschemes. An important application of theorem \[mainthm\] is to constructing regular integral models of projective surfaces:
\[integralmodel\] Let ${\cal O}$ be an excellent Dedekind domain with quotient field $F$ and $\Sigma /F$ be a regular projective surface. There exists a proper and flat ${\cal O}$-scheme ${\cal X}$ with generic fiber ${\cal X}_F=\Sigma$ which is everywhere regular.
We remark at this point that the morphism $\pi$ in theorem \[mainthm\] is [*not*]{} constructed as a composition of [*Hironaka-permissible*]{} blowing ups, i.e. with regular centers along which the successive strict transforms of ${\cal X}$ are normally flat (Hironaka Resolution). Similarly, it is not even known if such $\pi$ can be obtained by blowing up an ideal sheaf ${\cal I}\subseteq {\cal O}_{\cal X}$ whose zero locus is $\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X}$, even when ${\cal X}$ is affine.
On the other hand, a certain local version of theorem \[mainthm\] is proved using only local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups in theorem \[luthm\] below. This fact appears to be a piece of evidence that Hironaka Resolution could be true for threefolds of nonzero residue characteristic, [*vid.*]{} also [@Co5][@Moh1] in positive characteristic. It is however restricted to certain hypersurface threefolds of multiplicity not bigger than the residue characteristic and the problem remains widely open even in dimension three.
In higher dimensions $n\geq 4$, the Resolution of Singularities conjecture for algebraic varieties over a field is considered in several recent papers [@BeV1][@BeV2][@BrV][@H7][@H8][@Ka][@KaM][@Moh2] but remains open to this date. Its local variant for valuations is also considered in [@ILO][@KnKu][@NSp][@T1][@T2][@Te] but remains equally unsolved. The case of arithmetical schemes has apparently attracted less attention.\
The second purpose of this article is to explore the Resolution of Singularities Conjecture as formulated by A. Grothendieck [@EGA2](7.9.6). The text includes numerous examples and prospective remarks aimed at preparing the ground for further research in higher dimension. For this purpose, we consider finite morphisms $\eta : \ {\cal X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$, where $S$ is an arbitrary excellent regular local ring. A test case for Resolution if $S$ has positive characteristic $p>0$ is when $\eta$ is purely inseparable; this was already recognized by O.Zariski [@Z6] p.88 and S. Abhyankar [@Ab5] and recently confirmed by M. Temkin’s purely inseparable Local Uniformization Theorem [@Te] theorem 1.3.2, [*vid.*]{} remark 1.3.5 (iii). In residue characteristic $p>0$, we also include Galois coverings of degree $p$ to this test case, [*vid.*]{} assumption (ii) below. The main step in proving theorem \[mainthm\] consists in proving:
\[luthm\] Let $(S,m_S,k)$ be an excellent regular local ring of dimension $n=3$, quotient field $K:=QF(S)$ and residue characteristic $\mathrm{char}k=p>0$. Let $$\label{eq101}
h:=X^p+f_1X^{p-1}+ \cdots +f_p \in S[X], \ f_1, \ldots , f_p \in S$$ be a reduced polynomial, ${\cal X} :=\mathrm{Spec}(S[X]/(h))$ and $L:=\mathrm{Tot}(S[X]/(h))$ be its total quotient ring. Assume that $h$ satisfies one of the following assumptions:
- $\mathrm{char}K=p$ and $f_1= \cdots =f_{p-1}=0$, or
- ${\cal X}$ is $G$-invariant, where $G:=\mathrm{Aut}_K(L)=\Z/p $.
Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L$ which is centered in $m_S$. There exists a composition of local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups: $$\label{eq102}
({\cal X}=:{\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r),$$ where $x_i \in {\cal X}_i$ is the center of $\mu$, such that $({\cal X}_r,x_r)$ is regular.
We develop an approach to the Resolution of Singularities Conjecture for hypersurface singularities defined by an equation (\[eq101\]) such that (i) or (ii) holds (condition [**(G)**]{} in the text) [*in any dimension*]{} $n:=\mathrm{dim}S\geq 1$. No other assumption on $S$ is required here than excellence of $S$; we do not even assume that $[k:k^p]<+\infty$ as suggested by A. Grothendieck [*loc.cit.*]{} An extra condition [**(E)**]{} on $\eta$ (definition \[conditionE\]) is also assumed: (i) the image in $\mathrm{Spec}S$ of the locus $\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}$ of multiplicity $p$, or (ii) the discriminant locus of ${\cal X}\rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$ is contained in a normal crossings divisor $E$; when $S$ has characteristic zero (so (ii) holds), $E$ has characteristic $p$. This condition [**(E)**]{} can be achieved by preparatory blowing ups in dimension three (corollary \[EEfait\]), applying known Resolution theorems for two-dimensional schemes.
The basic structure we work with is the triple $(S,h,E)$ thus defined. The main combinatorial data attached with the singularity ${\cal X}$ is a [*characteristic polyhedron*]{} [@H3][@CoP3]: $$\label{eq1021}
\Delta_S(h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)\subseteq \R^n_{\geq 0},$$ where $Z:=X-\phi$, $\phi \in S$, is a linear coordinate change minimizing this polyhedron (beginning of chapter 2).
Resolution for hypersurface singularities in residue characteristic zero uses two primary invariants: the multiplicity function $x \mapsto m(x)$ and the (normalized) slope function $x \mapsto \epsilon (x)$. The latter is not well-behaved in residue characteristic $p>0$: it is in general not a constructible function on ${\cal X}$; the pair $(m(x), \epsilon (x))$ in general increases after performing Hironaka-permissible blowing ups. This pair is denoted $(\nu , \tilde{\epsilon})$ for surfaces in [@H3] p.253.
In contrast, we construct a numerical function (definition \[defomega\]) $$\label{eq103}
\iota : {\cal X} \rightarrow \{1, \ldots ,p\}\times \N \times \{1, \geq 2\}: \ x \mapsto (m(x),\omega (x), \kappa (x))$$ which refines the multiplicity function at those points $x \in {\cal X}$ such that $m(x)=p$. This function is differential in nature and has “expected” properties: $\iota$ is invariant by regular base change $S \subset \tilde{S}$, $\tilde{S}$ excellent (theorem \[omegageomreg\]) and is constructible on ${\cal X}$ (corollary \[constructible\]).
The differential multiplicity $\omega (x)$ sprouts from Hironaka’s $\epsilon (x)$ if one requires invariance by smooth base change, [*vid.*]{} theorem \[omegageomreg\]. A difference takes place between (i) the purely inseparable case, and (ii) the Galois case considered in theorem \[luthm\]: eventually $\iota$ is uppersemicontinuous in case (i) but only constructible in general in case (ii), [*vid.*]{} corollary \[constructible\] and following example \[exampleconstructible\].
We develop a notion of permissible blowing up for $\iota$ refining that of H. Hironaka. Permissible centers ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$ are of two different kinds (definitions \[deffirstkind\] and \[defsecondkind\]), first kind being “$\epsilon$-constant”. They also extend to permissible centers under regular base change (theorem \[geomregpermis\]). The function $\iota$ is nonincreasing with respect to permissible blowing ups (theorem \[bupthm\]). Differential multiplicities and permissible centers have a similar behavior to adapted multiplicities and permissible blowing ups considered in Resolution of Singularities for differential forms and vector fields [@Se][@Ca1][@Ca2][@CaRSp][@MQPa][@Pa] and for toroidalization of morphisms [@Cu6][@Cu7].
Our notion of permissible blowing up also sprouts from Hironaka’s $\epsilon$-constant blowing ups if one requires invariance by smooth base change, [*vid.*]{} theorem \[geomregpermis\]. Permissibility at a point $y\in {\cal X}$ implies permissibility on a nonempty Zariski open subset ${\cal U}\subseteq {\cal Y}:=\overline{ \{y\}}$ (theorem \[Zariskiopen\]). Example \[examsecondkind\] shows the relevance of permissible blowing ups of the second kind whenever ${\cal X}$ has dimension $n\geq 3$. Section 3.3 includes further results intended to serve as a guideline for $n\geq 4$.
Beginning from chapter 4, dimension $n=3$ is assumed and we focus on the proof of theorem \[mainthm\]. Chapter 4 reduces the proof of theorem \[mainthm\] to that of theorem \[luthm\] and is adapted from [@CoP1] to our arbitrary characteristic context.
The last four chapters contain the technical bulk of this article. In chapter 5, the function $\kappa$ in (\[eq103\]) is refined with values in $\{1,2,3,4\}$. For fixed $\iota (x)$, we attach a generic projection from $\mathrm{Spec}S$ to dimension two. In contrast with residue characteristic zero, there is no obvious way to attach a projected two-dimensional structure similar to $(S,h,E)$. This difficulty (no reasonable notion of “maximal contact”) seems to be inherent to residue characteristic $p>0$ and has proved to be quite a match. Our method consists in projecting only the combinatorial structure provided by the characteristic polyhedron given in (\[eq1021\]), say: $$\label{eq106}
\mathbf{p}_2: \ \lbrack \Delta_S(h;u_1, u_2 , v;Z)\subseteq \R^3_{\geq 0}\rbrack \mapsto
\lbrack \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)\subseteq \R^2_{\geq 0}\rbrack .$$ Here, $\mathbf{p}_2$ is a linear projection and $v:=u_3-\phi_2$, $\phi_2 \in S$, is a linear coordinate change minimizing the image polygon. New combinatorial invariants are associated to the right-hand side polygon; their control under permissible blowing ups eventually leads to a smaller value $\iota (x')<\iota (x)$. This is the content of the projection theorem \[projthm\] from which theorem \[luthm\] follows easily by induction on $\iota (x)$ (corollary \[projthmcor\]). The strategy follows that of [@CoP2] but also contains very substantial improvements:
- the sequence (\[eq102\]) which is constructed involves Hironaka-permissible blowing ups only, in contrast with [@CoP2]. It does [*not*]{} depend on the given valuation $\mu$ and can be considered as a version of Hironaka’s Local Control (Hironaka’s A/B Game, in residue characteristic zero) for equations (\[eq101\]). Precise statements use the notion of independent sequence (definition \[indepseq\]) and theorem \[projthm\] is stated in these terms. The authors hope that theorem \[luthm\] could be extended to a Resolution of Singularities $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$, $\pi$ a composition of Hironaka-permissible (global) blowing ups (and with $G$-invariant centers under assumption (ii)).
- all resolution invariants used in this text are defined in terms of initial form polynomials $\mathrm{in}_\sigma h$ w.r.t. certain faces $\sigma$ of the characteristic polyhedron attached to $h$. Furthermore, these initial form polynomials provide control for the invariants under blowing up. These facts are the main reason why our proof is characteristic free: $\mathrm{in}_\sigma h$ is a polynomial with coefficients in the residue field $k(x)$. They are also the reason why the extra assumption $[k(x):k(x)^p]<+\infty$ is not required in the proof.
- the role played by small residue characteristics is very minor (essentially the extra twist in lemma \[kappa2fin25\] for $p=2$). Difficulties caused by nonperfect residue fields $k(x)$ appear mostly technical in nature, because one is led to carry along (absolute) $p$-bases $(\lambda_l)_{l\in \Lambda_0}$ in the construction (section 2.4). Nontrivial issues are related to regular base change (proposition \[Deltageomreg\], theorem \[omegageomreg\] and theorem \[geomregpermis\]), the Hilbert-Samuel stratum (proposition \[conedirectrix\]) and Zariski closure of formal centers (proposition \[permisarc\]) in arbitrary dimension $n\geq 1$. For $n=3$, [*vid.*]{} remark \[ridgedimthree\], proposition \[tausup2\] and section 7.5; real difficulties come from lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3)(3’) for inseparable extensions of degree $d=p=2$.
The proof of theorem \[projthm\] is spread along chapters 6 ($\kappa (x)=1$), 7 ($\kappa (x)=2$), 8 and 9 ($\kappa (x)=3,4$). Chapter 9 uses blowing ups along Hironaka-permissible curves which are not necessarily of the first or second kind. The authors do not know if such blowing ups are required in general in order to achieve Resolution (in contrast with permissible blowing ups of the second kind, [*vid.*]{} example \[examsecondkind\]). They do not appear in [@Co5].\
Quoting H. Hironaka’s euphemism from [@H3] p.254: “in the case of dimension 3 or more, the behavior of \[the characteristic polyhedron\] appears to be far more complicated and has not yet been fully investigated \[...\] a little experiments lead us to an aphorism: Reduction of singularities is sharpening of polyhedra.”
When the hypersurface singularity ${\cal X}$ has dimension 3 and satisfies the assumptions of theorem \[luthm\], our results give a precise content to this aphorism:
- the numerical character $\iota (x)=(m(x), \omega (x),\kappa (x))$ is attached to the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h$ w.r.t. the initial face of the characteristic polyhedron;
- permissible blowing ups produce a smaller value $\iota (x')$, or a monic form for the new initial $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'$, with $(m(x'),\omega (x'))=(m(x),\omega (x))$. This monic form corresponds to a certain vertex $\mathbf{v}'$ of the characteristic polyhedron;
- projecting from $\mathbf{v}'$ produces a characteristic [*polygon*]{} with numerical character $\gamma (x')\in \N$;
- further Hironaka-permissible blowing ups either produce a smaller value $\iota (x'')<\iota (x)$, or achieve $$\iota (x'')=\iota (x'), \ \mathrm{in}_{m_{S''}}h'' \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{monic} \
\mathrm{form} \ \mathrm{with} \ \gamma (x'')<\gamma (x').$$
[*Acknowledgement:*]{} the authors acknowledge many stimulating discussions held during the “Fall School on Resolution of Threefolds in Positive Characteristic”, University of Regensburg, October 1-11/2013. They hereby thank H. Kawanoue, S. Perlega, S. Saito, M. Spivakovsky, A. Voitovitch, A. Weber and J. W[ł]{}odarczyk for numerous questions and suggestions, with very special thanks to the organizers U. Jannsen and B. Schober.
Overview of the content and proof of theorem \[mainthm\].
---------------------------------------------------------
This article is organized as follows: in chapter 2, we introduce our main tool which is the Hironaka Characteristic Polyhedron [@H3] (definition \[defDelta\]). This is performed for any polynomial equation $$h:=X^m+f_{1,X}X^{m-1}+ \cdots +f_{m,X} \in S[X], \ f_{1,X}, \ldots , f_{m,X} \in S$$ where $S$ is an excellent regular local ring of dimension $n\geq 1$.
Our notation $\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)$ for polyhedra (definition \[defDelta\]) slightly differs from Hironaka’s because we focus our attention on the [*variation*]{} of the characteristic polyhedron along regular subschemes $$W:=(\{u_j\}_{j\in J})\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}S, \ J\subseteq \{1,\ldots ,n\}.$$ To a given face $\sigma = \sigma_\alpha$ defined by a weight vector $\alpha \in \R^n_{\geq 0}$, an initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ is attached (definition \[definh\]). Proposition \[Deltaalg\] is imported from [@CoP3] and is an essential tool for studying these variations along $W$. It states that $\Delta_S(h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;X)\subseteq \R^n_{\geq 0}$ can be made minimal by a suitable linear coordinate change $Z:=X-\phi$, $\phi \in S$. Denote $${\cal X}:=\mathrm{Spec}(S[Z]/(h)), \ \eta : {\cal X} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S.$$
If $x\in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ is a point of multiplicity $m(x)=m$, then $$\eta^{-1}(m_S)=\{x\}, \ k(x)=S/m_S.$$ Hironaka’s slope for $\Delta_S (h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ is denoted by $\delta (x)\geq 1$ when this polyhedron is minimal (proposition \[deltainv\] and definition \[defdelta\]).
Assume that a reduced normal crossings divisor $$\label{eq107}
E=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e)\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}S$$ is specified. Well adapted coordinates $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ are coordinates such that (\[eq107\]) holds and $\Delta_S (h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ is minimal (definition \[defwelladapted\]). Relevant numerical data are defined for well adapted coordinates only. For such coordinates, $h$ has weights $$d_j:=\min\{x_j : (x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\in \Delta_S (h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)\}, \ 1 \leq j \leq e.$$ When $m=p$, assumptions (i) or (ii) of theorem \[luthm\] (condition [**(G)**]{} in the text) and [**(E)**]{} (definition \[conditionE\]) imply that $$\label{eq108}
p\delta (x), \ H_j:=pd_j \in \N \ (\mathrm{corollary} \ \ref{cordeltaint})$$ and provide the structure theorem \[initform\] for the initial form polynomials $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ with respect to its compact faces (definition \[definh\]). This fact allows us to reproduce part of the equicharacteristic $p>0$ constructions used in [@CoP2]. Note that $E$ is always assumed to be equicharacteristic $p>0$ (definition \[conditionE\]).
For example when $\alpha =\mathbf{1}:=(1, \ldots ,1)$, $\sigma_\mathbf{1}$ is the [*initial face*]{} of the polyhedron $\Delta_S (h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$; the corresponding homogeneous polynomial $$\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{1}} h \in G(m_S)[Z], \ G(m_S):=\mathrm{gr}_{m_S}S \simeq k(x)[U_1,\ldots ,U_n]$$ (denoted by $\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h$ in the text) has degree $p\delta (x)$, setting $\mathrm{deg}Z:=\delta (x)$. Theorem \[initform\] can be stated as follows: assume that $\Delta_S (h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ is [*not*]{} an orthant with vertex in $\R^e$ ($\epsilon (x)\neq 0$ in the text); then $$\label{eq104}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h=Z^p -G^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z}\in G(m_S)[Z].$$ Let $H:=\prod_{j=1}^eU_j^{H_j}\in G(m_S)$ with notations as in (\[eq108\]). We denote (definition \[defepsilon\]): $$\epsilon (x):=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h)- \mathrm{deg}H= p\delta (x)- \sum_{j=1}^eH_j \in \N.$$
This leads us to define the function $\iota$ in (\[eq103\]) (definition \[defomega\]). The function $\omega$ is a differential version of Hironaka’s $\epsilon$-function [@H3] and requires introducing a differential structure $(S,h,E)$ adapted to the normal crossings divisor $E \subset \mathrm{Spec}S$ (section 2.4). This is done by considering the $G(m_S)$-module $\Omega^1_{G(m_S)/\F_p} (\log U_1 \cdots U_e)$ of absolute logarithmic differentials and its dual space of derivatives ${\cal D}(m_S)$. The derivatives $$\label{eq109}
H^{-1}{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial Z}, \ \{H^{-1}D\}_{D \in {\cal D}(m_S)}$$ act on $\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h$. If $G=0$, we simply let $\kappa (x)\geq 2$, [*vid.*]{} (\[eq103\]), and $$\label{eq110}
\omega (x) :=\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\epsilon (x) \hfill{}& \mathrm{if} \ {\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}=0, \ e+1 \leq j \leq n \\
& \\
\epsilon (x)-1 & \mathrm{otherwise} \hfill{} \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ If $G\neq 0$, the definition is more delicate but only relies on elementary linear algebra. In any case, we have $$\label{eq111}
(\omega (x)=\epsilon (x), \ \kappa (x)=1) \ \mathrm{or} \
(\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1, \ \kappa (x)\geq 2) .$$
Another important notion is that of the affine cone $\mathrm{Max}(x)$ and affine space $\mathrm{Dir}(x)$ (definition \[deftauprime\]). These are respectively the stratum and directrix of the space of forms of degree $\omega (x)$ obtained by applying those derivatives in (\[eq109\]). Once again, the definition is more delicate when $G\neq 0$ but elementary in nature. For applications to dimension three, we always have $\mathrm{Max}(x)=\mathrm{Dir}(x)$, [*vid.*]{} remark \[ridgedimthree\].
When $\omega (x)=0$ in (\[eq103\]), a simple combinatorial blowing up algorithm (similar to residue characteristic zero) makes the value of the multiplicity function smaller than $p$ at all points of the blown up space mapping to $x$ (theorem \[omegazero\]). There remains to deal with points $x \in {\cal X}$ such that $m(x)=p$, $\omega (x)>0$.
Chapter 3 develops a notion of permissible blowing up $\pi : {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ which refines that of H. Hironaka. Roughly speaking, a Hironaka permissible center ${\cal Y}\subset {\cal X}$ is permissible in our sense if ${\cal X}$ is “differentially equimultiple" along ${\cal Y}$ (definition \[deffirstkind\] and definition \[defsecondkind\]). The notion is somewhat subtle but has good properties, the main result being theorem \[bupthm\]: $\iota$ is nonincreasing along permissible blowing ups. Furthermore, $\iota$ decreases except possibly at exceptional points $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$ belonging to some embedded projective cone $$PC(x,{\cal Y})\subset \pi^{-1}(x)$$ given in definition \[defcone\]. The cone $PC(x,{\cal Y})$ is the projectivization of a certain cone containing $\mathrm{Max}(x)$ and coincides with it when $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$. We also mention:
- persistence of permissibility under regular base change (theorem \[geomregpermis\]);
- the strict transform ${\cal Z}'\subset {\cal X}'$ of a permissible center ${\cal Z}\subset {\cal X}$ under a permissible blowing up $\pi$ with center ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal Z}$ is permissible (theorem \[transfstricte\]);
- the support of a formal arc can be made permissible at its special point by performing permissible blowing ups (proposition \[permisarc\]);
- Hironaka permissible centers are permissible in a dense open subset of their support (theorem \[Zariskiopen\]).
Example \[exampermisarc\] points out a substantial difference between permissibility for $\iota$ and Hironaka-permissibility when $n\geq 4$. It states that the support ${\cal Z}\subseteq {\cal X}$ of a formal arc cannot in general be made permissible for $\iota$ at its special point $x$ by iterated quadratic transforms. This phenomenon also occurs for $n=3$ but only for $\omega (x)=1$; it is then easily dealt with.
The section concludes with the constructibility on ${\cal X}$ of the function $\iota$ (corollary \[constructible\]). Dimension $n=3$ is assumed in the next chapters.
Chapter 4 contains what can be deduced from known Embedded Resolution results in excellent regular threefolds. We also adapt some of the equal characteristic $p>0$ material from [@CoP1] to our arbitrary characteristic context and prove:
- reduction of theorem \[mainthm\] to its Local Uniformization form along valuations;
- reduction of Local Uniformization to theorem \[luthm\];
- the normal crossings condition [**(E)**]{} can be achieved (corollary \[EEfait\]).
Chapter 5 collects together all previous results. A projection number $\kappa (x)\in \{1,2,3,4\}$ (definition \[defkappa\]) is associated to a singular point $x \in {\cal X}$ such that $m(x)=p$, $\omega (x)>0$. This function basically expresses the transverseness or tangency of the initial form (\[eq104\]) of the characteristic polyhedron with respect to the initial face. For convenience of the reader, we give [*a sample*]{} of the main types of initial form polynomials occurring when $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$; we take $\omega (x)>0$, $\lambda \in k(x)$ and all exponents are integers in these formul[æ]{}. Furthermore, we have $\lambda \neq 0$, $\lambda \not \in k(x)^p$ if $$(d_1,\omega (x)/p) \in \N^2 \ (\mathrm{resp.}\ \mathrm{if} \ d_1 +\omega (x)/p \in \N)$$ in the second (resp. fifth) formula: $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
Z^p -\left (\lambda U_1^{d_1+{\omega (x) \over p}}\right )^{p-1}Z & & \kappa (x)=1 \\
& & \\
Z^p + \lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_3^{\omega (x)} \hfill{}& \omega (x)\equiv 0 \mathrm{mod}p & \kappa (x)=2 \\
& & \\
Z^p + \lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_2U_3^{\omega (x)} \hfill{}& \omega (x)\equiv 0 \mathrm{mod}p & \kappa (x)=2 \\
& & \\
Z^p + \lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_3^{1+\omega (x)} \hfill{}& 1+\omega (x)\not \equiv 0 \mathrm{mod}p & \kappa (x)=3\\
& & \\
Z^p + \lambda U_1^{pd_1+\omega (x)} \hfill{}& & \kappa (x)=4\\
& & \\
Z^p + \lambda U_1^{pd_1+\omega (x)}U_2 \hfill{}& & \kappa (x)=4 \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
The complete definition of $\kappa (x)$ takes into account all possible $\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h$ and $E$ which may occur. The simpler forms listed above are “monic forms” in the sense that a certain monomial computing $\omega (x)$ occurs in $\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h$. We now explain these definitions and the hierarchy between them: for fixed $\omega (x)$, the singularity is considered as milder as $\kappa (x)$ decreases. To begin with, $\omega (x)$ is computed from $\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h$ by applying certain derivatives (\[eq109\])-(\[eq111\]).
$\bullet$ when this derivative is transverse to the base $\mathrm{Spec}S$, i.e. applying $H^{-1}{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial Z}$ in (\[eq109\]), we set $\kappa (x)=1$; otherwise $\kappa (x)\geq 2$.
$\bullet$ when $\kappa (x)\geq 2$, we set $\kappa (x)=4$ if the [*directrix*]{} affine space $\mathrm{Dir}(x)$ has equations in $U_1, \ldots ,U_e$, i.e. in those coordinates corresponding to $E$. Otherwise, $\mathrm{Dir}(x)$ has an equation which is transverse to $E$, say $U_3=0$ with $e=1$ or $e=2$. The very transverse case $\kappa (x)=2$ means that a derivative transverse to $U_3$ is involved in (\[eq109\]), i.e. a derivative w.r.t. another variable $U_1,U_2$ or to a constant in $k(x)$: $$D=H^{-1}U_1{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_1},
\ D=H^{-1}{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_2} \ (e=1),
\ \mathrm{or} \ D=H^{-1}{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \lambda}.$$
Theorem \[projthm\] states that $\iota (x)$ can be made smaller by performing local Hironaka permissible blowing ups. Theorem \[luthm\] then follows easily by descending induction on $\iota (x)$.\
The proof of theorem \[projthm\] is very long and intricate. For $\kappa (x)=1$ (resp. $2,3,4$), the proof is given in corollary \[projthmkappa1\] (resp. theorem \[proofkkappa2\], theorem \[proofkappa34\], [*ibid.*]{}). Three main phenomena are responsible for these intricacies:
- no obvious way shows up for reducing theorem \[projthm\] for $(S,h,E)$ to some statement on the [*coefficients*]{} of the polynomial $h$. When this is possible (for $\kappa (x)=1$ and in part for $\kappa (x)=3,4$), the proofs are notably simplified. This is done in section 6 where some weak form of maximal contact with a component of $E$ is assumed for $\iota$.
- reducing theorem \[projthm\] to the “monic forms” corresponding to $\kappa (x)$ is achieved by a casuistic analysis which seems for the moment out of reach in higher dimensions. Sections 7.2, 8.3 and part of 8.1, 8.2 are concerned with this problem.
- blowing up a monic form along a permissible center (e.g. a closed point) may lead to a bigger value $\iota (x')=(p,\omega (x),4)>\iota (x)$ when $\kappa (x)=2,3$. These situations are also dealt with by a casuistic analysis whose extension to higher dimensions seems out of reach. Section 7.1 and part of 8.1, 8.2 are concerned with this problem.
Chapter 6 proves theorem \[projthm\] for sequences of permissible blowing ups with centers lying inside a fixed irreducible component of $E$. This proves theorem \[projthm\] in the case $\kappa (x)=1$ and prepares the ground in the cases $\kappa (x)=3,4$. The proof is similar to that of Resolution for excellent surfaces [@H3][@Co2][@Co3], but does not follow from it.
Chapter 7 proves theorem \[projthm\] when $\kappa (x)=2$. The above phenomenon (iii) is studied in section 7.1. The proofs are essentially the same as in [@CoP2] chapter 2.[**II**]{} except that all statements and proofs are phrased only in terms of initial form polynomials $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ w.r.t. certain faces $\sigma_\alpha$ of $\Delta_S(h;u_1, u_2 ,u_3;Z)$. Section 7.2 defines the “monic forms” (definition \[\*kappadeux\]) and deals with the above phenomenon (ii) in proposition \[redto\*\].
No obvious reduction to Resolution for surfaces is available (phenomenon (i)). The proof then follows our strategy as indicated at the end of the previous section (3) and (4). Section 7.3 builds up the projected polygon $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)$ of (\[eq106\]) (theorem \[well2prepared\]) and defines secondary numerical invariants (definition \[definvariants2\]). The main invariant is denoted by $\gamma (x)\in \N$. Two main difficulties arise here: rationality over $S$ (i.e. $v$ can be chosen in $S$ and not only in $\hat{S}$), and independence of choices of coordinates. Section 7.4 studies the behavior of the invariants under blowing up a closed point. Finally, section 7.5 proves that permissible blowing ups produce some point $x'$ with $\iota (x')\leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ (theorem \[proofkkappa2\]). The algorithm blows up permissible curves only when $\gamma (x)=0,1$.
Chapters 8 and 9 prove theorem \[projthm\] for $\kappa (x)=3,4$. Since only Hironaka-permissible centers are used, this chapter contains many new features in comparison with the corresponding [@CoP2] chapter 3.[**II**]{}. Definition \[\*\*\] states what is required of the “monic forms”, called respectively (\*\*) ($\kappa (x)=3,4$) and (T\*\*) ($\kappa (x)=4$). Phenomenon (iii) seems to be untractable here and is the reason for these stronger conditions imposed on $h$. Reduction to these monic forms is harder than in chapter 7 and is spread along sections 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 (propositions \[redto\*\*3\] and \[redto\*\*4\]).
Section 9.2 reduces a monic form (T\*\*) to (\*\*) or to $\kappa (x)\leq 2$ (proposition \[redto\*\*casT\*\*\]). The proof is an application of theorem \[contactmaxFIN\] since a weak form of maximal contact with a component of $E$ holds for this reduction. Section 9.3 finally proves that monic forms (\*\*) can be reduced to $\kappa (x)\leq 2$ (proposition \[END\]). When $\omega (x)\geq p$, this reduction is achieved by blowing up along Hironaka-permissible curves, not necessarily permissible of the first or second kind, but contained in the locus $$\Omega_+({\cal X}):=\{y\in {\cal X} : \omega (y)>0\}.$$ In order to ensure Hironaka-permissibility, the condition $E=\eta (\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X})$ is required (section 9.3.1, condition ([**E’**]{}) in the text). Section 9.3.2 builds up the projected polygon $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)$ (definition \[kappa3preparation\] and proposition \[kappa3prepatot\]) and defines secondary numerical invariants (definition \[kappa3invariants\]). Said blowing ups along Hironaka-permissible curves are performed mostly in propositions \[redto3\*\*casii\] and \[\*\*gamma\].
Adapted structure and primary invariants.
=========================================
All along this article, we will denote by $S$ a regular local ring of arbitrary dimension $n\geq 1$, and by $(u_1, \ldots,
u_n)$ a regular system of parameters (r.s.p. for short) of $S$. Its maximal ideal is denoted by $m_S:=(u_1, \ldots,u_n)$ and its formal completion w.r.t. $m_S$ by $\hat{S}$. The order function $\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}$ on $S$ is defined by: $$\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}f:=\sup \{n \in \N : f\in m_S^n\}\in \N \cup \{+ \infty\}, \ f \in S.$$ This order function extends to a discrete valuation on the quotient field $K:=QF (S)$ of $S$.
We will assume that $\mathrm{char}(S/m_S)>0$ except for the next three sections. We also assume that $S$ is [*excellent*]{} beginning from proposition \[Deltaalg\] on. The basic reference for excellent rings is [@EGA2] 7.8 and 7.9. A useful [*compendium*]{} is [@Ma] pp. 255-260; some extensions and examples of non excellent regular local rings can be found in [@ILO] pp. 7-22. Let $$\label{eq201}
h:=X^m+f_{1,X}X^{m-1}+ \cdots +f_{m,X} \in S[X], \ f_{1,X}, \ldots ,
f_{m,X} \in S$$ be a unitary polynomial of degree $m\geq 2$. We denote by $$\label{eq202}
{\cal X}:= \mathrm{Spec}(S[X]/(h)) \ \mathrm{and} \ \eta: \ {\cal X} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$$ respectively the corresponding hypersurface and induced projection.
The total ring of fractions ${\cal X}$ is denoted by $L:=\mathrm{Tot}(S[X]/(h))$. Given a point $y \in {\cal X}$, its residue field is denoted by $k(y)$ and its multiplicity by $m(y)$. Explicitly, we have: $$m(y)=\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S[X]_y}}h.$$ The singular locus of ${\cal X}$ is denoted by : $$\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X}=\{y \in {\cal X} : m(y)\geq 2\}.$$ The [*locus of multiplicity*]{} $m$ of ${\cal X}$ is viewed as an embedded reduced subscheme of ${\cal X}$: $$\mathrm{Sing}_m {\cal X}:=\{ y \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[X]): \mathrm{ord}_{m_{S[X]_y}}h =m\}\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}{\cal X}.$$ Both of $\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X}$ and $\mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}$ are proper closed subsets of ${\cal X}$ if $S$ is excellent.\
Given a “linear change of" (one also says “translation on") the $X$-coordinate, say $X':=X-\phi$, $\phi \in \hat{S}$, we still denote by $$h={X'}^m+f_{1,X'}{X'}^{m-1}+ \cdots +f_{m,X'}\in \hat{S}[X']$$ the corresponding expansion of $h(X'+\phi)$, $f_{1,X'}, \ldots , f_{m,X'} \in \hat{S}$. The explicit formula for this change of coordinate is : $$\label{eq2011}
f_{i,X'}= \begin{pmatrix}
m \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}
\phi^i +\sum_{j=1}^i{ \begin{pmatrix}
m -j\\
i-j \\
\end{pmatrix}
f_{j,X}\phi^{i-j}}, \ 1 \leq i \leq m.$$
Given $\phi \in S$ and a rational number $d \leq
\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}\phi$, we denote by $\mathrm{cl}_d\phi$ the [*initial form*]{} of $\phi$ in $\mathrm{gr}_{m_S}S \simeq S/m_S
[U_1,\ldots,U_n]$ (resp. the null form) if $d =
\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}\phi$ (resp. otherwise). Similarly, if $I
\subseteq S$ and $d \leq \mathrm{ord}_{m_S}I$, we denote $$\mathrm{cl}_d I:= \mathrm{Vect}(\{\mathrm{cl}_d\phi \}_{\phi \in
I})\subseteq S/m_S [U_1,\ldots,U_n]_d.$$
Suppose that a weight vector $\alpha =(\alpha_1 , \ldots , \alpha_n)\in {\R}^n_{\geq 0}$ is given. Let $\Gamma_\alpha: =\Z \alpha_1 + \cdots + \Z \alpha_n \subset \R$. For $\mathbf{x}=(x_1, \ldots , x_n) \in {\R}^n_{\geq 0}$, denote $$\mid \mathbf{x} \mid_\alpha :=\alpha_1 x_1+ \cdots + \alpha_n x_n \in (\Gamma_\alpha )_{\geq 0} .$$ An associated valuation $\mu_\alpha$ of $K$ is defined by setting for $f \in S$, $f \neq 0$: $$\mu_\alpha (f):= \mathrm{max}\{ a \in \Gamma_\alpha : f \in
I_\alpha (a):=(\{u_1^{x_1} \cdots u_n^{x_n} : \mid \mathbf{x} \mid_\alpha \geq a\})\}.$$ It easily follows from the Noetherianity of $S$ that $\mu_\alpha (f)$ is well defined. One sets $$\mu_\alpha (f/g):= \mu_\alpha (f)- \mu_\alpha (g) \ \mathrm{for} \ f, g \in S, fg\neq 0.$$ Note that $\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}=\mu_\mathbf{1}$, where $\mathbf{1}= (1, 1 , \ldots ,1)\in {\R}^n_{> 0}$. We will systematically use the graded ring $\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$ of $S$ w.r.t. $\mu_\alpha$: $$\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S \simeq S /(\{u_i : \alpha_i >0\}) [\{U_i : \alpha_i>0\}].$$ If $a \in \Gamma_\alpha$ and $\phi \in S$ is given with $a \leq \mu_\alpha (\phi )$, its initial form $\mathrm{cl}_{\alpha , a}\phi \in \mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$ is defined as before. Similarly, if $I
\subset S$ and $a \leq \mu_\alpha (I)$, we associate a $(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)_0$-module denoted by $$\mathrm{cl}_{\alpha , a} I:=\mathrm{Span}(\{\mathrm{cl}_{\alpha , a}\phi \}_{\phi \in
I})\subseteq (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)_a .$$
Characteristic polyhedron and first invariants.
-----------------------------------------------
Given an equation $h \in S[X]$ (\[eq201\]) and a r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ of $S$, there is an associated Newton polyhedron w.r.t.the variables $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n,X)$: $$NP (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;X) \subseteq \R^{n+1}_{\geq 0}.$$ Let $P:=(0, \ldots ,0,1) \in \R^{n+1}_{\geq 0}$, so $ P \in {1 \over m}NP (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;X)$, and $$\mathbf{p}: \R^{n+1} \ \backslash \{P\} \longrightarrow \R^{n}$$ be the projection on the $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$-space. We define a polyhedron by: $$\Delta_S (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;X):=\mathbf{p}\left ({1 \over m}NP (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;X) \cap \{x_{n+1}<1\}\right )
\subseteq {\R}^n_{\geq 0}.$$ The [*characteristic polyhedron*]{} is introduced in a more general context in [@H3]. In our setting, it consists in minimizing $\Delta_S (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;X')$ over all linear changes of coordinates $X'=X-\phi$, $\phi \in \hat{S}$ (\[eq2011\]).
In this section, we review and adapt notations to fit our purposes. A fundamental algebraicity result is borrowed from [@CoP3] in proposition \[Deltaalg\] below. Then some of the invariance properties of the characteristic polyhedron under base change are listed.\
Let $S$ and $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ be fixed as above. Given a subset $J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$, we denote by $$I_J:=(\{u_j\}_{j\in J})\subset S \ \mathrm{and} \ \overline{S}^J:=S/I_J.$$ We also use the notation $s^J \in \mathrm{Spec}S$ to denote the point $s^J=I_J$, reserving the idealistic notation $I_J$ to commutative algebraic formul[æ]{}.
\[monomexp\] Let $f \in S$. There exists a unique finite set $\mathbf{S}^J(f)\subset \N^J$ such that the following holds:
- the set of monomials $\{\prod_{j\in J}u_j^{a_j} : \mathbf{a}=(\{a_j\}_{j\in J})
\in \mathbf{S}^J (f) \}$ forms a minimal system of generators of the ideal $$I(f):= \left (\left \{\prod_{j\in J}u_j^{a_j} : \mathbf{a}=(\{a_j\}_{j\in J}) \in \mathbf{S}^J (f)
\right \}\right );$$
- there is an expansion $$\label{eq2036}
f=\sum_{\mathbf{a}\in \mathbf{S}^J (f)}\gamma(f,\mathbf{a}) \prod_{j\in J}u_j^{a_j}\in S,
\ \gamma(f,\mathbf{a})\in S$$ such that $\gamma(f,\mathbf{a})\not \in I_J$ for every $\mathbf{a}\in \mathbf{S}^J(f)$.
Let $\widehat{S}^J$ be the formal completion of $S$ [*along*]{} $I_J$. Since $I_J \subseteq m_S$, $\widehat{S}^J$ is faithfully flat over $S$ [@Ma] theorem 8.14(3). Thus $I\widehat{S}^J \cap S=I$ for any ideal $I \subseteq S$, in particular for any monomial ideal in $\{u_j\}_{j\in J}$. One deduces that property (i) and existence of an expansion (\[eq2036\]) descend from $\widehat{S}^J$ to $S$.
Suppose that an expansion (\[eq2036\]) exists for a given $\mathbf{S}^J (f)$ satisfying (i). Each $S/I_J^{n+1}$, $n\geq 0$ has a structure of free $\overline{S}^J$-module with basis $$\left \{\prod_{j\in J}u_j^{a_j} : \mathbf{a}=(\{a_j\}_{j\in J}) \ \mathrm{and} \ \sum_{j\in J}a_j \leq n \right \}.$$
Therefore the class $\gamma(f,\mathbf{a})+I_J$ is independent of the chosen expansion (\[eq2036\]) by the minimality property in (i). This proves that the property $\gamma(f,\mathbf{a})\not \in I_J$ in (ii) also descends from $\widehat{S}^J$ to $S$. In other terms, we may assume that $S$ is $I_J$-adically complete.
Independent monomial generators in $S/I_J^n$ lift to independent monomial generators in $S/I_J^{n+1}$ for every $n \geq 1$. One easily deduces the existence of an expansion (ii) satisfying (i) for some finite subset $\mathbf{S}^J(f)\subset \N^J$, since $S$ is $I_J$-adically complete and Noetherian.
Uniqueness of $\mathbf{S}^J(f)$ is also checked by taking images in $S/I_J^{n+1}$ for some $n>>0$.
\[defDelta\]**(Associated Polyhedron).** Given an equation $h\in S[X]$ (\[eq201\]) and $J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$, we define a rational polyhedron: $$\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X):=\mathrm{Conv} \left ( \bigcup_{i=1}^m
\bigcup_{\mathbf{a}\in \mathbf{S}^J (f_{i,X})}
\left \{{\mathbf{a} \over i} + {\R}^J_{\geq 0}\right \} \right )\subseteq \R^J_{\geq 0}.$$
\[definh\]**(Initial forms).** Let $\alpha =(\{\alpha_j\}_{j \in J})\in {\R}^J_{> 0}$ be a weight vector. We define $$\delta_\alpha (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X):=
\mathrm{min}\{ \mid \mathbf{x} \mid_\alpha : \mathbf{x} \in \Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)\}.$$
The weight vector defines a [*compact face*]{} $\sigma_\alpha$ of $\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)$ by: $$\sigma_\alpha := \{ \mathbf{x} \in \Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X) : \
\mid \mathbf{x} \mid_\alpha =\delta_\alpha (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)\}.$$
The [*initial form*]{} $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ of $h$ w.r.t. $\alpha$ is the polynomial $$\label{eq2035}
\mathrm{in}_\alpha h:=X^m + \sum_{i=1}^mF_{i,X,\alpha} X^{m-i} \in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S) [X],$$ where $$F_{i,X,\alpha}:= \sum_{\mathbf{x}\in \sigma_\alpha}{\overline{\gamma} (f_{i,X},i\mathbf{x}) U^{i\mathbf{x}}},$$ and bars denotes images in $(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)_0=\overline{S}^J$, i.e. $$\overline{\gamma} (f_{i,X},i\mathbf{x}):= \mathrm{cl}_{\alpha , 0}\gamma (f_{i,X},i\mathbf{x})\in
(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)_0=\overline{S}^J .$$ By convention, we take $\overline{\gamma} (f_{i,X},i\mathbf{x})=0$ in these formul[æ]{} whenever $i\mathbf{x} \not \in \mathbf{S}^J (f_{i,X})$.
Any vertex of $\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)$ has coordinates in ${1 \over m!}\N$. We have: $$\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X) = \emptyset \Leftrightarrow h = X^m.$$
It is worth emphasizing that the polynomial $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ only depends on the face $\sigma_\alpha $ and not on the specific weight vector $\alpha$ defining it. Given $h$ and $\alpha$, the grading of $\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$ can be extended to $(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S) [X]$ by setting: $$\mathrm{deg}X:= \delta_\alpha (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X).$$ Then $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ is a [*homogeneous*]{} polynomial of degree $m\delta_\alpha (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)$ for this grading.
We now briefly review the behaviour of polyhedra and initial forms under basic operations such as formal completion, localization and projection onto a regular subscheme. The case of regular local morphisms $S \subset \tilde{S}$, $\tilde{S}$ excellent will be considered further on.\
With notations as above, let $\alpha \in {\R}^J_{> 0}$ be a weight vector and $$\sigma_\alpha \subset \Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X), \ \mathrm{in}_\alpha h \in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S) [X].$$
[*Formal Completion:*]{} $\hat{S}$ is excellent [@EGA2] theorem 7.8.3(iii). Proposition \[monomexp\] and definition \[defDelta\] give an identification $$\label{eq2034}
\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)=\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X).$$ This identification preserves the initial form $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h $ for each weight vector $\alpha$ via the inclusion $ \mathrm{gr}_\alpha S \subseteq \mathrm{gr}_\alpha \hat{S} \simeq \mathrm{gr}_\alpha S \otimes_S \hat{S}$.
[*Localization:*]{} the regular local ring $S_{s^J}$ is excellent if $S$ is excellent [@EGA2] theorem 7.4.4. Similarly, the identifications $$\label{eq2031}
\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X) = \Delta_{S_{s^J}}(h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)$$ also preserve the initial form $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h $ (\[eq2035\]) via the inclusion $$\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S\subseteq \mathrm{gr}_\alpha S_{s^J} \simeq
(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S) \otimes_S QF(\overline{S}^J).$$
[*Projection:*]{} let $J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$ and denote by $J':= \{1, \ldots ,n\} \backslash J$ its complement. The regular local ring $\overline{S}^J$ is excellent if $S$ is excellent. A r.s.p. of $\overline{S}^J$ is $(\{\overline{u}_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'})$, where bars denote images in $\overline{S}^J$. With notations as above, we have: $$\label{eq2032}
\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)=\mathrm{pr}^J \Delta_S (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;X),$$ where $\mathrm{pr}^J: \R^n \rightarrow \R^J, \ \mathbf{x} \mapsto \mathbf{y}=(\{x_j\}_{j\in J})$ denotes the projection. Let $$f_{i,X}=\sum_{\mathbf{a}\in \mathbf{S}(f_{i,X})}\gamma(f_{i,X},\mathbf{a}){u_1^{a_1} \cdots u_n^{a_n}}\in S,$$ be an expansion (\[eq2036\]) (for the subset $\{1, \ldots ,n\}$, where $\mathbf{S}(f_{i,X})$ here stands for $\mathbf{S}^{\{1, \ldots ,n\}}(f_{i,X})$), $1 \leq i \leq m$. Then (\[eq2035\]) is given by $$\label{eq2033}
F_{i,X,\alpha}:= \sum_{\mathbf{y}\in \sigma_\alpha}
\left ( \sum_{\mathrm{pr}^J(\mathbf{x})=\mathbf{y}}
{\overline{\gamma} (f_{i,X},i\mathbf{x}) \prod_{j'\in J'}\overline{u}_{j'}^{ix_{j'}}} \right )\prod_{j\in J}U_j^{iy_j},$$ where bars denotes images in $(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)_0=\overline{S}^J$ as before (recall that by convention, we take $\overline{\gamma} (f_{i,X},i\mathbf{x}):=0$ in this formula if $i\mathbf{x} \not \in \mathbf{S}(f_{i,X})$).
\[defsolvable\]**(Solvable vertices).** Let $\mathbf{x}\in \R^J$ be a vertex of the polyhedron $\Delta_S (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X)$, that is, a 0-dimensional face $\sigma=\{\mathbf{x}\}$. Denote by $$\mathrm{in}_\mathbf{x} h =X^m + \sum_{i=1}^mF_{i,X,\mathbf{x}} X^{m-i} \in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S) [X]$$ the initial form polynomial (\[eq2035\]) w.r.t. any defining weight vector $\alpha $. We will say that $\mathbf{x}$ is solvable if $\mathbf{x}\in \N^J$ and there exists $\overline{\lambda} \in \overline{S}^J$ such that $$\mathrm{in}_\mathbf{x} h=(X - \overline{\lambda} U^\mathbf{x})^m.$$
Explicitly, with notations as in (\[eq2035\]) [*sqq.*]{}, the latter equality means that $$\overline{\gamma} (f_{i,X},i\mathbf{x}) = (-1)^i \begin{pmatrix}
m \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}
\overline{\lambda}^i \in \overline{S}^J , \ 1 \leq i \leq m .$$ Note that $\begin{pmatrix}
m \\
i \\
\end{pmatrix}
\in \overline{S}^J$ is not a unit in general when $\mathrm{char}(S/m_S)>0$.\
The following result is a rewriting of [@H3] in this hypersurface situation.
\[Deltamin\]**(Hironaka).** There exists a linear change of the $X$-coordinate $Z:=X-\theta$, with $\theta \in \hat {S}$, such that $$\label{eq204}
\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)=
\min_{X'}\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X'),$$ where the minimum is taken w.r.t. inclusions and over all possible linear changes of coordinates $X':=X-\phi$, $\phi \in \hat{S}$.
Given $X':=X-\phi$, $\phi \in \hat{S}$, $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X')$ achieves equality in (\[eq204\]) if and only if it has no solvable vertex.
If $S$ is excellent, there is an equivalence $$\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)=\emptyset \Leftrightarrow \exists g \in S
: h = (X - g)^m.$$
This is respectively [@H3] Hironaka’s vertex preparation lemma (3.10) and theorem (4.8), and [@CoP3] lemma II.1.
\[defminimal\] **(Characteristic Polyhedron).** For $X':=X-\phi$, $\phi \in \hat{S}$, we will say that the polyhedron $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};X')$ is minimal if it has no solvable vertex.
Let $p$ be a prime number and $n\in \Z$ not divisible by $p$. We take: $$S:=\Z_{(p)} \ \mathrm{and} \ h:=X^p -np^a \in S[X], \ a\geq 0.$$ The following holds:
- if $a \not \in p\Z$, then $\Delta_{\Z_p}(h; p ;X)=\lbrack a/p, +\infty \lbrack$ is minimal;
- if $a \in p\Z$, then $\Delta_{\Z_p}(h; p ;Z)$ is minimal, where $Z:=X-np^{a/p}$ and we have: $$\Delta_{\Z_p}(h; p ;Z)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lbrack {a+1 \over p}, +\infty \lbrack \hfill{} & \mathrm{if} & n^p-n \not \in p^2\Z \\
& & \\
\lbrack {a \over p}+{1\over p-1}, +\infty \lbrack & \mathrm{if} & n^p-n \in p^2\Z\\
\end{array}
\right .
.$$
With notations and conventions as in (\[eq201\]) and (\[eq202\]), we have the following result in the case $J=\{1, \ldots ,n\}$ and $\alpha =\mathbf{1}$ (so $\mu_\mathbf{1}=\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}$) [@H3] [@Co6]:
\[deltainv\] The rational number $\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is independent of the r.s.p. $(u_1, \ldots, u_n)$ and $Z=X-\theta$, $\theta \in \hat{S}$ such that $\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal.
If $\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal, the following characterizations hold:
- $\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)>0 \Leftrightarrow
(\eta^{-1}(m_S)=\{x\} \ \mathrm{and} \ k(x)=S/m_S)$;
- $\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)\geq 1 \Leftrightarrow
\eta^{-1}(m_S)\cap \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}\neq \emptyset$.
Let $(Z',u'_1,\ldots,u'_n)$ and $(Z,u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ be two systems of coordinates such that both polyhedra $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z')$ and $\Delta_{\hat{S}}
(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ are minimal. Suppose that $\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z')>\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$. Then $$f_{i,Z'}^{m!} \in m_S^{{m! \over i}\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z')}$$ for each $i$, $1 \leq i \leq m$, hence $$\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z')\geq \delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z')>
\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z).$$ This contradicts the assumption $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ minimal. The first assertion follows by symmetry.
Let $\overline{h}\in S/m_S[Z]$ be the reduction of $h$ modulo $m_S$. Since $$\eta^{-1}(m_S)=\mathrm{Spec}(S/m_S[Z]/(\overline{h})),$$ (i) and the “only if” part in (ii) are immediate from the definitions. We have $$\mathrm{ord}_{x}h(Z) \leq \mathrm{ord}_{x}\overline{h}(Z)\leq m ,$$ hence $x \in \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}$ implies $\overline{h}(Z)=(Z- \lambda)^m$ for some $\lambda \in S/m_S$. Since $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal, $\mathbf{0} \in \R^n$ is not a solvable vertex and therefore we have $\lambda =0$. This proves that (i) holds, the “if” part in (ii) being then obvious.
\[defdelta\] Let $s \in \mathrm{Spec}S$, $(v_1,\ldots ,v_{n(s)})$ be a r.s.p. of $S_s$ and $y
\in \eta^{-1}(s)$. Let $Z:=X-\theta$, $\theta \in \widehat{S_s}$ be such that $\Delta_{\widehat{S_s}} (h;v_1,\ldots,v_{n(s)};Z)$ is minimal, where $\widehat{S_s}$ denotes the formal completion of $S_s$ w.r.t. its maximal ideal. We let: $$\delta (y):=\delta_\mathbf{1}(h;v_1,\ldots,v_{n(s)};Z)=\min_{1 \leq i \leq
m}\left \{{\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\widehat{S_s}}}f_{i,Z} \over i}\right \}\in {1\over m!}\N.\\$$
This invariant is classical and appears in e.g. [@Co1], [@Co2] and [@BeV1] definition 4.2 and proposition 4.8 in an equal characteristic context. Our main resolution invariants will be defined in terms of coordinates $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ and $Z=X -\theta$, $\theta \in
\hat{S}$ such that $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal. Since minimizing polyhedra involves in principle choosing [*formal*]{} coordinates, an [*algebraic*]{} version will be useful for proving the constructibility of our invariants. The following proposition is fundamental for this purpose. When $\mathrm{char}S/m_S=0$, the first statement in the proposition easily follows from proposition \[Deltamin\] by applying the Tschirnhausen transformation (take $\theta =-{1 \over m}f_{1,X}$ below).\
[*We assume from this point on that $S$ is excellent.*]{}\
\[Deltaalg\][@CoP3] Given $h\in S[X]$ (\[eq201\]) and a r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ of $S$, there exists $Z:=X-\theta$, $\theta \in S$ such that $\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,\ldots, u_n;Z)$ is minimal.
For any such $Z$, the following holds: for every subset $J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$, the polyhedron $\Delta_{\widehat{S_{s^J}}}(h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)$ is also minimal and is computed by: $$\label{eq2044}
\Delta_{\widehat{S_{s^J}}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)=\mathrm{pr}^J \Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z),$$ where $\mathrm{pr}^J: \R^n \rightarrow \R^J, \ \mathbf{x} \mapsto \mathbf{y}=(\{x_j\}_{j\in J})$ denotes the projection. In particular, we have $$\delta (y)=\min \left \{{1 \over i}\sum_{j\in J}a_j ,
\ \mathbf{a} \in \mathbf{S}^{\{1, \ldots ,n\}}(f_{i,Z}), \ 1 \leq i \leq m\right \}, \ y \in \eta^{-1}(s^J).$$
The proposition is trivial if $\mathbf{0} \in \R^n$ is a nonsolvable vertex of the polyhedron $\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,\ldots, u_n;Z)$, taking $Z:=X$. Otherwise it can be assumed that $f_{i,X}\in m_S$, $1 \leq i \leq m$. The first statement is [@CoP3] corollary II.4.
Formula (\[eq2044\]) follows from (\[eq2034\]) (\[eq2031\]) (\[eq2032\]). To prove minimality, suppose that $\mathbf{y} \in \N^J$ is a solvable vertex of $\Delta_{\widehat{S_{s^J}}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)$ defined by some $\alpha \in \R^J_{>0}$. By definition, $$\label{eq2045}
\exists \overline{\lambda} \in QF(\overline{S}^J) : \mathrm{in}_\mathbf{y} h=(Z - \overline{\lambda} U^\mathbf{y})^m.$$ By (\[eq2033\]), we have $\overline{\lambda}^m =(-1)^mU^{-m\mathbf{y}}F_{m,Z,\alpha} \in \overline{S}^J$. Hence $\overline{\lambda} \in \overline{S}^J$, since the regular ring $\overline{S}^J$ is integrally closed. By (\[eq2044\]), there exists a [*vertex*]{} $\mathbf{x} \in \Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,\ldots, u_n;Z)$ such that $\mathbf{y}=\mathrm{pr}^J(\mathbf{x})$. Lifting up, there exists $\beta \in \R^n_{>0}$, $\alpha = \mathrm{pr}^J(\beta)$ defining $\mathbf{x}$, and we let $\alpha ':= \mathrm{pr}^{J'}(\beta)$. There is an induced valuation $\mu_{\alpha '}$ on $\overline{S}^J$. The initial form of $\overline{\lambda}$ in $\mathrm{gr}_{\alpha '}\overline{S}^J$ has the form $$\Lambda =\lambda \prod_{j' \in J'}\overline{U}_{j'}^{x_{j'}},
\ \lambda \in S/m_S, \ \lambda \neq 0, \ \{x_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'}\in \N^{J'}.$$ Collecting together (\[eq2033\]) and (\[eq2045\]), we get $\mathrm{in}_\mathbf{x} h = (Z - \lambda U^\mathbf{x})^m$, i.e. $\mathbf{x}$ is a solvable vertex: a contradiction. Therefore $\Delta_{\widehat{S_{s^J}}} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)$ has no solvable vertex, hence is minimal by the second statement in proposition \[Deltamin\]. The last statement is a rewriting of definition \[defdelta\].
This proposition allows us to skip the reference to formal completion when stating that a certain polyhedron is minimal, i.e. given $Z:=X-\phi$, $\phi \in S$, the statement “$\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,\ldots, u_n;Z)$ is minimal" stands for “$\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,\ldots, u_n;Z)$ is minimal". On the other hand, we will keep the reference to the regular local ring $S$ since we are also interested in base change.
Let $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ be a [*local*]{} base change which is [*regular*]{}, i.e. flat with geometrically regular fibers [@EGA2] definition 6.8.1(iv). In particular $\tilde{S}$ is regular [@EGA2] proposition 6.5.1(ii) and faithfully flat. The ring $\tilde{S}$ is not excellent in general, but this certainly holds in the following cases:
- $\tilde{S}=\hat{S}$ [@EGA2] 7.8.3(iii);
- $\tilde{S}$ is ind-étale over $S$ [@ILO] theorem I.8.1(iv), or
- $\tilde{S}$ is essentially of finite type over $S$, i.e. smooth over $S$ [@EGA2] proposition 7.8.6(i).
An important special case of (ii) is when $\tilde{S}$ is the Henselization or strict Henselization of $S$. When regular base changes are concerned, we always assume that $\tilde{S}$ is excellent. These conditions are preserved by localizing, i.e. replacing $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ by $S_s \subseteq \tilde{S}_{\tilde{s}}$, $\tilde{s}\in \mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}$ and $s \in \mathrm{Spec}S$ its image.\
\[notageomreg1\] Let $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ be a local base change which is regular, $\tilde{S}$ excellent, $\tilde{s}\in \mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}$ with image $m_S \in \mathrm{Spec}S$. Any r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ of $S$ can be extended to a r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}})$ of $\tilde{S}$. We let $\tilde{h}\in \tilde{S}[X]$ be the image of $h$ and $$\tilde{\eta}: \ \tilde{{\cal X}}={\cal X}\times_S \mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S} \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}.$$
It follows from definition \[defsolvable\] that, if $\mathbf{x}\in \R^n_{\geq 0}$ is a nonsolvable vertex of $\Delta_S(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$, the vertex $$(\mathbf{x},\underbrace{0, \ldots ,0}_{\tilde{n} -n}) \in
\Delta_{\tilde{S}}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_{\tilde{n}};Z)\subseteq \R^{\tilde{n}}_{\geq 0}$$ is nonsolvable provided that $S/m_S \subseteq \tilde{S}/m_{\tilde{S}}$ is inseparably closed. This is of course always satisfied when $S/m_S$ is perfect (e.g. $\mathrm{char}S/m_S=0$). An obvious consequence of the second statement in proposition \[Deltamin\] is:
\[Deltageomreg\] Let $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ be a local base change which is regular, $\tilde{S}$ excellent. Assume that $S/m_S \subseteq \tilde{S}/m_{\tilde{S}}$ is inseparably closed. Let $Z=X-\theta$, $\theta \in S$, be such that $\Delta_{S}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal. Then $$\Delta_{\tilde{S}}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_{\tilde{n}};Z)=
\Delta_{S}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)\times \R^{\tilde{n}-n}_{\geq 0}\subseteq \R^{\tilde{n}}_{\geq 0}$$ and this polyhedron is minimal.
Note that the assumptions of the proposition are satisfied in the above situation (ii): $\tilde{S}$ is ind-étale over $S$. In situation (iii), i.e. $\tilde{S}$ smooth over $S$, the following example will make the situation clear:
Let $(S,m_S,k)$ be an excellent DVR, $\mathrm{char}k=p>0$, and $\gamma \in S$ be a unit. Let $\lambda \in k$ be the residue of $\gamma$ and assume furthermore that $$h:=X^p -\gamma u_1^{pa} \in S[X], \ a \geq 1, \ \lambda \in k \backslash k^p.$$ Then $\Delta_{S}(h; u_1 ;X)=\lbrack a , +\infty \lbrack$ and is minimal. Take $\tilde{S}=S[t]_{(u_1,P(t))}$, where $P$ is a monic polynomial with irreducible residue $\overline{P}(t) \in k[t]$ (resp. $P=0$). Let $u_2:=P(t)$, so $(u_1,u_2)$ (resp. $(u_1)$) is a r.s.p. of $\tilde{S}$. Let $$\tilde{k}:=\tilde{S}/m_{\tilde{S}}=k[t]/(\overline{P}(t)) \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ \tilde{k}=k(t))$$ be the residue field of $\tilde{S}$. Setting $\{\tilde{x} \}=\tilde{\eta}^{-1}(m_{\tilde{S}})$, we have $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\delta (\tilde{x})=a \hfill{} & \mathrm{if} & \lambda \not \in \tilde{k}^p \\
\delta (\tilde{x})=a+{1 \over p} & \mathrm{if} & \lambda \in \tilde{k}^p\\
\end{array}
\right .
.$$ This is obvious if $\lambda \not \in \tilde{k}^p$; if $\lambda \in \tilde{k}^p$, take $$Z:= X - \tilde{\gamma}u_1^a, \ \mathrm{where} \ \tilde{v}:=\tilde{\gamma}^p -\gamma \in m_{\tilde{S}}.$$ Then $(u_1,\tilde{v})$ is a r.s.p. of $\tilde{S}$ ($S$ excellent) and we have: $$\Delta_{\tilde{S}}(\tilde{h};u_1,\tilde{v};Z)=(a,1 / p)+\R^2_{\geq 0}.$$
In particular, the function $$\A^1_k =\{x\}\times \A^1_k \subset {\cal X}\times_k\A^1_k \rightarrow {1 \over p}\N, \ \tilde{x}\mapsto \delta (\tilde{x})$$ is not a constructible function.
Proposition \[Deltaalg\] and proposition \[Deltageomreg\] suggest the following question. An affirmative answer would be very useful in order to build geometrical invariants from characteristic polyhedra. Proposition \[Deltageomreg\] answers in the affirmative when $S/m_S$ is perfect, with $\tilde{S}:=S$.
Let $S$ be an excellent regular local ring with r.s.p. $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ and $h \in S[X]$ (\[eq201\]). Does there exist a smooth local base change $S\subseteq \tilde{S}$, a r.s.p. $(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}})$ of $\tilde{S}$ extending $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ and $Z=X -\tilde{\phi}$, $\tilde{\phi} \in \tilde{S}$, such that the following holds:
“for every smooth local base change $\tilde{S}\subseteq S'$ and r.s.p. $(u_1, \ldots ,u_{n'})$ of $S'$ extending $(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}})$, the polyhedron $\Delta_{S'}(h;u_1, \ldots ,u_{n'};Z)$ is minimal"?
Uncovering transformation rules for the characteristic polyhedron under blowing up is a major problem, [*vid.*]{} [@H3] p.254. A good behaviour is known in the special case of a blowing up along a Hironaka permissible subscheme and an exceptional point at the origin of some standard chart.
\[originchart\] With notations as before, let $J\subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$, $y \in \eta^{-1}(s^J)$ and assume that $\delta (y)\geq 1$. Fix $j_0 \in J$ and let $S':= S[\{u'_j\}_{j \in J}]_{(u'_1, \ldots , u'_n)}$, where $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccccc}
u'_j & := & u_j/u_{j_0} & \mathrm{if} & j \in J \backslash \{j_0\}; \\
u'_j & := & u_j & \mathrm{if} & j \in J' \cup \{j_0\}.\\
\end{array}
\right .$$ Let $Z=X-\theta$, $\theta \in S$, with $\Delta_{S}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ minimal and define: $$\label{eq2043}
h'(Z'):=u_{j_0}^{-m}h(Z)=
{Z'}^m +u_{j_0}^{-1}f_{1,Z}{Z'}^{m-1}+ \cdots +u_{j_0}^{-m}f_{m,Z} \in S'[Z'],$$ where $Z':= Z/u_{j_0}$. Define a map $l: \ \R^n \longrightarrow \R^n$ by $$\label{eq2042}
\mathbf{x}=(x_1, \ldots ,x_n)\mapsto \mathbf{x}'=
(x_1, \ldots ,x_{j_0-1}, \sum_{j\in J}x_j -1, x_{j_0+1}, \ldots ,x_n).$$ Then $l(\Delta_{S}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z))=\Delta_{S'}(h'; u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z')$ and this polyhedron is minimal.
The assumption $\delta (y)\geq 1$ forces $f_{i,Z} \in I_J^i$ by the last statement in proposition \[Deltaalg\]. Therefore (\[eq2043\]) makes sense, i.e. $h'(Z') \in S'[Z']$. Since $l$ is one-to-one, we have $${1 \over i}\mathbf{S}^{\{1, \ldots ,n\}} (f_{i,Z'})\subseteq
l\left ({1 \over i}\mathbf{S}^{\{1, \ldots ,n\}} (f_{i,Z})\right ), \ 1 \leq i \leq m,$$ with notations as in proposition \[monomexp\]. By definition \[defDelta\], we get: $$l(\Delta_{S}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z))=\Delta_{S'}(h'; u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z').$$
Let $\mathbf{x}'=l(\mathbf{x})$ be a vertex of $\Delta_{S'}(h'; u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z')$. Denote $$\mathrm{in}_\mathbf{x}h=Z^m + \lambda_1U^{\mathbf{x}}Z^{m-1}+ \cdots + \lambda_mU^{m\mathbf{x}},
\ \lambda_1, \ldots ,\lambda_m \in S/m_S,$$ with the convention as before that $\lambda_i=0$ if $i\mathbf{x} \not \in \N^n$, $1 \leq i \leq m$. Applying $l$ (\[eq2042\]), we get $$\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{x}'}h={Z'}^m + \lambda_1{U'}^{\mathbf{x}'}{Z'}^{m-1}+ \cdots + \lambda_m{U'}^{m\mathbf{x}'}.$$ Since $S'/m_{S'}=S/m_S$, definition \[defsolvable\] then shows that $\mathbf{x}'$ is solvable if and only if $\mathbf{x}$ is solvable. Since $\Delta_{S}(h; u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal, the polyhedron $\Delta_{S'}(h'; u'_1,\ldots,u'_n;Z')$ is also minimal by proposition \[Deltamin\].
Normal crossings divisors.
--------------------------
We now introduce a normal crossings divisor $E \subseteq \mathrm{Spec}S$. This section fixes the terminology and notations for blowing ups and base changes with respect to $E$, then introduces the Hironaka $\epsilon$ function on ${\cal X}$.
\[defadapted\] A r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ of $S$ is said to be adapted to $E$ if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1\cdots u_e)$ for some $e$, $0 \leq e \leq n$.
We emphasize that we allow $e=0$, i.e. $E=\emptyset$ in this definition. In this context, we use the following notion of Hironaka permissible center:
\[Hironakapermis\] Let ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$ be an integral closed subscheme with generic point $y$. We say that ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible (resp. Hironaka-permissible with respect to $E$) at $x \in {\cal Y}$ if condition (i) (resp. condition (ii)) below is satisfied:
- $m(y)=m(x)$ and ${\cal Y}$ regular at $x$;
- ${\cal Y}\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}$ and $W:=\eta ({\cal Y})$ has normal crossings with $E$ at $s:=\eta (x)$.
We remind the reader that an integral closed subscheme $W \subseteq \mathrm{Spec}S$ has normal crossings with $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1\cdots u_e)$ if the family $(u_1,\ldots ,u_e)$ can be extended to a r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ of $S$ such that the ideal $I(W)$ of $W$ is of the form $I_J=(\{u_j\}_{j \in J})\subseteq S$, for some $J \subseteq \{1,\ldots ,n\}$.
Note that a Hironaka-permissible center w.r.t. any $E$ (e.g. $E=\emptyset$) is Hironaka-permissible: since ${\cal Y}\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}$, we have $m(y)=m(x)=m$ and $y \in \eta^{-1}(w)\cap \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}$, where $w$ is the generic point of $W$; by proposition \[deltainv\] applied to $S_w$, the map ${\cal Y} \rightarrow W$ is birational, hence an isomorphism since $W$ is regular.
Since the notion is local on ${\cal X}$, a Hironaka-permissible blowing up (w.r.t. $E$) is simply the blowing up along a center ${\cal Y}\subset {\cal X}$ which is Hironaka-permissible (w.r.t. $E$) at each point of its support. By a [*local*]{} Hironaka-permissible blowing up, we simply mean the localization at some point of the exceptional divisor $\pi^{-1}({\cal Y})$ of the blowing up $\pi$ along a Hironaka-permissible center. The important fact is that Hironaka-permissible blowing ups w.r.t. $E$ preserve our structure:
\[Hironakastable\] Let $S$, $h\in S[X]$ (\[eq201\]), ${\cal X}$ and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1\cdots u_e)$ be as above. Let $\pi : {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ be a Hironaka-permissible blowing up w.r.t. $E$ at $x \in {\cal X}$. There exists a commutative diagram $$\label{eq210}
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal X} & {\buildrel \pi \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal X}' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
\mathrm{Spec}S & {\buildrel \sigma \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal S}' \\
\end{array}$$ where $\sigma: {\cal S}' \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$ is the blowing up along $W$.
For every $s' \in \sigma^{-1}(s)$, $S':={\cal O}_{{\cal S}' ,s'}$, there exists $h'\in S'[X']$ unitary of degree $m$ such that ${\cal X}'_{s'}=\mathrm{Spec}(S'[X']/(h'))$.
Furthermore, there exists a r.s.p. $(u'_1,\ldots ,u'_n)$ of $S'$ adapted to the stalk $E'_{s'}$, $E':=\sigma^{-1}(E\cup W)_{\mathrm{red}}$.
By the above remarks, there exists $J \subseteq \{1,\ldots ,n\}$ such that $I(W)=I_J=(\{u_j\}_{j \in J})$. By proposition \[Deltaalg\], there exists $Z:=X- \theta $, $\theta \in S$, such that $\Delta_{S} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ is minimal. Since $x, y \in \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}$, we have $$\eta^{-1}(s)=\{x\}, \ \eta^{-1}(W)={\cal Y} \ \mathrm{and} \ \delta (x)\geq 1, \ \delta (y)\geq 1$$ by proposition \[deltainv\]. In particular, the ideal of ${\cal Y}$ at $x$ is $$I({\cal Y})=(Z, \{u_j\}_{j \in J}).$$ Since $\delta (y)\geq 1$, the point at infinity $(1:0: \cdots :0)$ does not belong to ${\cal X}'$ so $(\{u_j\}_{j \in J}){\cal O}_{{\cal X}'} $ is invertible. By the universal property of blowing up, there is a commutative diagram (\[eq210\]).
Let $s' \in \sigma^{-1}(s)$ and $j_0 \in J$ be such that $u_{j_0}$ is a local equation of $\pi_0^{-1}(W)$. We take $X':= Z/u_{j_0}$ and $$\label{eq212}
h':=u_{j_0}^{-m}h(Z)={X'}^m +u_{j_0}^{-1}f_{1,Z}{X'}^{m-1}+ \cdots +u_{j_0}^{-m}f_{m,Z}.$$ Note that $h'\in S'[X']$ follows from the last statement in proposition \[Deltaalg\]. The last statement is obvious because $E'=\sigma^{-1}(E \cup W)_{\mathrm{red}}$ is a normal crossings divisor on ${\cal S}'$.
We will stick to these notations when local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups are concerned, or compositions of such local blowing ups. We always refer to the reduced total transform of $E$ on the blown up base $\mathrm{Spec}S$.
Suppose a base change is given as considered in the previous section, i.e. formal completion $S \subseteq \hat{S}$, localization at a prime $S\subseteq S_s$ or regular local base change $S\subseteq \tilde{S}$, $\tilde{S}$ excellent.
\[notaprime\] Given $S\subseteq S'$ such a base change, we denote $$E':=E\times_S\mathrm{Spec}S', \ \eta ': \ {\cal X}'={\cal X}\times_S \mathrm{Spec}S' \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S'.$$ The image of $h$ in $S'[X]$ is denoted $h' \in S'[X]$. This notation is used consistently with notation \[notageomreg1\].
For instance if $s \in \mathrm{Spec}S$, there exists a r.s.p. $(v_1,\ldots ,v_{n(s)})$ of $S_s$ which is adapted to $E_s$, where $E_s$ is the stalk of $E$ at $s$. We then have $E_s=\mathrm{div}(v_1\cdots v_{e(s)})$ and may choose $v_j=u_{\varphi (j)}$ for some injective map $\varphi : \ \{1, \ldots ,e(s)\} \rightarrow \{1, \ldots ,e\}$. It is of course not possible in general to extend a given $(v_1,\ldots ,v_{n(s)})$ to a r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ of $S$. We let $h_s\in S_s[X]$ be the image of $h$.
\[defwelladapted\] Let $s \in \mathrm{Spec}S$ and $(v_1,\ldots ,v_{n(s)})$ be an r.s.p. of $S_s$ which is adapted to $E_s$, $E_s=\mathrm{div}(v_1\cdots v_{e(s)})$. We say that coordinates $$(v_1,\ldots ,v_{n(s)};Z_s), \ Z_s:=X-\phi_s, \ \phi_s\in S_s,$$ are well adapted at $y \in \eta^{-1}(s)$ if $\Delta_{S_s} (h;v_1,\ldots ,v_{n(s)};Z_s)$ is minimal.
\[defepsilon\] Let $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ be a r.s.p. of $S$ which is adapted to $E$. Let $j$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, and let ${\cal Y}_j\subset {\cal X}$ be an irreducible component of $\eta^{-1} (\mathrm{div}(u_j))$ with generic point $y_j\in {\cal X}$. We let $$d_j:=\delta (y_j)\in {1 \over m!}\N .$$
For any $s \in \mathrm{Spec}S$ and $y \in \eta^{-1}(s)$, we let $$\epsilon(y):=m \left (\delta (y)- \sum_{\mathrm{div}(u_j)\subseteq
E_s}{d_j} \right )\in {1 \over (m-1)!}\Z .$$
Summing up results from the previous section, we have:
\[epsiloninv\] Let $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$. With notations as above, we have $$d_j=\min \left \{{a_j \over i},
\ \mathbf{a} \in \mathbf{S}^{\{1, \ldots ,n\}}(f_{i,Z}), \ 1 \leq i \leq m \right \}, \ 1 \leq j \leq e.$$
For $s\in \mathrm{Spec}S$ and $y \in \eta^{-1}(s)$, we have $\epsilon (y)\geq 0$.
The first (resp. second) statement follows from the last one in proposition \[Deltaalg\] applied to $S$ and $J:=\{j\}$ (resp. to $S_s$ and each $J:=\{j\}$ with $\mathrm{div}(u_j)\subseteq E_s$).
The Galois or purely inseparable assumption.
--------------------------------------------
In this section, we introduce the assumptions of theorem \[luthm\]. The main result is proposition \[deltaint\] which analyzes the consequence w.r.t. the slopes $\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ and initial form polynomials $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ from definition \[definh\]. We assume furthermore that the following property holds:\
[**(G)**]{} $m=p$ is a prime number, $h$ is reduced, the ring extension $L|K$ is normal and ${\cal X}$ is $G$-invariant, where $G:=\mathrm{Aut}_K(L)$.\
[*Assumption [**(G)**]{} is maintained up to the end of this chapter.*]{}\
Since $[L:K]=p$ is a prime number, we have either $G=\Z /p$ ($L|K$ separable, cases (a) and (b) below) or $G= (1)$ ($L|K$ inseparable, case (c) below). Case (a) is included here for the sake of completeness and because residual actions in case (b) may lead to case (a). The three cases to be considered are:
- $h$ is totally split (product of $p$ pairwise distinct linear factors) over $K$;
- $h$ is irreducible and Galois over $K$ with group $G=\Z /p$;
- $h$ is irreducible, $\mathrm{char}S=p$, $f_{i,X}= 0$, $1 \leq i \leq p-1$.
Assumption [**(G)**]{} is also preserved by those base changes considered in the previous sections, i.e. formal completion $S \subseteq \hat{S}$, localization at a prime $S\subseteq S_s$ or regular local base change $S\subseteq \tilde{S}$, $\tilde{S}$ excellent. Note that in any case, $h$ reduced implies respectively $h_s$, $\hat{h}$ (since $S$ is excellent) and $\tilde{h}$ reduced (notation \[notaprime\]). Recall notations and definitions of initial forms from definition \[definh\].
\[izero\] Assume that $\mathrm{char}S/m_S=p$. Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ be a given r.s.p. of $S$ and $\alpha \in \R^n_{>0}$ be a weight vector. The integer $$i_0 (\alpha ):=\mathrm{min}\{i\in \{1,\ldots p\} : F_{i,Z,\alpha} \neq 0\}$$ does not depend on $Z=X-\theta$, $\theta \in \hat{S}$ such that $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ is minimal. If $i_0 (\alpha) <p$, the form $F_{i_0(\alpha),Z,\alpha}$ is also independent of the choice of $Z=X-\theta$ as above.
In case $\alpha =\mathbf{1}$, the integer $i_0 (\mathbf{1})$ (also denoted by $i_0(x)$ for $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$) and form $F_{i_0(\mathbf{1}),Z}=F_{i_0(\mathbf{1}),Z,\mathbf{1}}$ (if $i_0(\mathbf{1})<p$) are also independent of the choice of the r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ of $S$ and $Z=X-\theta$, $\theta \in \hat{S}$ such that $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ is minimal.
Take $Z'= Z-\phi$ such that both polyhedra $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ and $\Delta_{\hat{S}} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z')$ are minimal. By minimality, we have $$\mu_\alpha (\phi)\geq a:=\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z).$$ The initial forms $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha}h (Z)\in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z]$ and $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha}h(Z') \in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z']$ are related by $$\mathrm{in}_{\alpha}h(Z')=\mathrm{in}_{\alpha}h(Z - \mathrm{cl}_{\alpha , a}\phi).$$
The first statement follows from the elementary fact that $\mu_\alpha \left(
\begin{array}{c}
p \\
i \\
\end{array}
\right) >0$ for $1\leq i \leq p-1$, since $p \in m_S$. The second statement then follows from proposition \[deltainv\].
\[SingX\] For $x \in \mathrm{Sing}{\cal X}$, $s:=\eta (x)$, we have: $$\label{eq211}
\eta^{-1}(s)=\{x\}, \ k(x)=k(s) \ \mathrm{and} \ \delta (x)>0.$$
Assume that a normal crossings divisor $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S$ is specified and let $\pi : {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ be a Hironaka-permissible blowing up w.r.t. $E$ at $x$. Then, with notations as in proposition \[Hironakastable\], for every $s' \in \sigma^{-1}(s)$, ${\cal X}'_{s'}$ satisfies again [**(G)**]{}.
It can be assumed that $s=m_S$. Let $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and $\overline{h}(Z)\in S/m_S [Z]$ be the reduction of $h$ modulo $m_S$. By [**(G)**]{}, $G$ acts transitively on the fiber $\eta^{-1}(s)$. Then $\overline{h}(Z)$ is either a $p^{th}$-power or satisfies again [**(G)**]{} w.r.t. the zero-dimensional regular local ring $S/m_S$.
If $\overline{h}(Z)$ satisfies [**(G)**]{}, then $(h(Z),u_1, \ldots , u_n)$ is a r.s.p. of the local ring $S[Z]_{m_x}$, so $x$ is a regular point of ${\cal X}$.
Assume now that $\overline{h}(Z)=(Z-\overline{\lambda})^p$ for some $\overline{\lambda}\in S/m_S$. Now $(0, \ldots ,0)$ is a solvable vertex of $\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ unless $\overline{\lambda}= 0$. Since $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates at $x$, we have $\overline{\lambda}= 0$.
The last statement follows from proposition \[Hironakastable\] and the fact that $x$ is $G$-invariant by (\[eq211\]).
\[deltaint\] Let $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ and $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. For $\alpha \in \R^n_{>0}$ a weight vector, the following holds:
- the polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha} h \in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z]$ satisfies again [**(G)**]{} w.r.t. the local ring $(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)_{(U_1, \ldots ,U_n)}$;
- if ($\mathrm{char}S/m_S=p$ and $i_0 (\alpha)<p$), then $$\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z) \in \Gamma_\alpha =\Z\alpha_1 + \cdots + \Z\alpha_n ;$$
- if $\mathrm{char}S/m_S=0$ or if ($\mathrm{char}S/m_S=p$ and $i_0 (\alpha)=p$), then $$\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z) \in {1 \over p}\Gamma_\alpha.$$
If $\delta (x)=0$, we have $\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)=0$ and $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha} h =\overline{h}(Z)$ with notations as in the previous proof, so the proposition is trivial. Assume that $\delta (x)>0$.
By proposition \[Deltamin\], we have $\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)
\neq \emptyset$ and this polyhedron has no solvable vertex. Therefore $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha} h$ is not a $p^{th}$-power. Let $z \in L$ be the image of $Z$ and $\nu_\alpha$ be any extension of $\mu_\alpha$ to $L$. Then $\nu_\alpha$ is centered at $x$, since ${\cal X}$ is $G$-invariant and $\eta^{-1}(m_S)=\{x\}$ by proposition \[deltainv\](i). We have: $$\label{eq230}
\nu_\alpha(z)=\mu_\alpha(f_{i,Z})/i=\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z) \in \Gamma_\alpha \otimes_{\Z}\Q$$ for each $i$, $1 \leq i \leq p$ such that $F_{i,Z,\alpha}\neq 0$. Since $L|K$ is normal of degree $p$, the reduced ramification index $e_0$ of $\nu_\alpha | \mu_\alpha$ is $e_0 =1$ or $e_0=p$.
Assume that ($\mathrm{char}S/m_S=p$ and $i_0 (\alpha )=p$). Then $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha} h$ is in case (c) of [**(G)**]{} and we get (iii) from (\[eq230\]).
Assume that $\mathrm{char}S/m_S=0$ or ($\mathrm{char}S/m_S=p$ and $i_0 (\alpha)<p$). Then $h$ is in case (a) or (b). Since $G=\Z /p$ in these cases and ${\cal X}$ is $G$-invariant, $G$ acts transitively on the roots of $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha} h$. We have: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cccc}
\mathrm{Tot}((\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z]/(\mathrm{in}_{\alpha} h)) & =
& \prod_{\nu_\alpha}QF(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S) & \mathrm{if} \ \mu_\alpha \ \mathrm{splits}; \\
& & & \\
QF((\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z]/(\mathrm{in}_{\alpha} h)) & =
& QF(\mathrm{gr}_{\nu_\alpha} S) & \mathrm{otherwise}, \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right .$$ and this proves (i). Statement (iii) follows from (\[eq230\]) if $\mathrm{char}S/m_S=0$.
Assume finally that ($\mathrm{char}S/m_S=p$ and $i_0 (\alpha)<p$). By (\[eq230\]), we have $$p\nu_\alpha(z)=p\mu_\alpha(f_{i_0 (\alpha),Z})/i_0 (\alpha ) \in \Gamma_\alpha .$$ Since $\Gamma_\alpha \simeq \Z^r$ for some $r \geq 1$, this implies $$\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)=\mu_\alpha(f_{i,Z})/i_0 (\alpha ) \in \Gamma_\alpha$$ which completes the proof of (ii).
\[cordeltaint\] Assume that a normal crossings divisor $$E=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S$$ is specified. We have $pd_j\in \N$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, and $\epsilon (y)\in \N$ for every $y \in {\cal X}$.
In view of definition \[defepsilon\] and proposition \[epsiloninv\], this follows from proposition \[deltaint\] (ii)(iii) applied to the local rings $S_{(u_j)}$ and $S_s$, $s:=\eta (y)$.
This corollary allows us to define the following invariant:
\[defH\] Let $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ be a r.s.p. of $S$ which is adapted to the normal crossings divisor $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1
\cdots u_e)$. For $y \in {\cal X}$, $s:=\eta (y)$, we define a principal ideal: $$H(y):=\left (\prod_{\mathrm{div}(u_j)\subseteq
E_s}{u_j^{H_j}}\right ) \subseteq S,$$ where $H_j:=pd_j\in \N$.
The discriminant assumption.
----------------------------
We now introduce the critical locus of the map $\eta: \ {\cal X}
\rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$ together with its scheme structure given by the discriminant $D:=\mathrm{Disc}_X h \in S$. We are interested in the case where $D$ is a normal crossings divisor. Theorem \[initform\] below is basically a reduction to characteristic $p>0$ as dealt with in [@CoP1] [@CoP2].\
Note that $D$ is by definition independent of the choice of regular parameters of $S$ and invariant by those translations $X':=X-\phi$, $\phi \in \hat{S}$ used in minimizing polyhedra. If $(S,h,E)$ is in case (c) of [**(G)**]{}, then $D=0$.
\[conditionE\] Let $S$, $h\in S[X]$ (\[eq201\]), ${\cal X}$ and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1\cdots u_e)$ be specified. We say that $(S,h,E)$ satisfies assumption [**(E)**]{} if $\mathrm{char}(S/m_S)=p > 0$ and one of the following properties hold: $$\label{eq221}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cccc}
(i) & D=0 & \mathrm{and} & \eta (\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}) \subseteq E, \hfill{}\\
& & & \\
(ii) & D \neq 0 & \mathrm{and} & \mathrm{div}(D)_\mathrm{red}\subseteq E\subseteq \mathrm{div}(p)_\mathrm{red}. \\
\end{array}
\right .$$
[*Assumption [**(E)**]{} is maintained up to the end of this chapter.*]{}\
This assumption implies that $\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X} \subseteq \eta^{-1}(E)\subset {\cal X}$, by definition (i) or because $\eta^{-1}(\mathrm{Spec}S \backslash E)$ is regular since $\mathrm{Spec}S \backslash E$ is (ii). In particular $E\neq \emptyset$ if $\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}\neq \emptyset$.
Assumption [**(E)**]{} is also preserved by those base changes considered in the previous section: formal completion $S \subseteq \hat{S}$, localization at a prime $S\subseteq S_s$ or regular local base change $S\subseteq \tilde{S}$, $\tilde{S}$ excellent. For Hironaka-permissible blowing ups, we have:
\[Estable\] Let $\pi : {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ be a Hironaka-permissible blowing up w.r.t. $E$ at $x \in {\cal X}$. Then, with notations as in proposition \[Hironakastable\], for every $s' \in \sigma^{-1}(s)$, $(S',h',E')$ satisfies again [**(E)**]{}.
Any Hironaka-permissible center ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$ w.r.t. $E$ at $x$ is contained in $E$ by the above remarks. Therefore the proposition is obvious in case (i) of definition \[conditionE\].
Let $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and $h(Z)\in S[Z]$ be the corresponding expansion. With notations as in proposition \[Hironakastable\] and (\[eq212\]), we have $h'(X')=u_{j_0}^{-p}h(X'u_{j_0})$ for some $u_{j_0} \in I(W)$. We deduce that $$D':=\mathrm{Disc}_{X'}h'=u_{j_0}^{-p(p-1)}\mathrm{Disc}_{Z}h=u_{j_0}^{-p(p-1)}D,$$ hence $\mathrm{div}(D')_\mathrm{red}\subseteq E'\subseteq \mathrm{div}(p)_\mathrm{red}$ as required.
\[initform\]**(Reduction to characteristic $p$).** With assumptions as above, let $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ be such that $\epsilon (x)>0$. Then $({\cal X},x)$ is analytically irreducible.
Let $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and $\alpha \in \R^n_{>0}$ be a weight vector. Exactly one of the following properties holds.
- $i_0 (\alpha)=p$, i.e. $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha}h =Z^p +F_{p,Z, \alpha}$;
- $i_0 (\alpha)=p-1$ i.e. $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha}h =Z^p +F_{p-1,Z, \alpha}Z +F_{p,Z, \alpha}$, $F_{p-1,Z, \alpha}\neq 0$. Furthermore, we have $$\label{eq2313}
-f_{p-1,Z}=\gamma_{p-1,Z}\prod_{j=1}^eu_j^{A_{p-1,j}}$$ with $A_{p-1,j}\in (p-1)\N$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, and $\gamma_{p-1,Z}\in S$ a unit with residue $\overline{\gamma}_{p-1,Z} \in (S/m_S)^{p-1}$. In particular, $-F_{p-1,Z, \alpha}=G^{p-1}$ for some nonzero $ G \in \mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$, and we have $$\mathrm{cl}_{p(p-1)\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)}(\mathrm{Disc}_Z(h))=<F_{p-1,Z, \alpha}^p>.$$
First note that $D=\mathrm{Disc}_Z(h)$ is homogeneous of degree $p(p-1)$ for the grading $\mathrm{deg}f_{i,Z}=i$ on the coefficients of $h$. In particular, we have $$\mu_\alpha (D)\geq p(p-1)\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z),$$ since $\mu_\alpha (f_{i,Z})/i \geq \delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ for $1 \leq i \leq p$. We deduce the formula $$\label{eq231}
\mathrm{cl}_{\alpha , p(p-1)\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)}D=\mathrm{Disc}_Z(\mathrm{in}_\alpha h).$$ On the other hand, $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h $ has a multiple root over an algebraic closure of $QF(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)$ if and only if $i_0(\alpha)=p$ by proposition \[deltaint\] (i). When this holds, we are in case (1) of this theorem.\
Suppose that $h$ is analytically reducible. By proposition \[epsiloninv\] and definition \[defdelta\], $\epsilon (x)=\delta (x)- \sum_{i=1}^e d_j$ is determined by $\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$, thus invariant by base change $S \subseteq \hat{S}$. Therefore it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $S=\hat{S}$ in order to prove the first statement, i.e. that $h$ is in case (a) of property [**(G)**]{}. Since $h$ splits, there is a factorization $$h=\prod_{i=1}^{p}(Z -\varphi_j) \in S[Z], \ \varphi_1, \ldots ,\varphi_{p}\in S.$$ Let $z \in {\cal O}_{\cal X}$ be the image of $Z$ and $g \in G=\Z/p$, $g \neq 0$. By property [**(G)**]{}, we have $g(z)\in {\cal O}_{\cal X}$ and $g(z)$ is a root of $h(Z)$. Up to reindexing, it can therefore be assumed that $$g^i (z)=z-\varphi_{i+1}+\varphi_1\in S, \ 1 \leq i \leq p-1.$$ In particular, we have $g(z)-z =\varphi_1 -\varphi_2 \in S$ and we deduce that $$g^i (z) -z =\sum_{k=0}^{i-1} g^k(g(z)-z)=i(g(z)-z), \ 1 \leq i \leq p-1.$$ Since $(p-1)!$ is a unit in $S$, we get a formula $$D=\mathrm{Disc}_Z(h)=\gamma_0(\varphi_1 -\varphi_2)^{p(p-1)}, \ \gamma_0 \in S, \ \gamma_0 \ \mathrm{a} \ \mathrm{unit}.$$ By assumption, $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ is adapted to $E$. Then definition \[conditionE\](ii) implies that $$\varphi_1 -\varphi_2 =\gamma u^\mathbf{a},$$ with $\gamma \in S$ a unit, and $a_j=0$, $e+1 \leq j \leq n$. Take an expansion (\[eq2036\]): $$\varphi_1 =\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S}(\varphi_1)}\gamma_\mathbf{x}u^\mathbf{x} ,
\ \gamma_\mathbf{x}\in S, \ \gamma_\mathbf{x} \ \mathrm{unit}$$ with $\mathbf{S}(\varphi_1)\subset \N^n$ finite. If $x_j < a_j$ for some $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbf{S}(\varphi_1)$ and some $j$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, then $\mathbf{x}$ is a vertex of $\Delta_{S} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ with initial form $$\mathrm{in}_\mathbf{x} h = (Z - \lambda U^\mathbf{x})^p, \ \lambda \in S/m_S, \ \lambda \neq 0.$$ This is a solvable vertex: a contradiction, since $\Delta_{S} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ is minimal. Therefore $\varphi_1 \in (u^\mathbf{a})$ and we get $\epsilon (x)=0$: a contradiction. Hence $({\cal X},x)$ is analytically irreducible as stated. It can be assumed that $h$ is in case (b) of property [**(G)**]{} from now on.\
Assume now that $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h $ is in cases (a) or (b) of property [**(G)**]{}, i.e. $i_0(\alpha)<p$ and $$\label{eq2311}
\mathrm{Disc}_Z(\mathrm{in}_\alpha h)\neq 0 .$$ We now compute $\mathrm{ord}_{(u_j)}D$ for $1 \leq j \leq e$. Let $$s_j:=(u_j) \in \mathrm{Spec}S, \ S_j:=S_{s_j} \ \mathrm{and} \ y_j \in \eta^{-1}(s_j).$$ To begin with, $\Delta_{S_j} (h;u_j,Z)$ is minimal by proposition \[Deltaalg\]. We denote by $G(s_j)=k(s_j)[U_j]$ the graded ring of $S_j$ w.r.t. its valuation $\mu_j:=\mathrm{ord}_{(u_j)}$ and by $\mathrm{in}_{j}$ the initial form map w.r.t. $\mu_j$. Let: $$\label{eq232}
\gamma_{i,j}U_j^{A_{i,j}}:=\mathrm{in}_{j}f_{i,Z} \in
G(s_j), \ 1 \leq i \leq p.$$ By definition \[conditionE\](ii), we have $\mathrm{char}S/(u_j)=p$. Therefore proposition \[izero\] and (\[eq231\]) apply to $S_j$ with $\alpha=1\in \R$. The corresponding integer $i_0(1)$ is denoted by $i_0(s_j)$ in order to avoid confusion and we have $$\label{eq2321}
\mu_j(D) \geq p(p-1)\delta (y_j)=(p-1)H_j.$$
[*Case 1:*]{} $i_0(s_j)<p$. Then equality holds in the former formula as remarked right after (\[eq231\]).\
[*Case 2:*]{} $i_0(s_j)=p$. Then inequality is strict in the former formula. Since $\Delta_{S_j} (h;u_j,Z)$ is minimal, we have $\gamma_{p,j}U_j^{A_{p,j}} \not \in G(s_j)^p$ and $A_{p,j}=H_j$. Let $z \in L$ be the image of $Z$. The discrete valuation $\mu_j$ of $K$ has a unique extension to $L$, still denoted by $\mu_j$. There is an embedding $G(s_j)\subset G_j$, where $G_j$ is the graded ring of the valuation ring ${\cal O}_j:=\{f \in L : \mu_j (f) \geq 0\}$.\
[*Case 2a:*]{} $H_j \in p\N$. We have $$\label{eq233}
G_j=k(s_j)(\gamma_{p,j}^{1 \over p})[U_j], \ \mathrm{in}_{j}z=
-\gamma_{p,j}^{1 \over p} U_j^{H_j\over p};$$
[*Case 2b:*]{} $H_j \not \in p\N$. We have $$\label{eq234}
G_j=k(s_j)[\gamma_{p,j}^{l_j \over p}U_j^{1 \over p}], \ \mathrm{in}_{j}z=
-\gamma_{p,j}^{1 \over p} U_j^{H_j\over p},$$ where $l_j$ satisfies $l_jH_j \equiv 1 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, since the element $t:=z^{l_j}u_j^{-{l_jH_j-1 \over p}}$ is a regular parameter of ${\cal O}_j$ with $(\mathrm{in}_{j}t)^p=-\gamma_{p,j}^{l_j}U_j$.\
Let $g \in G=\mathrm{Gal}(L|K)$ be nontrivial. We have $$\label{eq235}
g (z)^p-z^p +\sum_{i=1}^{p-1}f_{i,Z} (g (z)^{p-i}-z^{p-i})=0.$$ Since $\mu_j(g (z)-z)>\mu_j(z)$ and $\mu_j((p-1)!)=0$, we deduce from (\[eq232\]) and (\[eq233\])-(\[eq234\]) that $$\label{eq236}
\mathrm{in}_{j}(f_{i,Z} (g
(z)^{p-i}-z^{p-i}))=(-1)^{p-i}iT_j\gamma_{i,j}\gamma_{p,j}^{(p-i-1)/p}U_j^{(p-i-1){H_j
\over p}+A_{i,j}}$$ for $1 \leq i \leq p-1$, where $T_j:=\mathrm{in}_{j}(g (z)-z)$. On the other hand, we have $$\label{eq2361}
g (z)^p-z^p= (g (z)-z)^p + \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p \\
i \\
\end{array}
\right)
(g (z)-z)^{p-i}z^i.$$ Computing $\mu_j(D)$ by the Hilbert formula [@ZS1] V.11.(8) gives $$\label{eq2363}
\mu_j(D)=p(p-1)\mu_j(g (z)-z).$$ Since equality is strict in (\[eq2321\]), we have $\mu_j(H(x)^{-(p-1)}D)>0$ and we deduce that $\mu_j (g (z)-z)> H_j/p$. Computing initial forms for each term on the right hand side of (\[eq2361\]), we get for $1 \leq i \leq p-1$: $$\mathrm{in}_{j}((g (z)-z)^{p-i}z^i)=(-1)^{i}T_j^{p-i}\gamma_{p,j}^{i \over p}U_j^{i{H_j \over p}}.$$ Since $\mu_j (g (z)-z)> H_j/p$ and $\mu_j(\left(
\begin{array}{c}
p \\
i \\
\end{array}
\right)
) =\mu_j(p)$, $1 \leq i \leq p-1$, the unique minimal value term in (\[eq2361\]) inside the summation symbol is obtained with $i=p-1$. This shows $$\label{eq2362}
\mathrm{in}_{j}\left ( \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}
\left (
\begin{array}{c}
p \\
i \\
\end{array}
\right)
(g (z)-z)^{p-i}z^i \right ) =\mathrm{in}_{j}(p)T_j\gamma_{p,j}^{p-1 \over p}U_j^{(p-1){H_j \over p}}.$$
[*Case 2a.*]{} By (\[eq233\]), all terms $\gamma_{p,j}^{(p-i-1)/p}$ for $1\leq i \leq p-1$ appearing in (\[eq236\]) are linearly independent over $k(s_j)$. Since $p \in S_j$, $pu_j^{-\mu_j (p)}$ is a unit in $S_j$. Let $\gamma \in k(s_j)$ be its residue, so the family $(\gamma \gamma_{p,j}^{p-1 \over p}, \{\gamma_{p,j}^{{p-i-1 \over p}}\}_{1 \leq i \leq p-1} )$ is a [*basis*]{} of the $k(s_j)$-vector space $k(s_j)(\gamma_{p,j}^{1/p})$. Tracing back to (\[eq235\]) an (\[eq2361\]), the value of $(g (z)-z)^p$ is the value of a sum of terms with linearly independent initial forms in $G_j$. We deduce the formula $$\label{eq237}
\mu_j(g (z)-z)^{p-1} =\min\{\mu_j (p) + (p-1){H_j \over p},
\min_{1 \leq i \leq p-1}\{(p-i-1){H_j \over p}+A_{i,j}\}\}.$$
[*Case 2b.*]{} By (\[eq234\]), all values $(p-i-1)H_j/p$ for $1\leq i \leq p-1$ appearing in (\[eq236\]) are pairwise distinct modulo $\Z$. Since $p \in S_j$, the family $$(\mu_j(p)+(p-1){H_j \over p},\{(p-i-1){H_j\over p} +A_{i,j}\}_{1 \leq i \leq p-1} )$$ represent all cosets of $(1/p)\Z $ modulo $\Z$. The argument is now similar to case 2a above and (\[eq237\]) holds as well. Note that the minimum in the right hand side of (\[eq237\]) is achieved exactly once in this case 2b.\
By (\[eq2363\]) and (\[eq237\]), we conclude in all three cases 1, 2a and 2b that $$\label{eq238}
\mu_j(H(x)^{-(p-1)}D)=\min\{p\mu_j (p), \min_{1 \leq i \leq p-1}\{pA_{i,j}-iH_j\}\}.$$ By (\[eq232\]) and definition of $i_0(\alpha)$, we have $$\label{eq239}
\sum_{j=1}^e {A_{i_0(\alpha),j}\alpha_j}\leq \mu_\alpha (f_{i_0(\alpha),Z}) =i_0(\alpha)\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z) .$$
Collecting together, since it was assumed in (\[eq2311\]) that $\mathrm{Disc}_Z (\mathrm{in}_\alpha h) \neq 0$, we have $$\sum_{j=1}^e
{\mu_j(H(x)^{-(p-1)}D)\alpha_j}=(p-1)\left (p\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)- \sum_{j=1}^e{H_j}\alpha_j \right )$$ by (\[eq231\]). By (\[eq238\])-(\[eq239\]), we deduce $$\label{eq2391}
(p-1 -i_0(\alpha))(p\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)- \sum_{j=1}^e{H_j}\alpha_j) \leq 0.$$
Suppose that $p\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)- \sum_{j=1}^e{H_j}\alpha_j=0$. Definition \[defH\] implies that $f_{i,Z}^p \in H(x)^i$ for $1 \leq i \leq p$. Definition \[defDelta\] yields the equality $$\Delta_{S} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)=({H_1 \over p}, \ldots , {H_e \over p}, 0 , \ldots , 0)+\R^n_{ \geq 0}.$$ This is a contradiction, since it is assumed that $\epsilon (x)>0$.
We thus have $p\delta_\alpha (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)- \sum_{j=1}^e{H_j}\alpha_j>0$. By (\[eq2391\]), this implies $i_0(\alpha)=p-1$, since $i_0(\alpha)\leq p-1$ was assumed in (\[eq2311\]).
We may now sharpen (\[eq2391\]) as follows, since it is an equality: equality holds in (\[eq239\]) [*and*]{} the minimum on the right hand side of (\[eq238\]) is achieved with $i=i_0(\alpha)=p-1$ for each $j$, $1\leq j \leq e$. These two properties are equivalent to the existence of an expansion (\[eq2313\]) with $\gamma_{p-1,Z}\in S$ a unit.
By proposition \[deltaint\](i), $G=\Z/p$ acts on the roots of $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$. Let $$z_\alpha \in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z]/(\mathrm{in}_\alpha h)$$ be the image of $Z$. Then $(g (z_\alpha )-z_\alpha )^{p-1}+F_{p-1,Z,\alpha}=0$ for $g \in G$ nontrivial, so the polynomial $X^{p-1} +F_{p-1,Z,\alpha}$ is totally split over $\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$, i.e. $-F_{p-1,Z,\alpha}$ is a $(p-1)^{\mathrm{th}}$ in $\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$ as required. The last formula in the theorem is obvious.
Adapted differential structure.
-------------------------------
In this section, we introduce the differential structure on the graded algebras $\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$. We will only consider here the case $\alpha =\mathbf{1} \in \R^J_{>0}$ with notations as in definition \[definh\]. These algebras appear naturally as blow up algebras of $S$ along regular primes. We will adapt and simplify notations as much as possible in order to fit with the forthcoming computations.
This construction uses formal coordinates and Nagata derivatives [@Ma] pp.241-245, and could be considerably simplified when $$E=\mathrm{Spec}(S/(u_1 \cdots u_e))\subset \mathrm{Spec}S$$ is essentially of finite type over some field. This extra property is satisfied for example when $E$ is contained in the closed fiber of some previously performed blowing ups. In dimension three, this extra property is easily achieved from embedded resolution theorems in smaller dimensions, [*vid.*]{} lemma \[imagepoints\].\
\[notacenter\] Let $W \subseteq E$ be a regular closed subset of $\mathrm{Spec}S$ having normal crossings with $E$. We now write $$I(W):=I_J=(\{u_j\}_{j \in J})\subset S \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ J \subseteq \{1,\ldots ,n\}.$$ Let $J_E:=J \cap \{1,\ldots ,e\}$, $J':=\{1,\ldots ,n\}\backslash J$, so $(J')_E=\{1,\ldots ,e\} \backslash J_E$.
Let $S_W:=S/I(W)$ and $\overline{u}_{j'} \in S_W$ be the image of $u_{j'}$, $j' \in J'$, so $$\overline{m}_S:=m_{S_W}= (\overline{u}_{j'})_{j' \in J'}).$$ Since $W \subseteq E$, [**(E)**]{} implies that $\mathrm{char}G(W)=\mathrm{char}(S/m_S)=p>0$. The formal completion $\widehat{S_W}$ of $S_W$ can be written as $$\label{eq2413}
\widehat{S_W}\simeq S/m_S[[\{\overline{u}_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'}]].$$ The algebra $\mathrm{gr}_{\mathbf{1}}S$ of definition \[definh\] is denoted by: $$G(W):=\mathrm{gr}_{I(W)}S \simeq S_W[\{U_j\}_{j \in J}].$$ We also denote $\widehat{G(W)}:=G(W)\otimes_{S_W}\widehat{S_W}$. In the special case $W=\{m_S\}$, we thus have $\widehat{G(m_S)}=G(m_S)$.
The initial form $\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{1}}h$ w.r.t. the weight vector $\mathbf{1} \in \R^J_{>0}$ is now denoted $$\mathrm{in}_{W}h =X^p + \sum_{i=1}^p{F_{i,X,W}}X^{p-i} \in G(W)[X],$$ with $F_{i,X,W} \in G(W)_{i\delta_{\mathbf{1}} (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;X)}$, $1 \leq i \leq p$.\
Any local equation of $E$ has an initial form in $G(W)$, and we denote by $E(W)$ the associated divisor. Explicitly: $$E(W):=\mathrm{div}\left (\prod_{j\in J_E}{U_j}\prod_{j'\in
(J')_E}{\overline{u}_{j'}}\right )\subset
\mathrm{Spec}G(W).$$ We include in these definitions the case where $W=\mathrm{div}(u_j)$ is an irreducible component of $E$. This corresponds to $(J')_E=\{1, \ldots ,e\} \backslash \{j\}$ and $$G(W)=S / (u_j)[U_j], \ E(W)=\mathrm{div}\left (U_j\prod_{j'\in (J')_E}{\overline{u}_{j'}} \right ).$$
Let $(\lambda_l)_{l \in \Lambda_0}$ be an absolute $p$-basis of $S/m_S$. For this notion and the rest of this section, we refer to [@Ma] pp.201-205 and pp. 235-245. We allow $\Lambda_0$ infinite in these constructions. The corresponding derivations $({\partial \hfill{}\over \partial \lambda_l})_{l \in \Lambda_0}$ of $\mathrm{Der}(S/m_S)$ act on power series in $\widehat{S_W}$ (\[eq2413\]) coefficientwise. Those derivations ${\partial \hfill{}\over \partial \lambda_l}$, $l \in
\Lambda_0$ will be usually called “derivations w.r.t. to constants”.
Let ${\cal D}(W)\subset \mathrm{Der}(\widehat{G(W)})$ be the submodule generated by the derivations w.r.t. to constants together with $$\label{eq2412}
\left (\{U_j{\partial \hfill{}\over \partial U_j} \}_{j \in J_E},
\{{\partial \hfill{}\over \partial U_j}\}_{j \in J \backslash J_E} ,
\{\overline{u}_{j'}{\partial \hfill{}\over \partial
\overline{u}_{j'}}\}_{j' \in (J')_E}, \{{\partial \hfill{}\over \partial
\overline{u}_{j'}}\}_{j' \in J' \backslash (J')_E} \right ).$$
Since $S_W$ is excellent and integrally closed, we have $\widehat{S_W}^p \cap S_W=S_W^p$. Therefore for $F \in G(W)$, there is an equivalence: $$\label{eq241}
\forall D \in {\cal D}(W), \ D \cdot F=0 \Leftrightarrow F \in G(W)^p.$$ If $F \in G(W)_d$ is a [*homogeneous*]{} element, $D \cdot F$ is not homogeneous in general for $D \in
{\cal D}(W) $ because the derivations $({\partial \hfill{}\over \partial U_j})_{j \in J \backslash J_E}$ lower degrees by one. We define a homogeneous $S_W$-submodule of $G(W)_{d-1}$ as follows: $$\label{eq2411}
{\cal V}(F,E,W):=<\{\mathrm{cl}_{d-1}{\partial F \over \partial U_j}\}_{j \in J \backslash J_E}>\subseteq G(W)_{d-1}.$$
Let ${\cal D}_W \subseteq {\cal D}(W)$ be the submodule defined by $${\cal D}_W:= \{ D \in {\cal D}(W) : D \cdot (I(W)/I(W)^2)\subseteq
(I(W)/I(W)^2)\}.$$ If $D \in {\cal D}(W)$, we have $$\label{eq242}
D \in {\cal D}_W \Leftrightarrow \forall j \in J \backslash J_E, \
<dU_j,D> \in (I(W)/I(W)^2) \widehat{G(W)},$$ and there is an equivalence $$\label{eq243}
{\cal D}_W = {\cal D}(W) \Leftrightarrow W \ \mathrm{is} \
\mathrm{an} \ \mathrm{intersection} \ \mathrm{of} \
\mathrm{components} \ \mathrm{of} \ E.$$
If $F \in G(W)_d$ is a [*homogeneous*]{} element, we define a homogeneous $\widehat{S_W}$-submodule of $\widehat{G(W)}_d$ as follows: $$\label{eq2431}
{\cal J}(F,E,W):=\mathrm{cl}_{d}({\cal D}_W \cdot F ) \subseteq \widehat{G(W)}_d.$$
Let $H_W$ be the initial form in $G(W)$ of the monomial ideal $H(x)\subseteq S$ (definition \[defH\]), where $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$, i.e. $$\label{eq2441}
H_W:=\left (\prod_{j\in J_E}{U_j^{H_j}}\prod_{j'\in (J')_E}{\overline{u}_{j'}^{H_{j'}}}\right )\subseteq G(W)_{d_W},$$ where $d_W:=\sum_{j\in J_E}H_j$. If $F \in H_WG(W)_{d-d_W}$, it follows from the above definitions that $${\cal V}(F,E,W)\subseteq H_W G(W)_{d-d_W-1} \ \mathrm{and}
\ {\cal J}(F,E,W)\subseteq H_W\widehat{G(W)}_{d-d_W}.$$ For such $F \in H_WG(W)_{d-d_W}$, we denote: $$\label{eq244}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccccc}
V(F,E,W) & := & H_W^{-1}{\cal V}(F,E,W) & \subseteq & G(W)_{d-d_W-1}, \\
& & & & \\
J(F,E,W) & := & H_W^{-1}{\cal J}(F,E,W) & \subseteq & \widehat{G(W)}_{d-d_W}. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
If $F_{p,X,W}\in H_W G(W)_{d-d_W}$, the submodules $$V(F_{p,X,W},E,W)\subseteq G(W)_{d-d_W-1} \ \mathrm{and} \ J(F_{p,X,W},E,W)\subseteq \widehat{G(W)}_{d-d_W}$$ are well-defined by (\[eq244\]). We will continually apply this definition when the following properties (i) and (ii) hold:
- $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;X)$ are well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ (definition \[defwelladapted\]), and
- $d-d_W=\epsilon (y)$ with $ \eta^{-1}(s)=\{y\}$, $s$ the generic point of $W$.
Note that $F_{p,X,W}\in H_W G(W)_{d-d_W}$ is then a consequence of definition \[defepsilon\] and proposition \[epsiloninv\].
Some considerations will require localizing $S$ at some point $s \in W $. We then denote by $W_s$ the stalk of $W$ at $s$. This notation is used jointly with notation \[notaprime\] [*sqq.*]{} about the stalk $E_s$. The restriction of $s$ is denoted by $\overline{s} \in \mathrm{Spec}S_W=G(W)_0$. We have $$G(W_s)=\mathrm{gr}_{I(W_s)}S_s\simeq (S_W)_{\overline{s}}[\{U_j\}_{j \in J}].$$ Consistently $\mathrm{in}_{W_s}h \in G(W_s)[X]$ denotes the initial form. The above construction thus allows to associate to any [*homogeneous*]{} element $F \in G(W_s)_d$ homogeneous submodules $${\cal V}(F,E_s,W_s)\subseteq G(W_s)_{d-1}, \ {\cal J}(F,E_s,W_s) \subseteq \widehat{G(W_s)}_d.$$
Cones, ridge and directrix.
---------------------------
In this section, we recollect some facts about the directrix and Hilbert-Samuel stratum of a homogeneous ideal. These facts are then applied to extract numerical invariants from the vector spaces $$V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)-1} \ \mathrm{and} \ J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)}$$ defined in the previous section (\[eq244\]) when $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$. These considerations are based on elementary linear algebra.
Most difficulties in this section appear only for $n \geq 4$, which will eventually lead us to define our main invariant $\omega (x)$ in a different way than in [@CoP2] chapter 1 (for equicharacteristic $S$ of dimension $n=3$) in the next section.\
Let $k$ be a field, $R_1$ be a $k$-vector space of finite dimension $n \geq 1$ and $R:=k[R_1]$ be the symmetric algebra. Let ${\mathbf V}:=\mathrm{Spec}R$ and $I$ be a homogeneous ideal of $R$ which defines a cone $C=C(I):=\mathrm{Spec}(R/I)$. With these notations, we define:
\[defdirectrix\] The directrix $\mathrm{Vdir}(I)$ of $C=C(I)$ is the smallest $k$-vector subspace $W$ of $R_1$ such that $I=(I \cap k[W])R$. We denote $$\tau (I):=\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{Vdir}(I), \ \mathrm{Dir}(I):=\mathrm{Spec}(R/(\mathrm{Vdir}(I))).$$
\[defHilbertSamuel\] Let $C=C(F)$ be a hypersurface cone, i.e. $I=(F)$ is a nonzero principal ideal. We define a reduced subcone $$\mathrm{Max}(F):= \{ x \in {\mathbf V} :
\mathrm{ord}_xF=\mathrm{ord}_0F\}\subseteq C(F),$$ where $0$ is the origin (so $\mathrm{ord}_0F=\mathrm{deg}F$).
Given a [*fixed*]{} degree $d \geq 1$ and an ideal $I=(F_1, \ldots ,F_m) \subset R$ defined by homogeneous polynomials $F_1, \ldots ,F_m \in R$, $\mathrm{deg}F_i=d$ for $1 \leq i \leq m$, we let $$\mathrm{Max}(I):= \{ x \in {\mathbf V} :
\mathrm{ord}_xF_i=d, 1 \leq i \leq m\}\subseteq C(I).$$
The cone $\mathrm{Max}(I)$ is the closed Hilbert-Samuel stratum of $C(I)$. These two objects and the ridge are considered and connected by H. Hironaka in a more general context. See also [@Gi1] [@Gi2] [@Po] for definition and computation of the ridge and Hilbert-Samuel stratum.
\[conedirectrix\] **(Hironaka)**[@H4] Let $C=C(F)$ be a hypersurface cone. There are inclusions $$\mathrm{Dir}(F) \subseteq \mathrm{Max}(F) \subseteq C(F).$$
If $k$ is perfect or if $\mathrm{dim}R \leq p+1$, the left hand side inclusion is an equality.
\[ridgedimthree\] Counterexamples to the last statement exist for nonperfect $k$ and $\mathrm{dim}R > p+1$. For $\mathrm{dim}R \leq 4$, such counterexamples exist only if $\mathrm{dim}R = 4$ and $p=2$. For applications to the proof of theorem \[luthm\], we only have to deal with this difficulty for the initial form polynomial ($\mathrm{dim}R = 4$) which is of the form $$\mathrm{in} h=Z^2 -\lambda U_1Z +F_{2,Z}, \ F_{2,Z} \in S/m_S[U_1,U_2,U_3]_2, \ \lambda \in S/m_S.$$ By [@H4], the polynomial $\mathrm{in} h$ is a counterexample to the last statement in proposition \[conedirectrix\] if and only if $\lambda =0$ and, up to a linear change of variables, $$\label{eq2609}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h =Z^2 + \lambda_2 U_1^2 +\lambda_1U_2^2+\lambda_1 \lambda_2U_3^2$$ with $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ 2-independent, i.e. $[(S/m_S)^2(\lambda_1,\lambda_2):(S/m_S)^2]=4$. This very special case is dealt with in proposition \[tausup2\].\
Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ (definition \[defwelladapted\]). In case $\epsilon (x)>0$, we have $\eta^{-1}(m_S)=\{x\}$, $k(x)=S/m_S$ (proposition \[deltainv\]) and the initial form polynomial has the form $$\label{eq2551}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h =Z^p - G^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z} \in G(m_S)[Z]= S/m_S[U_1, \ldots ,U_n][Z]$$ by theorem \[initform\] applied to $\alpha =\mathbf{1} \in \R^n_{>0}$. There is an associated integer $i_0(x)=p-1$ (resp. $i_0(x)=p$) if $G\neq 0$ (resp. if $G=0$). We denote by $H \subseteq G(m_S)_d$ the initial form vector space of the ideal $H(x)$, $d=\sum_{j=1}^e H_j$ (definition \[defH\]). If $i_0(x)=p-1$, we have $$\label{eq2552}
H^{-1}G^p =< \prod_{j=1}^e{U_j^{pB_j}}>, \ B_j\in {1 \over p}\N \ \mathrm{and} \ \sum_{j=1}^e{pB_j}=\epsilon (x).$$ We can restate previous material as follows:
\[indiff\] Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ and assume that $\epsilon (x)>0$. The following holds:
- the vector space $V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)-1}$ satisfies $$V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) = 0 \Leftrightarrow F_{p,Z}\in S/m_S [U_1, \ldots ,
U_e][U_{e+1}^p, \ldots U_n^p];$$
- the vector space $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)}$ satisfies $$J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)= 0 \Leftrightarrow F_{p,Z}\in \left (S/m_S[U_1,\ldots ,U_n]\right )^p;$$
- if $i_0(x) =p$, the vector space $V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)$ is independent of the well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$; if $i_0 (x)=p$ and $V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) = 0$, the vector space $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)_{\epsilon (x)}$ is independent of the well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$.
The first statement follows from (\[eq2411\]) and (\[eq244\]), while (ii) follows from (\[eq241\]). Assume now that $i_0(x)=p$, i.e. $G=0$.
To begin with, the situation in (ii) does not occur because the polyhedron $\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal. If $Z'=Z-\theta$, $\theta \in \hat{S}$ with $\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}\theta \geq \delta (x)/p$, we have $F_{p,Z'}=F_{p,Z}+\Theta^p$ for some $\Theta \in
S/m_S[U_1,\ldots ,U_n]_{\delta (x)/p} $ (so $\Theta =0$ if $\delta (x)\not \in \N$). Hence $D \cdot F_{p,Z'}=D \cdot F_{p,Z}$ for every $D \in \mathrm{Der}(G(m_S))$.
By elementary calculus, the vector space $$V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)=H^{-1}<\left \{{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}\right \}_{e+1 \leq j \leq n}>$$ is unchanged by adapted coordinate change (more generally by changes stabilizing the vector space $<U_1, \ldots ,U_e>$) and this proves the first statement in (iii). If $V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)=0$, the vector space $$J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)=H^{-1}<\left \{U_j{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}\right \}_{1 \leq j \leq e},
\left \{{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial \lambda_l}\right \}_{l \in \Lambda_0}>.$$ is not affected either by changes of coordinates fixing each $<U_j>$, $j\leq e$.
We now turn to the version of proposition \[indiff\](iii) for $i_0(x)=p-1$. The problem is elementary, though more technical, and the remaining part of this section is devoted to it.\
Let $(\mathbf{e}_j)_{1 \leq j \leq n}$ be the standard basis of $\R^n$ and let $$\E:=\{\mathbf{x}\in \R^n : x_{e+1}= \cdots =x_n =0\}\simeq \R^e.$$ Given $d \in {1 \over p}\N$ and $\mathbf{H}\in \N^n \cap \E$, we denote $$\Delta_\mathbf{H} (d):=\{\mathbf{x}=(x_1, \ldots ,x_n) \in \R_{\geq 0}^n : \mid \mathbf{x} \mid = d \
\mathrm{and} \ x_j \geq {H_j\over p}, 1 \leq j \leq e\}$$ and $$\label{eq2610}
{\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd):=(U^\mathbf{H})\cap G(m_S)_{pd}\subseteq G(m_S)_{pd}.$$
We fix once and for all $\mathbf{b}\in (\N^n\cap \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d))\cap \E$. Note that ${\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd) \neq (0)$ only if $H_1 + \cdots + H_e \leq pd$ and that such $\mathbf{b}$ as above exists only if $d \in \N$. By convention, we take $\{\mathbf{b}\}=\emptyset$ if $d \not \in \N$ in the following formul[æ]{}. For applications, we will take $d=\delta (x_0)$, $\mathbf{H}$ as in definition \[defH\] and $\mathbf{b}$ will be defined by $<G>= :<U_1^{b_1} \cdots U_{e}^{b_e}>$.
Any homogeneous polynomial $F \in {\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)$ has a unique expansion of the form $$F:=\sum_{\mathbf{x} \in {1 \over p}\N^n \cap \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d)}{\lambda (\mathbf{x})U^{p\mathbf{x}}},
\lambda (\mathbf{x}) \in S/m_S.$$ We denote $$\Delta (F):=\mathrm{Conv}(\{\mathbf{x} \in {1 \over p}\N^n \cap \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d) :
\lambda (\mathbf{x})\neq 0\} \cup \{\mathbf{b}\}) \subseteq \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d) .$$ According to theses conventions, we have $\Delta (0)=\{\mathbf{b}\}$.
\[defT\] With notations as above, let $T: \ {\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)\rightarrow {\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)$ be the $S/m_S$-linear truncation operator defined as follows: let $$\label{eq2613}
A:=\{ \mathbf{x} \in {1 \over p}\N^n \cap \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d) : \mathbf{b} +p(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{b})\in \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d) \}.$$ and $$\label{eq2611}
T F:=\sum_{\mathbf{x} \not \in A}{\lambda (\mathbf{x})U^{p\mathbf{x}}}
\in {\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd).$$ For $d \not \in \N$, we have $A=\emptyset$ and $T$ is the identity map.
The construction of the previous section associates two vector spaces $V(T F , E,m_S)$ and $J(T F , E,m_S)$. Explicitly, we have: $$V(T F , E,m_S)=U^{-\mathbf{H}}<{\partial TF \over \partial U_j}, e+1 \leq j \leq n>
\subseteq G(m_S)_{pd -1 - \mid \mathbf{H}\mid}$$ for the former one. If $V(T F , E,m_S)=0$ (and only in this case), we will use the latter one, given explicitly by and $$J(T F , E,m_S)=U^{-\mathbf{H}}<\{U_j{\partial TF \over \partial U_j}\}_{1 \leq j \leq e},
\{{\partial TF \over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l \in \Lambda_0} >
\subseteq G(m_S)_{pd - \mid \mathbf{H}\mid},$$ with notations as in the previous section. We can now state:
\[kerT\] Assume that $d \in \N$. With notations as above, we have $$\mathrm{Ker}T =U^{(p-1)\mathbf{b}}{\cal V}_{\lceil {\mathbf{H}\over p}\rceil}(d),$$ where $\lceil {\mathbf{H}\over p}\rceil :=(\lceil {H_1\over p}\rceil , \ldots , \lceil {H_e\over p}\rceil, 0 ,\ldots ,0)$.
Let $G:= \mu U^{\mathbf{b}}$, $\mu \in S/m_S$, $\Phi \in {\cal V}_{\lceil {\mathbf{H}\over p}\rceil}(d)$ and $F\in {\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)$. Then $$V( T(F+ \Phi^p -G^{(p-1)}\Phi ), E,m_S)=V( TF, E,m_S).$$ If $V( TF, E,m_S)=0$, then $$J( T(F+ \Phi^p -G^{(p-1)}\Phi ), E,m_S)=J( TF, E,m_S),$$
We analyze the definition of $T$ in (\[eq2611\]). The kernel of $T$ is generated by those monomials $U^{p\mathbf{x}} \in {\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)$ such that $$\mathbf{y}:= p\mathbf{x}-(p-1)\mathbf{b} \in \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d).$$ Since $\mathbf{x}\in {1 \over p}\N^n$, $\mathbf{b}\in \N^n$, we have $\mathbf{y}\in \N^n$ for such $\mathbf{y}$. Therefore $\mathrm{Ker}T$ is generated by $$\mathrm{Ker}T=<\{U^{(p-1)\mathbf{b}}U^{\mathbf{y}} : \mathbf{y}\in \N^n,
\ \mid \mathbf{y}\mid =d \ \mathrm{and} \ y_j\geq {H_j \over p}, 1 \leq j \leq e \}>.$$ This proves the first statement. For the second part, we have proved that $$T(F+ \Phi^p -G^{(p-1)}\Phi)=TF + T\Phi^p.$$ Hence $D \cdot T(F+ \Phi^p -G^{(p-1)}\Phi)=D \cdot TF$ for every $D \in \mathrm{Der}(G(m_S))$.
We now study invariance properties of $V( F, E,m_S)$ and $J( F, E,m_S)$ under changes of adapted coordinates. Given two r.s.p.’s $\mathbf{u}=(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ and $\mathbf{u'}=(u'_1,\ldots ,u'_n)$ adapted to $E$, there exists a matrix $M \in {\cal M}(S)$, $${\cal M}(S):=\{(m_{ij}) \in \mathrm{GL}(n,S): m_{jj'}=0,
(j,j') \in \{1, \ldots, e\}\times\{1, \ldots ,n\}, j\neq j'\}$$ such that $\mathbf{u}=M\mathbf{u'}$. The set ${\cal M}(S)$ is the set of $S$-points of an affine $S$-scheme ${\cal M} \subset \mathrm{GL}(n,S)$. Denote by $$\mathrm{GL}(n,S) \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}(n,S/m_S), \ M \mapsto \overline{M}$$ the canonical surjection. Each such $\overline{M}$ induces a graded $S/m_S$-automorphism of $\mathrm{gr}_{m_S}(S)\simeq S/m_S[U_1, \ldots , U_n]$. By (\[eq2610\]), this automorphism restricts to an automorphism of ${\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)$ for each $d \in {1 \over p}\N$ still denoted by $\overline{M}$.
Given a homogeneous polynomial $F \in {\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)$ as above and a matrix $\overline{M} \in {\cal M}(S/m_S)$, we denote for simplicity the transformed equation $U \mapsto \overline{M}U'$ by $$\label{eq2711}
F'=: \sum_{\mathbf{x'} \in {1 \over p}\N^n \cap \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d)}{\lambda '(\mathbf{x'}){U'}^{p\mathbf{x'}}}.$$ Let $\Delta (F'):=\mathrm{Conv}(\{\mathbf{x'} \in {1 \over p}\N^n \cap \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d) :
\lambda '(\mathbf{x'})\neq 0\} \cup \{\mathbf{b}\})\subseteq \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d)$ be the corresponding polytope and $T'$ be the corresponding operator on ${\cal V}_\mathbf{H}(pd)$ with variable $U'$. The linear operator $T$ obviously does not commute with $\overline{M}$ in general (i.e. $(TF)'\neq T'F'$ in general), but the lemma below extracts the relevant invariant data. We refer to definition \[defHilbertSamuel\] for the notation $\mathrm{Max}(I)$, $I \subset G(m_S)$ generated by homogeneous polynomial of one and the same degree.\
\[defB\] We denote by $$\label{eq2612}
B:=\{ j , \ 1 \leq j \leq e: pb_j -H_j>0\}\ \mathrm{and} \ U_B:=\{U_j, j \in B\}.$$ We denote $U_{B'}:=\{U_j, j \not \in B\}$ and stick to our former conventions, i.e. $$B'=\{1, \ldots ,n\} \backslash B, \ (B')_E =\{1, \ldots ,e\} \backslash B.$$
\[Cmaxinv\] With notations as above, there is an equality of sets $$\label{eq2713}
\mathrm{Max}(V( TF, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\}=\mathrm{Max}(V( T'F', E,m_S))\cap \{U'_B=0\}.$$ If $V( TF, E,m_S)=0$, then $V( T'F', E,m_S)=0$ and there is an equality of sets $$\label{eq2714}
\mathrm{Max}(J( TF, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\}=\mathrm{Max}(J( T'F', E,m_S))\cap \{U'_B=0\}.$$
The operator $T$ commutes with $\overline{M}$ when $\overline{M}$ stabilizes the vector space $<U_{e+1}, \ldots ,U_n>$. In these cases, we have $$V( T'F', E,m_S)=V( (TF)', E,m_S).$$ If $V( TF, E,m_S)=0$, then $$V( T'F', E,m_S)=0 \ \mathrm{and} \ J( T'F', E,m_S)=J( (TF)', E,m_S).$$ So the lemma is trivial in this case and we may therefore assume that $$m_{jj'}=0,(j,j') \in \{e+1, \ldots, n\}\times\{e+1, \ldots ,n\}, j\neq j' \
\mathrm{and} \ m_{jj}=1, 1 \leq j \leq n.$$ By elementary calculus, this new assumption implies for every $\Phi \in G(m_S)$: $$\label{eq2712}
{\partial \Phi '\over \partial U'_j}=\left ({\partial \Phi \over \partial U_j} \right )', \ e+1 \leq j \leq n.$$
Let $\mathbf{x}\in {1 \over p}\N^n \cap \Delta_\mathbf{H} (d)$. Since $pb_j=H_j$ for $j\in (B')_E$, we have by (\[eq2613\]): $$\mathbf{x}\in A \Leftrightarrow \forall j \in B, px_j \geq (p-1)b_j.$$ Expand $TF=\sum_\mathbf{y}U_B^\mathbf{y}F_\mathbf{y}(U_{B'})$, so we have: $$V(TF,E,m_S)=U^{-\mathbf{H}}<\{\sum_\mathbf{y}U_B^\mathbf{y}{\partial F_\mathbf{y}(U_{B'})\over \partial U_j} \}_{e+1 \leq j \leq n}>.$$ For $P \in \mathrm{Spec}G(m_S)$ such that $(U_B) \subseteq P$, we get: $$\label{eq2715}
P\in \mathrm{Max}(V( TF, E,m_S)) \Leftrightarrow P \in \bigcap_{\mathbf{y}}
\bigcap_{j=e+1}^n{\mathrm{Max}(G_\mathbf{y})},$$ where $G_\mathbf{y}:= U_{B'}^{-\mathbf{H}'}{\partial F_\mathbf{y}(U_{B'}) \over \partial U_j}$, $\mathbf{H}':=(H_{j'})_{j ' \in (B')_E}$.
Suppose furthermore that $\overline{M}$ stabilizes the vector space $<U_{B'}>$. Then $T$ also commutes with $\overline{M}$ and each term $G_\mathbf{y}$ in (\[eq2715\]) is transformed into $$(G_\mathbf{y})'=U_{B'}^{-\mathbf{H}_{B'}}{\partial F'_\mathbf{y}(U_{B'}') \over \partial U'_j}$$ by (\[eq2712\]) and (\[eq2713\]) follows. Suppose furthermore that $V(TF,E,m_S)=0$; then $G_\mathbf{y}=0$ for each $\mathbf{y}$ in (\[eq2712\]) and we get $V(T'F',E,m_S)=0$. For $1 \leq j \leq e$ and $l \in \Lambda_0$, we have $$\label{eq2716}
\left (U_j{\partial TF \over \partial U_j}\right )'=U'_j{\partial T'F' \over \partial U'_j}, \
\left ({\partial TF \over \partial \lambda_l}\right )'={\partial T'F' \over \partial \lambda_l},$$ and (\[eq2714\]) also follows. Hence we may furthermore assume that $$m_{jj'}=0,(j,j') \in \{e+1, \ldots, n\}\times (B')_E.$$
In this situation, $T$ does not commute any longer with $\overline{M}$. However, for each term $G_\mathbf{y}$ as above, we have $$\label{eq2717}
\mathrm{ord}_P (D \cdot G_\mathbf{y})\geq \mathrm{deg}G_\mathbf{y} -a$$ for any differential operator $D$ on $S/m_S[U_{B'}]$ of order not greater than $a$. Let $$(G_\mathbf{y})'=\sum_{\mid \alpha \mid\leq \mathrm{deg}G_\mathbf{y}}(U_{B}')^\alpha (D^{(\alpha )}\cdot G_\mathbf{y}),
\ D^{(\alpha )}\cdot G_\mathbf{y}\in S/m_S[U'_{B'}]_{\mathrm{deg}G_\mathbf{y}-\mid \alpha \mid}$$ be the (characteristic free) Taylor expansion, where $D^{(\alpha )}$ is a differential operator of order $\mid \alpha \mid$. Take again $P \in \mathrm{Spec}G(m_S)$ such that $(U_B) \subseteq P$. By (\[eq2717\]), we have $$P \in \mathrm{Max}(G_\mathbf{y}) \Rightarrow P \in \bigcap_{\alpha} \mathrm{Max}(D^{(\alpha )}\cdot G_\mathbf{y})
\Rightarrow P \in \mathrm{Max}((G_\mathbf{y})').$$ We deduce from (\[eq2715\]) that $$P\in \mathrm{Max}(V( TF, E,m_S)) \Rightarrow P \in \mathrm{Max}(V( (TF)', E,m_S)).$$ This proves (\[eq2713\]). If $V( TF, E,m_S)=0$, (\[eq2714\]) follows from (\[eq2716\]) as above.
This lemma is the key to our version of proposition \[indiff\](iii) for $i_0(x)=p-1$:
\[Tinvariant\] Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ and assume that $\epsilon (x)>0$ and $i_0(x)=p-1$. Let $$d:=\delta (x), \ \mathbf{H}:=(H_1, \ldots , H_e, 0, \ldots ,0) \ \mathrm{and} \
<U_1^{b_1} \cdots U_{e}^{b_e}>:=<G>$$ be defined respectively by definition \[defdelta\], definition \[defH\] and (2) of theorem \[initform\]. With notations as above, the following holds:
- the set $$\mathrm{Max}(V( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\} \subseteq \mathrm{Spec}G(m_S)$$ is independent of the well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$;
- the property $V( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S)=0$ is independent of the well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$; when it holds, the set $$\mathrm{Max}(J( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\} \subseteq \mathrm{Spec}G(m_S)$$ is also independent of the well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$.
For such $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$, the corresponding initial form is $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h =Z^p - G^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z} \in G(m_S)[Z].$$ Since $G\neq 0$, we have $d=\delta (x)=\mathrm{deg}G \in \N$. If $(u'_1, \ldots ,u'_n)$ is an adapted r.s.p. of $S$, there exists $M \in {\cal M}(S)$ such that $\mathbf{u}=M\mathbf{u'}$. Let $(u'_1, \ldots ,u'_n;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. We have $Z'=Z - \phi$ for some $\phi \in S$, with $\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}\phi \geq d $. We deduce that $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h ={Z'}^p - G^{p-1}Z' +\Phi ^p - G^{p-1}\Phi +F_{p,Z}\in G(m_S)[Z']$$ for some $\Phi :=\mathrm{cl}_d \phi \in G(m_S)_d$. We deduce the formula $$F_{p,Z'}=F_{p,Z}+\Phi^p - G^{p-1}\Phi .$$ By lemma \[kerT\], we have $V( T F_{p,Z'}, E,m_S)=V( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S)$; if moreover $V( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S)=0$, then $J( T F_{p,Z'}, E,m_S)=J( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S)$. By lemma \[Cmaxinv\], we have an equality of sets $$\mathrm{Max}(V( TF_{p,Z'}, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\}=\mathrm{Max}(V( T'F'_{p,Z'}, E,m_S))\cap \{U'_B=0\}$$ and this proves (i). If $V( TF_{p,Z'}, E,m_S)=0$, then $V( T'F'_{p,Z'}, E,m_S)=0$ by lemma \[Cmaxinv\] and there is an equality of sets $$\mathrm{Max}(J( TF_{p,Z'}, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\}=\mathrm{Max}(J( T'F'_{p,Z'}, E,m_S))\cap \{U'_B=0\}.$$ This concludes the proof.
\[Bempty\] We consider proposition \[indiff\](iii) as the special case $B=\emptyset$, $T=\mathrm{id}$ of proposition \[Tinvariant\].
Main invariants.
----------------
Let $s \in \mathrm{Spec}S$ and $y \in \eta^{-1}(s)$. The purpose of this section is to attach to $y$ a resolution complexity $$\label{eq251}
\iota (y)=(m(y), \omega (y), \kappa (y))\in \{1,\ldots ,p\}\times \N \times \{1,\ldots ,4\}$$ with certain invariance properties. Auxiliary numbers $$\label{eq2511}
(\tau (y),\tau '(y)) \in \{1,\ldots ,n+1\} \times \{1,\ldots ,n\}$$ are similarly attached to $y$.
The pair $(m(y),\tau (y))$ are the standard multiplicity and Hironaka $\tau$-number of ${\cal X}$ at $y$ (definition \[defmult\]). The pair $(\omega(y),\tau '(y))$ play the role of a differential multiplicity and differential $\tau$-number attached to $\eta : {\cal X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$ at $y$. The behavior of the function $\iota $ under blowing up is studied in theorem \[bupthm\] below.
In all definitions that follow it can be assumed without loss of generality that $s=m_S$ by localizing $S$ at $s$, since our assumptions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{} are stable when changing $(S,h,E)$ to $(S_s,h_s,E_s)$ (notation \[notaprime\]).
\[defmult\](Multiplicity). Let $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$. We have already defined $$m(x)=\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S[X]_x}} h(X)\leq p.$$ Let $M_x \subset S[X]$ be the ideal of $x$, $G_x:=\mathrm{Spec}(\mathrm{gr}_{M_x}S[X]_{M_x})$ and $H_x$ be the initial form of $h$ in $(G_x)_{m(x)}$. From definition \[defdirectrix\], we let $$\tau (x):=\tau (H_x).$$
If $m(x)<p$, we let $\iota (x):=(m(x),0,1)$.
Note that $m (y) <p$ whenever $s=\eta (y) \not \in E$ (definition \[conditionE\] and following comments). If $m(y)= p$, we have $$s =\eta (y) \in E, \ \eta^{-1}(s)=\{y\} \ \mathrm{and} \ k(y)=k(s)$$ by proposition \[SingX\].
Applying proposition \[indiff\](iii) (resp. proposition \[Tinvariant\](ii)) to $S$ if $i_0(x)=p$ (resp. if $i_0(x)=p-1$) proves that $(\omega (x), \kappa (x))$ is well-defined. We recall that $TF_{p,Z}=F_{p,Z}$ whenever $i_0(x)=p$ (see remark \[Bempty\]).
\[defomega\](Adapted order). Assume that $m(x)=p$, where $\{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Let $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. We let $$\omega (x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\epsilon (x)-1 & \mathrm{if} & V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_{S})\neq 0 \\
\epsilon (x) \hfill{} & \mathrm{if} & V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_{S})= 0\\
\end{array}
\right .
.$$ We define: $$\kappa (x):= 1 \ \mathrm{if} \ \mathrm{(} \omega (x)=\epsilon (x) \ \mathrm{and} \ i_0(x)=p-1\mathrm{)}.$$ Otherwise, we simply let $\kappa (x) \geq 2$.
It is obvious from this definition that $\omega (x)$ is not determined by the characteristic polyhedra $\Delta_S (h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$, even for unspecified well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$.
For example, take $n=3$, $p\geq 3$ for simplicity and $k(x)$ algebraically closed of characteristic $p>0$. Suppose: $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p +U_1U_2U_3^p +U_1^{p+2}+U_2^{p+2} +c U_3U_2U_1^{p} , \ E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2),$$ where $c\in k(x)$. Let $(u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates such that $\mathrm{div}(u_j)= \mathrm{div}(u'_j)$ for $j=1,2$. Then $$\Delta_S (h;u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')=\mathrm{Conv}(\{\mathbf{v}_1 , \mathbf{v}_2, \mathbf{v}_3\})
\subset \{x_1+x_2+x_3=\delta (x)=1+2/p\}$$ is independent of $c$, where $$\mathbf{v}_1:=((p+2)/p,0,0), \ \mathbf{v}_2:=(0,(p+2)/p,0), \ \mathbf{v}_3:=(1/p,1/p,1).$$ But $\omega (x)=p+2$ (resp. $\omega (x)=p+1$) for $c =0$ (resp. for $c\neq 0$).
This definition is different from the one used in [@CoP2] chapter 1, definition [**II.4**]{} when $G\neq 0$. Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. There is an obvious implication $$\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1 \Longrightarrow V(F_{p,Z},E,m_{S})\neq 0.$$ The converse is however false, even if it is assumed that $V(F_{p,Z},E,m_{S})\neq 0$ for every possible choice of well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ at $x$ and this is the reason for this difference. For $n\leq 3$, this phenomenon is easily dealt with, [*vid.*]{} [@CoP2] chapter 1 [**II.3.3.1**]{} and [**II.3.3.2**]{}; proof of [**II.5.4.2**]{}(iv); theorem [**II.5.6**]{}.
In chapter 4, we define the projection number $\kappa (x)\in \{2,3,4\}$ when $n=3$ and state that $\iota (x)=(m(x),\omega (x), \kappa (x))$ can be decreased by Hironaka permissible blowing ups w.r.t. $E$ (projection theorem \[projthm\] below).
We now turn to the definition of the adapted cone and directrix and the attached invariant $\tau '(x)$. Applying proposition \[indiff\](iii) (resp. proposition \[Tinvariant\]) if $i_0(x)=p$ (resp. if $i_0 (x)=p-1$) proves that $\mathrm{Max}(x)$, $\mathrm{Dir}(x)$ and $\tau '(x)$ are well defined.
\[deftauprime\] (Adapted cone and directrix). Assume that $m(x)=p$ and $\omega (x)>0$, where $\{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Let $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. We define a reduced subcone $\mathrm{Max}(x)\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}G(m_S)$ by: $$\mathrm{Max}(x):=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathrm{Max}(V( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\} & \mathrm{if} & \omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1 \\
\mathrm{Max}(J( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S))\cap \{U_B=0\} & \mathrm{if} & \omega (x)=\epsilon (x) \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right .
.$$ We define an affine subspace $\mathrm{Dir}(x)\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}G(m_S)$ by $$\mathrm{Dir}(x):=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathrm{Dir}(V( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S),U_B) & \mathrm{if} & \omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1 \\
\mathrm{Dir}(J( TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S),U_B) & \mathrm{if} & \omega (x)=\epsilon (x) \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right .
.$$ We let $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ to be the underlying vector space of $\mathrm{Dir}(x)$ and $$\tau '(x):=\mathrm{dim}_{k(x)}\mathrm{Vdir}(x).$$
We will use the invariants $\mathrm{Dir}(x)$ and $\tau '(x)$ only when $\mathrm{Dir}(x)=\mathrm{Max}(x)$ (last statement in proposition \[conedirectrix\] and following remark).\
Let $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ be a regular local base change, $\tilde{S}$ excellent. Recall notation \[notageomreg1\] and notation \[notaprime\]. It has been explained when defining conditions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{} that they are stable by such base changes and by localization at a prime. Let $\tilde{s}\in \mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{y} \in \tilde{\eta}^{-1}(\tilde{s})$. In order to relate $\iota (\tilde{y})$ and $\iota (y)$ (\[eq251\]), where $y \in {\cal X}$ is the image of $\tilde{y}$, we may thus assume that $s=m_S$, $\tilde{s}=m_{\tilde{S}}$.
Let $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Then $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ can be completed to a r.s.p. $(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}})$ of $\tilde{S}$ which is adapted to $\tilde{E}$. There is an inclusion $$\label{eq2513}
G(m_S)=k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_{n}] \subseteq
G(m_{\tilde{S}})=G(m_S) \otimes_{k(x)} {\tilde{S} \over m_{\tilde{S}}}[\tilde{U}_{n+1}, \ldots , \tilde{U}_{\tilde{n}}].$$
\[omegageomreg\] Let $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ be a local base change which is regular, $\tilde{S}$ excellent. Let $\tilde{x} \in \tilde{\eta}^{-1}(m_{\tilde{S}})$ and $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ be its image. The following holds:
- we have $(m (\tilde{x}), \omega (\tilde{x}))= (m(x), \omega (x))$;
- if $m(x)=p$, then
- $H(\tilde{x})=H(x)\tilde{S}$, $i_0(\tilde{x})=i_0(x)$, and ($\kappa (\tilde{x})=1 \Leftrightarrow \kappa (x)=1$);
- we have $\epsilon (\tilde{x})\geq \epsilon (x)$, and $\epsilon (\tilde{x})> \epsilon (x)$ if and only if $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p + F_{p,Z}, \ F_{p,Z} \in (k(\tilde{x})[U_1, \ldots ,U_n])^p$$ where $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ are well prepared coordinates at $x$. When this holds, we have $\tilde{n}>n$, $\epsilon (\tilde{x})=\epsilon (x)+1$ and $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{\tilde{S}}}\tilde{h} =\tilde{Z}^p + \sum_{j=n+1}^{\tilde{n}}U_j\Phi_j(U_1, \ldots , U_n)
+ \Psi(U_1, \ldots , U_n) \in G(m_{\tilde{S}})[\tilde{Z}],$$ with $\Phi_j\neq 0$ for some $j \geq n+1$ and $\Phi_j\in k(\tilde{x})[U^p_1, \ldots ,U^p_n]$ for every $j \geq n+1$, where $(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}};\tilde{Z})$ are well prepared coordinates at $\tilde{x}$.
The theorem is trivial if $m(x)=1$: then $m (\tilde{x})=1$ because $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ is regular.
Assume that $m(x)\geq 2$ and pick well prepared coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ at $x$, then complete $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ to a r.s.p. $(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}})$ of $\tilde{S}$ which is adapted to $\tilde{E}$. We have $\delta (x)>0$, so $h \in (Z,u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$, and $k(x)=S/m_S$ by proposition \[SingX\]. Applying (\[eq2513\]) to the local base change $S[Z]_{(m_S,Z)}\subseteq T[Z]_{(m_T,Z)}$ which is also regular gives $$m(x)=\mathrm{ord}_x h(Z)=\mathrm{ord}_{\tilde{x}} \tilde{h}(Z)=m(\tilde{x}).$$
This concludes the proof when $m(x)<p$ and we assume from now on that $m(x)=p$. In particular we have $\{\tilde{x}\}=\tilde{\eta}^{-1}(m_{\tilde{S}})$, $k(\tilde{x})=\tilde{S}/m_{\tilde{S}}$. Let $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h =Z^p + \sum_{i=1}^p{F_{i,Z}}Z^{p-i} \in
G(m_S)[Z],$$ be the corresponding initial form polynomial. Let $\mathbf{x} \in \R^{n}_{\geq 0}$ be a vertex of the polyhedron $\Delta_{S}(u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$. We denote by $$\mathbf{\tilde{x}}:=(\mathbf{x}, \underbrace{0, \ldots ,0}_{\tilde{n}-n}) \in
\Delta_{\tilde{S}}(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}};Z)$$ the corresponding vertex in $\Delta_{\tilde{S}}(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}};Z)$. Note that $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}$ [*may be a solvable vertex*]{} of the latter polyhedron. We have: $$\mathbf{\tilde{x}} \ \mathrm{solvable} \Leftrightarrow \mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{\tilde{x}}}\tilde{h}
\in ((\mathrm{gr}_\alpha \tilde{S})[Z])^p$$ with notations as in definition \[defsolvable\]. Therefore we have $$\mathbf{\tilde{x}} \ \mathrm{solvable} \Leftrightarrow (\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{x}}h =Z^p + F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}},
\mathbf{x} \in \N^n , \ F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}}=\lambda U^{p \mathbf{x}},
\lambda \in k(\tilde{x})^p).$$ We deduce for the initial form polynomial that $$\label{eq2518}
\delta (\tilde{x})>\delta (x) \Leftrightarrow (i_0(x)=p \ \mathrm{and} \ F_{p,Z}\in (k(\tilde{x})[U_1, \ldots ,U_{n}])^p).$$
Since the fiber ring $\tilde{S}/m_S \tilde{S}$ is geometrically regular over $k(x)$, the ring $\tilde{S}[Y]/(Y^p - l)$ is regular for every unit $l \in S$ with residue $\overline{l} \not \in k(x)^p$. Therefore if $\overline{l} \in k(\tilde{x})^p$, we have $$\forall \tilde{l} \in \tilde{S}, \tilde{v}:=\tilde{l}^p - l \in m_{\tilde{S}} \Longrightarrow
\tilde{v} \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{a} \ \mathrm{regular} \ \mathrm{parameter} \ \mathrm{in} \ \tilde{S}.$$ Such $\tilde{v}$ restricts to a regular parameter of $\tilde{S}/m_S \tilde{S}$, so the previous formula is refined to: $$\label{eq2516}
\tilde{v} \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{a} \ \mathrm{regular} \ \mathrm{parameter} \
\mathrm{transverse} \ \mathrm{to} \ \mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_n)\subset \mathrm{Spec} \tilde{S}.$$
This equation implies in particular that $\tilde{n}>n$. Let $\xi \in \mathrm{Spec}(\tilde{S}/m_S \tilde{S})$ be the generic point. Applying the above remarks to the regular local base change $S\subset \tilde{S}_{\xi}$ shows that $k(\xi)^p \cap k(x)= k(x)^p$.
Let $s_j:=(u_j) \in \mathrm{Spec}S$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, and apply this remark to the regular local base change $S_{(u_j)}\subseteq \tilde{S}_{(u_j)}$. This proves that the field inclusion $QF(S/(u_j))\subseteq QF(\tilde{S}/(u_j))$ is inseparably closed.
The polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{(s_j)}h_{s_j} \in QF(S/(u_j))[U_j][Z]$ is not a $p^\mathrm{th}$-power by proposition \[Deltaalg\]. Therefore $\mathrm{in}_{(s_j)}h_{s_j}$ is not a $p^\mathrm{th}$-power in $QF(\tilde{S}/(u_j))[U_j][Z]$. Turning back to definition \[defepsilon\], we get $$\label{eq2515}
H(\tilde{x})=H(x)\tilde{S}.$$ Definition \[defepsilon\] now shows that $\epsilon (\tilde{x}) \geq \epsilon (x)$ and that $$\label{eq2519}
\epsilon (\tilde{x}) > \epsilon (x) \Leftrightarrow
(i_0(x)=p \ \mathrm{and} \ F_{p,Z}\in (k(\tilde{x})[U_1, \ldots ,U_n])^p).$$ This proves the first part of (2.ii). To go on with the proof, we consider two cases.\
[*Case 1:*]{} assume that $i_0(x)<p$. By (\[eq2519\]), we have $\epsilon (\tilde{x}) = \epsilon (x)$, so the proof of (2.ii) is already complete. Let $\tilde{\phi} \in \tilde{S}$ be such that $\Delta_{\tilde{S}}(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}};\tilde{Z})$ is minimal, with $\tilde{Z}:=Z-\tilde{\phi}$ and $\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\tilde{S}}}\tilde{\phi} \geq \delta (x)$. We have $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{\tilde{S}}}\tilde{h} =\tilde{Z}^p + \sum_{i=i_0}^{p}F_{i,\tilde{Z}}\tilde{Z}^{p-i} \in
G(m_{\tilde{S}})[\tilde{Z}],$$ with $F_{i_0,\tilde{Z}}=F_{i_0,Z}$ by proposition \[izero\]. Therefore $i_0(\tilde{x})=i_0(x)$ and it is sufficient to prove that $\omega (\tilde{x})=\omega (x)$ in order to complete the proof of (1) and (2.i) in the theorem (still under the assumption $i_0(x)<p$). This is obvious if $\epsilon (x)=0$, since $$0 \leq \omega (\tilde{x})\leq \epsilon (\tilde{x})=\omega (x)=0.$$ Assume that $\epsilon (x)>0$. We have $i_0(x)=p-1$ and $-F_{p-1,Z}=G^{p-1}$, with $<G>=<U^{\mathbf{b}}>$ for some $\mathbf{b} \in \N^n \cap \E$ by theorem \[initform\](2) (in particular $\delta (x) \in \N$). We have $$V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)=<\left \{H^{-1}{\partial TF_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}\right \}_{e+1 \leq j \leq n}>.$$ Note that the truncation maps $T$ and $\tilde{T}$ associated with the local rings $S$ and $\tilde{S}$ (definition \[defT\]) commute with the inclusion $G(m_S)\subseteq G(m_{\tilde{S}})$ by (\[eq2515\]). Since $F_{p,Z}\in G(m_S)=k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_{n}]$, we have $$V(\tilde{T}F_{p,Z},\tilde{E},m_{\tilde{S}})=<\left \{H^{-1}{\partial \tilde{T}F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}
\right \}_{j=e+1}^{\tilde{n}}> =V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)\otimes_{k(x)}k(\tilde{x})$$ with obvious notations, taking (\[eq2515\]) into account. There exists $\tilde{\Theta}\in G(m_{\tilde{S}})$ such that $$F_{p,\tilde{Z}}=F_{p,Z} + \tilde{\Theta}^p -G^{p-1}\tilde{\Theta}.$$ By lemma \[kerT\] applied to $F_{p,\tilde{Z}}\in G(m_{\tilde{S}})$, we deduce that $$\label{eq2524}
V(\tilde{T}F_{p,\tilde{Z}},\tilde{E},m_{\tilde{S}})=V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)\otimes_{k(x)}k(\tilde{x}).$$ This completes the proof of the theorem when $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$, applying definition \[defomega\]. If $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$, (1) and the last statement of (2.i) in the theorem also follow from (\[eq2524\]) and the proof is complete.\
[*Case 2:*]{} assume that $i_0 (x)=p$. The proof runs parallel to that of case 1 (with $B=\emptyset$, $\tilde{T}=\mathrm{id}$, [*cf.*]{} remark \[Bempty\]) [*provided that*]{} $\epsilon (\tilde{x})=\epsilon (x)$. Assume now that $\epsilon (\tilde{x})>\epsilon (x)$. To complete the proof, we have to show that $$(i_0(\tilde{x}), \omega (\tilde{x}))= (p, \omega (x)),$$ as well as the last statement in (2.ii). By (\[eq2519\]), we have $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$, $\delta (x)\in \N$ and there is an expansion $$F_{p,Z}=\sum_{\mid \mathbf{x}\mid =\delta (x)}\lambda (\mathbf{x})U^{p\mathbf{x}}
\in (k(\tilde{x})[U_1, \ldots ,U_n]_{\delta (x)})^p, \ \lambda (\mathbf{x}) \in k(x).$$ Note that this situation possibly occurs only if $k(x)$ is [*not*]{} inseparably closed in $k(\tilde{x})$ (in particular $\tilde{n}>n$). We have $\mathbf{x} \in \N^{n}$ for every $\mathbf{x}$ such that $\lambda (\mathbf{x}) \neq 0$. Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that $\lambda (\mathbf{x}) \not \in k(x)^p$ for every $\mathbf{x}$ such that $\lambda (\mathbf{x}) \neq 0$. Let $l(\mathbf{x})\in S$ be a preimage of $\lambda (\mathbf{x})$. By (\[eq2516\]), we may pick for every such $\mathbf{x}$ a unit $\tilde{l}(\mathbf{x})\in T$ such that $\tilde{v}(\mathbf{x}):=\tilde{l}(\mathbf{x})^p - l(\mathbf{x})$ is a regular parameter of $\tilde{S}$ transverse to $\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_n)$. Expand $$h= Z^p + \sum_{i=1}^p{f_{i,Z}}Z^{p-i} \in S[Z], \ \mathrm{ord}_{m_{S}}f_{i,Z}\geq i\delta (x).$$ For $1 \leq i \leq p-1$, the above inequality is strict, since $i_0(x)=p$. On the other hand, we have $\delta (x) \in \N$, so we deduce that $$\label{eq2520}
{\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S}}f_{i,Z} \over i}\geq \delta (x)+{1 \over i}>\delta (x)+{1 \over p},
\ 1 \leq i \leq p-1.$$
Let $$\tilde{Z}:=Z + \sum_{\mid \mathbf{x}\mid =\delta (x)}\tilde{l}(\mathbf{x})u^{\mathbf{x}}.$$ By (\[eq2520\]), there is an expansion $$\label{eq2521}
f_{p,\tilde{Z}}=-\sum_{\mid \mathbf{x}\mid =\delta (x)}\tilde{v}(\mathbf{x}) u^{p\mathbf{x}} +
g + \tilde{g},$$ with $g \in S$, $\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S}}g \geq p\delta (x)+1$ and $\tilde{g} \in \tilde{S}$, $\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\tilde{S}}}\tilde{g} > p\delta (x)+1$ . We deduce that $$\delta (h; u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}}; \tilde{Z})= \delta (x)+{1 \over p}.$$ Since $\delta (x)+{1 \over p}\not \in \N$, $\Delta_{\tilde{S}} (h;u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}};\tilde{Z})$ has no solvable vertex within its initial face $\{ \mathbf{\tilde{x}}\in \R^{\tilde{n}}_{\geq 0} : \mid \mathbf{\tilde{x}} \mid =\delta (x)+{1 \over p}\}$.
Let $(u_1, \ldots , u_{\tilde{n}};\tilde{Z}_1)$ be well adapted coordinates at $\tilde{x}$. Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that $\tilde{Z}_1=\tilde{Z} -\tilde{\theta}_1$ with $\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\tilde{S}}}\tilde{\theta}_1 \geq \delta (x)+1$. By (\[eq2521\]), we get $$\label{eq2522}
\mathrm{in}_{m_{\tilde{S}}}\tilde{h} =\tilde{Z}_1^p - \sum_{\mid \mathbf{x}\mid =\delta (x)}\tilde{V}(\mathbf{x}) U^{p\mathbf{x}} +
G(U_1, \ldots , U_n) \in G(m_{\tilde{S}})[\tilde{Z}_1]$$ and (2.ii) is proved. We have $i_0(\tilde{x})=p$, $\delta (\tilde{x})=\delta (x)+{1 \over p}$ and $\epsilon (\tilde{x})=\epsilon (x)+1$. Finally, we have $${\partial F_{p,\tilde{Z}_1} \over \partial U_j} =
\sum_{\mid \mathbf{x}\mid =\delta (x)}{\partial \tilde{V}(\mathbf{x}) \over \partial \tilde{V}_j}U^{p\mathbf{x}}
\in k(\tilde{x})[U_1, \ldots , U_n], \ n+ 1 \leq j \leq \tilde{n},$$ so $V(F_{p,\tilde{Z}_1}, \tilde{E},m_{\tilde{S}})\neq 0$ and $\omega (\tilde{x})=\epsilon (\tilde{x})-1 =\omega (x)$.
\[stricthenselian\] Theorem \[omegageomreg\] reduces computations of $\omega (x)$ to the case where $S$ is strict Henselian, i.e. Henselian with separably algebraically closed residue field $S/m_S$ by changing $S$ to its strict Henselianization $\tilde{S}$, $\mathrm{dim}\tilde{S}=n=\mathrm{dim}S$.
Applying the theorem to a tower $\tilde{S}$ of smooth local base changes of the form $S \subseteq S[Y]_{(m_S,Y^p -l)}$ with $l \in S$ a unit with residue $\overline{l} \not \in (S/m_S)^p$ also reduces computations of $\omega (x)$ to the case of an algebraically closed residue field for some $\tilde{S}$ with $\mathrm{dim}\tilde{S}>n=\mathrm{dim}S$, [*vid.*]{} comments before notation \[notageomreg1\] for the excellent of such $\tilde{S}$.
The cone $\mathrm{Max}(x)$ and directrix $\mathrm{Dir}(x)$ have no such good behavior w.r.t. regular local base changes.
Resolution when $\omega (x)=0$.
-------------------------------
In this section, we prove that the multiplicity of ${\cal X}$ can be reduced at any point $x$ such that $(m(x),\omega (x))=(p,0)$. This is achieved by combinatorial blowing ups in a way which is similar to the equal characteristic zero situation. This resolution algorithm does not depend on the choice of a valuation centered at $x$ and we formalize Hironaka’s A/B game as follows:
\[indepseq\] Let $(S,h,E)$ be as before, $x \in {\cal X}$ and $L=\mathrm{Tot}(S[X]/(h))$. Suppose that for every valuation $\mu$ of $L$ centered at $x$, a composition of local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups (definition \[Hironakapermis\]) $$\label{eq2915}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)$$ is associated, where $x_i \in {\cal X}_i$ is the center of $\mu$, $0 \leq i \leq r$. The sequence (\[eq2915\]) is said to be [*independent*]{} if the blowing up center ${\cal Y}_i \subset ({\cal X}_i,x_i)$ does not depend on the chosen valuation $\mu$ [*having center in*]{} $x_i$, $0 \leq i \leq r-1$.
Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$. If $\epsilon (x)>0$, recall that $\eta^{-1}(m_S)=\{x\}$, $k(x)=S/m_S$, and that $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h =Z^p - G^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z} \in G(m_S)[Z]= k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_n][Z]$$ by (\[eq2551\]). The initial form of $H(x)$ in $G(m_S)$ is denoted $H$ as before.
\[lemomegazero\] Assume that $m(x)=p$ and $\epsilon (x)=1$, where $\{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$. If $$H^{-1}F_{p,Z} \nsubseteq <U_1, \ldots ,U_e>,$$ then $\omega (x)=0$.
According to definition \[defomega\], we must show that $V(TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S)\neq 0$. Expand $$H^{-1}F_{p,Z} =<\sum_{j=1}^n \alpha_j U_j> \subseteq G(m_S)_1 , \ \alpha_j \in k(x).$$ By assumption, we have $\alpha_{j_0} \neq 0$ for some $j_0$, $e+1 \leq j_0 \leq n$, so $$\label{eq2917}
0 \neq H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j_0}} \subseteq V(F_{p,Z}, E,m_S).$$ If $i_0(x)=p$, we have $TF_{p,Z}=F_{p,Z}$. If $i_0(x)=p-1$, then $H^{-1}G^p=<U_{j_1}>$ for some $j_1$, $1 \leq j_1 \leq e$, by theorem \[initform\](2). Comparing with definition \[defT\], we have $\mathbf{x}\in A \Longrightarrow p x_{j_1}>H_{j_1}$, therefore $F_{p,Z} - TF_{p,Z}\in H U_{j_1}$. So (\[eq2917\]) implies that $V(TF_{p,Z}, E,m_S)\neq 0$.
\[bupomegazero\] Assume that $(m(x),\omega (x))=(p,0)$, $\{x\}:=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Let ${\cal Y} \subset ({\cal X},x)$ be a [*Hironaka-permissible*]{} center w.r.t. $E$, $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along ${\cal Y}$ and $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$.
If $W:=\eta({\cal Y})$ is an intersection of components of $E$ or if $\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)$, then $(m(x'),\omega (x') \leq (p,0)$.
According to definition \[defomega\], there are two different cases to consider:
- $\epsilon (x)=0$;
- $\epsilon (x)=1$, $V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)\neq (0)$.
To begin with, we have $\delta (x)\geq 1$ by proposition \[deltainv\](ii). Let $(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ with $I(W)=(\{u_j\}_{j\in J})$ for some subset $J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$. By definition \[defepsilon\], we have: $$\label{eq2901}
\epsilon (x)=\min_{1 \leq i \leq p} \left \{{\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}(H(x)^{-i}f^p_{i,Z}) \over i}\right \}.$$
[*Case 1:*]{} $\epsilon (x)=0$. By (\[eq2901\]), we have $$\label{eq2904}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H(x)^{-i}f^p_{i,Z} \hfill{} & \subseteq m_S, & 1 \leq i < i_0(x) \\
H(x)^{-i_0(x)}f^p_{i_0(x),Z} & =S, & \\
H(x)^{-i}f^p_{i,Z}\hfill{} & \subseteq S, & i_0 (x) < i \leq p .\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
By proposition \[Hironakastable\], there exists a commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal X} & {\buildrel \pi \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal X}' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
\mathrm{Spec}S & {\buildrel \sigma \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal S}'\\
\end{array}$$ where $\sigma: {\cal S}' \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$ is the blowing up along $W$. Let $$\eta ': {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal S}', \ s':=\eta ' (x'), \ S':={\cal O}_{{\cal S}' ,s'},
\ E':=(\sigma^{-1}(E)_{\mathrm{red}})_{s'}.$$
Since $W \subseteq E$, it can be assumed after possibly reordering coordinates that $$(J')_E:=\{2 , \ldots ,e_0\}, \ J=\{1 ,e_0+1, \ldots , n_0\}, \ 1 \leq e_0\leq e \leq n_0.$$ Furthermore, it can be assumed that $s' \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[u_{e_0+1}/u_1, \ldots ,u_{n_0}/u_1])$ or that $s' \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[u_{1}/u_{n_0},u_{e_0+1}/u_{n_0}, \ldots ,u_{n_0-1}/u_{n_0}])$ with $n_0 >e_0$.
We first prove the proposition when $s' \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[u_{e_0+1}/u_1, \ldots ,u_{n_0}/u_1])$. Let $$h':=u_1^{-p}h={Z'}^p+f_{1,Z'}{Z'}^{p-1}+ \cdots +f_{p,Z'}\in S'[Z'],$$ where $Z':=Z/u_1, \ f_{i,Z'}:=u_1^{-i}f_{i,Z}\in S'$ for $1 \leq i \leq p$. We have $$\label{eq2902}
E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_{e_0}{u_{e_0+1} \over u_1} \cdots {u_e \over u_1})$$ and $(S',h',E')$ satisfies both conditions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{} by propositions \[SingX\] and \[Estable\]. There exists an adapted r.s.p. of $S'$ of the form $$(u'_1:=u_1, \ldots ,u'_{e_0}:=u_{e_0} , u'_{e_0+1}, \ldots , u'_{n'_0}, u'_{n_0+1}:=u_{n_0+1}, \ldots , u'_n :=u_n).$$ Since we do not assume that $x'$ is a closed point, we have $e_0 \leq n'_0\leq n_0$ in general, with $$n':=\mathrm{dim}S'= n-(n_0-n'_0).$$ We emphasize that the number of irreducible components $e'$ of $E'$ satisfies $e_0 \leq e' \leq e$ and that $e'\neq e$ in general because some of the $u_j/u_1$ in (\[eq2902\]) may be units. After reordering coordinates, we may also assume that $$E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1 \cdots u'_{e'}) \ \mathrm{and} \ u'_j:=u_j/u_1, \ e_0+1 \leq e' \leq e.$$
Since ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible at $x$, we have (see definition \[defH\]): $$\mathrm{ord}_WH(x) =p \sum_{j \in J}d_j \geq p.$$ Therefore $I':=u_1^{-p}H(x) \subseteq S'$ and this ideal is monomial in $(u'_1 , \ldots ,u'_{e'})$, i.e. $I'=:({u'_1}^{H'_1}\cdots {u'_{e'}}^{H'_{e'}})$. We let: $$\mathbf{x}':=(H'_1/p, \ldots , H'_{e'}/p, 0 , \ldots ,0)\in {1 \over p}\N^{n'},$$ where $$\label{eq2906}
H'_1=p(\sum_{j \in J}d_j -1) \ \mathrm{and} \ H'_j=H_j=pd_j, \ 2 \leq j \leq e'.$$ Then (\[eq2904\]) gives: $$\label{eq2916}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
{I'}^{-i}f^p_{i,Z'} \hfill{} & \subseteq m_SS' & 1 \leq i < i_0 (x)\\
{I'}^{-i_0(x)}f^p_{i_0(x),Z'} & =S ' & \\
{I'}^{-i}f^p_{i,Z'}\hfill{} & \subseteq S' & i_0 (x)< i \leq p .\\
\end{array}
\right.$$
This shows that $$\label{eq2905}
\Delta_{\hat{S'}} (h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n};Z')=\mathbf{x}'+ {\R}^{n'}_{\geq 0}.$$
If $i_0 (x)<p$, or if $\sum_{j \in J_E}d_j \not \in \N$ or if $d_{j'} \not \in \N$ for some $j'$, $2\leq j' \leq e'$, then $\mathbf{x}'$ is not solvable (definition \[defsolvable\]) by (\[eq2905\]), hence $\Delta_{\hat{S'}} (h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n};Z')$ is minimal. Therefore we may compute $\epsilon (x')$ from (\[eq2905\]) and get $\epsilon (x')=0$, so the proposition is proved in this case.
If ($i_0 (x)=p$, $\sum_{j \in J_E}d_j \in \N$ and $d_{j'} \in \N$ for all $j'$, $2\leq j' \leq e'$), write $f_{p,Z}=\gamma u^{p\mathbf{x}}$, $\gamma \in S$ a unit and $\mathbf{x}:=(d_1, \ldots ,d_e, 0 , \ldots ,0)\in {1 \over p}\N^n$. We have $$\label{eq2907}
\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{x}'}h'={Z'}^p + \lambda (\prod_{j=e'+1}^e\lambda_j^{H_j}){U'}^{p\mathbf{x}'},$$ where $\lambda \in k(x)$ (resp. $\lambda_j \in k(x')$) is the residue of $\gamma$ (resp. of $u_j/u_1$). We let: $$\lambda ':=\lambda \prod_{j=e'+1}^e\lambda_j^{H_j}\in k(x'), \ \lambda ' \neq 0.$$
If $\lambda ' \not \in k(x')^p$, then $\mathbf{x}'$ is not solvable and we also have $\epsilon (x')=0$.
If $\lambda ' \in k(x')^p$, let $$C':=\mathrm{Spec}\left ( {k(x)[Z,U_1, U_{e_0+1}, \ldots , U_e]\over (\overline{H})}\right ),
\ \overline{H}:=\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p + \lambda \prod_{j=e'+1}^eU_j^{H_j}.$$ We claim that the affine cone $C'$ is regular away from the torus $$\T := \A^{e-e_0+2}_{k(x)} \backslash V(Z\prod_{j \in J_E}U_j ).$$ To see this, let $(\lambda_l)_{l \in \Lambda_0}$ be an absolute $p$-basis of $k(x)$. By [@Ma] theorem 30.5, the ideal of the singular locus of $C'$ is: $$I(\mathrm{Sing}C')=\left (\overline{H},\{{\partial \overline{H} \over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l\in \Lambda_0},
\{{\partial \overline{H} \over \partial U_j}\}_{e'+1\leq j \leq e}\right ).$$ If $d_j \not \in \N$ for some $j$, $e'+1\leq j \leq e$, then ${\partial \overline{H} \over \partial U_j}$ does not vanish on $\T$. Otherwise, we have $\lambda \not \in k(x)^p$ because $\mathbf{x}$ is a vertex of $\Delta_{S}(u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ and is not solvable. Therefore ${\partial \overline{H} \over \partial \lambda_l}$ does not vanish on $\T $ for any $l\in \Lambda_0$ such that ${\partial \lambda \over \partial \lambda_l}\neq 0$ and the claim is proved. We deduce that there exists a unit $l'\in S'$ such that $$v':={l'}^p +\gamma \prod_{j=e'+1}^e\left ({u_j \over u_1}\right )^{H_j}$$ is a regular parameter of $S'$ transverse to $$E'_1:=\mathrm{div}(u'_1 \cdots u'_{e'}u'_{n_0+1} \cdots u'_{n'}), \ E'_1 \supseteq E'.$$ We may thus take $u'_{e'+1}:=v'$ in our r.s.p. of $S'$ adapted to $E'$. Let $Z'_1:=Z'-l'{u'}^{p\mathbf{x}'}$, so the polyhedron $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n};Z'_1)$ has a vertex $$\label{eq2908}
\mathbf{x}'_1:=(H'_1/p, \ldots , H'_{e'}/p, 1/p,0 , \ldots ,0)\in {1 \over p}\N^{n'}$$ which is not solvable, since $\mathbf{x}'_1 \not \in \N^{n'}$. Let $Z'_2:=Z'_1 - \theta '$, $\theta ' \in S'$, be such that $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n};Z'_2)$ is minimal. We deduce from (\[eq2916\]) and (\[eq2908\]) that $$H(x')=({u'}^{p\mathbf{x}'}), \ \epsilon (x')=1 \ \mathrm{and} \ {H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'_2}
\nsubseteq <U'_1, \ldots ,U'_{e'}>.$$ We get $m(x')=1$ if $\mathbf{x}'=\mathbf{0}$, and $(m(x'),\omega (x'))=(p,0)$ otherwise by lemma \[lemomegazero\] as required.
If $s' \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[u_{1}/u_{n_0},u_{e_0+1}/u_{n_0}, \ldots ,u_{n_0-1}/u_{n_0}])$, it can be furthermore assumed that $s' \not \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[u_{e_0+1}/u_1, \ldots ,u_{n_0}/u_1])$, i.e. $u_{j}/u_{n_0}$ is [*not*]{} a unit in $S'$ for $j\in J_E$. The proof is now a simpler variation of the above one: (\[eq2902\]) is replaced by $$E'=\mathrm{div}({u_{1} \over u_{n_0}}u_2 \cdots u_{e_0}{u_{e_0+1} \over u_{n_0}} \cdots {u_e \over u_{n_0}}u_{n_0}).$$ The polyhedron $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n};Z')$ in (\[eq2905\]) is minimal except if ($d_j \in \N$ for each $j$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, and $\lambda \in k(x')^p$) with notations as above. We have $\epsilon (x')=0$ (resp. $\epsilon (x')=1$) in the former (resp. in the latter) situation. This concludes the proof in case 1.\
[*Case 2:*]{} $\epsilon (x)=1$. The proof runs parallel to that in case 1 and we only indicate the necessary changes. By assumption, $W$ is an intersection of components of $E$ (case 2a) or $\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)=1$ (case 2b).\
To begin with, let $v \in S$ be such that $H(x)^{-1}f_{p,Z}=(v)$. By assumption, we have $V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)\neq (0)$, so $v$ is transverse to $E$.
In case 2a, we may assume that $(u_1, \ldots ,u_e,v,u_{e+2}, \ldots ,u_n)$ is an adapted r.s.p. of $S$ after renumbering variables. Since $\mathbf{x}_0:=(d_1, \ldots ,d_e, {1 \over p} , \ldots ,0)\not \in \N^n$ is the unique vertex of $\Delta_{S} (h; u_1, \ldots ,u_e,v,u_{e+2}, \ldots ,u_n ;Z)$ induced by $f_{p,Z}$, this polyhedron has no solvable vertex. In other terms, it can be assumed that $v=u_{e+1}$.
In case 2b, proposition \[Deltaalg\] implies that $v \in I(W)$, so $(u_1, \ldots ,u_e,v)$ can be completed to an adapted r.s.p. of $S$ such that $I(W)=(\{u_j\}_{j\in J})$ for some subset $J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$. The polyhedron $\Delta_{S} (h; u_1, \ldots ,u_e,v,u_{e+2}, \ldots ,u_n ;Z)$ has no solvable vertex either and it can also be assumed that $v=u_{e+1}$.
We remark in both cases 2a and 2b that, if $\Delta_{S} (h; u_1, \ldots ,u_n ;Z)$ has a vertex distinct from $\mathbf{x}_0$, then it has exactly two vertices: this follows from theorem \[initform\](2), the other vertex being then given by $$\label{eq2903}
\mathbf{x}_1:=({D_1 \over p(p-1)}, \ldots ,{D_e \over p(p-1)}, 0 , \ldots ,0),
\ (\mathrm{Disc}_Z(h))=:(u_1^{D_1} \cdots u_e^{D_e}).$$
After blowing up, we obtain a $(S',h',E')$ again satisfying conditions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{}.
In case 2a, there exists an adapted r.s.p. of $S'$ of the form $$(u'_1:=u_1, \ldots ,u'_{e_0}:=u_{e_0} , u'_{e_0+1}, \ldots , u'_{e_1}, u'_{e+1}:=u_{e+1}, \ldots , u'_n :=u_n),$$ with $J=\{1, e_0+1, \ldots ,e\}$ and $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1 \cdots u'_{e'})$ after reordering variables, $1 \leq e_0 \leq e' \leq e_1 \leq e$. Then $\Delta_{S'} (h'; u'_1, \ldots ,u'_n ;Z')$ has again a vertex $$\mathbf{x}':=(H'_1/p, \ldots , H'_{e'}/p, 0 , \ldots ,0, 1/p, 0 , \ldots ,0)\not \in \N^{n-(e-e_1)},$$ thus $\mathbf{x}'$ is not solvable. We deduce that $\epsilon (x')\leq 1$ and $\omega (x')=0$ follows from lemma \[lemomegazero\] if $(m(x'),\epsilon (x'))=(p,1)$.
In case 2b, it can be assumed after reordering variables that $$(J')_E:=\{2 , \ldots ,e_0\}, \ J=\{1 ,e_0+1, \ldots , n_0\}, \ 1 \leq e_0\leq e, \ e+1 \leq n_0.$$ We let $u'_{j'}:=u_{j'}$ for $j'\in J'$ and consider three distinct situations depending on $x'$, up to reordering coordinates:
- $s' \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[u_{e_0+1}/u_1, \ldots ,u_{n_0}/u_1])$ and $u_{e+1}/u_1 \in m_{S'}$. We may complete the family $(\{u_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'})$ to an adapted r.s.p. of $S'$ by adding $$(u'_1:=u_1, u'_{e_0+1}, \ldots ,u'_{e_1}, u'_{e_1+1}:=u_{e+1}/u_1), \ n':=\mathrm{dim}S'=n-(n_0-e_1).$$ Then $\Delta_{\hat{S'}} (h'; u'_1, \ldots ,u'_{n} ;Z')$ has a vertex $$\mathbf{x}':=(H'_1/p, \ldots , H'_{e'}/p, 1/p, 0 , \ldots ,0)\not \in \N^{n'},$$ thus $\mathbf{x}'$ is not solvable. We conclude that $\epsilon (x')\leq 1$ and that $\omega (x')=0$ if $(m(x'),\epsilon (x'))=(p,1)$ by lemma \[lemomegazero\].
- $s' \in \mathrm{Spec}(S[u_{1}/u_{n_0},u_{e_0+1}/u_{n_0}, \ldots ,u_{n_0-1}/u_{n_0}])$ and $u_{e+1}/u_{n_0} \in m_{S'}$, where $n_0>e+1$. After dealing with (1), we may assume furthermore that $u_j/u_{n_0}\in m_{S'}$, $j\in J_E$. We complete the family $(\{u_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'})$ to an adapted r.s.p. of $S'$ by adding $$(u'_{e_0+1}:=u_{e_0+1}/u_{n_0}, \ldots ,u'_{e+1}:=u_{e+1}/u_{n_0}, u'_{n_1}, \ldots ,u'_{n_0-1},u'_{n_0}:=u_{n_0}),$$ with $n':=\mathrm{dim}S'=n-(n_1-e -2)$. We conclude as in (1).
- $I(W)S' = (u_{e+1})$. We complete the family $(\{u_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'})$ to an adapted r.s.p. of $S'$ by adding $$(u'_1:=u_{e+1}, u'_{e_0+1}, \ldots ,u'_{n_1}), \ n':=\mathrm{dim}S'=n-(n_0-n_1).$$ Let $E'=:\mathrm{div}(u'_1 \cdots u'_{e'})$ and consider two situations as in case 1:
If ${1 \over p}+\sum_{j \in J_E}d_j \not \in \N$ or if $d_{j'} \not \in \N$ for some $j'$, $2\leq j' \leq e'$, then the polyhedron $\Delta_{\hat{S'}} (h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n};Z')$ is minimal and we have $\epsilon (x')=0$.
If (${1 \over p}+\sum_{j \in J_E}d_j \in \N$ and $d_{j'} \in \N$ for every $j'$, $2\leq j' \leq e'$), the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{x}'}h'$ has the form $$\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{x}'}h'={Z'}^p -\mu^{p-1} {U'}^{(p-1)\mathbf{x}'}Z'+
\lambda (\prod_{j=e'+1}^e\lambda_j^{H_j}){U'}^{p\mathbf{x}'},$$ where $\lambda \in k(x)$ (resp. $\lambda_j \in k(x')$) is the residue of $\gamma$ (resp. of $u_j/u_{e+1}$), [*vid.*]{} (\[eq2907\]). We have $\mu \neq 0$ in the above formula precisely if $$U^{p(\mathbf{x}_1 -\mathbf{x}_0)}=U_{j_0}/U_{e+1}, \ u_{j_0}/u_{e+1} \in S' \ \mathrm{a} \ \mathrm{unit}$$ for some $j_0$, $e_0+1 \leq j_0 \leq e$ with notations as in (\[eq2903\]). Then $\mu^{p-1}$ is the residue in $k(x')$ of $$\gamma_{p-1,Z}\prod_{j=e'+1}^e\left ({u_j \over u_{e+1}}\right )^{A_{p-1},j}$$ with notations as in theorem \[initform\](2). The end of the proof goes along as in case 1.
This completes the proof of (3), hence the proof of the proposition in case 2.
This proposition is a lighter version of theorem \[bupthm\] where it is assumed that $\omega (x)>0$ and that the blowing up centers are permissible of the first or second kind (definitions \[deffirstkind\] and \[defsecondkind\] below).
\[omegazero\] Assume that $(m(x),\omega (x))=(p,0)$, where $\{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$. For every valuation $\mu$ of $L=\mathrm{Tot}(S[X]/(h))$ centered at $x$, there exists a finite and independent composition of local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups (\[eq2915\]) such that $m(x_r)<p$.
We will produce a Hironaka-permissible center ${\cal Y} \subset ({\cal X},x)$ w.r.t. $E$ satisfying the assumptions of proposition \[bupomegazero\] and such that the following holds:\
(\*) let $\pi : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along ${\cal Y}$ and $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$. Then $$\delta (x') < \delta (x).$$
Applying proposition \[bupomegazero\], the center $x_1 \in {\cal X}'$ of a given valuation $\mu$ again satisfies the assumptions of the theorem if $m(x_1)=p$. Iterating, any finite sequence (\[eq2915\]) induces a sequence $$\delta (x_r) < \delta (x_{r-1}) < \cdots <\delta (x)$$ provided that $m(x_i)=p$, $ 1 \leq i \leq r-1$. Since $\delta (x_i)\in {1 \over p}\N$, we have $\delta (x_r)<1$ for some $r \geq 1$, hence $m(x_r)<p$ by proposition \[deltainv\](2), so the theorem follows from claim (\*). In order to construct ${\cal Y}$ with the required properties, we consider two cases as in the proof of proposition \[bupomegazero\].\
[*Case 1:*]{} $\epsilon (x)=0$. We have $\delta (x)=\sum_{j =1}^ed_j \geq 1$. Therefore there exists a subset $$J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,e\}, \ \sum_{j \in J}d_j \geq 1,$$ with smaller possible number of elements among all subsets of $\{1, \ldots ,e\}$ with this property. Let $W:=V(\{u_j\}_{j \in J})\subset \mathrm{Spec}S$ and remark that $$\mathrm{ord}_WH(x) =p \sum_{j \in J}d_j \geq p.$$
Hence ${\cal Y}:=\eta^{-1}(W)=V(Z,\{u_j\}_{j \in J})$ is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E$ and $W$ is an intersection of components of $E$. By (\[eq2906\]), we have $$\label{eq2910}
\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S'}}H(x')\leq p(\delta (x)+\sum_{j\in J \backslash \{j_0\}}d_j-1),$$ where $I(W)S'=(u_{j_0})$. The minimality property required of $J$ implies that $$\label{eq2911}
\sum_{j \in J \backslash \{j_1\}}d_{j}<1 \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{every} \ j_1\in J \ (\mathrm{so}
\ \sum_{j \in J}d_j< 2 \ \mathrm{if} \ \mid J \mid \geq 2).$$
If $\epsilon (x')=0$, we deduce from (\[eq2910\]) that $$p\delta (x')=\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S'}}H(x')< p\delta (x)$$ as required in (\*). Note that if $\mid J \mid =1$, we have $\lambda =\lambda '$ in (\[eq2907\]) and $S=S'$, hence $\lambda '\not \in k(x')^p=k(x)^p$. Since $\epsilon (x')=0$ in this situation, we may now assume that $\mid J \mid \geq 2$.
If $\epsilon (x')= 1$, we are in the situation discussed in (\[eq2908\]). We may then take $j_0=1$, $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1 \cdots u'_{e'})$ and have $$\sum_{j \in J}d_j\in \N, \ d_j \in \N \ \mathrm{for} \ 2 \leq j \leq e'.$$ By (\[eq2911\]), we have $\sum_{j \in J}d_j=1$, $d_j=0$ for $2 \leq j \leq e'$, so $H(x')=(1)$ and $m(x')=1$. This concludes the proof in case 1.\
[*Case 2:*]{} $\epsilon (x)=1$. We have $\delta (x)={1 \over p} +\sum_{j =1}^ed_j \geq 1$.
If $\delta (x)>1$, there exists a subset $$J \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,e\}, \ \sum_{j \in J}d_j \geq 1,$$ with smaller possible number of elements among all subsets of $\{1, \ldots ,e\}$ with this property as in case 1 and we also let $W:=V(\{u_j\}_{j \in J})\subset \mathrm{Spec}S$. The proof goes along as in case 1, with $$p\delta (x')-p\delta (x)\leq \mathrm{ord}_{m_{S'}}H(x') -\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S}}H(x)<0.$$
If $\delta (x)=1$, we may assume that $H(x)^{-1}f_{p,Z}=(u_{e+1})$ and that (\[eq2903\]) holds if $\Delta_{S} (h; u_1, \ldots ,u_n ;Z)$ has more than one vertex. In this case, this polyhedron has exactly two vertices and we have $$H(x)^{-(p-1)}f_{p-1,Z}^p=(u_{j_0})^{p-1} \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ j_0, \ 1 \leq j_0 \leq e$$ by theorem \[initform\](2). We deduce that $$\label{eq2912}
H(x)^{-i}f_{i,Z}^p \subseteq (u_{j_0},u_{e+1})^i, \ 1 \leq i \leq p$$ by definition of $\Delta_{S} (h; u_1, \ldots ,u_n ;Z)$. We let $J:=\{j : d_j>0\}\cup \{e+1\}$ and $$W:=V(\{u_j\}_{j \in J})\subset \mathrm{Spec}S, \ {\cal Y}:=\eta^{-1}(W)=V(Z,\{u_j\}_{j \in J}).$$ We have $\mathrm{ord}_WH(x) =p$, so ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E$. Since $H(x)^{-1}f_{p,Z}=(u_{e+1})$, we have $\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)=1$ by (\[eq2912\]), where $y \in {\cal X}$ is the generic point of ${\cal Y}$. Thus proposition \[bupomegazero\] applies and gives $m(x')\leq p-1$ under either assumption (1)(2) or (3) in the proof of proposition \[bupomegazero\].
Permissible blowing ups.
========================
Blowing ups of the first and second kind.
-----------------------------------------
In this section, we introduce a notion of permissible blowing up which is well behaved w.r.t. our main resolution invariant $y \mapsto \iota (y)$ on ${\cal X}$. [*We assume that*]{} $$m (x)=p, \ \{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S) \ \mathrm{and} \ \omega (x)>0$$ [*in what follows*]{} since theorem \[omegazero\] rules out the case $\omega (x)=0$.
\[deffirstkind\] Let ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$ be an integral closed subscheme with generic point $y$. We say that ${\cal Y}$ is [*permissible of the first kind*]{} at $x $ if $m(y)=m(x)=p$ and the following conditions hold:
- ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E$ at $x$ (definition \[Hironakapermis\]);
- $\epsilon(y)=\epsilon(x)$.
If $y \in {\cal X}$ satisfies $m(y)=p$, it follows from the definition that ${\cal Y}:=\overline{\{y\}}$ is permissible of the first kind at $y$. It also follows from (ii) that a permissible center of the first kind has codimension at least two in ${\cal X}$.\
The main result of this chapter (theorem \[bupthm\] below) will require comparing the initial form polynomials $\mathrm{in}_{W}h $ and $\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h$. We keep notations as in section 2.4: given well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ at $x$, we let $$\label{eq71}
W:=\eta ({\cal Y}), \ I(W)=( \{u_j\}_{j\in J}).$$ We denote: $$\mathrm{in}_{W}h =Z^p + \sum_{i=1}^p{F_{i,Z,W}}Z^{p-i} \in G(W)[Z]$$ and (proposition \[indiff\](i) since $\epsilon (x)>0$) $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h =Z^p - G^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z} \in G(m_S)[Z].$$ There are associated homogeneous submodules $$H_W \subseteq G(W)_{d_W} \ \mathrm{(resp.} \ H:=H_{m_S} \subseteq G(W)_{d}\mathrm{)}$$ by (\[eq2441\]), with $$d_W:=\sum_{j \in J_E}H_j , \ d=\sum_{j=1}^eH_j.$$ A word of caution is required at this point: formula (\[eq2441\]) [*defines*]{} the monomial ideal $H_W$ which is the [*initial form*]{} of $H(x)$ in $G(W)$ and is different in general from the ideal $H(\Xi)$ associated to the triple $$(G(W)_\Xi ,\mathrm{in}_{W}h ,E_W), \ \Xi :=(\{U_j\}_{j\in J}) + m_{S_W}.$$
Corresponding to the above choice for $H_W$ (resp. to $H$), there are associated $S_W$-submodules $$V(F_{p,Z,W},E,W)\subseteq G(W)_{\epsilon (y)-1}, \ J(F_{p,Z,W},E,W)\subseteq \widehat{G(W)}_{\epsilon (y)}$$ (resp. $k(x)$-vector subspaces $$V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)-1}, \ J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)})$$ given by (\[eq244\]).\
\[Fbar\] We first recall notations and definitions from section 2.4. We denote $$J_E:=J \cap \{1,\ldots ,e\}, \ J':=\{1,\ldots ,n\} \backslash J \ \mathrm{and} \
(J')_E:=\{1,\ldots ,e\} \backslash J_E.$$ The image $\overline{m}_S$ of $m_S$ in $S_W$ has regular parameters $(\overline{u}_j)_{j \in J'}$, the respective residues of the corresponding parameters of $S$.
Let now $d \in \N$ be fixed and $$F =\sum_{\mid \mathbf{a} \mid =d}\hat{f}_\mathbf{a}U^{\mathbf{a}}\in \widehat{G(W)}_d=\widehat{S_W}[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_d.$$ Note that $\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}\widehat{G(W)}_d\simeq \mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}G(W)_d$ and that it has a structure of graded $\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}S_W$-module. For any $d_0 \leq \min_\mathbf{a}\{\mathrm{ord}_{\overline{m}_S}\hat{f}_\mathbf{a}\}$, $F$ has an initial form in $\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}G(W)_d$ by taking $$\label{eq2627}
\overline{F}:=\sum_{\mid \mathbf{a} \mid =d}(\mathrm{cl}_{d_0}\hat{f}_\mathbf{a})U^{\mathbf{a}}
\in (\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}G(W)_d)_{d_0}.$$ This notation requires specifying $d_0$ to avoid ambiguity. We extend the notation to homogeneous submodules $M \subseteq \widehat{G(W)}_d$ as follows: $$\overline{M}:=< \overline{F}, \ F \in M> \subseteq (\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}G(W)_d)_{d_0}$$ for fixed $d_0 \leq \min\{d_0 (F), F \in M\}$ with obvious notations. For fixed $d,d_0$, there is an inclusion of $S/m_S$-vector spaces: $$\label{eq2626}
(\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}G(W)_d)_{d_0} \subset {G(m_S)_{d+d_0} \over <(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})^{d+1}\cap G(m_S)_{d+d_0}>}.$$
\[firstkind\] Let ${\cal Y}$ be permissible of the first kind at $x\in {\cal Y}$. Then for any well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ at $x$ such that $I(W)=(\{u_j\}_{j\in J})$, the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h\in G(m_S)[Z]$ satisfies $$H^{-1}<G^p, F_{p,Z}>\subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)}.$$
The existence of well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ such that $I(W)=( \{u_j\}_{j\in J})$ follows from proposition \[Deltaalg\]. This theorem furthermore implies that the polyhedron $$\label{eq262}
\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;\{u_j\}_{j \in J};Z)=
\mathrm{pr}_J(\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z))\ \mathrm{is} \
\mathrm{minimal},$$ where $\mathrm{pr}_J: \ \R^n \rightarrow \R^J$ denotes the projection on the $(u_j)_{j \in
J}$-space.
By (ii) of definition \[deffirstkind\], we have $\epsilon (x)=\epsilon (y)$. Therefore $$H^{-i}F^p_{i,Z} =\mathrm{cl}_{0}(H_W^{-i}F^p_{i,Z,W}) \subseteq G(m_S)_{i\epsilon (x)}=k(x) [U_1, \ldots ,U_n]_{i\epsilon (x)}$$ is simply the reduction of $H_W^{-i}F^p_{i,Z,W}$ modulo $\overline{m}_S$ for $1 \leq i \leq p$, i.e. taking $d_0=0$ in notation \[Fbar\], via the inclusion (\[eq2626\]) $$k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{i\epsilon (y)}\simeq (\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_S}G(W)_{i\epsilon (y)})_{0}
\subset G(m_S)_{i\epsilon (y)} \simeq k(x) [U_1, \ldots ,U_n]_{i\epsilon (x)}.$$ We get respectively $(H^{-1}G^p)^{p-1}$, $(H^{-1}F_{p,Z})^p$ for $i=p-1,p$ and this completes the proof.
The following corollary will be required in the proof of the blowing up theorem below. The adapted cone $\mathrm{Max}(x) \subseteq G(m_S)$ is defined in definition \[deftauprime\].
\[Cmaxfibre\] With notations as above, let ${\cal Y}$ be permissible of the first kind at $x$. The defining ideal $\mathrm{IMax}(x)\subseteq G(m_S)$ of $\mathrm{Max}(x)$ satisfies $$\mathrm{IMax}(x)= (\mathrm{IMax}(x)\cap k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}])G(m_S).$$
This follows from proposition \[firstkind\] and definition \[deftauprime\]. Note that the truncation operator $T$ used in the definition of $\mathrm{Max}(x)$ does not affect the conclusion of the corollary since it is obvious from the definitions that: $$V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) \subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)-1} \Rightarrow
V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S) \subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)-1}.$$ The same implication holds for $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)$ and $J(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)$.
We now define a second kind of permissible blowing up.
\[defsecondkind\] Let ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$ be an integral closed subscheme with generic point $y$. We say that ${\cal Y}$ is [*permissible of the second kind*]{} at $x$ if $m(y)=m(x)=p$ and the following conditions hold:
- ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E$ at $x$ (definition \[Hironakapermis\]);
- $\epsilon(y) =\epsilon (x)-1$ and $i_0(y) \leq i_0(x)$;
- $\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W):=\mathrm{cl}_{0}J(F_{p,Z,W},E,W)\neq 0$.
The following important example constructs a threefold ${\cal X}$ such that every resolution of singularities $\tilde{{\cal X}}\rightarrow {\cal X}$ which is a composition of Hironaka-permissible blowing ups does actually involve blowing up a permissible curve of the second kind.
\[examsecondkind\] Let $k$ be a perfect field of characteristic $p>0$, $A:=k[u_1,u_2,u_3]$, $P\in k[x] \backslash k[x^p]$ and take $$h:=Z^p + P(u_3)u_2^p +u_1^{p+1}\in A[Z], \ E:=\mathrm{div}(u_1).$$ Let ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}$ with generic point $y$. Let $\pi : \ \tilde{{\cal X}}\rightarrow {\cal X}$ be any composition of Hironaka-permissible blowing ups with $\tilde{{\cal X}}$ regular. Since $y$ is an isolated point of $\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}$, the map $\pi$ factors through the blowing up $\pi_0$ along ${\cal Y}$ above $y$. Define a nonempty Zariski open subset ${\cal U}\subseteq {\cal Y}$ by: $$x\in {\cal U} \Leftrightarrow
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\pi \ \mathrm{factors} \ \mathrm{through} \ \pi_0 \ \mathrm{above} \ x \\
\\
\mathrm{ord}_xP'(\overline{u}_3)=0 \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ For $x\in {\cal U}$, there exist well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,v_x;Z_x:=Z - \gamma_xu_2)$ at $x$, $\gamma_x \in A_{\eta(x)}$ a unit such that $$h=Z_x^p + v_xu_2^p+u_1^{p+1}\in A_{\eta(x)}[Z_x].$$ Then ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the second kind at every $x\in {\cal U}$ since $$\overline{J}(F_{p,Z_x,W},E,W)={\partial F_{p,Z_x,W} \over \partial \overline{v}_x}=U_2^p\neq 0,
\ F_{p,Z_x,W}=\overline{v}_xU_2^p \in G(W)_p$$ with notations as in definition \[defsecondkind\](iii). This is dealt with in the course of the proof of theorem \[luthm\] in proposition \[kappa2gamma0\] when applying lemma \[kappa2bupcurve\] ($\kappa (x)=2$ in this example, [*cf.*]{} definition \[defkappa\]).
When $n=3$, permissible blowing ups of the second kind only occur in propositions \[kappa2gamma0\] and \[kappa2fin10\] ($\kappa (x)=2$).
\[secondkind\] Let ${\cal Y}$ be permissible of the second kind at $x$. For any well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ at $x$ such that $I(W)=(\{u_j\}_{j\in J})$, the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h \in G(m_S)[Z]$ satisfies $$\label{eq2628}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H^{-1}G^p & \subseteq & U_{j_0}k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (y)} \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ j_0 \in (J')_E \hfill{} \\
& & \\
H^{-1}F_{p,Z} & = & <\sum_{j\in J'}U_{j'}\Phi_{j'}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})+ \Psi(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})> \subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)} \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ with $\Phi_{j'} \neq 0$ for some $j' \in J' \backslash (J')_E$. In particular $\epsilon (y)=\omega (x)$.
We argue as in the proof of proposition \[firstkind\] and build up from (\[eq262\]). By (ii) of definition \[defsecondkind\], we have $\epsilon (x)=\epsilon (y)+1$. Therefore $$\mathrm{cl}_{0}(H_W^{-i}F^p_{i,Z,W}) =0, \ 1 \leq i \leq p.$$ This shows that $H_W^{-i}F^p_{i,Z,W} \subseteq \overline{m}_S S_W[\{U_j\}_{j\in J_E}]_{i\epsilon (y)}$. We have $\epsilon (y)>0$, so $F_{i,Z,W}=0$, $1 \leq i \leq p-2$ by theorem \[initform\]. For $i=p-1$, we have $-F_{p-1,Z,W}=G_W^{p-1}$ for some $G_W \in G(W)_{\delta (y)}$ (so $G_W=0$ if $\delta (y) \not \in \N$). We deduce that $$\label{eq2621}
H_W^{-1}(G_W^p,F_{p,Z,W})\subseteq \overline{m}_S S_W[\{U_j\}_{j\in J_E}]_{\epsilon (y)}.$$ If $i_0(x)=p$, we have $H^{-1}G^p=0$ so the first part of (\[eq2628\]) is trivial. If $i_0(x)=p-1$, we have $i_0(y)=p-1 $ by definition \[defsecondkind\](ii), so $G_W\neq 0$. The first part of (\[eq2628\]) then follows from (\[eq2621\]), i.e. $$H^{-1}G^p =\mathrm{cl}_1(H_W^{-1}G_W^p) \subseteq U_{j_0}k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (y)},$$ for some $j_0 \in (J')_E$.\
Going back to the definition of $J(F_{p,Z,W},E,W)$ in (\[eq242\]), we deduce from (\[eq2621\]) that $$\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W)=<\mathrm{cl}_0(H_W^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z,W} \over \partial \overline{u}_{j'}}), j'\in J' \backslash (J')_E>
\subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (y)}.$$ Taking classes as in (\[eq2627\]) with $d_0=1$, we get $$\mathrm{cl}_1(H_W^{-1}F_{p,Z,W})\subseteq \sum_{j' \in J'}U_{j'}k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (y)}.$$ Since $\mathrm{cl}_1(H_W^{-1}F_{p,Z,W})$ is a homomorphic image of $H^{-1}F_{p,Z}\in G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)}$ as described in (\[eq2626\]), there exists an expansion (\[eq2628\]). For $j' \in J'\backslash (J')_E$, we have $$H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j'}}=\mathrm{cl}_0(H_W^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z,W} \over \partial \overline{u}_{j'}}).$$ Collecting together for all $j' \in J' \backslash (J')_E$, we get $$\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W)=<H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j'}}, j'\in J' \backslash (J')_E>
\subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (y)}$$ and the second part of (\[eq2628\]) follows from definition \[defsecondkind\](iii).\
Note that $\epsilon (y)=\omega (x)$ is an immediate consequence of definition \[defomega\] if $i_0(m_S)=p$. If $i_0(m_S)=p-1$, we must introduce a truncation operator $T: G(m_S)_{\delta (x)} \rightarrow G(m_S)_{\delta (x)}$ in order to compute $\omega (x)$. The first part of (\[eq2628\]) now shows that there exists $j_0 \in (J')_E$ such that $$H^{-1}(F_{p,Z}-TF_{p,Z}) \in U_{j_0}k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (y)}.$$ Since $\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W) \subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (y)}$, we thus have: $$H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j'}}= H^{-1}{\partial TF_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j'}}$$ for every $j' \in J' \backslash (J')_E$. This proves that $\omega (x)=\epsilon (y)$.
Note that it follows from the above proposition that a permissible center of the second kind has codimension at least two in ${\cal X}$, since $\epsilon(y)>0$. We now introduce the adapted cone associated to a permissible blowing up. Recall the definition of $B$ from (\[eq2612\]) ([*cf.*]{} also definition \[defomega\]). We have $B=\emptyset$ if $i_0(m_S)=p$, and $$B= \{j : U_j \ \mathrm{divides} \ H^{-1}G^p\}\ \mathrm{if} \ i_0(m_S)=p-1.$$
\[defcone\] Let ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$, with generic point $y$, be a permissible center at $x $. We define a subcone $$C(x,{\cal Y}) \subset \mathrm{Spec} (k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}] )$$ as follows: if ${\cal Y}$ is of the first kind, we let: $$C(x,{\cal Y}):= \mathrm{Spec}\left ({k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}] \over (\mathrm{IMax}(x)\cap k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}])}\right);$$ if ${\cal Y}$ is of the second kind, we let $B_J:=B \backslash \{j_0\}$ with notations as in proposition \[secondkind\] and define: $$C(x,{\cal Y}):= \mathrm{Max}(\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W))\cap \{ U_{B_J}=0\} .$$ In both cases, we denote the associated projective cone by $PC(x,{\cal Y})\subseteq \PP^{\mid J \mid -1}_{k(x)}$.
\[geomregpermis\] Let $S \subseteq \tilde{S}$ be a local base change which is regular, $\tilde{S}$ excellent. Let $\tilde{x} \in \tilde{\eta}^{-1}(m_{\tilde{S}})$ and $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ be its image.
If ${\cal Y}\subset {\cal X}$ is a permissible center (of the first or second kind) at $x$, then $$\tilde{{\cal Y}}:={\cal Y}\times_S\mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}\subseteq \tilde{{\cal X}}={\cal X}\times_S\mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}$$ is permissible (of the first or second kind) at $\tilde{x}$.
We denote $(\tilde{S},\tilde{h},\tilde{E})$ and $(u_1, \ldots , u_{\tilde{n}})$ as in notations \[notageomreg1\] and \[notaprime\]. Since $W$ has normal crossings with $E$ at $x$, $\tilde{W}:=\tilde{\eta}(\tilde{{\cal Y}})$ has normal crossings with $\tilde{E}$ at $\tilde{x}$. Since ${\cal Y}$ is permissible at $x$, we have $m(y)=p$. Any generic point $\tilde{y}$ of $\tilde{{\cal Y}}$ has $m(\tilde{y})=p$ by theorem \[omegageomreg\](1), and $\tilde{{\cal Y}}$ itself is irreducible by proposition \[SingX\]. Theorem \[omegageomreg\](2) applies to $\tilde{y}$ (with $n(y)=\tilde{n}(y)$) and to $\tilde{x}$ and states that $$\epsilon (\tilde{y}) = \epsilon (y), \ \epsilon (\tilde{x})\geq \epsilon (x), \ i_0(\tilde{y})=i_0(y),
\ i_0(\tilde{x})=i_0(x)$$ Cases of inequality $\epsilon (\tilde{x})> \epsilon (x)$ are classified in [*ibid.*]{}(2.ii).\
Suppose that $\epsilon (\tilde{x}) > \epsilon (x)$. Then $$F_{p,Z}\in k(x)[U^p_1, \ldots ,U^p_n] \ \mathrm{and} \ i_0(m_S)=i_0(m_{\tilde{S}})=p.$$ Then ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind since $F_{p,Z}\in k(x)[U^p_1, \ldots ,U^p_n]$ is incompatible with the conclusion of proposition \[secondkind\]. Note that $$\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)=\epsilon (\tilde{x})-1.$$ We claim that $\tilde{{\cal Y}}$ is permissible of the second kind at $\tilde{x}$.
To prove the claim, note that definition \[defsecondkind\](i) and $i_0 (\tilde{y}) \leq i_0(\tilde{x})=p$ are already checked. We have $$\label{eq2629}
H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,\tilde{Z}} \over \partial U_{j'}}=
H^{-1}\Phi_{j'}(U_1, \ldots , U_n) \neq 0,$$ with notations as in theorem \[omegageomreg\](2.ii) for some $j'$, $n+1 \leq j'\leq \tilde{n}$. Since $H(\tilde{x})=H(x)\tilde{S}$ by theorem \[omegageomreg\](2.i), and $H^{-1}F_{p,Z} \subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)}$ by proposition \[firstkind\], we have $$H^{-1}F_{p,\tilde{Z}} \subseteq \sum_{j=1}^{\tilde{n}}U_j k(\tilde{x})[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)}.$$ This proves that definition \[defsecondkind\](iii) holds for $\tilde{{\cal Y}}$ at $\tilde{x}$. On the other hand this implies that $\epsilon (\tilde{y})=\epsilon (y)$ because $$H^{-1}F_{p,\tilde{Z}} \nsubseteq k(\tilde{x})[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (\tilde{x})}$$ follows obviously from (\[eq2629\]). So definition \[defsecondkind\](ii) is also checked and $\tilde{{\cal Y}}$ is permissible of the second kind at $\tilde{x}$.\
Assume now that $\epsilon (\tilde{x}) = \epsilon (x)$. If ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind at $x$, we have $\epsilon (\tilde{y})= \epsilon (\tilde{x})$, so $\tilde{{\cal Y}}$ is also permissible of the first kind at $\tilde{x}$.
If ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the second kind at $x$, definition \[defsecondkind\](ii) is checked. Finally by proposition \[secondkind\], the polyhedron $\Delta_{S}(h;u_1, \ldots ,u_n;Z)$ has a vertex $\mathbf{x}$ such that $x_{j'}\not \in \N $ for some $j' \in J' \backslash J_E$. The corresponding vertex $$\mathbf{\tilde{x}}:=(\mathbf{x}, \underbrace{0, \ldots ,0}_{\tilde{n}-n}) \in
\Delta_{\tilde{S}}(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}};Z)$$ is thus not solvable. We hence get $\mathbf{\tilde{x}} \in \Delta_{\tilde{S}}(u_1, \ldots ,u_{\tilde{n}};\tilde{Z})$ and definition \[defsecondkind\](iii) is checked. Hence $\tilde{{\cal Y}}$ is permissible of the second kind at $\tilde{x}$ as required, since $H(\tilde{x})=H(x)T$.
Blowing up theorem.
-------------------
Let $ \pi : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along a permissible center ${\cal Y}$ (of the first or second kind) at $x \in {\cal Y}$, $\{x\} = \eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Our objective is to relate $\omega (x')$ to $\omega (x)$ for points $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$.\
We keep notations as in proposition \[Hironakastable\] and proposition \[SingX\]. Then $\sigma: {\cal S}' \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$ denotes the blowing up along $W$ and there is a commutative diagram (\[eq210\]). Let $$\eta ' : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal S}', \ s' :=\eta '(x')\in \sigma^{-1}(m_S), \ S':={\cal O}_{{\cal S}' ,s'}.$$ We denote by $W':=\sigma^{-1}(W)$ and $E':=\sigma^{-1}(E)_\mathrm{red}$. We do not change notations to denote stalks at $s'$, i.e. we will write $\eta ': \ {\cal X}_{s'} \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S'$ for the stalk at $s'$ of the above map $\eta '$, and $W',E'$ for the stalks at $s'$ of the corresponding divisors. By proposition \[SingX\], we have ${\eta '}^{-1}(s')=\{x'\}$ if $x'$ is not a regular point of $X'$.
For the purpose of computations, we shall pick well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ such that $$I(W)=(\{u_j\}_{j\in J}), \ {\cal Y}=V(Z, \{u_j\}_{j\in J}).$$ with notations as in (\[eq71\]). We denote by $u \in S'$ a local equation for $W'$, which can be taken to be some $u_{j_1}$, where $j_1\in J$ depends on $s'$. We have ${\cal X}'=\mathrm{Spec}(S'[X']/(h'))$, where $$\label{eq363}
h':=u^{-p}h={X'}^p+f_{1,X'}{X'}^{p-1}+ \cdots +f_{p,X'}\in S'[X'],$$ and $$\label{eq3631}
X':=Z/u, \ f_{i,X'}:=u^{-i}f_{i,Z}\in S' \ \mathrm{for} \ 1 \leq i \leq p.$$
Since ${\cal Y}$ is permissible, we have $\epsilon (y)>0$ so the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{W}h$ reduces to : $$\label{eq3633}
\mathrm{in}_{W}h=Z^p - G_W^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z,W} \in G(W)[Z],$$ with $G_W \in G(W)_{\delta (y)}$ and $F_{p,Z,W} \in G(W)_{p\delta (y)}$ (in particular $G_W=0$ if $\delta (y) \not \in \N$). Since $\sigma^{-1}(W)= \mathbf{Proj}G(W)$, the restriction map $$G(W)_d =\Gamma (W',{\cal O}_{W'}(d)) \rightarrow \Gamma (W'\backslash V(U),{\cal O}_{W'}(d))$$ gives an inclusion $$\label{eq3632}
U^{-d}G(W)_d = S_W[\{U_j/U\}_{j\in J}]_{\leq d} \subset {\cal O}_{W',s'}=S'/(u)$$ for each $d \geq 0$. There is an identification: $$\label{eq3634}
U^{-d}G(W')_d = \left (S_W[\{U_j/U\}_{j\in J}]\right )_{s'}=S'/(u).$$ Finally, we note that ${\cal D}_{W'}={\cal D}(W')$ by (\[eq243\]) since $W'$ is a component of $E'$. These remarks are essential for stating the blow up formula in proposition \[bupformula\](v) below.
\[bupformula\] (Blow up formula) Let $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along a permissible center ${\cal Y}$ at $x$, $\{x\} = \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ and $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$. With notations as above, the following holds:
- there exists a r.s.p. $(u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n'})$ of $S'$ which is adapted to $(S',h',E')$;
- $\mathrm{in}_{W'}h'={X'}^p-G_{W'}^{p-1}X'+F_{p,X',W'} \in G(W')[X']$ and is given by $$G_{W'}=U^{-1}G_W\in G(W')_{\delta (y)-1}, \ F_{p,X',W'}=U^{-p}F_{p,Z,W} \in G(W')_{p(\delta (y)-1)};$$
- the polyhedron $\Delta_{\widehat{S'}}(h';u;X')$ is minimal;
- we have $H(x')=u^{\epsilon (y)-p}H(x)\subseteq S'$;
- there is an equality of ideals of $\hat{S'}/(u)$: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H_{W'}^{-1}G_{W'}^p & = & (U^{-\epsilon (y)}H_{W}^{-1}G_{W}^p )_{s'} \hfill{}, \\
& & \\
J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W') & = & (U^{-\epsilon (y)}J(F_{p,Z,W},E,W) )\hat{S'}/(u). \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Statement (i) is proved in proposition \[Hironakastable\]. The formula in (ii) is obvious from (\[eq363\]), (\[eq3631\]) and (\[eq3633\]).
If $i_0(W)=p-1$, i.e. $G_W \neq 0$ in (\[eq3633\]), we have $G_{W'}\neq 0$ by (ii), so $\Delta_{\widehat{S'}}(h';u;X')\subseteq \R_{\geq 0}$ is minimal.
If $i_0(W)=p$, then $F_{p,Z,W}\not \in G(W)^p$, i.e. $$\delta (y)\not \in p\N \ \mathrm{or} \ U^{-\delta (y)}F_{p,Z,W}\not \in k(W')^p.$$ Note that $G(W)^p = (k(W')[U,U^{-1}])^p \cap G(W)$ since $G(W)$ is integrally closed. By (ii), $F_{p,X',W'}=U^{-p}F_{p,Z,W}$ so $F_{p,X',W'}\not \in G(W')^p$ and this proves (iii).
To prove (iv), first consider those irreducible components $W_j=\mathrm{div}(u_j)$ of $E$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, whose strict transform $W'_j$ passes through $s'$. We may pick a r.s.p. $(u'_1,\ldots
,u'_{n'})$ of $S'$ which is adapted to $(S',h',E')$, containing $u$ and $u'_j:=u_j/u$ if $j \in J_E$ (resp. $t$ and $u'_j:=u_j$ if $j \not \in J_E$) for each such $j$. Let $$\mathrm{in}_{W_j}h(Z)=Z^p +F_{1,Z,W_j}Z^{p-1}+ \cdots
+F_{p,Z,W_j}\in S/(u_j)[U_j][Z].$$ We have $\mathrm{in}_{W'_j}h'= \mathrm{in}_{W_j}
u^{-p}h(uX')\in S'/(u'_j)[U'_j][X']$, since $u$ is a unit in $S'_{(u'_j)}=S_{(u_j)}$. Since $\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z)$ is minimal, we have $$\Delta_{S_{(u_j)}}(h;u_j;Z)=\Delta_{S'_{(u'_j)}}(h';u'_j;X')$$ minimal as well by proposition \[Deltaalg\], hence $\mathrm{ord}_{(u'_j)}H(x')= \mathrm{ord}_{(u_j)}H(x)$.
By (ii) and (iii), we have $\mathrm{ord}_{(u)}H(x')=p(\delta(y)-1)$. Therefore $$\mathrm{ord}_{(u)}H(x')-\mathrm{ord}_{(u)}H(x)=p(\delta(y)-1)-\mathrm{ord}_{W}H(x)=\epsilon (y)-p$$ and the conclusion follows.
We now prove (v). The first part of the statement follows immediately from (ii) and (iv). With notations as in (\[eq2431\]), we have $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccccc}
J(F_{p,Z,W},E,W) & = & H_W^{-1}{\cal J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W) & \subseteq & \widehat{G(W)}_{\epsilon (y)}\hfill{}, \\
& & & & \\
J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W') & = & H_{W'}^{-1}{\cal J}(F_{p,X',W'},E',W')& \subseteq & \widehat{G(W')}_{0}. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Applying (ii) and (iv), we get: $$F_{p,X',W'}=U^{-p}F_{p,Z,W}, \ H_{W'}=H_W U^{\epsilon (y)-p}G(W').$$ Since $D \cdot U^p =0$ for every $D \in {\cal D}_{W'}$, (v) can be written in the following form: $$\label{eq3637}
U^{-\mathrm{deg}F_{p,Z,W}}{\cal J}(F_{p,Z,W},E',W')=(U^{-\mathrm{deg}F_{p,Z,W}}{\cal J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W))\hat{S'}/(u).$$ We have $G(W')=G(W)[\{V_j\}_{j\in J\backslash \{j_1\}}]_{s'}$, $V_j:=U_j/U \in G(W')_0$, $j\in J\backslash \{j_1\}$. Pick an isomorphism $\widehat{S_W}\simeq k(x)[[\{\overline{u}_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'}]]$ (\[eq2413\]). By (\[eq3632\]), there are inclusions $$k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}] \subset k(x)[U,\{V_j\}_{j\in J\backslash \{j_1\}}]
\subset \hat{S'}/(u, \{\overline{u}_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'})[U]\simeq \hat{G(W')}/(\{\overline{u}_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'}).$$
Let $A:=k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]$, $A':=k(x)[U,\{V_j\}_{j\in J\backslash \{j_1\}}]$. The $A'$-module $$\Omega^1_{A'/ \F_p}\left (\mathrm{log}(U \prod_{j\in J\backslash \{j_1\}}V_j)\right )$$ is generated by collecting together $dU/ U$, $\{dV_j / V_j\}_{j\in J\backslash \{j_1\}}$ and the pullback of $\Omega^1_{A/ \F_p}$. For $F \in A$, we deduce the following standard formul[æ]{} in $A'$ up to linear combinations of the ${\partial F \over \partial \lambda_l}$, $l \in \Lambda_0$: $$\label{eq3635}
U{\partial F \over \partial U}=\sum_{j \in J} U_j{\partial F \over \partial U_j},
\ V_j{\partial F \over \partial V_j}= U_j{\partial F \over \partial U_j}, j \in J \backslash \{j_1\}.$$
By (\[eq242\]), the $\widehat{G(W)}$-module ${\cal D}_W$ is generated by adjoining the family $$\label{eq3636}
\left ( \{U_j {\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_j}\}_{j\in J_E},
\{U_k{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_j}\}_{k\in J, j\in J \backslash J_E} \right )$$ together with $(\{\overline{u}_{j'} {\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \overline{u}_{j'}}\}_{j' \in (J')_E},
\{{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \overline{u}_{j'}}\}_{j' \in J' \backslash (J')_E},
\{{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l \in \Lambda_0})$. Taking $F\in A_d$, $d \in \N$, we have for $j \in J \backslash J_E$, $$(U^{-d}\{U_k{\partial F \over \partial U_j}\}_{k\in J})A'_{s'}=(U^{-d}U{\partial F \over \partial U_j})A'_{s'}.$$
Collecting together this equation with (\[eq3635\]) and (\[eq3636\]), we get $$U^{-d}{\cal J}(F,E',W')=(U^{-d}{\cal J}(F,E,W))\hat{S'}/(u)$$ which proves (\[eq3637\]) as required.
We now state the main theorem of this section. Recall that the function $y \mapsto \omega (y)$ and $\kappa (y)\in \{ 1, \geq 2\}$ have been defined for given $(S,h,E)$ and $y \in {\cal X}$ (definition \[defmult\] and definition \[defomega\]). By proposition \[Estable\], $(S',h',E')$ satisfies again conditions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{}. The values of $\epsilon (x')$, $\iota (x')$ are computed w.r.t. the adapted structure $(S',h',E')$.
\[indcoord\] [*Choice of coordinates:*]{} by proposition \[bupformula\](i), there exists a r.s.p. $(u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n'})$ which is adapted to $(S',h',E')$ for some $n' \leq n$. We take $u'_1:=u$. Let $$u'_i:={u_{j_i} \over u}, \ 2 \leq i \leq e'_0, \ \mathrm{where} \
\{j_2, \ldots ,j_{e'_0}\}:=\{ j\in J_E : {u_j \over u} \in m_{S'}\}.$$ Let $\{j_{e'_0+1}, \ldots ,j_{e'}\}:=(J')_E$, $\{j_{e'+1}, \ldots ,j_{n'_0}\}=:J' \backslash (J')_E $. We take $$u'_i:=u_{j_i}, \ e'_0+1 \leq i \leq n'_0.$$ Let $$u'_i:={u_{j_i} \over u}, \ n'_0+1 \leq i \leq n'_1, \ \mathrm{where} \
\{j_{n'_0+1}, \ldots ,j_{n'_1}\}:=\{ j\in J \backslash J_E : {u_j \over u} \in m_{S'}\}$$ and complete $(u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n'_1})$ to a r.s.p. $(u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n'})$ of $S'$.
\[ordbar\] Let $$\overline{S'}:=\hat{{\cal O}}_{\sigma^{-1}(m_S),s'}=\hat{S'}/(u,\{u_{j'}\}_{j'\in J'})=
\widehat{k(x)[\{U_j/U\}_{j\in J}]_{\overline{m'}}},$$ where $\overline{m'}$ denotes the ideal of the restriction of $s'$ to $\sigma^{-1}(m_S)$: $$\overline{m'}:=(\{\overline{u'_i}\}_{i \in F}), \ F:=\{2 , \ldots , e'_0\} \cup \{n'_0+1 , \ldots , n'\}.$$
For $I' \subseteq \hat{S'}/(u)$ an ideal, we denote by $$\mathrm{ord}I':=\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\hat{S'}/(u)}}I'= \min_{\varphi ' \in I'}\{\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\hat{S'}/(u)}}\varphi '\}, \
\overline{\mathrm{ord}}I' :=\mathrm{ord}_{\overline{m'}}I'\overline{S'}.$$
For every $I' \subseteq \hat{S'}/(u)$, we have $\mathrm{ord}I' \leq \overline{\mathrm{ord}}I' \leq +\infty $. If furthermore $d'$ is given, $d' \leq \overline{\mathrm{ord}}I'$, we write $$\overline{I'} \subseteq \left (\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m'}}\overline{S'}\right )_{d'}
=k(x')[\{U'_i\}_{i \in F}]_{d'}$$ for the initial part of degree $d'$ of the ideal $I'\overline{S'}$.
The cone $C(x,{\cal Y}) \subseteq \mathrm{Spec}(k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}])$ is given by definition \[defcone\]. For the associated projective cone, there is an embedding $$PC(x,{\cal Y}) \hookrightarrow \sigma^{-1}(m_S) .$$
\[bupthm\] Assume that $m(x)=p$, $\omega (x)>0$, where $\{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Let $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along a permissible center ${\cal Y}$ (of the first kind or second kind) at $x$, $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$ and $\eta ': \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S'$ be with notations as above, where $s'=\eta '(x')$. Then $$\label{eq364}
(m(x') ,\omega (x'), \kappa (x')) \leq (m(x),\omega (x),\kappa (x)).$$
If equality holds in (\[eq364\]), then $s' \in PC(x,{\cal Y})$.\
If $\epsilon (x')>\epsilon (x)$, the following holds:
- we have $i_0(m_S)=p, \ \epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)=\omega (x), \ \delta (y) \in \N$, $H_{j'}\in p\N$ for every $j' \in (J')_E $ and $$F_{p,Z}\in (k(x')[U_1, \ldots ,U_n])^p[\{U_j\}_{j \in J_E \backslash \{j_2, \ldots ,j_{e'_0}\}}];$$
- let $(u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n'};Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x'$. Then $$\label{eq3642}
{H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'} \nsubseteq k(x')[U'_1, \ldots , U'_{n'_1}]_{\epsilon (x')}
\oplus ( \{U'_i\}_{i \not \in F}) \cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}$$ and there exists $\Phi' \in k(x')[{U'_1}^p, \ldots ,{U'_{n'_1}}^p][U'_{n'_1+1} ,\ldots , U'_{n'}]_{p\delta (x')}$ such that $$\label{eq3641}
{H'}^{-1}(F_{p,Z'} - \Phi' ) \subseteq ( \{U'_i\}_{i \not \in F}) \cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}.$$
Since ${\cal Y}$ is permissible, ${\cal Y} $ is Hironaka-permissible at $x$ and this implies that $m(x')\leq m(x)=p$ in any case. We are done unless equality holds, so assume that $m(x')=p$.
The polyhedron $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n'};X')$ need not be minimal. We must take $Z'=X'-\theta '$, $\theta ' \in S'$ such that the polyhedron $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_{n'};Z')$ is minimal in order to read off $\epsilon (x')$ and $\omega (x')$ from $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'$.
By proposition \[bupformula\](iii), we have $\mathrm{ord}_{(u)}H(x')=p (\delta (y)-1)$. The initial form $H_{W'}$ of $H(x')$ in $G(W')$ is given by proposition \[bupformula\](iv): $$\label{eq3651}
H_{W'}= <U^{p (\delta (y)-1)}\prod_{i=2}^{e'}\overline{u'_i}^{H_{j_i}}>.$$
We have ${\theta '}^p \in H(x')$ since $f_{p,X'} \in H(x')$. Let $\Theta ' \in G(W')_{\delta (y)-1}$ be the initial form of $\theta '$ (in particular $\Theta ' =0 $ if $\delta (y) \not \in \N$). Then $$\label{eq365}
\mathrm{in}_{W'}h' = {Z'}^p -G_{W'}^{p-1}Z' + F_{p,X',W'} + {\Theta '}^p - G_{W'}^{p-1} \Theta ' \in G(W')[Z']$$ where $G_{W'}=U^{-1}G_W$, $F_{p,X',W'}=U^{-p}F_{p,Z,W}$ by proposition \[bupformula\](ii). According to our notations, we have: $$F_{p,Z',W'}=F_{p,X',W'} + {\Theta '}^p - G_{W'}^{p-1} \Theta '.$$
Note that derivatives in ${\cal D}_{W'}$ decrease orders by at most one. Since $H_{W'}$ is the initial form of $H(x')$ in $G(W')$, we have: $$\label{eq3652}
\epsilon (x') \leq \min\{ \mathrm{ord}_{m_{S'/(u)}}(H_{W'}^{-1}G_{W'}^p),
1+\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S'/(u)}} J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')\}.$$ Inequality may be strict, since the $H(x')^{-i}f_{i,Z'}^p$, $1 \leq i \leq p$ may acquire terms of lower order not coming from $\mathrm{in}_{W}h$. Moreover, some derivatives in ${\cal D}_{W'}$ do not decrease orders and give a sharper bound in (\[eq3652\]).\
Recall that if $M \subseteq \widehat{G(W)}_d$, $d \in \N$ is a submodule, and $d_0$ is given, there are associated initial forms $$\overline{M} \subseteq \left (\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_{S}}G(W)_d\right )_{d_0} \subset
{G(m_S)_{d+d_0} \over <(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})^{d+1}\cap G(m_S)_{d+d_0}>}$$ under the conditions described in (\[eq2627\]) and (\[eq2626\]). Note that $$\left (\mathrm{gr}_{\overline{m}_{S}}G(W)_d \right )_{0}= \Gamma (\sigma^{-1}(m_S), {\cal O}_{\sigma^{-1}(m_S)}(d))=
k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{d}$$ for $d_0=0$.\
Since ${\theta '}^p \in H(x')$, we have ${\Theta '}^p\in H_{W'}$ in (\[eq365\]). We have $\Theta ' = 0$ or $\delta (y) \in \N$ and $$G_{W'}^{p-1} \Theta ' \in G_{W'}^{p-1}\left \lceil H_{W'}^{{1 \over p}}\right \rceil, \
\left \lceil H_{W'}^{{1 \over p}}\right \rceil :=
<U^{\delta (y)-1}\prod_{i=2}^{e'}{\overline{u'_{i}}^{\left \lceil {H_{j_i} \over p}\right \rceil}}>.$$ Since $D \cdot {\Theta '}^p =0$ for every $D \in {\cal D}_{W'}$, we deduce from (\[eq365\]) that $$\label{eq367}
J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')\equiv J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W')
\ \mathrm{mod}H_{W'}^{-1}G_{W'}^{p-1}\left \lceil H_{W'}^{{1 \over p}}\right \rceil .$$
Note that if $i_0 (m_S)=p$, or if $H_{j'} \not \in p\N$ for some $j' \in (J')_E$, we have $$\label{eq3672}
G_W=0 \ \mathrm{or} \ \mathrm{ord}_{(u_{j'})}(H_W^{-1}G_W^p)>0 \ \mathrm{for} \
\mathrm{some} \ j' \in (J')_E$$ by applying proposition \[deltaint\](iii) in the latter case. In this case, we obtain the following from proposition \[bupformula\](v) and (\[eq367\]): $$\label{eq3671}
(H_{W'}^{-1}G_{W'}^p)\overline{S'}=0, \ J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')\overline{S'} =
J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W')\overline{S'} .$$
[*Case 1:*]{} $i_0(m_S)=p$ [*and*]{} ${\cal Y}$ [*is of the first kind.*]{} In order to get an estimate of $\epsilon (x')$ from (\[eq3652\]), we take: $$M=J(F_{p,Z,W},E,W), \ d=\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x), \ d_0=0.$$
By proposition \[firstkind\], there is an equality $$H^{-1}F_{p,Z} =\mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}H_W^{-1}F_{p,Z,W}\subseteq k(x) [\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)},$$ but we emphasize that the induced inclusion $$\label{eq3675}
J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) \subseteq \mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}J(F_{p,Z,W},E,W).$$ is strict in general.
By proposition \[indiff\](ii) and the remark, we have $$0\neq J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) \subseteq \overline{M} \subseteq k(x) [\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)}.$$
Let $I'=J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W')\subseteq \hat{S'}/(u)$, $d'=\mathrm{ord} I'$. By proposition \[bupformula\](v), we have $$\left (U^{-\epsilon (x)}J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\right )_{\overline{m'}}\subseteq I'\overline{S'} .$$
Since $i_0(m_S)=p$, we obtain from (\[eq3671\]) that: $$\label{eq369}
\left (U^{-\epsilon (x)}J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\right )_{\overline{m'}}\subseteq
I'\overline{S'} = J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')\overline{S'}.$$
If $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$, definition \[deftauprime\] gives $$\mathrm{IMax}(x)=(J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S))G(m_S).$$ We deduce that $\overline{\mathrm{ord}}I' \leq \omega (x)$ and $$\label{eq3691}
s' \not \in PC(x,{\cal Y}) \Longrightarrow \overline{\mathrm{ord}}I'< \omega (x) .$$
If $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$, definition \[deftauprime\] gives $$\mathrm{IMax}(x)=(V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S))G(m_S).$$ Since $U_{j_1}V(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)$ (recall that $u=u_{j_1}$), we also deduce that $\overline{\mathrm{ord}}I' \leq \omega (x)$ and (\[eq3691\]) holds. We have: $$\epsilon (x') \leq 1 + \mathrm{ord} I' =1+d' \leq 1 + \overline{\mathrm{ord}} I',$$ by (\[eq3652\]). We have proved that $$\label{eq3692}
\epsilon (x') \leq 1 + \overline{\mathrm{ord}} I' \leq 1 +\omega (x)$$ with strict inequality on the right hand side under the assumption of (\[eq3691\]). The proof is now an easy consequence of the following claim: $$\epsilon (x') = 1 + \overline{\mathrm{ord}} I' \Longrightarrow \omega (x')=\epsilon (x')-1.$$
Namely, assuming the claim, we have $\omega (x') \leq \omega (x)$ and this inequality is strict under the assumption of (\[eq3691\]). The first part of the proof is complete since $i_0(m_S)=p$ implies $\kappa (x) \geq 2$. To prove the claim, let $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h= {Z'}^p -{G'}^{p-1}Z' + F_{p,Z'}\in G(m_{S'})[Z']$$ be the initial form polynomial. Since it is assumed that $\epsilon (x')=1 + \overline{\mathrm{ord}} I'$, we have $\overline{I'} \neq 0$ and: $$\label{eq3693}
\overline{I'}= <\left \{{H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_{j}}\right \}_{j= n'_0+1}^{n'}>
\ \mathrm{mod} (\{U'_{j'}\}_{j' \not \in F})\cap G(m_{S'})_{d'}.$$ To compute $\omega (x')$, we must introduce a truncation operator $$T': G(m_{S'})_{p\delta (x')}\rightarrow G(m_{S'})_{p\delta (x')}$$ as in definition \[defomega\]. By (\[eq3651\]), we have $$H':=\mathrm{cl}_{p\delta (x')-\epsilon (x')}H(x')= <U^{p (\delta (y)-1)}\prod_{i=2}^{e'}{U'_i}^{H_{j_i}}>\in G(m_{S'}).$$ Going back to definition \[defT\], we have $$F_{p,Z'}-T' F_{p,Z'} \in <{G'}^{p-1}U^{\delta (y)-1} \prod_{i=2}^{e'}{U'_i}^{\left \lceil{ H_{j_i}\over p}\right \rceil}>.$$ Since $i_0(m_S)=p$, (\[eq3671\]) applies and implies that $$\label{eq3694}
{H'}^{-1}(F_{p,Z'}-T' F_{p,Z'}) \subseteq (\{U'_i\}_{i \not \in F})\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}.$$ Comparing with (\[eq3693\]), there exists $i$, $n'_0+1 \leq i \leq n'$ such that $$\label{eq3695}
{H'}^{-1}{\partial T 'F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_{i}}\neq 0 ,$$ since $\overline{I'}\neq 0$. This proves that $\omega (x')=\epsilon (x')-1$ as claimed.\
To conclude the proof in case 1, assume that $\epsilon (x')>\epsilon (x)$. If some inequality is strict in (\[eq3691\]), we have $\epsilon (x') \leq \omega (x) \leq \epsilon (x)$: a contradiction. So $\omega (x')= \omega (x)$ and by the above claim, we get $$\label{eq370}
\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)=\omega (x')=\epsilon (x')-1=\mathrm{ord} I'= \overline{\mathrm{ord}} I'.$$
We use notations as in (\[eq2412\]). Suppose that there exists $j' \in (J')_E$ such that $H_{j'} \not \in p\N$. By proposition \[firstkind\], we have $$H^{-1}U_{j'}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j'}}\neq 0.$$ Going back to (\[eq369\]), we have $$\phi_{j'}:=\left (U^{-\epsilon (x)}H^{-1}U_{j'}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j'}}\right )_{\overline{m'}}
\subseteq J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')\overline{S'}.$$ Applying the transformation rule in proposition \[bupformula\](v), we have $$\phi_{j'} = (H_{W'}^{-1}\overline{u}_{j'}{\partial F_{p,Z',W'} \over \partial \overline{u}_{j'}})
\overline{S'}.$$ Since $\overline{\mathrm{ord}}\phi_{j'} \leq \epsilon (x)$, we deduce that $$\epsilon (x') \leq \overline{\mathrm{ord}}(H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'}) \leq
\overline{\mathrm{ord}}(H_{W'}^{-1}\overline{u}_{j'}{\partial F_{p,Z',W'} \over \partial \overline{u}_{j'}})
\leq \epsilon (x).$$ This is a contradiction with (\[eq370\]). Hence $H_{j'} \in p\N$ for every $j' \in (J')_E$.
Suppose that $\delta (y) \not \in \N$. Similarly, by proposition \[firstkind\], we have: $$H^{-1}D \cdot F_{p,Z}\neq 0, \ D:=\sum_{j \in J}U_j{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_j}\in \mathrm{Der}(G(W)).$$ Note that we have $\Theta' =0$ in (\[eq365\]) since $\delta (y) \not \in \N$. We deduce from (\[eq3635\]) that $$\phi_D :=\left (U^{-\epsilon (x)}H^{-1}D \cdot F_{p,Z}\right )\hat{S'}/(u)
=H_{W'}^{-1}U{\partial F_{p,Z',W'} \over \partial U}.$$ Arguing as above, we get a contradiction from: $$\epsilon (x') \leq \mathrm{ord}(H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'})
\leq \mathrm{ord}(H_{W'}^{-1}U{\partial F_{p,Z',W'} \over \partial U}) \leq \epsilon (x).$$
Let now $i \in \{2, \ldots ,e'_0\}$. By (\[eq369\]), we have $$\phi_{i}:=\left (U^{-\epsilon (x)}H^{-1}U_{j_i}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_{j_i}}\right )_{\overline{m'}}
\subseteq J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')\overline{S'}.$$
Applying once again (\[eq3635\]) and since $\epsilon (x')>\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, we get $$\mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}( \{ H_{W'}^{-1}\overline{u}_{i}{\partial F_{p,Z,W'} \over \partial
\overline{u}_{i}} \}_{2\leq i\leq e'_0})\equiv \mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}(\{\phi_i\}_{2\leq i\leq e'_0})
\ \mathrm{mod} (\{U'_{i'}\}_{i' \not \in F}) \cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x)}.$$ If $\phi_{i}\neq 0$ for some $i$, $2 \leq i \leq e'_0$, we get $$\epsilon (x') \leq \mathrm{ord}(H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'})
\leq \mathrm{ord}(H_{W'}^{-1}\overline{u}_{i}{\partial F_{p,Z,W'} \over \partial
\overline{u}_{i}}) \leq \epsilon (x),$$ again a contradiction. Since $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, we have ${\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}=0$ for every $j \in J \backslash J_E$.
Finally, assume that $F_{p,Z} \not \in k(x')^p[U_1, \ldots ,U_n]$. With notations as in (\[eq2412\]), we pick a maximal subset $\Lambda_1 \subseteq \Lambda_0$ such that the family of elements $(d\overline{\lambda}_l)_{l \in \Lambda_1}$ in $\Omega^1_{k(x') /\F_p}$ is linearly independent over $k(x')$. Let $(d\overline{\lambda}_{l'})_{l' \in \Lambda'_0}$ be a basis of $\Omega^1_{k(x') /\F_p}$, $\Lambda_1 \subseteq \Lambda'_0$, and pick a preimage $\lambda_{l'} \in \hat{S'}/(u)$ of $\overline{\lambda}_{l'}$ for $l' \in \Lambda'_0 \backslash \Lambda_1$.
By assumption, there exists $l \in \Lambda_1$ such that ${\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial \lambda_l}\neq 0$. Arguing as above, we get $$\mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}( H_{W'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z,W'} \over \partial \lambda_l })
\equiv \mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}\left (U^{-\epsilon (x)}H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial \lambda_l}\right )_{\overline{m'}}
\ \mathrm{mod} (\{U'_{i'}\}_{i' \not \in F}) \cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x)},$$ a contradiction and the proof of (1) in the theorem is complete.\
We now proceed to prove (2). By proposition \[bupformula\](i), we have $$H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,X',W'}\overline{S'}=(U^{-\epsilon (x)}H_W^{-1}F_{p,Z,W})_{\overline{m'}}
=(U^{-\epsilon (x)}H^{-1}F_{p,Z})_{\overline{m'}}.$$ By (1) in the theorem and proposition \[firstkind\], there is an expansion $$F_{p,Z}=\left (\prod_{i=e'_0+1}^{e'}U_{j_{i}}^{H_{j_{i}}}\right )
\sum_{\mathbf{a}\in A}F_{p,Z,\mathbf{a}}(\{U_j\}_{j \in J'_1})\prod_{j \in J_1}U_j^{pa_j},
\ A \subset \N^{J_1},$$ with $J_1:=\{j_2, \ldots , j_{e'_0}, j_{n'_0+1}, \ldots , j_{n'_1}\}$, $ J'_1:=J \backslash J_1$, $F_{p,Z,\mathbf{a}}\in k(x')^p[\{U_j\}_{j \in J'_1}]$. We deduce that $$\label{eq371}
(U^{-\epsilon (x)}H^{-1}F_{p,Z})_{\overline{m'}}= \overline{H'}^{-1}
\left (\sum_{\mathbf{a}\in A}F_{p,Z,\mathbf{a}}(\{{U_j \over U}\}_{j \in J'_1})
\prod_{j \in J_1}({U_j \over U})^{pa_j}\right ) ,$$ with $\overline{H'}:=(\prod_{i=2}^{e'_0}\left ({U_{j_i} \over U}\right )^{H_{j_i}})\subseteq \overline{S'}$. Since $(H_{W'}^{-1}G_{W'}^p)\overline{S'}=0$ by (\[eq3671\]), there exists $\theta ' \in S'/(u)$ such that $$\label{eq3711}
H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'}\overline{S'}=H_{W'}^{-1}(F_{p,X',W'}+{\theta '}^p)\overline{S'}.$$ We deduce from (\[eq371\]) that there exists a finite subset $A' \subset \N^{J_1}$, $A \subseteq A'$ and elements $$\theta '_\mathbf{a} \in k(x)[\{{U_j \over U}\}_{j \in J'_1}] \ \mathrm{for} \
\mathrm{every} \ \mathbf{a}\in A'$$ such that (letting $F_{p,Z,\mathbf{a}}(\{{U_j \over U}\}_{j \in J'_1})=0$ for $\mathbf{a}\in A ' \backslash A $) we have: $$H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'}\overline{S'}= \overline{H'}^{-1}\left (\sum_{\mathbf{a}\in A'}
(F_{p,Z,\mathbf{a}}(\{{U_j \over U}\}_{j \in J'_1})
+{\theta '_\mathbf{a}}^p) \prod_{j \in J_1}({U_j \over U})^{pa_j}\right ) .$$ Let $d_\mathbf{a}:= \epsilon (x') + \sum_{i=2}^{e'_0}H_{j_i}-p\mid \mathbf{a}\mid $ for $\mathbf{a} \in A'$. Since $\overline{\mathrm{ord}}(H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'})=\epsilon (x')$ we have $$\overline{\mathrm{ord}}(F_{p,Z,\mathbf{a}}(\{{U_j \over U}\}_{j \in J'_1})+{\theta '_\mathbf{a}}^p)\geq d_\mathbf{a}$$ for every $\mathbf{a} \in A'$. Taking classes in $G(\overline{m'})$, we define: $$\Phi '_\mathbf{a}:= \mathrm{cl}_{d_\mathbf{a}}(F_{p,Z,\mathbf{a}}(\{{U_j \over U}\}_{j \in J'_1})
+{\theta '}_\mathbf{a}^p) \in k(x')[U'_{n'_1+1}, \ldots , U'_{n'}]_{d_\mathbf{a}}.$$
To conclude the proof, let $I_1:=\{2, \ldots , e'_0, n'_0+1, \ldots , n'_1\}$. We take $$\Phi ':={U'_1}^{p (\delta (y)-1)}\left (\prod_{i=e'_0+1}^{e'}{U'_i}^{H_{j_i}}\right )
\sum_{\mathbf{a}\in A'}\Phi '_\mathbf{a} \prod_{i \in I_1}{U'_i}^{pa_{j_i}}$$ and claim that $\Phi '$ satisfies (2) in the theorem. By the above definition and (1) in the theorem, we have $\Phi' \in k(x')[{U'_1}^p, \ldots ,{U'_{n'_1}}^p][U'_{n'_1} ,\ldots , U'_{n'}]_{p\delta (x')}$. Also (\[eq3641\]) follows immediately from (\[eq3711\]).
With notations as in the above proof of (1), we have $$J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)=H^{-1}
<\{U_j{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}\}_{j \in J_E \backslash \{j_2, \ldots ,j_{e'_0+1}\}},
\{{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l\in \Lambda_0 \backslash \Lambda_1}.$$ Applying once more (\[eq3635\]), we get $$\left.
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}( \{ H_{W'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z,W'} \over \partial
\overline{u'}_{i}} \}_{n'_1 \leq i\leq n'}) \hfill{} \\
\equiv
\mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}(U^{-\epsilon (x)}J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) )_{\overline{m'}}
\ \mathrm{mod} (\{U'_{i'}\}_{i' \not \in F}) \cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x)}. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Since $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\neq 0$, we obtain that $${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_i} \not \in (\{U'_{i'}\}_{i' \not \in F}) \cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x)}$$ for some $i$, $n'_1 \leq i\leq n'$, and the conclusion follows. This concludes the proof of (2).\
[*Case 2:*]{} $i_0(m_S)=p-1$ ([*so*]{} ${\cal Y}$ [*is of the first kind*]{}). We first take $d=\epsilon (y)$ and $$M:=H_{W}^{-1}G_{W}^p, \ d_0=0.$$ By proposition \[firstkind\], there is an expansion $H^{-1}G^p=<\prod_{j\in J}U_j^{pB_j}>$. With notations as in definition \[defomega\], we have $$\label{eq3682}
pb_j -H_j=pB_j, \ j \in J \ \mathrm{and} \ B=\{j \in J : B_j>0\}.$$ We deduce: $$(0) \neq \overline{M} =(\prod_{j\in B} U_j^{pB_j})\subseteq k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\epsilon (x)}.$$ Let $ I'_0=H_{W'}^{-1}G_{W'}^p$, $d'_0=\mathrm{ord} I'_0$. We have: $$\label{eq368}
I'_0 \overline{S'} = \left ( U^{-\epsilon (x)}\prod_{j\in B}U_j^{pB_{j}}\right )_{\overline{m'}} .$$ This proves that $\epsilon (x') \leq \overline{\mathrm{ord}} I'_0 \leq \epsilon (x)$ and equality holds only if $$\label{eq3653}
s' \in \mathbf{Proj}\left ( {k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}] \over (U_B)}\right ) .$$ Suppose that $\epsilon (x')<\epsilon (x)$. Then : $$\omega (x')\leq \epsilon (x') \leq \epsilon (x)-1 \leq \omega (x).$$ If $\omega (x')=\omega (x)$, then $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$, so $\kappa (x)\geq 2$. On the other hand, we have $\omega (x')= \epsilon (x')$ and therefore $\kappa (x')=1$ by definition \[defomega\]. Hence inequality is strict in (\[eq364\]). In other terms, it can be assumed from now on that (\[eq3653\]) holds and that $$\label{eq3654}
\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x).$$
We now resume the argument used in case 1 by taking $$M=J(F_{p,X,W},E_W,W), \ d=\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x), \ d_0=0.$$ To begin with, (\[eq369\]) holds whenever (\[eq3671\]) applies, i.e. if $H_{j'} \not \in p\N$ for some $j' \in (J')_E$ or if $\delta (y) \not \in \N$. Suppose that $\delta (y) \in \N$ and $H_{j'} \in p\N$ for every $j' \in (J')_E$. In this case, (\[eq367\]) reduces to $$\label{eq3681}
J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')\equiv J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W')
\ \mathrm{mod}K'{\hat{S'} \over (u)} ,$$ $$K':= (\prod_{i=2}^{e'_0}{u'_{i}}^{(p-1)b_{j_i} -H_{j_i} + \left \lceil {H_{j_i} \over p}\right \rceil}) \subseteq S'$$ with notations as in (\[eq3682\]). We let : $$k':= \sum_{j\in J}\left ((p-1)b_j -H_j + \left \lceil {H_j \over p}\right \rceil \right )=\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S'}}K'.$$ Going back to definition \[defomega\], we have $$F_{p,Z} -TF_{p,Z} \in (\prod_{j\in J}{U_j^{(p-1)b_{j} + \left \lceil {H_{j} \over p}\right \rceil}}G(m_S))_{p\delta (x)}$$ and we deduce now from (\[eq3681\]) that $$\label{eq3683}
J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')\overline{S'}
\equiv \left (U^{-\epsilon (x)}J(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)\right )_{\overline{m'}} \ \mathrm{mod}K'\overline{S'}.$$ Note that the previous equation remains valid when $H_{j'} \not \in p\N$ for some $j' \in (J')_E$ or when $\delta (y) \not \in \N$. The proof now goes on as in case 1 and we deduce that $\overline{\mathrm{ord}}I' \leq \omega (x)$; joining (\[eq3653\]) and (\[eq3683\]), we obtain that (\[eq3691\]) holds, i.e. $$s' \not \in \mathbf{Proj}\left ( {k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}] \over (\mathrm{IMax}(x)\cap k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}])} \right )
\Longrightarrow \overline{\mathrm{ord}}I'< \omega (x) .$$ Equation (\[eq3692\]) now follows, while (\[eq3693\]) gets replaced by $$\label{eq3684}
\overline{I'}= <\left \{{H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_{j}}\right \}_{j= n'_0+1}^{n'}>
\ \mathrm{mod} ((\{U'_{j'}\}_{j' \not \in F})+ (\mathrm{cl}_{k'}K'))\cap G(m_{S'})_{d'}.$$ Finally, we obtain that $${H'}^{-1}(F_{p,Z'}-T' F_{p,Z'}) \subseteq ((\{U'_i\}_{i \not \in F})+ (\mathrm{cl}_{k'}K'))\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}$$ and this concludes the proof of the claim, hence of the theorem, as in case 1.\
[*Case 3:*]{} ${\cal Y}$ [*is of the second kind.*]{} First recall from proposition \[secondkind\] that $\epsilon (x)-1 = \omega (x)$, so $\kappa (x) \geq 2$ in particular. Let $ I'_0:=H_{W'}^{-1}G_{W'}^p$, $d'_1=\mathrm{ord} I'_0$.
Suppose that $i_0(m_S)=p-1$. By proposition \[secondkind\], there exists an expansion $$H^{-1}G^p=<U_{j_1}\prod_{j\in B_J}U_j^{pB_j}>, \ j_1 \in (J')_E, \ B_j>0 \ \mathrm{for} \ j\in B_J,$$ with notations as in definition \[defcone\]. By proposition \[bupformula\](v), we have: $$\label{eq3721}
I'_0 S'/(u) = \overline{u}_{j_1}\left ( U^{-\epsilon (y)}\prod_{j\in B}U_j^{pB_{j}}\right )_{m_{S'/(u)}} .$$ This proves that $\epsilon (x') \leq \mathrm{ord} I'_0 \leq \epsilon (x)$ and equality holds only if $$\label{eq372}
s' \in \mathbf{Proj}\left ( {k(x)[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}] \over (U_{B_J})}\right ) .$$
Suppose furthermore that $\epsilon (x')<\epsilon (x)$. We have: $$\omega (x')\leq \epsilon (x') \leq \epsilon (x)-1 = \omega (x).$$ If $\omega (x')=\omega (x)$, then $\omega (x')= \epsilon (x')$ and therefore $\kappa (x')=1$ by definition \[defomega\], so inequality is strict in (\[eq364\]). Therefore if $i_0(m_S)=p-1$, it can be assumed that $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)$ and in particular that (\[eq372\]) holds.\
Going back to the general situation of case 3, we now take $$M=J(F_{p,X,W},E_W,W), \ d=\epsilon (y), \ d_0=0.$$ Note that (\[eq3671\]) is always valid in this case 3: we either have $i_0(m_S)=p$ or (\[eq3672\]) holds for $j'=j_0$. Applying proposition \[bupformula\](v) gives: $$J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')\overline{S'}=
\left (U^{-\epsilon (y)}\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E_W,W)\right )_{\overline{m'}}.$$ With notations as in proposition \[secondkind\], we have $$(0)\neq \overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E_W,W)=<\{\Phi_{j'}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})\}_{j'\in J' \backslash (J')_E}>.$$ We deduce that $$\label{eq374}
J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')\overline{S'}=
<\{\left (U^{-\epsilon (y)}\Phi_{j'}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})\right )_{\overline{m'}}\}_{j'\in J' \backslash (J')_E}>.$$ Since definition \[defcone\] gives $$C(x,{\cal Y}):= \mathrm{Max}(\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W},E,W))\cap \{ U_{B_J}=0\},$$ we deduce that $\overline{\mathrm{ord}}J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')\leq \omega (x)$ and equality holds only if $s' \in PC(x,{\cal Y})$. We obtain: $$\label{eq375}
\epsilon (x')\leq 1+ \mathrm{ord}J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')\leq 1+\overline{\mathrm{ord}}J(F_{p,Z',W'},E_{W'},W')
\leq \epsilon (x).$$
Suppose that $s' \not \in PC(x,{\cal Y})$ and $\omega (x')\geq \omega (x)$. Formula (\[eq375\]) shows that $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x')=\omega (x)$. If $i_0(m_{S'})=p-1$, we get $\kappa (x')=1$ so inequality is strict in (\[eq364\]). If $i_0(m_{S'})=p$, we may pick $j'=j_i \in J' \backslash (J')_E$, $e'+1 \leq i \leq n'_0$, such that $$\overline{\mathrm{ord}}\left (U^{-\epsilon (y)}\Phi_{j'}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})\right )_{\overline{m'}}<\omega (x).$$ By (\[eq374\]), we have ${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_i}\neq 0$. This is a contradiction with the assumption $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x')$. Thus it can be assumed that $s' \in PC(x,{\cal Y})$.
We get $\omega (x')\leq \epsilon (x')\leq \omega (x)$ unless all inequalities in (\[eq375\]) are equalities. In this case, we claim that $\omega (x')=\epsilon (x')-1$ and this will conclude the proof. To prove the claim, we may pick $j_i \in J' \backslash (J')_E$, $e'+1 \leq i \leq n'_0$, such that $\Phi_{j_i}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})\neq 0$ by proposition \[secondkind\]. Arguing as above, we have $$\label{eq376}
{H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_i} \equiv
<\mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)}\left (U^{-\epsilon (y)}\Phi_{j_i}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})\right )_{\overline{m'}}>
\ \mathrm{mod}((\{U'_{j'}\}_{j' \not \in F})\cap G(m_{S'})_{\omega (x)},$$ and this proves that ${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_i}\neq 0$. If $i_0(m_{S'})=p$, we get $\omega (x')= \omega (x)$.
If $i_0(m_{S'})=p-1$, we must introduce a truncation operator $$T': G(m_{S'})_{p\delta (x')}\rightarrow G(m_{S'})_{p\delta (x')}$$ as in definition \[defomega\] in order to compute $\omega (x')$. In any case, we have $$\label{eq377}
{H'}^{-1}{G'}^p \subseteq (U'_{i \not \in F})\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')},$$ which follows from the identity $I'_0 S'/(u)=0$ (resp. from (\[eq3721\])) if $i_0(m_{S})=p$ (resp. if $i_0(m_{S})=p-1$), [*cf.*]{} beginning of the proof of case 3.
Going back to definition \[defT\], we have $${H'}^{-1}(F_{p,Z'}-T' F_{p,Z'}) \subseteq (\{U'_i\}_{i \not \in F})\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}.$$ It now follows from (\[eq376\]) that $${H'}^{-1}{\partial T' F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_i} \equiv
<\mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)}\left (U^{-\epsilon (y)}\Phi_{j_i}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})\right )_{\overline{m'}}>
\ \mathrm{mod}((\{U'_{j'}\}_{j' \not \in F})\cap G(m_{S'})_{\omega (x)}.$$ This proves at last that ${H'}^{-1}{\partial T' F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_i}\neq 0$, so $\omega (x')=\epsilon (x')-1$ and this concludes the proof of the claim, hence of the theorem.
Consequences of the blowing up theorem and constructibility.
------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we prove some basic properties of our main invariant $$y\mapsto (m(y),\omega (y),\kappa (y))$$ and of our notion of permissibility. The following theorem expresses the persistence of permissibility under permissible blowing ups.
\[transfstricte\] Assume that $m(x)=p$, $\omega (x)>0$, where $\{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$. Let ${\cal Y}_0 \subset {\cal Y}_1$ with respective generic point $y_0, y_1$ be permissible centers at $x$ and $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along ${\cal Y}_1$.
The strict transform ${\cal Y}'_0$ of ${\cal Y}_0$ is permissible at every $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$.
By definition of permissibility, we have $m(y_0)=m(y_1)=p$. Let $W_i=\eta ({\cal Y}_i)$, $i=0,1$ be with notations as in the previous theorem. There exist associated subsets $J_0 \subset J_1 \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n\}$ such that $I(W_i)=( \{u_j\}_{j\in J_i})$ for a certain choice of an adapted r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n)$ of $S$. Let $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. By proposition \[Deltaalg\], the polyhedron $$\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;\{u_j\}_{j \in J_i};Z)=
\mathrm{pr}_{J_i}(\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z))\ \mathrm{is} \
\mathrm{minimal},$$ where $\mathrm{pr}_{J_i}: \ \R^n \rightarrow \R^{J_i}$ denotes the projection on the $(u_j)_{j \in
J_i}$-space, $i=0,1$. In particular, we have ${\cal Y}_i=V(Z, \{u_j\}_{j\in J_i})$, $i=0,1$. The strict transform $W'_0$ of $W_0$ at $s'$ has normal crossings with $E':=\sigma^{-1}(E)_{\mathrm{red}}$. Since $m(x')\geq m(y_0)$ for every $x' \in {\cal Y}'_0$, this proves that ${\cal Y}'_0$ is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E'$.\
Applying again proposition \[Deltaalg\], we have $$\label{eq311}
\epsilon (y_0) \leq \epsilon (y_1)\leq \epsilon (x), \ \epsilon (y_0)\leq \epsilon (x').$$
On the other hand, theorem \[bupthm\] applied to $\pi$ gives $\epsilon (x')\leq \epsilon (x)+1$ while classifying equality cases in (1) and (2). Thus ${\cal Y}'_0$ is permissible of the first kind except possibly in the following two cases:\
[*Case 1:*]{} ${\cal Y}_1$ is of the first kind and $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)+1$;
[*Case 2:*]{} ${\cal Y}_0$ is of the second kind and $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)$.\
Since $x' \in {\cal Y}'_0$, we have, with notations as in theorem \[bupthm\] ([*cf.*]{} notation \[indcoord\]): $$\label{eq312}
(J_0)_E \subseteq \{j_i, \ 2 \leq i \leq e'_0\},
\ J_0 \backslash (J_0)_E \subseteq \{j_i, \ n'_0+1 \leq i \leq n'_1\}.$$ Also, letting $F_0:=\{2 , \ldots , e'_0 \}\cup \{n'_0+1 , \ldots , n'_1\}$, we have ([*cf.*]{} notation \[ordbar\]): $$\label{eq315}
J_0 \subseteq F_0 \subseteq F =F_0 \cup \{n'_1+1, \ldots ,n'\}.$$
[*Proof in case 1:*]{} an immediate consequence of theorem \[bupthm\](1) is that : $$i_0(m_S)=p, \ {\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_j}=0, \ j \in J_0 \ \mathrm{or} \ j \geq e+1.$$ This is incompatible with definition \[secondkind\](iii) applied to ${\cal Y}_0$, so ${\cal Y}_0$ is also of the first kind. By proposition \[firstkind\] we deduce that $$\label{eq313}
H^{-1}G^p=0, \ H^{-1}F_{p,Z} \subseteq k(x)[\{U_{j}\}_{j\in J_0}]_{\epsilon (x)}.$$ Since $\epsilon (y_0)=\epsilon (x')-1$, we also have $$\label{eq316}
{H'}^{-1}<{G'}^p,F_{p,Z'}>\subseteq (\{U'_{i}\}_{j_i \in J_0})^{\epsilon (y_0)}\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}.$$
We claim that ${\cal Y}'_0$ is permissible of the second kind at $x'$. To prove the claim, note that (\[eq313\]) implies that $$H_{W_1}^{-1}G_{W_1}^p \subseteq (\overline{u}_{j'})G(W_1)_{\epsilon (x)} \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ j' \in (J'_1)_E.$$ Since ${\cal Y}_0$ is permissible of the first kind at $x$, we actually have $$H_{W_1}^{-1}G_{W_1}^p \subseteq (\overline{u}_{j'})S/(\{u_j\}_{j \in J_1})[\{U_{j}\}_{j \in J_0}]_{\epsilon (x)}.$$ Letting $j'=:j_{i'}$, $e'_0+1 \leq i' \leq e$, proposition \[bupformula\](ii) then shows that $$H_{W'_1}^{-1}G_{W'_1}^p \subseteq (\overline{u}_{i'})S'/(u'_1)[\{U'_{i}\}_{j_i \in J_0}]_{\epsilon (x)},
\ W'_1:=\sigma^{-1}(W_1).$$ In other terms, we have $${H'}^{-1}{G'}^p \subseteq (U'_1, U_{i'})k(x')[\{U'_{i}\}_{j_i \in J_0}],$$ and this proves that ${\cal Y}'_0$ satisfies property (ii) of definition \[defsecondkind\]. Finally, applying (\[eq316\]) gives an expansion $${H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'} =<\sum_{i=1}^{n'}U'_i \Phi_i (\{U'_{i'}\}_{j_{i'} \in J_0})>.$$ Then definition \[defsecondkind\](iii) is equivalent to: $$\exists i \in J'_0 \cap \{e'+1 , \ldots ,n'\} : \Phi_i \neq 0.$$ By equation (\[eq3642\]) in theorem \[bupthm\](2), there exists $i \geq n'_1+1$ (hence $i \in J'_0$) such that $\Phi_i \neq 0$, since $j_{i'} \in J_0 \Longrightarrow i' \leq n'_1$ by (\[eq312\]) and this completes the proof in case 1.\
[*Proof in case 2.*]{} Since ${\cal Y}_0$ is permissible of the second kind, the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h \in G(m_S)[Z]$ satisfies (\[eq2628\]). The corresponding integer $j_0$ satisfies $j_0 \not \in J'_0$ and the corresponding family $(\Phi_{j'}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J_0}))_{j' \in J'_0}$ is such that $\Phi_{j'} \neq 0$ for some $j' \in J'_0 \backslash (J'_0)_E$. In order to prove that ${\cal Y}'_0$ is of the second kind at $x'$, we consider two subcases:\
[*Case 2a:*]{} ${\cal Y}_1$ is of the second kind at $x$. Then $j_0 \in J'_1$ and $\Phi_{j'} \neq 0$ for some $j' \in J'_1 \backslash (J'_1)_E$. By assumption $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)$, and we deduce from (\[eq3721\]) (resp. from (\[eq377\])) if $i_0(m_S)=p-1$ (resp. if $i_0(m_S)=p$) that the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h' \in G(m_{S'})[Z']$ satisfies $$\label{eq317}
{H'}^{-1}{G'}^p \subseteq U_{j'_0}k(x')[\{U'_i\}_{j_i\in J_0}]_{\epsilon (y_0)} \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ j'_0 \in
\{1, e'_0+1, \ldots ,e'\}$$ and definition \[defsecondkind\](ii) is checked for ${\cal Y}'_0$ at $x'$. Similarly, definition \[defsecondkind\](iii) is checked from (\[eq376\]): we have ${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_i}\neq 0$ for any $i$, $e'+1 \leq i \leq n'_0$ such that $j_i \in J'_1 \backslash (J'_1)_E$ and $\Phi_{j_i}\neq 0$; take $j_i=j'$ with notations as above.\
[*Case 2b:*]{} ${\cal Y}_1$ is of the first kind at $x$. Then $j_0 \in J_1$ and $\Phi_{j'} = 0$ for any $j' \in J'_1 $. By proposition \[secondkind\] and our assumption $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)$, we have $$\omega (x)=\epsilon (y_0)=\epsilon (x)-1=\epsilon (x')-1 \leq \omega (x').$$ Therefore theorem \[bupthm\] implies that $\omega (x')=\omega (x)$. We have $\kappa (x), \kappa (x') \geq 2$ since $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$, $\omega (x')=\epsilon (x')-1$. This is the equality case $(m(x'),\omega (x'),\kappa (x'))= (m(x),\omega (x),\kappa (x))$ discussed in theorem \[bupthm\].
If $i_0(m_S)=p$, we are in the equality case of (\[eq3692\]). Then (\[eq317\]) holds and there exists $i$, $n'_1+1 \leq i \leq n'$ or ($n'_0+1 \leq i \leq n'_1$ and $\Phi_{j_i} \neq 0$) such that $$\label{eq318}
{H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_{i}}\neq 0$$ by (\[eq3695\]). We may take here $j_i:=j' \in J'_0 \backslash (J'_0)_E$. This checks definition \[defsecondkind\](ii) and (iii) respectively.
If $i_0(m_S)=p-1$, the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h' \in G(m_{S'})[Z']$ satisfies $${H'}^{-1}{G'}^p \subseteq U'_{i_1}k(x')[\{U'_i\}_{j_i\in J_0}]_{\epsilon (y_0)},$$ where $j_{i_1}:=j_0 \in J'_0$, $2 \leq i_1 \leq e'_0$ and definition \[defsecondkind\](ii) is checked. Equation (\[eq318\]) also remains valid for some $i$, $n'_0+1 \leq i \leq n'$, in this case: this follows from (\[eq3695\]) which is still valid (end of the proof of case 2 of theorem \[bupthm\] where (\[eq3684\]) replaces (\[eq3693\]). This checks definition \[defsecondkind\](iii) and the proof is complete.
The conclusion of the above theorem fails in general if it is only assumed that ${\cal Y}_0 \subset {\cal Y}_1$ is such that ${\cal Y}_0$ is permissible at $x$, ${\cal Y}_1$ Hironaka-permissible at $x$ w.r.t. $E$.
A counterexample with $n=4$ is given for $\mathrm{char}S=p>0$ by taking: $$h=Z^p +u_4u_1^p +u_3u_2^p, \ E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3), \ \mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}=V(Z,u_1,u_2).$$ Then $(u_1, \ldots ,u_4;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates. Taking $${\cal Y}_0=V(Z,u_1,u_2)\subset {\cal Y}_1=V(Z,u_1,u_2,u_4)\subset \{x\}=V(Z,u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4),$$ we have $\epsilon (y_0)=\epsilon (y_1)=\epsilon (x)-1=\omega (x)=p$. Note that ${\cal Y}_1$ does not satisfy definition \[defsecondkind\](iii). There is a unique point $$x' =(Z',u'_1, u'_2 ,u_3,u'_4):=(Z/u_4,u_1/u_4, u_2/u_4 ,u_3,u_4) \in {\cal Y}'_0 =V(Z',u'_1,u'_2).$$ A local equation for the strict transform ${\cal X}'$ of ${\cal X}$ at $x$ is: $$h'={Z'}^p + u'_4{u'_1}^p+u_3{u'_2}^p, \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2u_3u'_4).$$ Thus $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x')=p+1>\omega (x)$ and ${\cal Y}'_0$ is not permissible at $x'$ since $\epsilon (y_0)=p < \epsilon (x')$.
It is easily seen that such counterexamples exist only for ${\cal Y}_0$ of the second kind and $n \geq 4$.
We now turn to formal arcs on ${\cal X}$ and their image. Recall that it is assumed all along this chapter that $m(x)=p$, $\omega (x)>0$ and $\{x\}=\eta^{-1}(m_S)$.
\[defformalarc\] A [*formal arc*]{} on $({\cal X},x)$ is a local morphism $\varphi : \ \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}\rightarrow (X,x)$, where $({\cal O},N,l)$ is a complete discrete valuation ring. We denote the closed (resp. generic) point of $\mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}$ by $O$ (resp. $\xi$) and call [*support of*]{} $\varphi$ the subscheme $Z(\varphi):=\overline{\{\varphi (\xi)\}} \subseteq ({\cal X},x)$.
The arc $\varphi$ is said to be [*well parametrized*]{} if the inclusion $${\cal O}_\xi :={\cal O}\cap k(\varphi (\xi)) \subseteq {\cal O}$$ induces an isomorphism $\widehat{{\cal O}_\xi}\simeq {\cal O}$. The arc $\varphi$ is said to be [*nonconstant*]{} if $\varphi (\xi)\neq x=\varphi (O)$.
Given a nonconstant formal arc on $({\cal X},x)$, and $\pi : \ {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ a blowing up along a permissible center ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$ at $x$ such that ${\cal Y} \subsetneq Z(\varphi)$, there exists a unique lifting $\varphi ': \ \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}\rightarrow {\cal X}'$. Let $$x':=\varphi '(O), \ ({\cal X}_1,x_1):=({\cal X}',x') \ \mathrm{and} \ \varphi_1 : \ \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}\rightarrow
({\cal X}_1,x_1)$$ be the induced morphism. The arc $\varphi_1$ is again nonconstant, so the process can be iterated. Let $$\label{eq291}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) \leftarrow \cdots$$ be a sequence of such local blowing ups and centers with $$\label{eq292}
x_r \in {\cal Y}_r \subsetneq Z_r(\varphi):=\overline{\{\varphi_r (\xi)\}} \subset {\cal X}_r.$$ Note that the local ring ${\cal O}_{{\cal X}_r , \varphi_r (\xi)}$ is independent of $r \geq 0$. In particular, $m(\varphi_r (\xi))$, $\epsilon (\varphi_r (\xi))$ and $\omega (\varphi_r (\xi))$ are independent of $r \geq 0$. An important case of such sequences is when taking ${\cal Y}_r=\{x_r\}$ for every $r \geq 0$; then (\[eq291\]) is called the [*quadratic sequence along*]{} $\varphi$.
In any case, given a sequence (\[eq291\]), we let $$d (\varphi ) :=\min_{r\geq 0}\{\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{{\cal X}_r,x_r}\}.$$ If $m(x)=p$ and $\omega (x)>0$, theorem \[bupthm\] implies that $$(m(x_1),\omega (x_1),\kappa (x_1)) \leq (m(x),\omega (x),\kappa (x)).$$ If $m(x_r)=p$ and $\omega (x_r)>0$ for every $r \geq 0$, we let $$m (\varphi ):=p, \ \omega (\varphi) :=\min_{r\geq 0}\{\omega (x_r)\}>0.$$
\[permisarc\] With notations as above, let $\varphi : \ \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}\rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be a nonconstant well parametrized formal arc on $({\cal X},x)$ whose quadratic sequence is such that $m (\varphi ) =p$ and $\omega (\varphi )>0$. Then $l|k(x_r)$ is algebraic for $r>>0$.
Assume that $l|k(x_r)$ is algebraic with finite inseparable degree for some $r\geq 0$. Then there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that the following holds: the support $Z_r (\varphi)$ is Hironaka-permissible at $x_r$ and $\epsilon (x_r)=\epsilon (x_{r_0})$ for every $r\geq r_0$; furthermore exactly one of the following conditions is satisfied:
- $Z_r (\varphi)$ is permissible of the first kind at $x_r$ for every $r\geq r_0$;
- there exists a finite sequence (\[eq291\]): $$({\cal X}_{r_0},x_{r_0})=:({\cal X}',x') \leftarrow ({\cal X}'_1,x'_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}'_{r_1},x'_{r_1})=:(\tilde{{\cal X}},\tilde{x})$$ of local blowing ups with permissible centers of the first kind contained in and of codimension one in the successive strict transforms of $Z_{r_0} (\varphi)$, such that the quadratic sequence along $\varphi$: $$(\tilde{{\cal X}},\tilde{x})=:(\tilde{{\cal X}}_0,\tilde{x}_0) \leftarrow (\tilde{{\cal X}}_1,\tilde{x}_1)\leftarrow \cdots
\leftarrow (\tilde{{\cal X}}_r,\tilde{x}_r) \leftarrow \cdots$$ has the following properties for every $r \geq 0$:
- $\epsilon (\tilde{x}_r)=\epsilon (x_{r_0})$;
- $\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{\tilde{Z}_r (\varphi), \tilde{x}_r} =
\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{Z_{r_0} (\varphi), x_{r_0}}\geq 2$;
- $\tilde{Z}_r (\varphi)$ is permissible of the second kind at $\tilde{x}_r$ (resp. $\omega (\tilde{x}_r)=0$) if $\epsilon (x_{r_0})\geq 2$ (resp. if $\epsilon (x_{r_0})=1$).
It can be assumed without loss of generality that $$d (\varphi) =\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{{\cal X},x}, \ m(x)=p \ \mathrm{and} \ \omega (x)=\omega (\varphi) >0.$$ Since $m (\varphi ) =p$ and $\omega (\varphi )>0$, we let $\eta_r : \ ({\cal X}_r,x_r)\rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S_r$ be the corresponding projection, $I_r (\varphi)\subseteq S_r$ be the ideal of $W_r (\varphi):=\eta_r(Z_r (\varphi))$. We drop the reference to $\varphi$ in what follows in order to avoid cumbersome notations.\
For $f \in m_{S_0}$, $f \not \in I_0$ we denote by $\overline{f} \in {\cal O}$, $\overline{f} \neq 0$ its image by $\varphi^\sharp$. Let $v$ be the discrete valuation associated with ${\cal O}$ and let $$M_r:= \{v (\overline{f}), \ f \in S_r \backslash I_r\}$$ be the semigroup of values of $S_r$ w.r.t. $v$. The group generated by $M_r$ is the value group of the restriction $v_{|\overline{K}}$ to $\overline{K}=QF(S/I_0)$, hence independent of $r\geq 0$, and is denoted by $a\Z \subseteq v(N) \Z $, $a \in \N$.
Suppose that $M_0 \neq a\N$. Let $\alpha \geq 2$, $\beta \in \N \backslash \alpha \N$ be defined by: $$\label{eq280}
a \alpha :=\min\{M_0 \backslash (0)\}, \ a \beta :=\min\{M_0 \backslash a\alpha \N\}.$$ We pick $u,w \in m_{S_0}$ such that $v(\overline{u})=a \alpha $, $v(\overline{w})= a\beta $. Obviously $u$ is a regular parameter of $S$ and $wu^{-1} \in m_{S_1}$. Suppose $M_1 \neq a\N$. There are associated integers $\alpha_1, \beta_1$ as in (\[eq280\]) which satisfy $(\alpha_1 , \beta_1)<(\alpha ,\beta)$ for the lexicographical ordering. This can repeat only finitely many times so we get $M_r=a\N$ for some $r \geq 0$. W.l.o.g. it can be assumed that $M_0 =a \N$.\
Let $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ be a r.s.p. of $S=S_0$ which is adapted to $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e)$. Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that $v(\overline{u}_e)=a$. Up to renumbering coordinates, there exists $e (\varphi)$, $0 \leq e(\varphi) < e$ such that $$(u_1, \ldots ,u_{e(\varphi)}) \subseteq I:=I_0 , \ u_j \not \in I \ \mathrm{for} \ e (\varphi) +1 \leq j \leq e.$$ For $j$, $e (\varphi) +1 \leq j \leq e-1$, let $v(\overline{u}_j)=:a \alpha_j $, $\alpha_j \geq 1$. Note that $u_ju_e^{-\alpha_j}$ is a unit in $S_{\alpha_j}$; in other terms, replacing $S$ by $S_{\max\{\alpha_j\}}$, it can be assumed that $e (\varphi) =e-1$.\
Let $f \in m_{S_0} \backslash I_0$ and write $f=u_e^{\alpha_r(f)}f_r \in S_r$, where $u_e$ does not divide $f_r$ in $S_r$ and note that $$f_r \in m_{S_r} \Longrightarrow v(\overline{f})> \alpha_r(f)v(\overline{u}_e)\geq ar .$$ Since $M_0 =a \N$, there exists $r \geq 0$ such that $f_r$ is a unit. This implies that for every ideal $\overline{J} \subseteq S_0/I_0$, $\overline{J}S_r/I_r$ is a principal ideal for $r>>0$. This is a well known characterization of valuation rings, i.e. $$\label{eq281}
{\cal O}_{v_{|\overline{K}}} = \bigcup_{r \geq 0}S_r /I_r .$$ Let $l_0$ be the residue field of the valuation $v_{|\overline{K}}$. Then $l|l_0$ is algebraic (of degree at most $p$) and $l_0|k(x_r)$ is algebraic for $r>>0$ by (\[eq281\]). This proves the first statement in the theorem. We thus may assume from now on, again by (\[eq281\]), that $$\label{eq282}
l_0| k(x_0) \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{separable} \ \mathrm{algebraic}.$$
Let $S^{\mathrm{sh}}$ be the strict Henselization of $S$, so $l^{\mathrm{sh}}:=S^{\mathrm{sh}}/m_{S^{\mathrm{sh}}}$ is the separable algebraic closure of $l$. The residue action induces an isomorphism $$\mathrm{Gal}(S^{\mathrm{sh}}|S^\mathrm{h})\simeq \mathrm{Gal}(l^{\mathrm{sh}}|k(x))$$ where $S^\mathrm{h}$ is the Henselization of $S$. Let $\tilde{S}$ be the fixed subring of $S^{\mathrm{sh}}$ by the inverse image of $\mathrm{Gal}(l^{\mathrm{sh}}|l_0)$ under the previous group morphism. Then $S \subset \tilde{S}$ is a local ind-étale map such that $l_0=\tilde{S}/m_{\tilde{S}}$. In particular $S \subset \tilde{S}$ is regular [@ILO] theorem I.8.1(iv). Since ${\cal O}$ is Henselian and $l_0 \subseteq l={\cal O}/N$, the morphism $\varphi$ factors through $\tilde{S}$.
Recall notation \[notageomreg1\] and notation \[notaprime\] for the regular local base change $S \subset \tilde{S}$. We apply theorem \[omegageomreg\] with $\tilde{s}:=m_{\tilde{S}}$ and get: $$m(\tilde{x})=m(x)=p, \ \omega (\tilde{x})=\omega (\varphi)>0 \ \mathrm{and}
\ \epsilon (\tilde{x})=\epsilon (x)>0,$$ the right hand side equality holding because $\tilde{n}=n$. Applying theorem \[initform\], $\tilde{{\cal X}}=\mathrm{Spec}(\tilde{S}[X]/(\tilde{h}))$ is irreducible, so in the separable case (case (b) of assumption $\mathbf{(G)}$), the $G=\Z /p$-action extends uniquely to $\tilde{{\cal X}}$ and $\mathbf{(G)}$ holds for $(\tilde{S}, \tilde{h},\tilde{E})$. This proves that $(\tilde{S}, \tilde{h},\tilde{E})$ satisfies the assumption of the proposition, all other assumptions being trivially satisfied.
Now $W_0 \times_{k(x_0)}\mathrm{Spec}l_0$ may be reducible, but $W_r\times_{k(x_r)}\mathrm{Spec}l_0$ is irreducible for $r>>0$. After possibly changing indices, it can be assumed that $W:=W_0\times_{k(x_0)}\mathrm{Spec}l_0$ is irreducible. Then $W$ has normal crossings with $E$ at $x$ if and only if $\tilde{W}:=W \times_S\mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}$ has normal crossings with $\tilde{E}$ at $\tilde{x}$. Let $\tilde{Z}:=Z \times_S\mathrm{Spec}\tilde{S}$ and $\tilde{z}$ be the generic point of a component of $\tilde{Z}$. By theorem \[omegageomreg\], we have $m(\tilde{z})=m(z)$, so $\tilde{Z}$ is Hironaka-permissible at $\tilde{x}$ w.r.t. $\tilde{E}$ if and only if $Z$ is Hironaka-permissible at $x$ w.r.t. $E$. In other terms, we may replace $S$ by $\tilde{S}$ and thus assume that $l_0=k(x_0)$ in order to prove the second statement.\
Let now $$e_r:=\mathrm{dim}_{k(x_r)}{I_r + m_{S_r}^2 \over m_{S_r}^2}\geq e-1, \ t_r :=e_r -(e-1)\geq 0$$ for $r \geq 0$. It can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $(u_{e+1}, \ldots ,u_{e+t_0})\subseteq I_0$. We have $e_{r+1}\geq e_r$ for every $r\geq 0$ and let $e_\infty :=\max_{r\geq 0}\{e_r\}$. It can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $e_0=e_\infty$.
Since $l_0=k(x_r)$ and $M_r=a\N$ for every $r \geq 0$, the ring morphism $S_r \rightarrow \widehat{{\cal O}_{v_{|K}}}$ factors through $\hat{S_r}$ to a [*surjective*]{} morphism $$\hat{\varphi}_r: \ \hat{S_r} \rightarrow \widehat{{\cal O}_{v_{|K}}}.$$ Let $\hat{I}_r$ be the kernel of $\hat{\varphi}_r$, so we have $$\label{eq284}
I_r\hat{S_r}\subseteq \hat{I}_r \ \mathrm{and} \ I_r=\hat{I}_r \cap S_r .$$ After possibly replacing $S_0$ by $S_r$ for some $r \geq 0$, it can be assumed that the curve $\mathrm{Spec}(\hat{S_0}/\hat{I_0})$ is transverse to $\hat{E}=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e) \subset \mathrm{Spec}\hat{S_0}$. We claim that $$\label{eq283}
I_0 = (u_1, \ldots ,u_{e-1}, u_{e+1}, \ldots ,u_{e+t_0}).$$
To prove the claim, suppose that $I_0 \neq J_0:=(u_1, \ldots ,u_{e-1}, u_{e+1}, \ldots ,u_{e+t_0})$. We let $\hat{u}_j:=u_j$, $1 \leq j \leq e+t_0$ and pick a basis $$\label{eq285}
\hat{I_0}=J_0+(\hat{u}_{e+t_0+1}, \ldots ,\hat{u}_{n})$$ of $\hat{I_0}$. Since $S_0$ is excellent, the ring $(\hat{S}_0/I_0)_{\hat{I_0}}$ is regular, hence reduced. By assumption, $I_0 \neq J_0$, so there exists $f \in I_0 \backslash J_0$ such that $f$ restricts to a regular parameter $\overline{f}$ in $\overline{S}:=(\hat{S}_0 /J_0)_{\hat{I_0}}$: $$\label{eq288}
\mathrm{ord}_{\hat{I_0}}f=1, \ \mathrm{ord}_{m_{\overline{S}}} \overline{f}=1.$$ Let $F \in \mathrm{gr}_{\hat{I_0}}(\hat{S}_0)\simeq \hat{S}_0/\hat{I}_0 [\{\hat{U}_j\}_{j\neq e}]$ be the initial form of $f$. There is an expansion $$F=\sum_{j\neq e}F_j\hat{U}_j, \ F_j \in \hat{S}_0/\hat{I}_0.$$ By (\[eq288\]) we have $F_j \neq 0$ for some $j$, $1 \leq j \leq e+t_0$. Suppose that $$\exists j_0, \ 1 \leq j_0 \leq e+t_0 \mid \
m:=\min_{j \neq e}\{\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}_e)}F_j\}=\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}_e)}F_{j_0}.$$ Replacing $f$ with $f-\gamma_{j_0}u_{j_0}u_e^{m}$ for some unit $\gamma_{j_0} \in S_0$ preserves (\[eq288\]) while increasing $\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}_e)}F_{j_0}$. Applying finitely many times this procedure, it can be assumed that $$\label{eq289}
m:=\min_{j \neq e}\{\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}_e)}F_j\}<
\min_{j_0\leq e+t_0}\{\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}_e)}F_{j_0}\}.$$ By lemma \[equimultiple\] below, there exists $r \geq 1$ and a writing $$f_r =u_e^{m+r}g_r, \ g_r \not \in (u_e)S_r, \ \mathrm{ord}_{m_{S_r}}g_r=1.$$ Furthermore the last statement in [*ibid.*]{} shows that $\mathrm{in}_{\hat{I_r}}g_r \in (\mathrm{gr}_{\hat{I_r}}\hat{S}_r)_1$ is transverse to the initial forms $\overline{u}_e^{-r}U_j$, $1 \leq j \leq e+t_0$, $j\neq e$ by (\[eq289\]). Since $g_r \in I_r$, this implies that $e_r >e_0$: a contradiction, so claim (\[eq283\]) is proved. Since (\[eq283\]) is stable by further blowing ups, this proves that $W_r$ is transverse to the reduced preimage of $\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e)$ for every $r>>0$.\
Let $(\hat{u}_1,\ldots ,\hat{u}_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. There is an associated expansion $$h=Z^p+f_{1,Z}Z^{p-1}+ \cdots +f_{p,Z}, \ f_{1,Z}, \ldots , f_{p,Z} \in \hat{S}_0.$$ We factor out $f_{i,Z}=u_e^{m_i}g_{i,Z}$, $1 \leq i \leq p$, with $g_{i,Z}=0$ or ($u_e$ does not divide $g_{i,Z}$, $m_i \in \N$). The [*formal completion*]{} $\hat{S}_1$ of the local blowing up $S_1$ has a r.s.p. $(\hat{u}'_1, \ldots , \hat{u}'_n)$ given by $$\hat{u}'_e =\hat{u}_e =u_e \ \mathrm{and} \ \hat{u}'_j=\hat{u}_j /u_e, \ j\neq e.$$ Let $Z':=Z/u_e$, $h':=u_e^{-p}h \in S_1[Z']$ define the strict transform $({\cal X}_1,x_1)$, since $m (\varphi)=p$. We thus have $$\label{eq287}
f_{i,Z'}=u_e^{-i}f_{i,Z}, \ 1 \leq i \leq p.$$
By proposition \[originchart\], the polyhedron $\Delta_{\hat{S}_1} (h'; \hat{u}'_1, \ldots , \hat{u}'_n ;Z')$ is minimal. Applying again lemma \[equimultiple\] below, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $$\label{eq286}
\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\hat{S}_0}}g_{i,Z}=\mathrm{ord}_{\hat{I_0}}g_{i,Z}, \ 1 \leq i \leq p.$$
Let $\hat{Z}_0:=V(Z', \hat{I}_0)\subset (\hat{{\cal X}}_0, \hat{x})$ and $\hat{z}$ be its generic point. Suppose that $\delta (\hat{z})<1$ and let $i_0$ such that $i_0\delta (\hat{z})=\mathrm{ord}_{\hat{I_0}}f_{i_0,Z}<i_0$. Applying (\[eq287\]) gives $$\mathrm{ord}_{m_{\hat{S}_1}}f_{i_0,Z'}=m_{i_0}+ i_0(\delta (\hat{z})-1)<m_{i_0}.$$ This can repeat only finitely many times, a contradiction with $m (\varphi ) =p$. Hence $\delta (\hat{z}) \geq 1$, i.e. $m(\hat{z})=p$. By excellence, this implies that $m(z)=p$. Therefore $Z_r$ is Hironaka-permissible at $x_r$ for every $r >>0$.\
Similarly, replacing $S_0$ by $S_r$ for some $r \geq 0$ and arguing as above, it can be assumed that $$\epsilon (\hat{z})=\min_{1 \leq i \leq p}\left \{{\mathrm{ord}_{\hat{I_0}}(H(x)^{-i}f_{i,Z}^p) \over i} \right \}
=\epsilon (\hat{x}).$$ This proves that $\hat{Z}_0$ is permissible of the first kind at $\hat{x}$. Note that this furthermore implies that $\epsilon (x_r)=\epsilon (\hat{z})$ for every $r \geq 0$ and the second statement of the proposition is proved.\
In order to prove that alternative (1) in the last statement holds, we may also replace $S$ by $\tilde{S}$ as above and thus assume that $l_0=k(x_0)$. If $\epsilon (z)=\epsilon (\hat{z})$, then $Z_r$ is permissible of the first kind at $x_r$ (definition \[deffirstkind\](ii)). This proves that alternative (1) in the proposition is fulfilled or $\epsilon (\hat{z})> \epsilon (z)$ which we may assume from now on.\
By theorem \[omegageomreg\](2.ii), we have $\mathrm{dim}Z_r\geq 2$ (statement $\tilde{n}>n$ of [*ibid.*]{} applied under the assumption $l_0=k(x_0)$) and $$\label{eq293}
\epsilon (\hat{z})- 1 =\omega (z)= \epsilon (z) =\epsilon (\hat{x})-1=\epsilon (x)-1, \ i_0(\hat{z})=i_0(z)=p.$$ We pick again well adapted coordinates $(\hat{u}_1,\ldots ,\hat{u}_n;\hat{Z})$ at $\hat{x}$. Since $\hat{Z}_0$ is permissible of the first kind at $\hat{x}$, proposition \[firstkind\] (with notations as therein) gives the following property for the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{m_{\hat{S}_0}}h \in G(m_{\hat{S}_0})[\hat{Z}]$: $$H_0^{-1}G_0^p \in
k(\hat{x})[\hat{U}_1,\ldots ,\hat{U}_{e-1}, \hat{U}_{e+1}, \ldots \hat{U}_n]_{\epsilon (\hat{x})}.$$ Since $i_0(\hat{z})=p$, we have $G_0=0$, i.e. $i_0(\hat{x})=p$. This proves that definition \[defsecondkind\](ii) is satisfied in any case.
To prove that alternative (2) in the proposition is fulfilled, we first assume that $l_0=k(x_0)$ as before, then push down the result from $\tilde{S}$ to $S$. Let $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and consider the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{W_0}h =Z^p +F_{p,Z,W_0}\in G(W_0)[Z]$. Let $$J:=\{1, \ldots ,e-1,e+1, \ldots ,e+t_0\}.$$ Since $\epsilon (\hat{z})>\epsilon (z)$, we have $\delta (z)\in \N$ and $$\label{eq294}
G(W_0)=S_0/I_0[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}], \ F_{p,Z,W_0} \in (\hat{S}_0/\hat{I}_0[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{\delta (z)})^p$$ by theorem \[omegageomreg\](2.ii). By proposition \[Deltaalg\], the polyhedron $$\Delta_{\hat{S}_0}(h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)=\mathrm{pr}_J(\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,\ldots,u_n;Z))
\ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{minimal},$$ where $\mathrm{pr}_J: \ \R^n \rightarrow \R^J$ denotes the projection on the $(u_j)_{j \in
J}$-space. Let $$\label{eq295}
\Phi_j:=H^{-1}_{W_0}{\partial F_{p,Z,W_0} \over \partial \overline{u}_j}\subseteq G(W_0)_{\epsilon (z)}, \ \mathrm{cl}_0\Phi_j =0,
\ j \not \in J, j\neq e,$$ since $\epsilon (x)=\epsilon (z)+1$. The local blowing up $S_1$ has a r.s.p. $(u'_1, \ldots , u'_n)$ given by $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccccc}
u'_j & = & u_j/u_e & \mathrm{if} & j \in J \\
u'_e & = & u_e & & \\
u'_j & = & u_j/u_e -\delta_j & \mathrm{if} & j \not \in J, j\neq e \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\delta_j \in S_0$ is a unit or zero since we are assuming that $l_0=k(x_0)$. Let $$Z':=Z/u_e -\theta , \ \theta \in S_1, \ h':=u_e^{-p}h \in S_1[Z']$$ define the strict transform $({\cal X}_1,x_1)$, with $\Delta_{S_1}(h';u'_1,\ldots ,u'_n;Z')$ minimal and consider the initial form $$\mathrm{in}_{W_1}h ={Z'}^p +F_{p,Z',W_1}\in G(W_1)[Z'], \ G(W_1)=S_1/I_1[\{U'_j\}_{j\in J}].$$ It is easily derived from (\[eq294\])(\[eq295\]) that $$\Phi'_j:=H^{-1}_{W_1}{\partial F_{p,Z',W_1} \over \partial \overline{u}'_j}=\overline{u}_e^{-\epsilon (x)}\Phi_j
\subseteq G(W_1)_{\epsilon (z)}, \ j \not \in J, j\neq e .$$ Applying again lemma \[equimultiple\] below, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $$\label{eq296}
(\Phi_j=\overline{u}_e^{m_j}\Psi_j, \ \mathrm{cl}_{0}\Psi_j\neq 0) \ \mathrm{or} \ \Phi_j=0, \ j \not \in J, j\neq e .$$ This equation is valid when $l_0=k(x_0)$ and holds for $S$ if and only if it holds for $\tilde{S}$. We may therefore replace $S$ by $\tilde{S}$ as before.
Let $\mathbf{x}=(x_1, \ldots ,x_n)\in \N^n$ be a vertex of $\Delta_{S_0}(h;u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ mapping to a vertex of $\Delta_{S_0}(h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)$ with $\sum_{j \in J}x_j=\delta (y)$. By (\[eq294\]) we have $x_j \in \N$ for $j \in J$. Suppose that $x_j \in \N$ for every $j \neq e$. Since $\hat{S}_0/\hat{I}_0\simeq k(x)[[\overline{u}_e]]$, (\[eq294\]) implies that $\mathbf{x}$ is solvable: a contradiction. Taking $j$ such that $x_j \not \in \N$, there exists $j \not \in J$, $j \neq e$ such that $\Phi_j \neq 0$. This proves that $$r_1:= \min \{m_j, j \not \in J, j\neq e : \Phi_j \neq 0\}$$ is well defined and that we have $$\label{eq297}
\Phi_{p,Z,W_0}: =\overline{u}_e^{-r_1}H_{W_0}^{-1}F_{p,Z,W_0}\subseteq G(W_0)_{\epsilon (z)},
\ \mathrm{cl}_{1}\Phi_{p,Z,W_0}\not \in (\overline{u}_e)G(W_0)_{\epsilon (z)}.$$
If $r_1=0$, then alternative (2) is fulfilled (definition \[defsecondkind\](iii)) since $$\overline{J}(F_{p,Z,W_0},E,W_0)=<\{\mathrm{cl}_{0}\Phi_j\}_{j \not \in J, j\neq e}>\neq 0.$$ by (\[eq297\]). Note that this situation does not occur if $\epsilon (x_{r_0})=1$, since $\omega (\varphi )>0$.
Otherwise, we define $V_0:=V(u_e, I_0)$ and ${\cal Y}_0:=\eta_0^{-1}(V_0)\subset Z_0$. Then ${\cal Y}_0$ is Hironaka-permissible at $x_0$ and its generic point $y_0$ has $\epsilon (y_0)=\epsilon (x)$ by (\[eq297\]). Let $\tilde{{\cal X}}_1$ be the blowing up of ${\cal X}_0$ along ${\cal Y}_0$ and note that $\varphi$ lifts to the point $\tilde{x}_1$ on the strict transform $\tilde{Z}_1$ of $Z_0$. Let $\tilde{h}:=u_e^{-p}h \in \tilde{S}_1[\tilde{Z}]$ define the strict transform $(\tilde{{\cal X}}_1, \tilde{x}_1)$ of $({\cal X},x)$, $\tilde{W}_1:=\tilde{\eta}_1(\tilde{Z}_1)$. By proposition \[originchart\], the initial form $$\mathrm{in}_{\tilde{W}_1}\tilde{h} =\tilde{Z}^p +F_{p,\tilde{Z},\tilde{W}_1}\in G(\tilde{W}_1)[\tilde{Z}],
\ G(\tilde{W}_1)=\tilde{S}_1/\tilde{I}_1[\{\tilde{U}_j\}_{j\in J}]$$ satisfies a relation (\[eq297\]) with associated integer $\tilde{r}_1=r_1-1$. Iterating $r_1$ times this procedure, we get some $(\tilde{{\cal X}}_{r_1},\tilde{x}_{r_1})$ with initial form $$\mathrm{in}_{\tilde{W}_r}\tilde{h}_r =\tilde{Z}_r^p +F_{p,\tilde{Z}_r,\tilde{W}_r}\in G(\tilde{W}_r)[\tilde{Z}_r],
\ G(\tilde{W}_r)=\tilde{S}_r/\tilde{I}_r[\{\tilde{U}_{j,r}\}_{j\in J}]$$ with $\tilde{U}_{j,r}=\overline{u}_e^{-r_1}U_j$, $j\in J$. We have $$\label{eq298}
\tilde{\Phi}_r:= H_{\tilde{W}_r}^{-1}F_{p,\tilde{Z}_r,\tilde{W}_r})\subseteq G(\tilde{W}_r)_{\epsilon (z)},
\ \mathrm{cl}_{1}\tilde{\Phi}_r \not \in (\overline{u}_e)G(W_0)_{\epsilon (z)}.$$ By proposition \[secondkind\], we now have $\omega (\tilde{x}_{r_1})=\epsilon (z)=\epsilon (x_{r_0})-1\geq 0$. Thus $\omega (\tilde{x}_{r_1})>0$ if $\epsilon (x_{r_0})\geq 2$ and we are done by the former case $r_1=0$. Otherwise, $\epsilon (x_{r_0})=1$ and $\omega (\tilde{x}_{r_1})=0$ and the conclusion follows.
\[exampermisarc\] Take $S=k[u_1, u_2,u_3,u_4]_{(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4)}$ with $k$ a field of characteristic $p>0$. We let: $$h=Z^p +u_2^pu_4u_3^p+u_3u_1^p\in S[Z].$$ Then $(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4)$ are adapted to $(S,h,E)$, $E:=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ (definition \[defadapted\]) and $(u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates at the closed point $x=(Z,u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4)$ of ${\cal X}=\mathrm{Spec}(S[Z]/(h))$ (definition \[defwelladapted\]). Indeed, it is easily seen that: $$\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}:=\{y \in {\cal X} : m(y)=p\}=V(Z,u_1,u_2) \cup V(Z,u_1,u_3),\ \omega (x)=p.$$
Let $\vartheta (t):=\sum_{i\geq 1}\lambda_it^i \in k[[t]]$ be a power series which is [*transcendental*]{} over $k(t)$. We define a nonconstant well-parametrized $k$-linear formal arc on $({\cal X},x)$ by: $$\varphi (Z)=\varphi (u_1)=\varphi (u_3)=0, \ \varphi (u_2)=u_2, \ \varphi (u_4)=\vartheta (t)^p.$$ Let $u_j^{(0)}:=u_j$, $1 \leq j \leq 4$. For $r\geq 1$, well adapted coordinates at $x_r$ are $u_j^{(r)}:=u_j^{(r-1)}/u_2$, $j=1,3$, $u_2^{(r)}:=u_2$ and $$v_4^{(r)}:=u_2^{-r}(u_4- \sum_{ip \leq r}\lambda_i^pu_2^{ip}), \
T_r:= u_2^{-r}(Z +(u_3^{(r)})^p\sum_{ip \leq r}\lambda_i^pu_2^{ip}).$$ Then $\varphi$ lifts through $$({\cal X}_r,x_r)=(\mathrm{Spec}(S_r[T_r]/(h_r),x_r), \
S_r=S [u_1^{(r)}, u_{3}^{(r)},u_4^{(r)}]_{(u_1^{(r)}, \ldots , v_{4}^{(r)})},$$ and the strict transform $h_r$ of $h$ is given by $$h_r:=T_r^p +(u_2^{(r)})^r\left ((u_2^{(r)})^pv_4^{(r)}(u_3^{(r)})^p+u_3^{(r)}(u_1^{(r)})^p \right ).$$ We have $Z_r:=V(T_r,u_1^{(r)}, u_3^{(r)})$ for every $r \geq 1$. Note that $Z_r$ is not permissible at $x_r$. Therefore $\varphi$ fulfills alternative (2) of proposition \[permisarc\].
We do not know if the conclusion of proposition \[permisarc\] is still valid for $n \geq 4$ when removing the assumption “$l|k(x_r)$ is algebraic with finite inseparable degree for some $r\geq 0$”.
When $n=3$, it can be proved that the above assumption is actually implied by “$m(\varphi)=p$ and $\omega (\varphi)>0$”. This is a (very) special case of the proof of theorem \[projthm\]. The following elementary corollary will be used repeatedly.
\[permisarcthree\] Assume that $n=3$. Let $(S,h,E)$ be as before and $x \in {\cal X}$. Let $$\label{eq299}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)\leftarrow \cdots$$ be a (possibly infinite) composition of local blowing ups at closed points with ($m(x_r)=p$, $\omega (x_r)>0$ and $k(x_r)=k(x)$) for every $r\geq 0$. With notations as in proposition \[Hironakastable\] and notation \[notaprime\], assume that $(S_r,E_r,h_r)$ is such that $E_r$ is irreducible for every $r\geq 0$. Then (\[eq299\]) is finite.
Let $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and $(u_1,u_2^{(0)},u_3^{(0)};Z^{(0)})$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. Since $k(x_r)=k(x)$ and $E_r$ is irreducible for every $r\geq 1$, $S_r$ has well adapted coordinates $$(u_1, u_2^{(r)}:=u_2^{(r-1)}/u_1-\gamma_2^{(r)}, u_3^{(r)}:=u_3^{(r-1)}/u_1-\gamma_3^{(r)};
Z^{(r)}:=Z^{(r-1)}/u_1-\phi^{(r)})$$ where $\gamma_2^{(r)}, \gamma_3^{(r)}, \phi^{(r)} \in S$. Suppose that (\[eq299\]) is infinite. We let $$\hat{u}_j:=u_2- \sum_{r\geq 1}\gamma_j^{(r)}u_1^{(r)}\in \hat{S}, \ j=2,3, \ \mathrm{and} \
\hat{Z}:=Z - \hat{\phi}, \ \hat{\phi}:=\sum_{r\geq 1}\phi^{(r)}u_1^{(r)}\in \hat{S}.$$ The induced morphism $$\varphi : \ \mathrm{Spec}(\hat{S}[Z]/(\hat{u}_2, \hat{u}_3,\hat{Z}))\longrightarrow ({\cal X},x)$$ is a nonconstant well parametrized formal arc on $({\cal X},x)$ with $l=k(x)$ and whose associated quadratic sequence is (\[eq299\]). By proposition \[permisarc\], $Z_r (\varphi)$ is Hironaka-permissible for some $r\geq 0$: a contradiction with [**(E)**]{}, since $Z_r (\varphi)\nsubseteq E_r$.
The following lemma is elementary and well-known.
\[equimultiple\] Let $S$ be a regular local ring (not necessarily excellent) of dimension $n \geq 1$ with r.s.p. $(u_1, \ldots ,u_n)$ and $$C:=V(u_1, \ldots ,u_{n-1})\subset ({\cal S}_0,s_0):=\mathrm{Spec}S$$ be a regular curve. Let $$({\cal S}_0,s_0) \leftarrow ({\cal S}_1, s_1) \leftarrow \cdots
\leftarrow ({\cal S}_i, s_i)\leftarrow \cdots$$ be the composition of local blowing ups such that ${\cal S}_i$ is the blowing up of ${\cal S}_{i-1}$ along $s_{i-1}$ and $s_i\in {\cal S}_i$ is the point on the strict transform $C_i$ of $C$ for $i \geq 1$.
Let $f \in S$, $f\neq 0$ and denote $d:=\mathrm{ord}_{C}f$. There exists $m,i_0 \in \N$ such that for every $i \geq i_0$, there is a decomposition $$f=u_n^{m+di}g_i, \ g_i \in S_i:={\cal O}_{{\cal S}_i,s_i} \ \mathrm{and} \
\mathrm{ord}_{C_i}g_i=\mathrm{ord}_{s_i}g_i=d.$$ Furthermore, the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{C_i}g_i\in (\mathrm{gr}_{I_{C_i}}S_i)_d$ is the strict transform of $$\mathrm{in}_{C}f \in (\mathrm{gr}_{I_{C}}S)_d\simeq S/(u_1, \ldots ,u_{n-1})[U_1, \ldots ,U_{n-1}]_d.$$
We have $S_i=S_{i-1}[u_1^{(i)}, \ldots , u_{n-1}^{(i)}]_{(u_1^{(i)}, \ldots , u_{n}^{(i)})}$, where $u_j^{(i)}:=u_j^{(i-1)}/u_n^{(i-1)}$, $1 \leq j \leq n-1$, $u_n^{(i)}:=u_n^{(i-1)}$ for every $i \geq 1$, with $u_j^{(0)}:=u_j$, $1 \leq j \leq n$. Then $C_i=V(u_1^{(i)}, \ldots , u_{n-1}^{(i)})$ with these notations. There is an expansion $$f=(u_n^{(i-1)})^{m_{i-1}}g_{i-1}, \ g_{i-1}:=\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S} }
\gamma(\mathbf{x})^{(i-1)} (u_1^{(i-1)})^{x_1} \cdots (u_n^{(i-1)})^{x_n} \in S_{i-1},$$ where $\gamma(\mathbf{x})^{(i-1)}\in S_{i-1}$ is a unit for each $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S}$, $\mathbf{S}\subset \N^n$ a finite set, $m_{i-1}\in \N$, $g_{i-1} \not \in (u_n^{(i-1)})$. Since $\mathrm{ord}_{C}f=d$, it can be assumed without loss of generality that $$d=\min_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S} }\{x_1+ \cdots +x_{n-1}\}.$$ Therefore $$d=\mathrm{ord}_{C_{i-1}}g_{i-1}\leq d_{i-1}:=\mathrm{ord}_{s_{i-1}}g_{i-1}
=\min_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S}}\{\mid \mathbf{x}\mid\}.$$ Note that the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{C_{i-1}}f$ is given by $$\mathrm{in}_{C_{i-1}}f =\sum_{x_1+ \cdots +x_{n-1}=d}\overline{\gamma}(\mathbf{x})^{(i-1)}(\overline{u}_n^{(i-1)})^{x_n}
(U_1^{(i-1)})^{x_1} \cdots (U_{n-1}^{(i-1)})^{x_{n-1}} ,$$ where $\overline{\gamma}(\mathbf{x})^{(i-1)}, \overline{u}_n^{(i-1)}\in
S_{i-1}/(u_1^{(i-1)}, \ldots , u_{n-1}^{(i-1)})$ denote the classes of the corresponding elements in $S_{i-1}$. After blowing up, we get an expansion $$f=(u_n^{(i)})^{m_{i-1}+d_{i-1}}g_{i}, \ g_{i}:=\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S}}
\gamma(\mathbf{x})^{(i-1)} (u_1^{(i)})^{x_1} \cdots (u_{n-1}^{(i)})^{x_{n-1}}
(u_n^{(i)})^{\mid\mathbf{x}\mid -d_{i-1}} \in S_{i}.$$ Let $A_{i-1}:=\{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S} : x_1+ \cdots +x_{n-1}< d_{i-1}\}$. For each $\mathbf{x}\in A_{i-1}$, we have $\mid\mathbf{x}\mid -d_{i-1}<x_n$. We deduce: $$0 \leq \min_{\mathbf{x}\in A_i}\{x_n\} < \min_{\mathbf{x}\in A_{i-1}}\{x_n\}.$$ This proves that there exists $i_0 \geq 0$ such that $A_i=\emptyset$ for every $i\geq i_0$. Then $d_i=d$ for $i \geq i_0$. This proves the first statement in the lemma, taking $m:=m_{i_0}-di_0 \geq 0$. Finally, this construction preserves the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{C}f$, i.e. $$\mathrm{in}_{C_{i}}f =\overline{u}_n^{-(m+di) }(\mathrm{in}_{C}f)
\left ( \overline{u}_n^{i}U_1^{(i)}, \ldots , \overline{u}_n^i U_n^{(i)} \right ),$$ and this concludes the proof.
\[Zariskiopen\] Let ${\cal Y} \subset ({\cal X},x)$ be an integral closed subscheme with generic point $y$. The set $$\Omega ({\cal Y}):=\{y' \in {\cal Y} : (m(y'), \omega (y'), \kappa (y'))=(m(y), \omega (y), \kappa (y))\}\subseteq {\cal Y}$$ contains a nonempty Zariski open subset of ${\cal Y}$.
Let furthermore ${\cal Z} \supset {\cal Y} $ be an integral closed subscheme with generic point $z$ such that ${\cal Z}$ is permissible (of the first or second kind) at $y$. The set $$\mathrm{Perm}({\cal Y},{\cal Z}):= \{y' \in {\cal Y} : {\cal Z} \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{permissible} \ \mathrm{at} \ y'\}\subseteq {\cal Y}$$ contains a nonempty Zariski open subset of ${\cal Y}$.
Our function $(m,\omega ,\kappa)$ refines the multiplicity function $m$ on ${\cal X}$, and our notion of permissible blowing up refines the Hironaka-permissibility. We may thus apply the well known openness of these properties. It is therefore sufficient to prove the first statement when $m(y)=p$. For the second statement, we take a nonempty Zariski open set ${\cal U}_1 \subseteq {\cal Y}$ such that ${\cal Z}$ is Hironaka permissible at every $y' \in {\cal U}_1$.
Let $W:=\eta ({\cal Y})$, $s:=\eta (y)$, $W_{\cal Z}:=\eta ({\cal Z})$ for the second statement. We pick an adapted r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_s})$ of $S_s$, where $E_{s}=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_{e_s})$. For every $y' \in {\cal U}_1$ there exists an adapted r.s.p. $(u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_{y'}})$ of $S_{\eta (y')}$ (i.e. $E_{\eta (y')}=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_{e_{y'}})$, $e_{y'}\geq e_s$) such that $S_s$ is the localization of $S_{\eta (y')}$ at some prime $$I(W_{y'})=(\{u_j\}_{j \in J_{y'}}), \ J_{y'}\subseteq \{1, \ldots ,n_{y'}\}.$$ After possibly shrinking ${\cal U}_1\subseteq {\cal Y}$, it can be assumed without loss of generality that $e_{y'}=e_s$ for every $y' \in {\cal U}_1$.
We now [*choose*]{} any point $y_0 \in {\cal U}_1$. Let $(u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_0};Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $y_0$, $s_0:=\eta (y_0)$, $S_0:=S_{s_0}$. There is a corresponding expansion $$h=Z^p+f_{1,Z}Z^{p-1}+ \cdots +f_{p,Z} \in S_{0}[Z], \ f_{1,Z}, \ldots , f_{p,Z} \in S_{0}.$$ After possibly restricting again ${\cal U}_1$, we may assume that the rational functions $u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_0}, f_{1,Z}, \ldots , f_{p,Z}$ are regular at $\eta (y')$ for every $y' \in {\cal U}_1$. Moreover, we have in $S_{\eta (y')}$ $$I(W)=( \{u_j\}_{j\in J}) \ (\mathrm{and} \ I(W_{\cal Z})=( \{u_j\}_{j\in J_{\cal Z}})
\ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{the} \ \mathrm{second} \ \mathrm{statement})$$ with $J_{\cal Z} \subseteq J =\{1, \ldots ,n\}$, $n_{y'}\geq n$, subsets which do not depend on $y'$. We fix an associated expansion at $s_0$: $$f_{i,Z}=\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S}_i}\gamma(i,\mathbf{x})
{u_1^{ix_1} \cdots u_{n_0}^{ix_{n_0}}} \in S_{0}, \ 1 \leq i \leq p,$$ with $\mathbf{S}_i \subset ({1\over i}\N)^{n_0}$ finite and $\gamma(i,\mathbf{x})\in S_{0}$ a unit for each $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S}_i$. After possibly restricting again ${\cal U}_1$, it may also be assumed that each $\gamma(i,\mathbf{x})$ appearing in some $f_{i,Z}$, $1 \leq i \leq p$, is a regular function at $\eta (y')$. By proposition \[Deltaalg\], the polyhedra $$\label{eq320}
\Delta_{S_0}(h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z) \ (\mathrm{and} \ \Delta_{S_0}(h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J_{\cal Z}};Z))
\ \mathrm{are} \ \mathrm{minimal}.$$
We define $A_{i}\subset ({1\over i}\N)^{J}$ (and $A_{i,{\cal Z}}\subset ({1\over i}\N)^{J_{\cal Z}}$ for the second statement) to be the respective images of $\mathbf{S}_i$ by the projections $\mathrm{pr}_{J}: \R^{n_0} \rightarrow \R^{J}$ and $\mathrm{pr}_{J_{\cal Z}}: \R^{n_0} \rightarrow \R^{J_{\cal Z}}$. Given $\mathbf{a}\in A_{i}$, we let: $$\gamma(i,\mathbf{a}):=
\sum_{\mathrm{pr}_{J}(\mathbf{x})=\mathbf{a}}\gamma(i,\mathbf{x})\prod_{j \not \in J}u_j^{ix_j}\in S_0.$$ By definition of $\epsilon (y)$, we have: $$\label{eq323}
\epsilon (y)= p\min_{1\leq i \leq p}\min_{\mathbf{a} \in A_{i}}
\{\mid \mathbf{a} \mid : \gamma(i,\mathbf{a})\neq 0\} -\sum_{j=1}^{e_s}H_j.$$
Let $B \subset \Q^{n}$ be the set of $(i,\mathbf{a})$ achieving equality on the right hand side of (\[eq323\]). The initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_s}}h$ is thus of the form $$\label{eq325}
\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_s}}h =Z^p +\sum_{(i,\mathbf{a})\in B}\overline{\gamma}(i,\mathbf{a})
\prod_{j \in J}U_j^{ia_{j}}Z^{p-i} \in G(m_{S_s})[Z] ,$$ where $\overline{\gamma}(i,\mathbf{a})$ denotes the image in $k(y)$. Let $$B_0:=\{(i,\mathbf{a})\in B : \exists (i,\mathbf{a})\in B, i \neq p \ \mathrm{or} \
(i=p \ \mathrm{and} \ \mathbf{a} \not \in \N^{J})\}.$$
[*Case 1.*]{} Suppose that $B_0 \neq \emptyset$. We define: $${\cal U}:=\{ y'\in {\cal U}_1 : \forall (i,\mathbf{a}) \in B_0, \overline{\gamma}(i,\mathbf{a}) \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{a}
\ \mathrm{unit} \ \mathrm{in} \ S_{\eta (y')}\}.$$ Since $\gamma(i,\mathbf{a})$ is nonzero for $(i,\mathbf{a})\in B$ by (\[eq323\]), ${\cal U}$ is a nonempty Zariski open subset of ${\cal Y}$. To $y' \in {\cal U}$, we associate $\mathbf{x} \in \Delta_{S_{\eta (y')}}(h; u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_{y'}};Z)$ (depending on $(i,\mathbf{a})$) by $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccccc}
x_j & = & a_{j} & \mathrm{if} & j\in J \\
x_j & = & 0 & \mathrm{if} & j \not \in J \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Computing initial forms from definition \[definh\] with $\alpha_{y'} :=(1, \ldots ,1)\in \R^{n_{y'}}$, $\delta_{\alpha_{y'}} (h;u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_{y'}};Z)=\delta (y)$, the corresponding initial form polynomial $$\label{eq321}
\mathrm{in}_{\alpha_{y'}}h =Z^p +\sum_{i=1}^pF_{i,Z,\alpha_{y'} }Z^{p-i} \in G(m_{S_{\eta (y')}})[Z]$$ is such that $F_{i,Z,\alpha_{y'} } \neq 0$ for some $i\neq p$ or $F_{p,Z,\alpha_{y'} }\not \in k(y')[U^p_1, \ldots ,U^p_{n_{y'}}]$. Therefore $\delta (y')=\delta (y)$ and we deduce that $$\label{eq324}
\epsilon (y')=\epsilon (y) \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{every} \ y' \in {\cal U}.$$
To prove the first statement, note that we are already done by (\[eq324\]) if $\epsilon (y)=0$. Assume now that $\epsilon (y)>0$. If $i_0(y)=p-1$, there exists some $(p-1, \mathbf{a}_0)\in B_0$ for some $\mathbf{a}_0\in \N^J$. Let $y' \in {\cal U}$ and pick well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_{y'}};Z_{y'})$ at $y'$. The corresponding initial form polynomial $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_{\eta (y')}}}h =Z_{y'}^p -G_{y'}^{p-1}Z_{y'}+F_{p,Z_{y'}} \in G(m_{S_{\eta (y')}})[Z_{y'}]$$ is such that $<G_{y'}>=<U^{\mathbf{a}_0}>$ (resp. $G_{y'}=0$) if $i_0(y)=p-1$ (resp. if $i_0(y)=p$). We have $$F_{p,Z_{y'}}=\sum_{(p, \mathbf{a})\in B_0}\lambda_{y'} (p,\mathbf{a})U^{\mathbf{a}}+ \Psi_{y'}
\subseteq G(m_{S_{\eta (y')}})_{\epsilon (y)},$$ where $\lambda_{y'} (i,\mathbf{a})\in k(y')$, $\lambda_{y'} (i,\mathbf{a})\neq 0$, $\Psi_{y'}\in k(y')[\{U^p_j\}_{j\in J}]$ for every $(p,\mathbf{a}) \in B_0$ and every $y' \in {\cal U}$. Comparing with definition \[defomega\], we have $\omega (y')=\omega (y)$, $\kappa (y')=1$ if $\kappa (y)=1$ for $y' \in {\cal U}$. This proves the first statement in case 1.\
For the second statement, we are also done if $\epsilon (z)=\epsilon (y)$, i.e. if ${\cal Z}$ is of the first kind at $y$. Suppose that ${\cal Z}$ is permissible of the second kind at $y$. In particular, we have $\epsilon (y)>0$. There exist $j_1(y) \in J \backslash J_{\cal Z}$ and $j'(y)\in J \backslash J_{\cal Z}$, $j'(y)\geq e_s+1$, satisfying the conclusion of proposition \[secondkind\]. Let $y' \in {\cal U}$ and pick well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_{y'}};Z_{y'})$ at $y'$. The corresponding initial form polynomial (\[eq324\]) again satisfies $$H_{y'}^{-1}G_{y'}^p\subseteq U_{j_1(y)}k(y')[U_1,\ldots ,U_{n_{y'}}]_{\epsilon (y)}$$ and there is an expansion $$H_{y'}^{-1}F_{p,Z_{y'}}=<\sum_{j' \in J'}U_{j'}\Phi_{j'}(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})+ \Psi(\{U_j\}_{j\in J})>
\subseteq G(m_{S_{\eta (y')}})_{\epsilon (y)}$$ with $\Phi_{j'(y_0)} \neq 0$, hence ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the second kind at $y'$ and the conclusion follows.\
[*Case 2.*]{} Suppose on the contrary that $B_0=\emptyset$. By (\[eq325\]), we have $$\label{eq328}
\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_s}}h =Z^p +\sum_{(p,\mathbf{a})\in B}\overline{\gamma}(p,\mathbf{a})
\prod_{j \in J}U_j^{pa_{j}} \in G(m_{S_s})[Z]$$ and this proves that $$\label{eq322}
\delta (y)\in \N , \ \omega (y)=\epsilon (y) \ \mathrm{and} \ \kappa (y)\geq 2.$$ Since $(\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)$ are well adapted coordinates at $y$, there exists a vertex $\mathbf{a}_0\in \Delta_{S_s} (h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)$, $(p,\mathbf{a}_0)\in B$ which is not solvable, i.e. $\overline{\gamma}(p,\mathbf{a}_0)\not \in k(y)^p$. Let $B_1 \subseteq B_0$ be the nonempty subset defined by $$B_1:=\{ (p,\mathbf{a})\in B : \overline{\gamma}(p,\mathbf{a})\not \in k(y)^p\}.$$ Given $(p,\mathbf{a})\in B_1$, we define a morphism: $$\eta_{(p,\mathbf{a})}: \ {\cal Y}_{(p,\mathbf{a})}:=
\mathrm{Spec}\left ({{\cal O}_{{\cal U}_1}[T] \over (T^p -\overline{\gamma}(p,\mathbf{a}))}\right )
\longrightarrow {\cal U}_1 .$$ Note that ${\cal Y}_{(p,\mathbf{a})}$ is integral and $\eta_{(p,\mathbf{a})}$ is finite and purely inseparable. We define: $${\cal U}:=\{ y'\in {\cal U}_1 : \forall (p,\mathbf{a}) \in B_1, \eta_{(p,\mathbf{a})}^{-1}(y')_\mathrm{red} \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{a}
\ \mathrm{regular} \ \mathrm{point} \ \mathrm{of} \ {\cal Y}_{(p,\mathbf{a})}\}.$$ Since ${\cal Y}_{(p,\mathbf{a})}$ is excellent, its regular locus is a nonempty Zariski open set. We deduce that ${\cal U}$ is a nonempty Zariski open subset of ${\cal Y}$.
For $y' \in {\cal U}_1$ and $(p,\mathbf{a}) \in B$, we denote by $\lambda_{y'}(p,\mathbf{a}) \in k(y')$ the residue of $\overline{\gamma}(p,\mathbf{a})$. The property $$``\eta_{(p,\mathbf{a})}^{-1}(y')_\mathrm{red}\ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{a}
\ \mathrm{regular} \ \mathrm{point} \ \mathrm{of} \ {\cal Y}_{(p,\mathbf{a})} \ "$$ is equivalently characterized as follows: either (a) $\lambda_{y'}(p,\mathbf{a}) \not \in k(y')^p$, or (b) there exists $\delta_{y'}(p,\mathbf{a}) \in {\cal O}_{{\cal Y},y'}$ such that $$v_{y'}(p,\mathbf{a}):=\overline{\gamma}(p,\mathbf{a}) - \delta_{y'}(p,\mathbf{a})^p$$ is a regular parameter at $y'$.
We now prove the first statement. Let $y' \in {\cal U}$ and pick well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_{n_{y'}};Z_{y'})$ at $y'$. Let $$B(y'):=\{ (p,\mathbf{a})\in B_1 : \mathrm{(a)} \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{satisfied}\}.$$ Suppose that $B(y') \neq \emptyset$. We get $\delta (y')=\delta (y)$, $i_0(y')=p$ and the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_{\eta (y')}}}h \in G(m_{S_{\eta (y')}})[Z_{y'}]$ is $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_{\eta (y')}}}h =Z_{y'}^p +\sum_{(p, \mathbf{a})\in B(y')}\lambda_{y'} (p,\mathbf{a})U^{\mathbf{a}}
+ \Psi_{y'}^p$$ where $\lambda_{y'} (p,\mathbf{a})\not \in k(y')^p$ and $\Psi_{y'}\in k(y')[\{U^p_j\}_{j\in J}]$. This shows that $$\omega (y')=\epsilon (y')=\epsilon (y)=\omega (y),$$ the right hand side equality by (\[eq322\]). Moreover $\kappa (y')\geq 2$, so $y' \in \Omega ({\cal Y})$.
Suppose on the contrary that $B(y') = \emptyset$. We get $$\delta (y')=\delta (y)+{1 \over p}, \ i_0(y')=p \ (\mathrm{since} \ \delta (y') \not \in \N)$$ and the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_{\eta (y')}}}h \in G(m_{S_{\eta (y')}})[Z_{y'}]$ is $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_{\eta (y')}}}h =Z_{y'}^p + \sum_{(p, \mathbf{a})\in B_1}V_{y'} (p,\mathbf{a})U^{\mathbf{a}}
+ \Psi_{y'},$$ where $V_{y'} (p,\mathbf{a})\in <U_1,\ldots ,U_{n_{y'}}> \backslash <\{U_j\}_{j\in J}>$, $\Psi_{y'}\in k(y')[\{U_j\}_{j\in J}]_{p\delta (y)+1}$. This shows that $\omega (y')=\epsilon (y')-1=\epsilon (y)=\omega (y)$, applying again (\[eq322\]). Moreover $\kappa (y')\geq 2$, so $y' \in \Omega ({\cal Y})$. This concludes the proof of the first statement.\
For the second statement, note that ${\cal Z}$ is necessarily of the first kind at $y$ in case 2, since (\[eq328\]) is not compatible with proposition \[secondkind\]. With notations as above, ${\cal Z}$ is then permissible of the first kind (resp. of the second kind) at $y'$ if $B(y')\neq \emptyset$ (resp. if $B(y')= \emptyset$).
\[constructible\] With notations as above, the function $$\iota : {\cal X} \rightarrow \{1, \ldots ,p\}\times \N \times \{0,1,\geq 2\},
\ y \mapsto (m(y), \omega (y), \kappa (y))$$ is a constructible function on ${\cal X}$. In particular, it takes finitely many distinct values.
This follows from the previous theorem and Noetherian induction on ${\cal X}$.
\[remconstructible\] The constructible sets ${\cal X}_{p,a}:=\{y \in {\cal X} : (m(y),\omega (y))\geq (p, a)\}$, $a \in \N$ are not in general Zariski closed (example \[exampleconstructible\] below). See next proposition for closedness of the set ${\cal X}_{p,1}$.
We do not know if the sets $\mathrm{Perm}({\cal Y},{\cal Z})$ as in the theorem are constructible subsets of ${\cal Y}$. An important issue about permissibility is addressed below in question \[questpermissible\].
Theorem \[Zariskiopen\] is sufficient for the required applications to Local Uniformization. About a possible extension of our methods to a global Resolution of Singularities statement, we remark the following: let ${\cal S}$ be an excellent regular domain, $$\eta : \ {\cal X} \rightarrow {\cal S}$$ be a finite morphism, $x \in {\cal X}$ be such that $({\cal X},x)\rightarrow {\cal S}_{\eta (x)}$ satisfies the assumption of theorem \[Zariskiopen\]. It is easily seen that its conclusion extends to some affine neighbourhood ${\cal U}$ of $x$ on ${\cal X}$.
\[exampleconstructible\] Let $S=k[[u_1,u_2,u_3]]$, $k$ a (nonperfect) field of characteristic $p>0$ and $\lambda ,\mu \in k $ be $p$-independent. We take: $$h=Z^p -(u_1u_2)^{p-1}Z +\lambda u_3^{p} +u_3u_1^{p-1} + \mu u_1^{p}\in S[Z], \ E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2).$$ The coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted to $(S,h,E)$. Let $$x:=(Z,u_1,u_2,u_3), \ y:=(Z,u_1,u_3).$$ We have $H(x)=(1)$, $m(x)=m(y)=p$, and compute: $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p +\lambda U_3^p +U_3U_1^{p-1} + \mu U_1^{p}, \ i_0(x)=p, \ \omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1=p-1 .$$ On the other hand, we have: $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S_{\eta (y)}}}h=Z^p -(U_1\overline{u}_2)^{p-1}Z +\lambda U_3^p +U_3U_1^{p-1} + \mu U_1^{p},
\ i_0(y)=p-1, \ \epsilon (y)=p.$$ In order to compute $\omega (y)$, we must introduce a truncation operator $$T_y: k(y)[U_1,U_3]_{p} \rightarrow k(y)[U_1,U_3]_{p}$$ as in definition \[defomega\] and get $T_yF_{p,Z,y}=\lambda U_3^p$, so $\omega (y)=p >\omega (x)$. This proves that the set ${\cal X}_{(p,p)}:=\{z \in {\cal X} : (m(z),\omega (z))\geq (p, p)\}$ is [*not*]{} Zariski closed.
\[omegapositiveclosed\] Let $({\cal X},x)$ be as in the theorem. The set $$\Omega_+ ({\cal X}):=\{y \in {\cal X} : (m(y), \omega (y))>(p,0)\}\subseteq {\cal X}$$ is Zariski closed and of dimension at most $n-2$.
Let $\xi \in {\cal X}$ be the generic point of an irreducible component of $\eta^{-1}(E)$. Then $(m(\xi), \epsilon (\xi))\leq (p,0)$, so $\xi \not \in \Omega_+ ({\cal X})$. Therefore it is sufficient to prove that $\Omega_+ ({\cal X})$ is Zariski closed.
We will use the Nagata Criterion to prove openness of ${\cal X} \backslash \Omega_+ ({\cal X})$. By theorem \[Zariskiopen\], it is sufficient to prove that $\Omega_+ ({\cal X})$ is stable by specialization. Let $y_0 \rightsquigarrow y_1$ be a specialization in ${\cal X} $ and assume that $y_1 \not \in \Omega_+ ({\cal X})$. We must prove that $y_0 \not \in \Omega_+ ({\cal X})$, so we are reduced to the case $m(y_0)=p$. Let ${\cal Y}_0:=\overline{\{y_0\}}$.
By localizing $\eta$ at $\eta (y_1)$, it can be furthermore assumed that $y_1=x$. Arguing by induction on the dimension of ${\cal Y}_0$, it can be furthermore assumed that ${\cal Y}_0$ is a curve. Let $$({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) \leftarrow \cdots$$ be a sequence of local blowing ups at closed points belonging to the strict transform of ${\cal Y}_0$. We have $m(x_r)\geq m(y_0)=p$, so $m(x_r)=p$ for every $r \geq 0$. Since $S$ is excellent, the strict transform of ${\cal Y}_0$ in ${\cal X}_r$ is Hironaka permissible for $r>>0$. By construction, these maps induce local isomorphisms at $y_0$.
We then have $(m(x_r), \omega (x_r)) \leq (p,0)$ by proposition \[bupomegazero\], hence $\omega (x_r)=0$ since $m(x_r)=p$ for every $r \geq 0$. In other words, after possibly replacing $({\cal X},x)$ by $({\cal X}_r,x_r)$ for some $r \geq 0$, it can be assumed that ${\cal Y}_0$ is Hironaka permissible. Then there exist well adapted coordinates $(u_1,\ldots ,u_n;Z)$ at $x$ such that $$I(W_0)=( \{u_j\}_{j\in J_0}), W_0:=\eta ({\cal Y}_0)$$ with $J_0 =\{1, \ldots ,n\}\backslash \{j'\}$ for some $j'$ (since ${\cal Y}_0$ is a curve). We let $s_0:=\eta (y_0)$, $S_0:=S_{s_0}$. By proposition \[Deltaalg\], the polyhedron $\Delta_{S}(h;\{u_j\}_{j\in J};Z)$ is minimal, so we deduce that $\epsilon (y_0)\leq \epsilon (x)$.
Since $\omega (x)=0$ by assumption, we have $\omega (y_0)=0$ except possibly if $\epsilon (y_0)= \epsilon (x)=1$. Since $\omega (x)=0$, the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{W_0}h \in G(m_S)[Z]$ then satisfies $$H^{-1}_{W_0}F_{p,Z,W_0}=<\sum_{j \in J_0}\gamma_jU_j > \subseteq G(W_0)_1 =S/I(W_0)[ \{U_j\}_{j\in J_0}],$$ and there exists $j_0 \in J_0$, $e+1 \leq j_0 \leq n$ such that $\gamma_{j_0}$ is a unit in $S/I(W_0)$. This gives $\omega (y_0)=0$ if $i_0(y)=p$. If $i_0(y)=p-1$, we must introduce a truncation operator $$T_0 : \ G(m_{S_0})_{p\delta (y_0)}\rightarrow G(m_{S_0})_{p\delta (y_0)},$$ as in definition \[defomega\] in order to compute $\omega (y_0)$. However, $T_0$ proceeds from definition \[defT\] in the special case $p\delta (y_0)=1+ \sum_{j\in J_0}H_j$. Lemma \[kerT\] then implies that $$H^{-1}_{W_0}\mathrm{Ker}T_0 \subseteq <\{U_j\}_{j\in J_0, j \leq e}> \subset G(m_{S_0})_{p\delta (y_0)}.$$ Since $j_0 \geq e+1$, we thus have $H_{W_0}U_{j_0} \nsubseteq \mathrm{Ker}T_0$ and this proves that $\omega (y_0)=0$ as required.
A very special case of the following question (for $\mu$ a discrete valuation with some extra assumption) has been answered in the affirmative in theorem \[permisarc\] above. See also theorem \[contactmaxFIN\] for a related result.
\[questpermissible\] Let ${\cal Y}={\cal Y}_0$ be an integral closed subscheme with generic point $y$, $m(y)=p$, $\omega (y)>0$, and let $\mu$ be a valuation centered at $m_S$. Does there exist a finite sequence of permissible local blowing ups along $\mu$: $$({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)$$ with centers ${\cal Z}_i \subset ({\cal Y}_i,x_i)$, ${\cal Y}_i$ denoting the strict transform of ${\cal Y}$ in $({\cal X}_i,x_i)$, $0 \leq i \leq r$, such that ${\cal Y}_r$ is permissible at $x_r$?
Application to Resolution in dimension three.
=============================================
In this chapter, we deduce theorem \[mainthm\] from theorem \[luthm\] and prove the corollaries. Achieving condition [**(E)**]{} allows us to use all results from the previous chapters.\
[*We assume that $\mathrm{dim}S= 3$ from section \[NCDconditions\] on.*]{}\
All results are extensions of [@CoP1]. The proofs are based on the following three characteristic free results which can be found respectively in [@Ab2] theorem 3, a special case of [@CoJS] theorem 0.3 (with $B=\emptyset$) and [@CoP1] proposition 4.2:
\[factbir\]**(Abhyankar)** Let $(R,m)$ and $(R',m')$ be regular two-dimensional local domains with a common quotient field and such that $$R \subseteq R', \ m'\cap R=m.$$ Then $R'$ is an iterated quadratic transform of $R$.
\[embedsurf\]**(Cossart-Jannsen-Saito)** Let ${\cal S}$ be a regular Noetherian irreducible scheme of dimension three which is excellent and $X \hookrightarrow {\cal S}$ be a reduced subscheme.
There exists a composition of blowing ups along integral regular subschemes $\sigma: \ {\cal S}'\rightarrow {\cal S}$ such that the strict transform $X'\hookrightarrow {\cal S}'$ of $X$ has strict normal crossings with the reduced exceptional divisor $E$ of $\sigma$. Moreover $\sigma$ restricts to an isomorphism $$\pi: \ X' \backslash \sigma^{-1}(\mathrm{Sing}X)\simeq X \backslash \mathrm{Sing}X.$$
\[principsurf\]**(Cossart-Piltant)** Let ${\cal S}$ be a regular Noetherian irreducible scheme of dimension three which is excellent and ${\cal I} \subseteq {\cal O}_{\cal S}$ be a nonzero ideal sheaf. There exists a finite sequence $${\cal S}=:{\cal S}(0) \leftarrow {\cal S}(1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow {\cal S}(r)$$ with the following properties:
- for each $j$, $0 \leq j \leq r-1$, ${\cal S}(j+1)$ is the blowing up along a regular integral subscheme ${\cal Y}(j)\subset {\cal S}(j)$ with $${\cal Y}(j)\subseteq \{s_j \in {\cal S}(j): {\cal I}{\cal O}_{{\cal S}(j),s_j} \ \mathrm{is}
\ \mathrm{not} \ \mathrm{locally} \ \mathrm{principal}\}.$$
- ${\cal I}{\cal O}_{{\cal S}(r)}$ is locally principal.
The assumption “$X/k$ is quasi-projective” is not used in the proof of [@CoP1] proposition 4.2. The equicharacteristic assumption is used only via the power series expansions used for defining $E$ and the characteristic polygon “$\Delta ({\cal E};u_1,u_2;y)$ prepared” on pp.1061-1062 of [*ibid.*]{}. But this is also characteristic free by [@CoP3] theorem II.3.
Reduction to local uniformization and proof of the corollaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------
We now reduce theorem \[mainthm\] to its local uniformization form (LU) below. Let $(A,m,k)$ be a quasi-excellent local domain with quotient field $K$. Recall that quasi-excellent rings are Noetherian by definition [@EGA2] (7.8.2) and remark (7.8.4)(i). We consider the following Local Uniformization problem:\
(LU) for every valuation $v$ of $K$, with valuation ring $({\cal O}_v,m_v,k_v)$ such that $$A \subset {\cal O}_v \subset K, \ m_v\cap A=m, \ k_v | k \ \mathrm{algebraic},$$ there exists a finitely generated $A$-algebra $T$, $A \subseteq T \subseteq {\cal O}_v$, such that $T_P$ is regular, where $P:=m_v \cap T$.
\[redtoLU\] Let ${\cal X}$ be a reduced and separated Noetherian scheme which is quasi-excellent and of dimension at most three. Let ${\cal X}_1, \ldots , {\cal X}_c$ be the irreducible components of ${\cal X}$. Assume that (LU) holds for every local ring of the form $A={\cal O}_{{\cal X}_i,x_i}$ which is of dimension three, $1 \leq i \leq c$. Then theorem \[mainthm\] holds.
This is an enhanced version of Zariski’s Patching Theorem [@Z5] Fundamental theorem on p.539. Suppose that (i) and (ii) in theorem \[mainthm\] have been proved. Apply proposition \[embedsurf\] to $$X:=\pi^{-1}(\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X})_{\mathrm{red}}\subseteq {\cal X}',$$ then blow up along $X'$: we get (iii). There remains to prove (i) and (ii).
[*Step 1:*]{} it can be assumed that ${\cal X}$ is irreducible of dimension three.
There is a finite birational morphism $$f: \ \coprod_{i=1}^c{\cal X}_i \rightarrow {\cal X},$$ isomorphic above $\mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}$. The theorem holds for ${\cal X}$ if it holds for each ${\cal X}_i$. Resolution of singularities is known if $\mathrm{dim}{\cal X}\leq 2$ [@L3], so we may assume that $\mathrm{dim}{\cal X}=3$.
[*Step 2:*]{} it can be assumed that ${\cal X}=\mathrm{Spec}A$ is affine.
This is based on lemma \[elimindet\] below. Consider open sets ${\cal U}\subseteq {\cal X}$ satisfying (i) and (ii) in theorem \[mainthm\], i.e. there exists $\pi_{\cal U}: \ {\cal U}'\rightarrow {\cal U}$ proper and birational, such that $$\label{eq50}
\mathrm{Reg}{\cal U}'={\cal U}' \ \mathrm{and} \ \pi_{\cal U}^{-1}(\mathrm{Reg}{\cal U})\simeq \mathrm{Reg}{\cal U}.$$ We assume furthermore that a finite affine covering ${\cal U}=U_1 \cup \cdots \cup U_n$ is given such that $$\label{eq501}
\pi^{-1}_{\cal U}(U_i)\rightarrow U_i \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{projective}.$$
[*Claim:*]{} if two open sets ${\cal U}_1$ and ${\cal U}_2$ satisfy (\[eq50\]) and (\[eq501\]), so does ${\cal U}_1\cup {\cal U}_2$ w.r.t. [*the union*]{} of their respective coverings. Since ${\cal X}$ is Noetherian, this claim completes reduction step 2.
We now prove the claim. Let ${\cal V}:= {\cal U}_1\cap{\cal U}_2$. Denote by $\pi_i: \ {\cal U}'_i \longrightarrow {\cal U}_i$ the given resolutions of singularities satisfying (\[eq50\]) and (\[eq501\]). Let $${\cal F}_1\subseteq {\cal U}'_1 \cap \pi_1^{-1}({\cal V})$$ be the fundamental locus of the birational map $$\rho : \ {\cal U}'_1 \cap \pi_1^{-1}({\cal V}) \cdots \longrightarrow {\cal U}'_2 \cap \pi_2^{-1}({\cal V}),$$ and $\overline{{\cal F}}_1 \subseteq {\cal U}'_1$ be its Zariski closure in ${\cal U}'_1$. By (\[eq50\]), we have: $$\pi_1 (\overline{{\cal F}}_1)\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}{\cal U}_1.$$ In particular, we may replace ${\cal U}'_1$ by any blow up along a regular center contained in $\overline{{\cal F}}_1$. We apply lemma \[elimindet\] below to $\pi^{-1}_i(U_{j_1j_2})\rightarrow U_{j_1j_2}$, $i=1,2$ for each $U_{j_1j_2}:=U_{j_1}\cap U_{j_2}$ with obvious notations.
When some ${\cal Z}_i$ in lemma \[elimindet\] is a curve, it can be assumed that ${\cal Z}_i$ is regular away from (the inverse image of) ${\cal V}$ by blowing up closed points beforehand. Furthermore the sequences (\[eq509\]) for distinct $U_{j_1j_2}$’s glue together, which follows from the definitions (\[eq5091\])-(\[eq5092\]). We may thus assume that $$\label{eq502}
\rho \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{a} \ \mathrm{morphism}.$$
Let ${\cal F}_2 \subseteq {\cal U}'_2 \cap \pi_2^{-1}({\cal V})$ be the fundamental locus of $\rho^{-1}$ and consider the associated sequence (\[eq509\]). We will only perform step 1 in the proof of lemma \[elimindet\].
When ${\cal Z}_i$ is a closed point mapping to ${\cal V}$, we apply proposition \[principsurf\] beforehand to ${\cal I}({\cal Z}_i){\cal O}_{{\cal U}'_1}$ in order to preserve (\[eq502\]).
When ${\cal Z}_i$ is an irreducible curve with generic point $\xi_i$, whose image in ${\cal V}$ has dimension one, the ideal ${\cal I}({\cal Z}_i){\cal O}_{{\cal U}'_1}$ is invertible above $\xi_i$ by proposition \[factbir\]. Applying proposition \[principsurf\] beforehand to ${\cal I}({\cal Z}_i){\cal O}_{{\cal U}'_1}$, we also preserve (\[eq502\]) while ${\cal U}'_1$ is unchanged away from the inverse image of finitely many closed points of ${\cal V}$. It can be assumed that ${\cal Z}_i$ is regular away from the inverse image of ${\cal V}$ by blowing up closed points beforehand as above.
Summing up, it can be assumed that (\[eq502\]) holds and that $\rho^{-1}$ is a morphism (hence an isomorphism by (\[eq502\])) away from $$\label{eq5021}
\pi_2^{-1}(x_1), \ldots ,\pi_2^{-1}(x_k), \ x_1, \ldots ,x_k \in {\cal V}
\ \mathrm{finitely} \ \mathrm{many} \ \mathrm{closed} \ \mathrm{points}.$$ We may then glue ${\cal U}'_1$ and ${\cal U}'_2 \backslash \{\pi_2^{-1}(x_1), \ldots ,\pi_2^{-1}(x_k)\}$ along $$\pi_1^{-1}({\cal V} \backslash \{x_1, \ldots ,x_k\})=\pi_2^{-1}({\cal V} \backslash \{x_1, \ldots ,x_k\})$$ to some proper morphism $\pi_{{\cal W}} : \ {\cal W}'\rightarrow {\cal W}:={\cal U}_1 \cup {\cal U}_2$. By construction, $\pi_{{\cal W}}$ satisfies (\[eq50\]) and (\[eq501\]) for each $U_{j_1}\subseteq {\cal U}_1$. Let $U_{j_2}\subseteq {\cal U}_2$ be fixed, so $\pi_{2}^{-1}(U_{j_2})\rightarrow U_{j_2}$ is projective. Now $\pi_{1}^{-1}(U_{j_1j_2})\rightarrow U_{j_1j_2}$ is projective for each $U_{j_1}\subseteq {\cal U}_1$, so $\pi_{{\cal W}}(U_{j_2})\rightarrow U_{j_2}$ projective follows from (\[eq5021\]). This concludes the proof of the claim, hence of step 2.
[*Step 3:*]{} achieving (i) in theorem \[mainthm\] with $\pi$ projective for ${\cal X}=\mathrm{Spec}A$ affine.
The Riemann-Zariski space of valuations $$\mathrm{Zar}({\cal X}):=\{ v \ \mathrm{valuation} \ \mathrm{of} \ K : A\subseteq {\cal O}_v\}$$ is quasi-compact by [@ZS2] theorem 40 on p.113 and Noetherianity of $A$. The assumption on $v$ in (LU) means that $v$ is a closed point of $\mathrm{Zar}({\cal X})$. Regularity is a nonempty open property for any reduced ${\cal Y}$ which is of finite type over ${\cal X}$ because $A$ is excellent. This applies in particular to any projective closure of $\mathrm{Spec}T$, $T$ as in (LU). Hence theorem \[mainthm\](i) is reduced to the following patching problem: let $${\cal X}_1 \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}A, \ {\cal X}_2 \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}A$$ be projective birational morphisms. There exists ${\cal Y} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}A$ projective birational and morphisms $\pi_i: \ {\cal Y} \longrightarrow {\cal X}_i$, $i=1,2$, such that $$\pi_1^{-1}(\mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}_1)\cup \pi_2^{-1}(\mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}_2)\subseteq \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y}.$$ As indicated in [@Z5] on p.539, Zariski’s Patching Theorem only requires proposition \[factbir\] and lemma \[elimindet\] (here in our characteristic free context) in order to deduce step 3 from (LU).
[*Step 4:*]{} achieving (ii). Let $\pi : \ {\cal X}'\rightarrow{\cal X}$ be as in step 3, i.e. projective birational with $\mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}'=\mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}$. Let ${\cal F} \subseteq {\cal X}$ be the fundamental locus of $\pi^{-1}$. We define $${\cal F}_1:= \mathrm{Zariski} \ \mathrm{closure} \ \mathrm{in} \ {\cal X}
\ \mathrm{of} \ {\cal F} \cap \mathrm{Reg}{\cal X}.$$ Note that ${\cal F}_1$ has dimension at most one. We only sketch the argument and refer to [@Co8] (see also [@Pi] section 6) for the details. There exists a commutative diagram $$\label{eq503}
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal X}' & {\buildrel e' \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal Y}' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
{\cal X} & {\buildrel e \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal Y}\\
\end{array}$$ such that $e$ (resp. $e'$) is a composition of blowing ups with regular centers mapping to $\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X}$ (resp. to $\pi^{-1}(\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X})$). Let $\pi ': \ {\cal Y} '\rightarrow {\cal Y}$ be the resulting morphism. This diagram has the following property: let ${\cal G} \subset {\cal Y}$ be the fundamental locus of ${\pi '}^{-1}$, and ${\cal F}'_1\subseteq {\cal G}$ be the strict transform of ${\cal F}_1$. Then any connected component of ${\cal G}$ containing points of $\mathrm{Sing}{\cal Y}$ is disjoint from ${\cal F}'_1$ (in particular ${\cal F}'_1\subset \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y}$). This is achieved as follows:
\(a) by iterating finitely many blowing ups of ${\cal X}$ at intersection points of ${\cal F}_1$ and $\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X}$, then applying proposition \[principsurf\], we first obtain $e,e'$ such that ${\cal F}'_1\subset \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y}$.
\(b) by applying the techniques of step 2 above those irreducible curves $C\subseteq {\cal G}$ only such that $$C\nsubseteq {\cal F}'_1, \ C\cap {\cal F}'_1 \neq \emptyset ,$$ then applying proposition \[principsurf\] to get $e'$, we disconnect ${\cal F}'_1$ from components of ${\cal G}$ containing points of $\mathrm{Sing}{\cal Y}$.
By (\[eq503\]), there exists ${\cal U}\subseteq \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y}$ such that the fundamental locus of ${\pi '}^{-1}({\cal U})\rightarrow {\cal U}$ is a [*projective*]{} subscheme (of dimension at most one) containing ${\cal F}'_1$. We define ${\cal Z}\subset {\cal Y}'\times_{{\cal X}} {\cal Y}$ by composing the diagonal embedding $$\Delta_{{\cal Y}'} : \ {\cal Y}'\rightarrow {\cal Y}'\times_{{\cal X}} {\cal Y}'$$ with the second projection $1\times \pi '$ above ${\cal Y}'\times_{{\cal X}} {\cal U}$. Then ${\cal Z}\rightarrow {\cal X}$ has the required properties.
\[elimindet\] Let $A$ be a reduced excellent Noetherian domain of dimension three and $${\cal X} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}A, \ {\cal Y} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}A$$ be projective birational morphisms. Denote by $\rho : \ {\cal Y} \cdots \longrightarrow {\cal X}$ the birational correspondence and ${\cal F}\subset {\cal Y}$ its fundamental locus. There exists a sequence $$\label{eq509}
{\cal Y}=:{\cal Y}_0 \leftarrow {\cal Y}_1 \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow {\cal Y}_{r+1}={\cal Y}'$$ of blowing ups along regular centers ${\cal Z}_i\subseteq {\cal Y}_i$ such that
- ${\cal Z}_i$ is fundamental for $\rho_i : \ {\cal Y}_i \cdots \longrightarrow {\cal X}$, $0 \leq i\leq r$;
- $\rho \circ \pi $ is a morphism on $\pi^{-1}({\cal F} \cap \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y})$, where $\pi : \ {\cal Y}'\rightarrow {\cal Y}$ is the composed map.
This lemma rephrases [@CoP1] proposition 4.7, using the characteristic free proposition \[principsurf\]. We denote by $${\cal F}^\circ := {\cal F}\cap \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y}, \ \mathrm{dim}{\cal F}^\circ \leq 1.$$ Let $\overline{{\cal F}} \subseteq {\cal F}$ be the Zariski closure of ${\cal F}^\circ$ in ${\cal Y}$ and ${\cal G} \subseteq \overline{{\cal F}}$ be its one-dimensional component (possibly ${\cal G}=\emptyset$). We construct $\pi$ as a composition of blowing ups along regular subschemes [*mapping*]{} to $\overline{{\cal F}}$.
[*Step 1:*]{} let $$\label{eq5091}
\pi_1: \ {\cal Y}_{i_1}\rightarrow {\cal Y}$$ be the minimal composition of blowing ups at closed points such that the strict transform ${\cal G}'$ of ${\cal G}$ is a disjoint union of regular curves, followed by the blowing up along ${\cal G}'$. Let $$\rho_1 : \ {\cal Y}_{i_1} \cdots \longrightarrow {\cal X}$$ denote the composed map $\rho \circ \pi_1 $, ${\cal F}_1$ its fundamental locus. We now denote $${\cal F}_1^\circ := {\cal F}_1\cap \pi_1^{-1}(\mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y})$$ and $\overline{{\cal F}}_1 \subseteq {\cal F}_1$ its Zariski closure in ${\cal Y}_{i_1}$. Let furthermore ${\cal G}_1 \subseteq \overline{{\cal F}}_1$ be the union of its one-dimensional irreducible components [*whose image in*]{} ${\cal Y}$ [*has dimension one*]{}.
We now iterate this construction. Applying a classical result on quadratic sequences in regular local rings of dimension two (e.g. [@ZS2] appendix 5, theorem 3 and (E) on p.391), we construct $\pi_n: \ {\cal Y}_{i_n}\rightarrow {\cal Y}$ such that $\rho \circ \pi_n $ is a morphism away from $$\pi_n^{-1}(({\cal F} \cap \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y})\backslash \{x_1, \ldots ,x_k\}),$$ where $x_1, \ldots ,x_k$ are finitely many closed points.
[*Step 2:*]{} let ${\cal Z}$ be the closure of the graph of $\rho \circ \pi_n$. Since ${\cal X}$ is projective, ${\cal Z}$ is isomorphic to the blowing up of ${\cal Y}_n$ along a certain ideal sheaf ${\cal I}_n\subseteq {\cal O}_{{\cal Y}_{i_n}}$. Since $\pi_n^{-1}(\mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y})\subseteq \mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y}_n$, there exists ${\cal I}\subseteq {\cal O}_{{\cal Y}_{i_n}}$ with $$\label{eq5092}
V({\cal I})\subseteq \pi_n^{-1}(x_1)\cup \ldots \cup \pi_n^{-1}(x_k), \ \mathrm{dim}V ({\cal I})\leq 1,$$ such that ${\cal Z}$ is isomorphic to the blowing up of ${\cal Y}_{i_n}$ along ${\cal I}$ above $\pi_n^{-1}(\mathrm{Reg}{\cal Y})$. Applying proposition \[principsurf\] to ${\cal I}\subseteq {\cal O}_{{\cal Y}_{i_n}}$ concludes the proof.
[*Proof of corollary \[completeresolution\]:*]{} $A$ is excellent by [@EGA2](7.8.3)(iii).
[*Proof of corollary \[integralmodel\]:*]{} let ${\cal Y}$ be any projective ${\cal O}$-scheme with generic fiber ${\cal Y}_F=\Sigma$, e.g. clearing denominators in $\Sigma$. By generic flatness [@EGA2](6.9.1), there exists ${\cal U}\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}$ such that $s^{-1}({\cal U})$ is flat over ${\cal U}$. Apply theorem \[mainthm\] to the Zariski closure of $s^{-1}({\cal U})$ in ${\cal Y}$, where $$s : {\cal Y} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}$$ is the structure morphism.
Corollary \[integralmodel\] can be strengthened in the obvious way: given any proper and flat ${\cal O}$-scheme ${\cal Y}$ with generic fiber ${\cal Y}_F=\Sigma$ and an open set ${\cal U}\subseteq \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}$, there exists a proper and flat ${\cal O}$-scheme ${\cal X}$ isomorphic to ${\cal Y}$ above ${\cal U}$ and regular away from ${\cal U}$.
Reduction to cyclic coverings.
------------------------------
In this section, we reduce the local uniformization form (LU) of the previous section to theorem \[luthm\]. This reduction is performed in two steps: first to complete local domains, then to cyclic coverings of degree $p$ in residue characteristic $p>0$. The first step is adapted from the descent methods of [@CoP1] proposition 9.1 for (LU) inside the Henselization of finitely generated algebras of dimension three. Descent from complete local rings to Henselian local rings, i.e. algebraization of (LU), is proved in any dimension in [@ILO] proposition 6.2, but this does not imply proposition \[redtoLUcomplete\] below.
\[redtoLUcomplete\] Assume that (LU) holds for every complete local domain of dimension three. Then theorem \[mainthm\] holds.
By proposition \[redtoLU\], it is sufficient to prove that (LU) holds for every quasi-excellent local domain $A$ of dimension three. Let $v$ be a valuation of $K$ as in (LU). Denote by $$\
\Gamma_v:=K^\times /{\cal O}_v^\times, \ r:=\mathrm{dim}_{\Q}(\Gamma_v\otimes_{\Z}\Q)$$ the value group and rational rank of $v$. To begin with, we may assume that $\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_v=1$, i.e. $\Gamma_v \subset (\R, \geq)$, applying [@NSp] theorem 1.1 (valid in all dimensions) or using the dimension three techniques in [@CoP1] proposition 5.1. Although this reduction may not preserve the property “$k_v | k $ algebraic”, we may assume that it does since transcendental residue extensions provide a reduction in $\mathrm{dim}A$ after blowing up.
Since $A$ is local quasi-excellent, its formal completion $\hat{A}$ w.r.t. $m_A$ is reduced [@EGA2](7.8.3)(vii) and remark (7.8.4)(i), so $$\hat{K}:=\mathrm{Tot}(\hat{A})=\prod_{i=1}^c \hat{K}_i, \ \hat{K}_i=QF(\hat{A}/\hat{P}_i)$$ and the $\hat{P}_i$’s are minimal primes. Let $\hat{v}$ be an extension of $v$ to, say $\hat{K}_1$, after possibly renumbering. Note that $\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{\hat{v}}\geq 1$ and that inequality is strict in general. We have $$r\leq d:=\mathrm{dim}(\hat{A}/\hat{P}_1).$$
Let ${\cal X}:=\mathrm{Spec}A$, $\hat{{\cal X}}:=\mathrm{Spec}\hat{A}$ and $f: \ \hat{{\cal X}}\rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the completion morphism. By assumption in this proposition and proposition \[redtoLU\], theorem \[mainthm\] holds for $\hat{{\cal X}}$. Let $$\hat{\pi}: \ \hat{{\cal Y}}\rightarrow \hat{{\cal X}}$$ be the corresponding resolution of singularities. Let $\hat{y} \in \hat{{\cal Y}}$ be the center of $\hat{v}$. Since $k_v | k $ is algebraic and $\hat{A}/\hat{P}_1$ is universally catenary, we have $$d=\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}.$$ By [@EGA2](7.8.3)(v), we have $\mathrm{Sing}\hat{{\cal X}}=f^{-1}(\mathrm{Sing}{\cal X})$. Therefore there exists $g\in A$, $g\neq 0$ such that $\hat{\pi}$ is an isomorphism above $\hat{{\cal X}}_g=\mathrm{Spec}\hat{A}_g$ by theorem \[mainthm\](ii). Let also $f_1, \ldots ,f_r \in A$ such that $v(f_1), \ldots ,v(f_r)$ are $\Q$-linearly independent in $\Gamma_v$ and set $h:=gf_1 \cdots f_r \in A$. We have:
With notations as above, it can be assumed that $$\label{eq510}
\sqrt{h{\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}}=\sqrt{m_{\hat{A}}{\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}}=(\hat{u}_1 \cdots \hat{u}_r),$$ where $(\hat{u}_1, \ldots , \hat{u}_d)$ is a r.s.p. of ${\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}$. In particular $$\hat{v}(\hat{u}_1),\ldots ,\hat{v}(\hat{u}_r)\in \Gamma_v\otimes_{\Z}\Q$$ and these values are $\Q$-linearly independent.
This is [@CoP1] proposition 6.2, taking into account proposition \[embedsurf\]. Note that it is not necessary to assume here that $\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{\hat{v}}= 1$ because $h\in A$.
We now conclude the proof which is easily adapted from [@CoP1] proposition 9.1. By elementary linear algebra, there exists an $r\times r$ matrix $M \in {\cal M}(r, \Z)$, $a=\mathrm{det}M>0$ such that $$\label{eq5101}
g_j:=\prod_{i=1}^rf_i^{m_{ij}}=\hat{\delta}_j\hat{u}_j^a \in {\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}\cap K,$$ where $\hat{\delta}_j\in {\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}$ is a unit, $1 \leq j \leq r$. Let $$\hat{Q}_j:=(\hat{u}_j)\cap \hat{A}, \ r+1 \leq j \leq d.$$ By construction (\[eq510\]), we have ${\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{u}_j}=\hat{A}_{\hat{Q}_j}$, so $(\hat{u}_j)$ is the strict transform of $\hat{Q}_j$ at $\hat{y}$. Since $A$ is dense in $\hat{A}$ for the $m_A$-adic topology, the right-hand side equality in (\[eq510\]) implies: there exists $g'_{r+1}, \ldots ,g'_d \in A$ and positive integers $m_{ij}$, $1\leq i \leq r$, $r+1\leq j \leq d$, such that: $$u'_j:=g'_j \prod_{i=1}^r\hat{u}_i^{-m_{ij}}\in {\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}$$ and $(\hat{u}_1, \ldots , \hat{u}_r, u'_{r+1}, \ldots , u'_d)$ is a r.s.p. of ${\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}$. Let now $$\label{eq5102}
g_j:={g'_j}^a\prod_{i=1}^rg_i^{-m_{ij}}={u'_j}^a\prod_{i=1}^r\hat{\delta}_j^{-m_{ij}}
\in {\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}\cap K$$ and $T$ be the integral closure of $A[g_1, \ldots ,g_d]$ in $K$. By [@EGA2] corollary 7.7.3, $T$ is a finitely generated $A$-algebra. Furthermore, we have $$A \subseteq T \subseteq {\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}\cap K \subset{\cal O}_{\hat{v}}\cap K={\cal O}_v$$ by (\[eq5101\])-(\[eq5102\]). To complete the proof, it must be proved that $T_P$ is regular, where $P:=m_v \cap T$. By [@EGA2] lemma 7.9.3.1, it is sufficient to prove that $T':=T\otimes_A \hat{A}$ is regular at the center $P':=m_{\hat{y}}\cap T'$ of $\hat{v}$. Since $T_P$ is normal, $T'_{P'}$ is also normal [*ibid.*]{} and (7.8.3)(v). There are inclusions $$\hat{A} \subset T'_{P'} \subseteq {\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}.$$ By (\[eq5101\])-(\[eq5102\]), the right-hand side inclusion satisfies $$\sqrt{P' {\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}}=m_{\hat{y}},$$ so ${\cal O}_{\hat{{\cal Y}},\hat{y}}=T'_{P'}$ and the proof is complete.
\[redtoLUcyclic\] Theorem \[luthm\] implies theorem \[mainthm\].
By proposition \[redtoLUcomplete\], it is sufficient to prove that (LU) holds for every complete local domain $(A,m,k)$ of dimension three. Let $({\cal O}_v,m_v,k_v)$ be the given valuation ring as in (LU). We may assume here that $\mathrm{char}k_v=p>0$, the equicharacteristic zero version of theorem \[mainthm\] being known. As in proposition \[redtoLUcomplete\], it is sufficient to deal with the case $\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_v=1$.
By Noether normalization [@Ma] theorem 29.4(iii), there exists a complete regular local domain $S \subseteq A$ such that $A$ is a finite $S$-module, $\mathrm{dim}S=3$. We will prove that the equal characteristic techniques of [@CoP1] extend to our situation. Let $F$ be the quotient field of $S$, so the field extension $K | F$ is finite algebraic. By [@EGA2] corollary 7.7.3, the integral closure of $A$ in any finite extension of $F$ is a finite $A$-module.
Let $K^{\mathrm{sep}}\subseteq K$ be the separable closure of $F$, so $K| K^{\mathrm{sep}}$ is trivial ($\mathrm{char}K=0$) or a tower of purely inseparable extensions of degree $p=\mathrm{char}K$. If (LU) holds for the integral closure $A^{\mathrm{sep}}$ of $A$ in $K^{\mathrm{sep}}$, then (LU) holds for $A$. Namely, it can be assumed that $$\mathrm{char}K=p, \ K=K^{\mathrm{sep}}(x^{1/p}), \ x \not \in (K^{\mathrm{sep}})^p.$$ By proposition \[principsurf\], we may take $x \in T^{\mathrm{sep}}$, where $T^{\mathrm{sep}}$ is given by (LU) for $A^{\mathrm{sep}}$. So $$h:=X^p -x\in T^{\mathrm{sep}}[X]$$ satisfies the assumption of theorem \[luthm\](i). From now on, we assume that $K | F$ is separable.
Let $\overline{K}| K$ be a Galois closure and $\overline{v}$ be an extension of $v$ to $\overline{K}$. Ramification theory of valuations [@ZS2] section 12 provides a diagram of fields $$\label{eq51}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
K & \subseteq & K^i & \subseteq & K^r & \subseteq & \overline{K}\\
\uparrow & & \uparrow & & \uparrow & \\
F & \subseteq & F^i & \subseteq & F^r & &\\
\end{array}$$ as in the proof of [@CoP1] theorem 8.1. The left-hand side (resp. middle) inclusions in this diagram are unramified (resp. totally ramified Abelian of order prime to $p$). The extension $K^r| F^r$ is a tower of totally ramified Galois extensions of degree $p$.
Theorem \[luthm\] is actually required only to deal with those ramified extensions of degree $p$ which are immediate (same value group and same residue field) w.r.t. the corresponding restrictions of $\overline{v}$. For extensions of degree $p$ which are not immediate, a much simpler proof is available, [*vid.*]{} [@CoP1] proposition 6.3 in the equicharacteristic case.
In order to connect ramification theory of valuations and ramification theory of $S$-algebras essentially of finite type, we restate [@CoP1] theorem 7.2 in our context as proposition \[Galoisapprox\]. For ramification theory of local rings, we refer to [@Ab4] (see also [@CoP1] section 2 for a quick summary of the required notions and notations).
\[normalmodel\] A normal local model of ${\cal O}_v|S$ is the localization $B_P$ of a finitely generated $S$-algebra $B$, $S \subseteq B \subseteq {\cal O}_v, \ QF(B)=K$ such that $B$ is normal, where $P:=m_v \cap B$.
Let $K'| K$ be a finite field extension and $v'$ be an extension of $v$ to $K'$. Given a normal local model $B_P$ of ${\cal O}_v|S$, we define a normal local model $B'$ of ${\cal O}_{v'}|S$ by localizing the integral closure $\overline{B}$ of $B$ in $K'$ at $P':=m_{v'} \cap \overline{B}$.
Note that $B'$ is actually a normal local model because $S$, hence $B$, is excellent. Also note that if $B'$ is a normal local model of ${\cal O}_{v'}|S$ and $K'| K$ is Galois, then $B' \cap K={B'}^{\mathrm{Gal}(K'| K)}$ is a normal local model of ${\cal O}_v|S$.
\[Galoisapprox\]**(Galois Approximation).** Let $K'| K$ be a finite Galois extension and $v'$ be an extension of $v$ to $K'$. There exists a normal local model $B_0$ of ${\cal O}_v|S$ such that for any normal local model $B$ of ${\cal O}_v|S$ with $B_0 \subseteq B$, the following holds:
- $G^s (v'| v)=G^s(B'| B)$ and $G^i(v'| v)=G^i(B'| B)$;
- the normal model $B^r:={B'}^{G^r(v'| v)}$ of ${\cal O}_{v^r}|S$ satisfies $$B^r/m_{B^r} =B^i/m_{B^i},$$ where $B^i$ is the inertia ring of $B'$ over $B$, i.e. $B^i={B'}^{G^i(B'| B)}$, and $v^r$ is the restriction of $v'$ to $K^r:={K'}^{G^r(v'| v)}$. Moreover the representation $$\rho : \ G^i(v'| v) /G^r(v'| v)\rightarrow \mathrm{GL}(m_{B^r}/m_{B^r}^2),
\ g \mapsto (\overline{x} \mapsto \overline{g.x})$$ is faithful.
We now prove that theorem \[luthm\] implies (LU). To emphasize the dependence on $v$, we say that $(\mathrm{LU}v)$ holds if (LU) holds for a particular $v$. With notations as in (\[eq51\]), we denote by $v_0,v_0^i,v_0^r,v^i, v^r$ the respective restrictions of $\overline{v}$ to $F$, $F^i$, $F^r$, $K^i$ and $K^r$. The strategy is to prove successively the implications $$(\mathrm{LU}v_0) \Longrightarrow (\mathrm{LU}v_0^i) \Longrightarrow (\mathrm{LU}v_0^r)
\Longrightarrow (\mathrm{LU}v^r) \Longrightarrow(\mathrm{LU}v^i)\Longrightarrow (\mathrm{LU}v).$$
Note that $(\mathrm{LU}v_0)$ holds by construction since $S$ is regular.
Firstly, $(\mathrm{LU}v_0^i)$ holds follows immediately from proposition \[Galoisapprox\] (1) as in [@CoP1] corollary 7.3. Then $(\mathrm{LU}v_0^r)$ holds because $F^r| F^i$ is a tower of ramified Galois extensions of prime degrees $l\neq p$: the proof relies on the Perron algorithm as in [@CoP1] proposition 6.3 and this is characteristic free.
To prove that $(\mathrm{LU}v^r)$ holds, we may assume that $K^r| F^r$ is a single Galois extension of degree $p$. Let $x \in {\cal O}_{v^r}$ be a primitive element with minimal polynomial $$h:=X^p +f_1X^{p-1} + \cdots +f_p \in {\cal O}_{v^r_0}[X].$$ By proposition \[principsurf\], we may take $f_1, \ldots ,f_p \in T^r$, where $T^r$ is a local uniformization, since ($\mathrm{LU}v_0^r$) holds. Theorem \[luthm\](ii) states that $(\mathrm{LU}v^r)$ holds.
Proving that $(\mathrm{LU}v^i)$, then $(\mathrm{LU}v)$ hold is an easy adaptation of [@CoP1] proposition 9.3. This relies on proposition \[Galoisapprox\] (1)(2) and [@CoP1] proposition 9.1 (as revisited in proposition \[redtoLUcomplete\]) which are characteristic free.
Normal crossings divisors conditions. {#NCDconditions}
-------------------------------------
In this section, we consider a pair $(S,h)$ satisfying the assumptions of theorem \[luthm\], i.e. such that [**(G)**]{} holds. We construct a sequence $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ of blowing ups along Hironaka-permissible centers in such a way that every $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$ has either $m(x')<p$, or ($m(x')=p$ and $x'$ satisfies condition [**(E)**]{}). This is proved in corollary \[EEfait\] below. Assumption [**(G)**]{} is not required here and we prove a more general version for arbitrary multiplicity in proposition \[normalcrossings\].
\[imagepoints\] Let $S$, $h\in S[X]$ (\[eq201\]) and $\eta: {\cal X} \rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S$ be given. Assume that $\mathrm{dim}S=3$ and that $h$ is reduced. There exists a composition of Hironaka-permissible blowing ups (\[eq210\]) w.r.t. $E=\emptyset$: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal X} & {\buildrel \pi \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal X}' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
\mathrm{Spec}S & {\buildrel \sigma \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal S}'\\
\end{array}$$
such that $\pi (\mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}')\subseteq \eta^{-1}(m_S)$.
This statement means that there exists a diagram $$\label{eq52}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
{\cal X}=:{\cal X}_0 & {\buildrel \pi_0 \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal X}_1 &
{\buildrel \pi_1 \over \longleftarrow} & \cdots & {\buildrel \pi_{n-1} \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal X}_n=:{\cal X}' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow & & & & \downarrow \\
\mathrm{Spec}S=:{\cal S}_0 & {\buildrel \sigma_0 \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal S}_1
& {\buildrel \sigma_1 \over \longleftarrow} & \cdots & {\buildrel \sigma_{n-1} \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal S}_n=:{\cal S} '\\
\end{array}$$ where each morphism $\pi_i$, $0 \leq i \leq n-1$, is the blowing up along a Hironaka-permissible center ${\cal Y}_i \subset {\cal X}_i$ w.r.t. the reduced exceptional divisor $E_i$ of $\pi^{(i)}: {\cal X}_i\rightarrow {\cal X}$. It can be assumed that $\dim (\mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X})\geq 1$.
Let $y_i \in {\cal X}_i$ denote the generic point of such a Hironaka-permissible center ${\cal Y}_i \subset {\cal X}_i$ w.r.t. $E_i$. We define: $$\Delta_i:=\{y \in \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}_i : \dim{\cal O}_{{\cal X}_i,y}=\dim{\cal O}_{{\cal X},\pi^{(i)}(y)}=1\},$$ $$\delta_i:=\max\{\delta (y), y\in \Delta_i\}, \ N_i:=\sharp\{y\in \Delta_i : \delta (y)=\delta_i\}.$$
Let $i \geq 0$. We claim that $$\label{eq521}
\left \{
\begin{array}{ccccc}
(\delta_{i+1}, N_{i+1}) & = & (\delta_i, N_i) & \mathrm{if} & \dim{\cal O}_{{\cal X},\pi^{(i)}(y_i)}\geq 2 \\
& & & & \\
(\delta_{i+1}, N_{i+1}) & < & (\delta_i, N_i) & \mathrm{if} & \dim{\cal O}_{{\cal X},\pi^{(i)}(y_i)}=1
\end{array}
\right .
.$$ Namely, this is an obvious consequence of the definition if $\dim{\cal O}_{{\cal X},\pi^{(i)}(y_i)}\geq 2$. If $\dim{\cal O}_{{\cal X},\pi^{(i)}(y_i)}=1$, let $y \in {\cal X}_{i+1}$ with $\pi_i(y)=y_i$. We have $$(m(y),\delta (y))\leq (m(y_i),\delta (y_i)-1)$$ by proposition \[originchart\] applied for $n=1$ and the claim follows
Pick $y \in \Delta_i$ with $\delta (y)=\delta_i$ and denote ${\cal Y}:=\overline{\{y\}}\subset {\cal X}_i$. By proposition \[embedsurf\], there exists a composition of blowing ups ${\cal X}_{i'}\rightarrow {\cal X}_i$ with regular centers contained in the successive strict transforms of ${\cal Y}$ such that $\eta_{i'}({\cal Y}')$ has normal crossings with $E_{i'}$, where ${\cal Y}'$ denotes the strict transform of ${\cal Y}$ in ${\cal X}_{i'}$. Then ${\cal Y}'$ itself and each blowing up center in ${\cal X}_{i'}\rightarrow {\cal X}_i$ are Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E_{i'}$ because $m(y)=m$.
We have $(\delta_{i'}, N_{i'}) = (\delta_i, N_i)$ by (\[eq521\]). Taking as blowing up center ${\cal Y}_{i'}:={\cal Y}'$ also gives $(\delta_{i'+1}, N_{i'+1}) < (\delta_i, N_i)$ by (\[eq521\]). Since $\Delta_i$ is a finite set and $\delta_i \in {1 \over m}\N$, there exists an index $i_1 > i$ such that $\Delta_{i_1}=\emptyset$ and this is preserved by further Hironaka-permissible blowing ups w.r.t. $E=\emptyset$.
Since $\Delta_{i_1}=\emptyset$, we are done unless $\pi^{(i_1)}(\mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}_{i_1})={\cal C}$, where ${\cal C}$ has pure dimension one. Let $C\subset \mathrm{Spec}S$ be an irreducible component of $\eta ({\cal C})$ and $s$ be its generic point. Note that the stalk $({\cal X}_i)_s$ at $s$ of the $S$-scheme ${\cal X}_i$ is embedded in the regular scheme of dimension three $\mathrm{Spec}S_s[X]$ for $i=0$ and in an iterated blowing up along regular centers of the former for $i\geq 1$. By proposition \[embedsurf\], there exists a composition of Hironaka-permissible blowing ups ${\cal X}'_s \rightarrow ({\cal X}_{i_1})_s$ w.r.t. $(E_{i_1})_s$ such that $\mathrm{Sing}_m {\cal X}'_s =\emptyset$.
Let ${\cal Y}_s \subseteq ({\cal X}_{i_1})_s$ be a Hironaka-permissible center and ${\cal Y} \subseteq {\cal X}_{i_1}$ be its Zariski closure, so in particular we have ${\cal Y}\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}_{i_1}$. Since $\Delta_{i_1}=\emptyset$, ${\cal Y}$ is either (1) a curve mapping onto $C$, or (2) a surface mapping to some irreducible component of $E_{i_1}$.
In situation (1), there exists a composition of blowing ups along closed points ${\cal X}_{i'_1}\rightarrow {\cal X}_{i_1}$ such that $\eta_{i'_1}({\cal Y}')$ has normal crossings with $E_{i'_1}$, where ${\cal Y}'$ denotes the strict transform of ${\cal Y}$ in ${\cal X}_{i'_1}$.
In situation (2), ${\cal Y}$ itself is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E_{i_1}$ and we let $i'_1:=i_1$.
In both situations, we may blow up ${\cal X}_{i'_1}$ along ${\cal Y}'$ and iterate: this produces an index $i_2 \geq i_1$ and a composition of Hironaka-permissible blowing ups ${\cal X}_{i_2}\rightarrow {\cal X}_{i_1}$ w.r.t. $E_{i_1}$ such that $\eta^{-1}(s)\cap \pi^{(i_2)}(\mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}_{i_2})=\emptyset$. Applying this construction to the finitely many irreducible components of $\eta ({\cal C})$ proves the lemma.
\[normalcrossings\] Let ${\cal X}'$ satisfy the conclusion of lemma \[imagepoints\] and $E' \subset {\cal S} '$ be the reduced exceptional divisor of $\sigma$. Let $D \subset {\cal S} '$ be a reduced divisor.
There exists a composition of Hironaka-permissible blowing ups (\[eq210\]) w.r.t. $E'$: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal X}' & {\buildrel \pi '\over \longleftarrow} & {\cal X}'' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
{\cal S}' & {\buildrel \sigma ' \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal S}''\\
\end{array}$$ such that the strict transform $D ''$ of $D$ is disjoint from $\eta ''(\mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}'')$, where $\eta '' : ({\cal X}'',x'') \rightarrow {\cal S} ''$ is the local projection at $x''\in \mathrm{Sing}_m{\cal X}''$.
We take ${\cal S}'=\mathrm{Spec}S$. The problem is to find a sequence (\[eq52\]) which monomializes $P:=\mathrm{I}(D)\subset S$, i.e. such that $P_n:=P{\cal O}_{{\cal S}_n}$ is a monomial with components at normal crossings with $E_n$.
Let us write $P_i:=H_iQ_i$ where $H_i$ is a monomial whose components are components of $E_i$. At the beginning, $H=H_0=1$. The strategy is to get $P_n=H_n$, $Q_n=1$ at the end.
We consider the idealistic exponents $(h,m)$ and $(Q,b)$ living in Spec$S[Z]$, where $b=$ord$_{m_S}(Q)$. We make a descending induction on $b$: the case $b=0$ means that we get the conclusion of \[normalcrossings\]. Each pair of blowing ups $\pi_i,\sigma_i$ is locally centered at some $Y_i$ and $\eta(Y_i)$ respectively, and is Hironaka-permissible for $h$ (resp. $Q_i$) w.r.t. $E_i$.
Let $P_{i+1}=:H_{i+1}Q_{i+1}$ where $Q_{i+1}$ is the strict transform of $Q_i$. This means that $(Q_{i+1},b)$ is the transform of $(Q_i,b)$. When ord$_{x_{i+1}}(Q_{i+1})<b$, we have strictly improved and we go on with the new idealistic exponent $(Q_{i+1},b')$, with $b':=$ord$_{x_{i+1}}(Q_{i+1})$. To define a sequence of $\sigma_i$ is a consequence of [@CoJS] [**Theorem 0.3**]{} (Canonical embedded resolution with boundary), the problem is the sequence of $\pi_i$, i.e. to define the pair $(\sigma_i,\pi_i)$.
To avoid cumbersome notations, from now on, $x_i,S_i,{\cal X}_i,$etc.$_i$ are denoted by $x,S,{\cal X},$etc. and $x_{i+1} ,S_{i+1} , {\cal X}_{i+1} ,$etc.$_{i+1}$ by $x',S',{\cal X}',$etc.$'$. Let us define $\mathrm{Vdir}(x,D)$ as $\mathrm{Vdir}(h)+\mathrm{Vdir}(Q)$. This is a vector space of codimension $\tau(x,D)$ in the Zariski’s tangent space of ${\cal X}$ at $x$. Of course, $\tau(x,D)\geq 2$.
\[directriceOK\] Let $\pi$ be the blowing up along $Y$ which is permissible for both $(h,m)$ and $(Q,b)$. Let $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$ be such that $m(x')=m(x)=m$ and ord$_{x'}Q'=b$. Then $x'$ is on $\mathbf{Proj}(S/ \mathrm{IDir}(x,D))$. In particular, $x'$ is on the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(Z)$.
By proposition \[conedirectrix\] and remark \[ridgedimthree\], we have $\mathrm{Dir}(F)=\mathrm{Max}(F)$ except if $p =2$ and $$\label{eqnormalcrossings}
F=\lambda (Z^2 + \lambda_2 U_1^2 +\lambda_1U_2^2+\lambda_1 \lambda_2U_3^2)^\alpha, \ [k^2(\lambda_1,\lambda_2):k^2]=4$$ up to a linear change of variables, $\lambda \neq 0$, $\alpha \geq 1$. Since $m(x')=m(x)$, we have $$x ':=V(U_1^2 +\lambda_1 U_3^2, U_2^2 +\lambda_2 U_3^2, Z^2 + \lambda_1\lambda_2U_3^2)$$ on ${\pi'}^{-1}(x)=\mathrm{Proj}(k[Z,U_1,U_2,U_3]/(F))$.
Since ord$_{x'}Q'=b$, the initial of $Q$ cannot satisfy (\[eqnormalcrossings\]) (only the last three variables occur). Therefore $$x'\in \mathbf{Proj}(S/ \mathrm{IDir}(h)) \cap \mathbf{Proj}(S/ \mathrm{IDir}(Q))
=\mathbf{Proj}(S/ \mathrm{IDir}(x,D)).$$
Let us come back to the proof of proposition \[normalcrossings\]. We discuss according to the value of $\tau(x,D)$.
When $\tau(x,D)= 4$, the blowing-up centered at $x$ makes $b$ strictly drop.
When $\tau(x,D)= 2$ or $3$, then, if we blow up along $x$, then $\tau(x',D') \geq \tau(x,D)$. In case $\tau(x,D)= 3$, we make only blowing ups at closed points. Either for some $n$, $(m(x_n),$ord$_{x_n}(Q_n))<_{\mathrm{lex}}(m,b)$, then we stop at this $n$; or we have equality for $n\geq 0$. Then, $\tau(x_n,D_n)= 3$, $n\geq 0$, by an usual argument, the $x_n$ are all on the strict transform of a curve $\cal{C}_n$ which, for $n>>0$ is permissible for both $(h,m)$ and $(Q,b)$ and $\eta(\cal{C}_n)$ is transverse to $E_n$. Then at step $n$ in (\[eq52\]), we blow up along $\cal{C}_n$. By lemma \[directriceOK\], $(m(x_{n+1}),$ord$_{x_{n+1}}(Q_{n+1}))<_{\mathrm{lex}}(m,b)$.
When $\tau(x,D)= 2$, we can choose $Z,u_3$ such that $$\mathrm{Vdir}(Q)=<U_3>,\ \mathrm{Vdir}(h)\equiv <Z>\ \mod(U_3).$$
\[normalcrossingsrem\] If there is a component $Y$ of dimension $2$ in $$\mathrm{Sing}(h,m)\cap \mathrm{Sing}(Q,b),$$ then we can choose the parameters so that $I(Y)=(Z,u_3)$. Then $Q\in(z,u_3)^b$, i.e. $Q=u_3^b$, up to multiplication by an invertible. Then, if $Y$ has normal crossing with $E$, we blow up along $Y$: $\pi$ is the blowing up along $Y$ and $\sigma$ is the identity. In fact in $S$, we just add $\eta(Y)=\div(u_3)$ to $E$ and we get $b=0$.
We also note that $(h,m)\cap(Q,b)=(hQ,m+b)$. In other words, we have $$\mathrm{Sing}(h,m)\cap \mathrm{Sing}(Q,b)=\mathrm{Sing}(hQ,m+b)$$ and permissible centers are the same for $(hQ,m+b)$ and for $(h,m)\cap(Q,b)$.
Then we apply those techniques from [@CoJS] [**10**]{}, [**11**]{}, [**12**]{}. More precisely, if for some $n_0$ the number $b$ just strictly drops, we call “old components” the components of $E_{n_0}$ at $x_{n_0}$ which are components of $H$ and, for $n\geq n_0$, at $x_{n}, n\geq n_0$ with $b(x_n)=b(x_{n_0})$, the strict transforms of this old components. The first step is to reach the case where $x_n$ is not on the strict transform of this old components: the invariant is $(m,b,o(x))$ where $o(x)$ is the number of these old components. In the language of idealistic exponents, we desingularize $(hQQ_O,mbo(x))$ where $Q_O$ is the equation of the reduced divisor whose components are the old ones. Then we look at the directrix of $hQQ_O$. When its codimension denoted by $\tau(hQQ_O)$ is $3$ or $4$, we play the same game that above with $\tau(x,D)= 3$ or $4$. We reach the case where $\tau(hQQ_O)=2$. This means that either $Q_O=1$ (no old component) or there is one old component which is tangent to $Q$.
Then we look at the characteristic polyhedron $\Delta( hQQ_0,z,u_3,u_1,u_2)$ as in [@CoJS] [**Section 7**]{}.
$\bullet$ Case $\Delta( hQQ_0,z,u_3,u_1,u_2)=\emptyset $. This is equivalent to $hQQ_0 \in (z,u_3)^{mbo(x)}$, i.e. this is equivalent to dim$(\mathrm{Sing}(hQQ_O,mbo(x))=2$. So $QQ_O=u_3^{mbo(x)}$, call $Y:=\V(z,u_3)$, in fact, at step $n_0$, as $b(x_0)=b(x)$, $Q$ was a $b(x_0)$ power and, if at $x$ there is one old component, it is a factor of $Q$: this is impossible, therefore $o(x)=0$.
So, at $x$, $E$ is a union of components which are exceptional divisors of the blowing ups $\sigma_n$, $n\geq n_0$. By [@CoJS][**Theorem 8.3**]{}, they are transverse to $u_3$: $Y$ is permissible for $(hQQ_O,mbo(x))$ and transverse to $E$. We apply the first statement of remark \[normalcrossingsrem\].
$\bullet$ Case where dim$(\mathrm{Sing}(hQQ_O,mbo(x))\leq 1$. Then, we apply [@CoJS] [**Theorem 5.28**]{} which gives the result if char$k(x)\geq 3$. This hypothesis $p\not=2$ is used just to get $\mathrm{Dir}(F)=\mathrm{Max}(F)$ at each step, but we showed above in lemma \[directriceOK\], that the only case where $\mathrm{Dir}(F)\not=\mathrm{Max}(F)$ stops after blowing up the closed point $x$.
\[EEfait\] Assume that $\mathrm{char}S/m_S=p>0$ and $(S,h)$ satisfies condition [**(G)**]{}. There exists a composition of Hironaka-permissible blowing ups (\[eq210\]) w.r.t. $E=\emptyset$: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal X}= & {\buildrel \pi '' \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal X}'' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
\mathrm{Spec}S & {\buildrel \sigma '' \over \longleftarrow} & {\cal S}''\\
\end{array}$$ such that $\eta ''(\mathrm{Sing}_p {\cal X}'')\subseteq {\sigma ''}^{-1}(m_S)$ and condition [**(E)**]{} holds at every $s' \in \eta ''(\mathrm{Sing}_p {\cal X}'')$, where $\eta '': {\cal X}''\rightarrow {\cal S}''$ is the projection.
This is a direct application of lemma \[imagepoints\] in the purely inseparable case ((iii) of condition [**(G)**]{}). If $\eta $ is separable and $\mathrm{car}S=p$, we apply proposition \[normalcrossings\] to the strict transform in ${\cal S}'$ of $D:=\mathrm{div}(\mathrm{Disc}_X(h))$ and the conclusion follows.
Assume that $\mathrm{char}S=0$. Let $D'_1$ be the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(p\mathrm{Disc}_X(h))$ in ${\cal S}'$ and $D'_2$ be the union of those components of $E'$ of characteristic zero. We apply proposition \[normalcrossings\] to $D:=D'_1\cup D'_2$. Let $E''$ be the exceptional divisor of $\sigma ''$ and $s' \in \eta ''(\mathrm{Sing}_p {\cal X}'')$. Since all blowing up centers of $\sigma '$ are Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E'$, they map to $\eta(x)$ and are thus of characteristic $p=\mathrm{char}S/m_S$. We deduce from proposition \[normalcrossings\] that any irreducible component of $E''$ passing through $s'$ has characteristic $p$ and that (ii) of definition \[conditionE\] holds.
Projection number $\kappa (x)\in \{1,2,3,4\}$, projection theorem.
==================================================================
Let $(S,h,E)$ satisfy assumptions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{}. In this section, we perform induction on the dimension $\mathrm{dim}S[Z]=4$ of the ambient space of ${\cal X}$, [*vid.*]{} introduction. This step is for now far out of reach in higher dimensions and little more than definitions could be stated. We reduce theorem \[luthm\] to theorem \[projthm\] below (corollary \[projthmcor\]) which is proved in the next sections.
Projection number $\kappa (x)$.
-------------------------------
For $y \in {\cal X}$, $s:=\eta (y)\in \mathrm{Spec}S$, the assignment $\kappa (y)\geq 2$ has sofar been used to express $\kappa (y)\neq 1$; we now distinguish $\kappa (y)=2,3,4$ when ($\omega (y)>0$, $\kappa (y)\geq 2$). This completes our definition of the complexity function (\[eq251\]): $$\iota : {\cal X} \rightarrow \{1,\ldots ,p\}\times \N \times \{1,\ldots ,4\},
y \mapsto (m(y), \omega (y), \kappa (y)).$$ The projection number $\kappa (y)$ expresses the transverseness of $\mathrm{Vdir}(y)$ w.r.t. $E_s$. We claim no further invariance property w.r.t. regular local base change than that of theorem \[omegageomreg\] when $\kappa (y)\geq 2$.
Since our assumptions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{} are stable when changing $(S,h,E)$ to $(S_s,h_s,E_s)$ (notation \[notaprime\]), we may assume that $s=m_S$. The following definition is for codimension three, the remark afterwards for codimension two. One has $\omega (y)=\epsilon (y)=0$ in codimension one. We denote $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e)$ as before.
\[defkappa\]**(Projection Number).** Assume that $m(x)=p$, $\omega (x)>0$ and $\kappa (x)\geq 2$, where $\eta^{-1}(m_S)=\{x\}$. We let $$\label{eq401}
\kappa (x):=4 \ \mathrm{if} \ \mathrm{Vdir}(x)\subseteq <U_1, \ldots ,U_e>.$$
Assume now that $\kappa (x)\neq 4$. We let $\kappa (x):=3$ if ($\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$ and one of the following conditions is satisfied):
- $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and there exists well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2 ,u_3;Z)$ at $x$ such that $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x)\subseteq <U_1,U_3> \ \mathrm{and} \ H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_2 }\subseteq <U_1^{\omega (x)}>;$$
- $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$.
Finally, we let $\kappa (x):=2$ if $\kappa (x)\neq 3,4$.
\[defkapparem\] When $\mathrm{dim}{\cal O}_{{\cal X},y}=2$, $m(y)=p$, $\omega (y)>0$ and $\kappa (y)\geq 2$, we define: if $E_s=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, let $\kappa (y):=4$; if $E_s=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, let: $$\kappa (y):=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
2 & \mathrm{if} & \omega (y)=\epsilon (y) \ \mathrm{and} \ \mathrm{Vdir}(y)\nsubseteq <U_1> \\
3 & \mathrm{if} & \omega (y)=\epsilon (y)-1 \hfill{}\\
4 & \mathrm{if} & \omega (y)=\epsilon (y) \ \mathrm{and} \ \mathrm{Vdir}(y) = <U_1>
\end{array}
\right .
.$$
Projection theorem.
-------------------
We now turn to the statement of the projection theorem. We assume that $\omega (x)>0$, so $({\cal X},x)$ is (analytically) irreducible by theorem \[initform\]. Let $\mu$ be valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. We will consider finite sequences of local blowing ups along $\mu$: $$\label{eq402}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)$$ with Hironaka-permissible centers ${\cal Y}_i \subset ({\cal X}_i,x_i)$, where $x_i$, $0 \leq i \leq r$, denotes the center of $\mu$. We require that our assumptions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{} be preserved by such blowing ups and that $$(m(x_i),\omega (x_i))\leq (m(x_{i-1}),\omega (x_{i-1})), \ 1 \leq i \leq r.$$ This certainly holds when the blowing up centers are permissible of the first or second kind by proposition \[Estable\] and theorem \[bupthm\]. Another example is blowing up along codimension one centers of the form $V(Z,u_j)$ with $d_j\leq 1$, $1 \leq j \leq e$. In chapter 8, we will use another kind of Hironaka-permissible blowing up with the same property. We recall that all permissibility conditions (definitions \[Hironakapermis\], \[deffirstkind\] and \[defsecondkind\]) always refer to the reduced total transform $E_i$ of $E$ in $S_i$, where there are projections $$\eta_i : ({\cal X}_i,x_i) \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S_i, \ 0 \leq i \leq r.$$ Similarly, $\omega (x_i), \epsilon (x_i), \kappa (x_i)$ are always computed w.r.t. $E_i$.
Finally, we emphasize that we do [*not*]{} require any particular behavior about the numbers $\kappa (x_i)$ [*along*]{} the process (\[eq402\]). Our goal is to [*eventually*]{} achieve $\kappa (x_r)<\kappa (x)$ and we may have $\kappa (x_i)>\kappa (x)$ for some $i$, $1 \leq i < r$.
\[defgood\] Assume that $m(x)=p$ and $\omega (x)>0$. Given any finite sequence (\[eq402\]), we say that $x_r$ is [*very near*]{} $x$ if $\iota (x_r)\geq \iota (x)$.
Let $a\in \{1, \ldots ,4\}$. We say that $x$ is [*resolved for*]{} $(p, \omega (x), a)$ (resp. [*resolved for*]{} $m(x)=p$) if for every valuation $\mu$ of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$, there exists a finite and independent sequence (\[eq402\]) such that $\iota (x_r)<(p,\omega (x),a)$ (resp. $m(x_r)<p$). We simply say that $x$ is [*good*]{} if $x$ is resolved for $\iota (x)$.
The following projection theorem is proved in the next sections: corollary \[projthmkappa1\], theorem \[proofkkappa2\], theorem \[proofkappa34\], [*ibid.*]{}, for $\kappa (x)=1,2,3,4$ respectively.
\[projthm\]**(Projection Theorem).** Assume that $(S,h,E)$ satisfies assumption [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{}, with $m(x)=p$ and $\omega (x)>0$.
For every valuation $\mu$ of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$, there exists a finite and independent composition of local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups (\[eq402\]) such that $\iota(x_r)<\iota (x)$, i.e. $x$ is good.
\[projthmcor\] Theorems \[mainthm\] and \[luthm\] hold true.
Theorem \[mainthm\] has been reduced to theorem \[luthm\] for residually algebraic valuations, propositions \[redtoLU\] and \[redtoLUcyclic\]. By corollary \[EEfait\], it can be furthermore assumed that condition [**(E)**]{} is satisfied. Theorem \[luthm\] is then an immediate consequence of [@CoP4] Main Theorem 1.3 ($m(x)<p$), theorem \[omegazero\] ($(m(x),\omega (x))=(p,0)$) and theorem \[projthm\].
\[quadsequence\] Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$ and consider an independent sequence of local blowing ups (definition \[indepseq\]) $$({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)\leftarrow \cdots$$ along $\mu$. For example, the quadratic sequence along $\mu$ is an independent sequence.
Then $x$ is resolved for $(p,\omega (x),a)$ if for every $\mu$, there exists some $r=r(\mu)\geq 0$ such that $x_r$ is resolved for $(p,\omega (x),a)$ (the converse follows from definition \[defgood\] with $r(\mu)=0$ for every $\mu$). This fact is used all along the next chapters, [*vid.*]{} chapter 7 for $a=2$ and chapter 8 for $a=3$.
\[tausup2\] With assumptions as in theorem \[projthm\], assume furthermore that $\mathrm{Max}(\mathrm{in}h) \neq \mathrm{Dir}(\mathrm{in}h)$, where $\mathrm{in}h \in k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3,Z]_p$ is the initial form of $h$ (proposition \[conedirectrix\]). Then $\kappa (x)\geq 2$ and $x$ is resolved for $(p,\omega (x),2)$.
By remark \[ridgedimthree\], the assumption holds only if $p=2$ and $$\mathrm{in}h =Z^2 +F, \ F:= \lambda_2 U_1^2 +\lambda_1U_2^2+\lambda_1 \lambda_2U_3^2$$ with $[k(x)^2(\lambda_1,\lambda_2):k(x)^2]=4$ up to a linear change of variables. We have $H(x)=(1)$, $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)=2$ and $\kappa (x)=4$ (resp. $\kappa (x)=2$) if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ (resp. otherwise). Since $$J(F,E,x)=<{\partial F \over \partial \lambda_2}, {\partial F \over \partial \lambda_1}>
=<U_1^2 +\lambda_1 U_3^2, U_2^2 +\lambda_2 U_3^2>,$$ we have $\tau '(x)=3$. Let ${\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along $x$ and $x'\in \pi^{-1}(x)$. Since $\tau '(x)=3$, we have $\iota (x')\leq (2,2,1)$ by theorem \[bupthm\].
Maximal contact, resolution of $\kappa (x)=1$. {#contactmaximal}
==============================================
We assume in the whole section that $(S,h,E)$ satisfies conditions [**(G)**]{} and [**(E)**]{}. We consider here any refinement ${\cal C}$ of the function $x\mapsto (m(x),\omega (x))$ on ${\cal X}$.
Fix an irreducible component $\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E$. Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. We consider in this chapter finite sequences (\[eq402\]) of local blowing ups along $\mu$: $$\label{contactmaxeq1}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) ,$$ with [*permissible centers of the first kind*]{} ${\cal Y}_i \subset ({\cal X}_i,x_i)$, where $x_i$, $0 \leq i \leq r$, denotes the center of $\mu$. It is furthermore assumed that
\(1) $\eta_i({\cal Y}_i)$ belongs to the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ in $\mathrm{Spec}S_i$, where $$\eta_i : \ ({\cal X}_i,x_i) \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S_i$$ is the projection, [*vid.*]{} proposition \[Hironakastable\], and
\(2) ${\cal C}$ is not increasing along (\[contactmaxeq1\]), i.e. ${\cal C}(x_i)\leq {\cal C}(x_{i-1})$, $1 \leq i \leq r$.
\[Maximalcontact\] We say that div$(u_1)\subseteq E \subset {\cal X}$ has “maximal contact” (resp. “weak maximal contact”) for some refinement ${\cal C}$ if for every $\mu$, any sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]) (resp. the quadratic sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]) with ${\cal Y}_i:=\{x_i\}$) satisfies the following: $$\label{definitionC}
{\cal C} (x_r)={\cal C} (x) \Longrightarrow x_r \ \mathrm{maps} \ \mathrm{to} \ \mathrm{the} \
\mathrm{strict} \ \mathrm{transform} \ \mathrm{of} \ \mathrm{div}(u_1).$$
\[remC\] Take ${\cal C}=\iota$, where $\kappa (x)=1$. Then $\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E$ has maximal contact for ${\cal C}$ if $U_1$ divides $H^{-1}G^p$, with notations as in definition \[defomega\]. This follows from theorem \[bupthm\].
The purpose of this section is to prove theorem \[contactmaxFIN\] below: the value ${\cal C}(x)$ of any such refinement can be lowered by permissible blowing ups of the first kind. A direct application proves theorem \[projthm\] for $\kappa (x)=1$. Further applications are given in chapter 8. The proof of this theorem uses a secondary invariant $\gamma (x)\in \N$ which is defined and studied afterwards, [*viz.*]{} (\[eq6022\]) and (\[eq6031\]).
\[contactmaxFIN\] Assume that div$(u_1)$ has maximal contact for $\cal C$. Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$, where $m(x)=p$ and $\omega (x)>0$. There exists a finite and independent composition of local permissible blowing ups of the first kind: $$\label{eqcontactmax2}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) ,$$ where $x_i \in {\cal X}_i$ is the center of $\mu$, such that ${\cal C} (x_r)<{\cal C} (x)$ or $x_r$ is resolved for $m(x)=p$.
By proposition \[omegapositiveclosed\], the set $$\Omega_+ ({\cal X}):=\{y \in {\cal X} : (m(y), \omega (y))> (p,0)\}\subseteq {\cal X}$$ is Zariski closed and of dimension at most one. By performing the quadratic sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]), it can be assumed that there exist well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ at $x$ such that any one dimensional irreducible component ${\cal Y}$ of $\Omega_+ ({\cal X})$, with $\eta ({\cal Y})$ contained in $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ either:
\(a) maps to an intersection of components of $E$, i.e. $$\eta ({\cal Y})=V(Z,u_1,u_j), \ \mathrm{div}(u_j)\subseteq E, \ j\geq 2, \ \mathrm{or}$$ (b) $\eta ({\cal Y})=V(Z,u_1,u_3)$, $E\subseteq \mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$.
Furthermore, there exists at most one ${\cal Y}$ satisfying (b) and such ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind by proposition \[permisarc\](1). Let ${\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along such ${\cal Y}$. Replacing $({\cal X},x)$ by $({\cal X}',x')$, where $x'$ is the center of $\mu$, we may therefore assume that any one dimensional irreducible component ${\cal Y}$ of $\Omega_+ ({\cal X})$, with $\eta ({\cal Y})$ contained in $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, satisfies (a) above.
Consider now the quadratic sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]) and apply proposition \[contactmaxeclatpoint\] below. If alternative (ii) of that proposition holds, the theorem follows from proposition \[permisarc\](2), since the conclusion of proposition \[permisarc\](1) does not hold by the above preparation of $\Omega_+ ({\cal X})$. Assume then that alternative (i) of proposition \[contactmaxeclatpoint\] holds. Then the conclusion follows from proposition \[contactmaxpetitgamma\] below.
\[projthmkappa1\] Projection Theorem \[projthm\] holds when $\kappa (x)=1$.
The arguments are quite similar to [@CoP2] chapter 4 pages 1957 and following and we sketch the argument below. This section may serve as an introduction to the more involved material in the next chapter.
\[betagammamaxcontact\]
By definition of maximal contact or weak maximal contact, we may assume that $\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)\subseteq E$.
[*Cases 1 and 2:*]{} $\epsilon(x)=\omega(x)$ and ($E=\div(u_1 u_2)$ or $E=\div(u_1 u_2 u_3)$ respectively). Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates. Consider the characteristic polyhedron $$\Delta_S(h; u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\subset \R^3_{\geq 0}$$ in the affine space with origin $\mathbf{v}_0:=(d_1+\omega(x)/p,d_2,d_3))$. Perform the stereographic projection $\mathbf{p}'_2$ from $\mathbf{v}_0$ on the plane $x_1=0$, followed by the homothety of center $(0,0)$ and ratio ${p \over \omega(x)}$. Let $\mathbf{p}_2$ be the resulting map. Analytically, we have: $$\label{eq602}
\mathbf{p}_2 : \ (x_1,x_2,x_3) \mapsto (y_2,y_3):={1\over {\omega (x)\over p}-(x_1-d_1)}(x_2-d_2,x_3-d_3).$$
We denote for simplicity $$\label{eq6021}
\Delta_2 (x):= \mathbf{p}'_2 (\Delta(h; u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\cap \{0\leq x_1 -d_1 <\omega (x)/ p\}).$$ There are associated invariants: $$\label{eq6023}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
A_j(x) & := & \inf \ \{ y_j \ \vert \ (y_2,y_3)\in \Delta_2 (x)\} \hfill{} \\
B(x) & := & \inf \ \{ y_2+y_3\ \vert \ (x_2,x_3)\in \Delta_2(x)\} \hfill{} \\
C(x) & := & B(x)-A_2(x)-A_3(x)\geq 0 \hfill{}\\
\beta (x) & := & \inf \ \{y_3\ \vert \ (A_2(x),y_3)\in \Delta_2 (x)\} \hfill{}\\
\beta_2 (x) & := & \sup \ \{ y_3 \ \vert \ (y_2,y_3)\in \Delta_2 (x), y_2+y_3=B(x)\} \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
When $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, we take as a convention in these formul[æ]{} that $A_3(x)=0$. The main secondary invariant is: $$\label{eq6022}
\gamma(x) := \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
{\max}\{1, \lceil \beta (x) \rceil \} & \mathrm{if} & E= \mathrm{div}(u_1 u_2) \\
& \\
1+\lfloor C(x) \rfloor & \mathrm{if} & E= \mathrm{div}(u_1 u_2u_3)\\
\end{array}
\right.
. \hfill{}$$
Note that $\Delta_2 (x)\neq \emptyset$: this follows from (\[eq602\]) and the definition of $d_1$. Therefore $$A_2 (x),A_3(x), B(x)< +\infty.$$ It is easily seen that $\Delta_2 (x)\subseteq \R^2_{\geq 0}$ is a polygon. Since all vertices of $\Delta_S(h; u_1,u_2,u_3;X) - (d_1,d_2,d_3)$ have module at least ${\epsilon(x) \over p}$, we have $B(x)\geq 1$.
[*Case 3:*]{} $\epsilon(x)=1+\omega(x)$, $E=\div(u_1u_2)$. The definition is the same as in cases 1 and 2 except that $\mathbf{v}_0$ is replaced by $\mathbf{v}'_0:=(d_1+\omega(x)/p,d_2,1/p))$. Analytically, we have: $$\label{eq603}
\mathbf{p}_2 : \ (x_1,x_2,x_3) \mapsto (y_2,y_3):={1\over {\omega (x)\over p}-(x_1-d_1)}(x_2-d_2,x_3-1/p).$$ Note that the image set $\Delta_2(x)$ defined by (\[eq6021\]) may contain points with negative third coordinate. The invariants $A_2 (x)$, $B(x)$, $C(x):=B(x)-A_2(x)$ and $\beta (x)$ are defined as in cases 1 and 2. We let: $$\label{eq6031}
\gamma (x):= \max\{1 +\lfloor \beta (x) \rfloor ,1\}.$$
These definitions depend in principle on $(u_1,u_2,u_3)$, but certainly not on $Z$ such that $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates. Indeed, the above definition are given in terms of $\Delta(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$. It can be proved that the numbers $A_j (x)$, $B(x)$, $C(x)$, $\beta (x)$ and $\gamma (x)$ are actually independent of $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ once the numbering of the components of $E$ is fixed. We skip this fact here and refer to the next chapter (theorem \[well2prepared\] and definition \[definvariants2\] in particular) for similar issues.
\[calculB\] The numbers $B(x),A_j(x)$ can be computed directly from the equation $h$.
In cases 1-2, let $(a,b)$ be positive real numbers such that $$a(d_1+{\omega(x) \over p})+b(d_2+d_3)=1$$ with the convention $d_3=0$ when div$(u_3)\not\subseteq E$. Define a monomial valuation $v_{(a,b,b)}$ on $S[Z]$ by setting weights: $$v_{(a,b,b)}(u_1)=a, \ v_{(a,b,b)}(u_2)=v_{(a,b,b)}(u_3)=b, \ v_{(a,b,b)}(Z)=1.$$ Then $$B(x)=\sup\{ {a \over b} \vert v_{(a,b,b)}(h)=p \}.$$ The pair $(a,b)$ giving the sup above is said to “define $B(x)$” ([*viz.*]{} [@CoP2] theorem [**I.4**]{}, equation (3) page 1962). As $B(x)\geq 1$, we have $a\geq b$. We denote: $$\label{eq6032}
H_B:=\clin_ {v_{(a,b,b)}}(h)=Z^p+\sum_{1\leq i \leq p} \Phi_i Z^{p-i} , \Phi_i \in k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3],$$ where $(a,b)$ “defines $B(x)$”. By theorem \[initform\], we have $\Phi_i=0$, $1 \leq i \leq p-2$ and $-\Phi_{p-1}=G^{p-1}$ where $G$ is a constant times a monomial in $U_1,\ldots ,U_e$. We expand the corresponding initial form as in (\[eq6032\]) and let $$\label{eqcontactmax12}
U_1^{-pd1}U_2^{-pd_2}U_3^{-pd_3}\Phi_p=\lambda U_1 ^{\omega(x)} +\sum_{i=1}^{\omega(x)} U_1 ^{\omega(x)-i} F_i(U_2,U_3),
\ \lambda \in k(x),$$ where $F_i\in k(x)[U_2,U_3]$ is homogeneous of degree $iB(x)$.
More generally, let $\sigma_2$ be a compact face of $\Delta_2 (x)$. The topological closure of the set $$\sigma:=\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\cap \mathbf{p}_2^{-1}(\sigma_2)$$ is a compact face of $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ defined by a weight vector $\alpha:=\alpha_{\sigma_2}$. The corresponding initial form polynomial is written $$\label{eq6034}
H_{\alpha}=Z^p+\sum_{1\leq i \leq p} \Phi_{i,\alpha} Z^{p-i} , \Phi_{i,\alpha} \in \mathrm{gr}_\alpha (S),$$
In case 3, there exists a unique compact face $\sigma \subset \Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ whose image by $\mathbf{p}_2$ is the face $y_1+y_2=B(x)$, maximal for this property. For $B(x)=1$, $$\sigma_{\mathrm{in}}:=\{\mathbf{x}\in \R^3_{\geq 0}: x_1+x_2+x_3=\delta (x)\}$$ obviously has this property. For $B(x)> 1$, we expand the corresponding initial form as in (\[eq6032\]) and let $$\label{eqcontactmax3*}
U_1^{-pd1}U_2^{-pd_2}\Phi_p=U_1 ^{\omega(x)} ( \lambda_3 U_3+ \lambda_2 U_2)
+\sum_{i=1}^{\omega(x)} U_1 ^{\omega(x)-i} F_i(U_2,U_3),$$ with $\lambda_2 ,\lambda_3\in k(x)$, $F_i\in k(x)[U_2,U_3]$ homogeneous of degree $1+iB(x)$.
In cases 1-2-3, let $(a,b)$ be positive real numbers such that $$a(d_1+{\omega(x) \over p})+bd_2=1.$$ We have similarly: $$A_2(x)= \sup\{ {a \over b} \vert v_{(a,b,0)}(h)=p \},$$ this suitable pair $(a,b)$ is also said to “define $A_2(x)$”. We denote: $$\label{eq6033}
H_{2}=\clin_ {v_{(a,b,0)}}(h)=Z^p+\sum_{1\leq i \leq p} \phi_i Z^{p-i} , \phi_i \in {S \over (u_1,u_2)}[U_1,U_2],$$ where $(a,b)$ “defines $A_2(x)$”([@CoP2] theorem [**I.4**]{}, valuation $\mu_1$ on page 1962). We expand the $\phi_i$, $1\leq i \leq p$: $$\phi_i= \sum_{j=0}^{\omega (x)} U_1^j U_2^{b(i,j)} \phi_{i,j},\ b(i,j)={i\over b}-jA_2(x) ,
\ \phi_{i,j}\in {S \over (u_1,u_2)},$$ where ${1\over b}=1+(d_1+\omega(x))A_2(x)$.
All proofs are based on the following elementary lemma:
\[lem532\] Let $(R,\frak{m},k)$ be a regular local ring of dimension two, $\frak{m}=(v_1,v_2)$, $\mathrm{char}k=p>0$. Let $f\in R$ with initial form $$\mathrm{in}_{\frak{m}}f=V_1^{a_1}V_2^{a_2}F(V_1,V_2)\in G(\frak{m}), \ \mathrm{in}_{\frak{m}}f\not\in G(\frak{m})^p.$$ Let furthermore $P(t)\in R[t]$ be monic of degree $d\geq 1$ with irreducible residue $\overline{P}(t)\in k[t]$, $$R':=R\left \lbrack{v_2 \over v_1}\right \rbrack_{(v_1,v'_2)}, \ v'_2:=P \left ({v_2 \over v_1}\right )$$ and define: $$a':=\max_{g'\in R'}\{\mathrm{ord}_{v_1}(f-{g'}^p)\},
\ e':=\max_{g'\in R'}\{\mathrm{ord}_{\overline{v}'_2}(v_1^{-a'}(f-{g'}^p) : \mathrm{ord}_{v_1}(f-{g'}^p)=a'\}.$$ The following hold:
- $a'=a_1+a_2$, $e'\leq 1+\lfloor {\mathrm{deg}F \over d}\rfloor$; if equality holds, then $\mathrm{deg}F/ d \in \N$, $a'/p \in \N$, $e'/ p\not \in\N$, and $$J(\mathrm{in}_{\frak{m}}f, \mathrm{div}(v_1v_2),\frak{m})=
<\left ( V_1^d P \left ({V_2 \over V_1}\right )\right )^{{\mathrm{deg}F \over d}}>;$$
- if $a_2=0$, then $e'\leq \max\{\mathrm{deg}F,1\}$. Equality holds only if $\mathrm{deg}F\leq 1$ or $d=1$.
Identical to [@CoP2] [**II.5.3.2**]{} on p. 1862. Note that it is not necessary to assume $R$ excellent.
Now we follow [@CoP2] chapter 4. Consider the blowing up $\pi: \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ at $x$ and let $x'\in \pi^{-1}(x)$ be a closed point, with $d:=[k(x'):k(x)]$. Following [@CoP2] Theorem [**I.4**]{} on p.1962, we have:
\[eclatpointcas12\] With hypotheses and notations as above, assume that $x$ is in case 1-2. Let $(u_1,u_2;u_3,Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and assume furthermore that $$\eta '(x')\in \mathrm{Spec}(S[{u_1\over u_2},{u_3\over u_2}][Z']/(h')), \ h':=u_2^{-p}h, \ Z':={Z \over u_2}.$$ If ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$, we have: $$\label{eq604}
A_2(x')=B(x)-1, \ \gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x),$$ and there exist well adapted coordinates $(u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ at $x'$ such that the following holds:
- if $x'=(Z/u_2,u'_1,u_2,u_3/u_2)$, then $x'$ is again in case 1-2 and $$C(x')\leq C(x), \ \beta(x')\leq \beta(x);$$
- if $x'\neq (Z/u_2,u'_1,u_2,u_3/u_2)$, then $x'$ is in case 1 or 3. We have $$\label{eq6041}
\beta (x') \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
1+ \lfloor {C(x)\over d}\rfloor \hfill{}& \mathrm{if} \ x' \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ 1 \\
& \\
{C(x)\over d} & \mathrm{if} \ x' \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ 3 \\
\end{array}
\right.
,$$ and $\Phi_{p-1}\neq 0$ implies $\beta (x')=0$ (resp. $\beta (x')<0$) if $x'$ is in case 1 (resp. in case 3).
If moreover $x$ is in case 1 and $\beta (x)>0$, we have $$\label{eq6042}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\beta (x') \leq \beta (x) \hfill{}& \mathrm{if} \ x' \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ 1 \\
& \\
\beta (x')<\beta (x) & \mathrm{if} \ x' \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ 3 \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ Furthermore, $x'$ is in case 3 only if $k(x')$ is inseparable over $k(x)$ (in particular $p$ divides $d$).
Statement (1) is an easy application of proposition \[originchart\]. For (2), we apply lemma \[lem532\] to the initial form polynomial $H_B$ in (\[eq6032\]), where $\Phi_i=0$, $1 \leq i\leq p-2$ and $\Phi_p$ is given by (\[eqcontactmax3\*\]). The initial form polynomial $H_2$ in (\[eq6033\]) at $x'$ has $A_1(x')=B(x)-1$. The upper bounds (\[eq6041\]) and (\[eq6042\]) follow from lemma \[lem532\] and the self evident $$1+ \left \lfloor {jC(x) \over d} \right \rfloor \leq j(1 + \left \lfloor {C(x) \over d} \right \rfloor ), \ j\geq 1.$$ The inequality in (\[eq604\]) then follows from definitions (\[eq6022\]) and (\[eq6031\]).
If $\Phi_{p-1}\neq 0$, it is a monomial in $U_1, U_2$ (case 1) or in in $U_1, U_2,U_3$ (case 2) by theorem \[initform\] and the conclusion follows.
Finally, assume that $x$ is in case 1 and $x'$ in case 3. By theorem \[omegageomreg\], we may furthermore assume that $k(x')=k(x)$ if $k(x')$ is separable over $k(x)$. But then $x'$ is in case 1 by (1) and the conclusion follows.
Following now [@CoP2] Theorem [**I.5**]{} on page 1964:
\[eclatpointcas3\] With hypotheses and notations as above, assume that $x$ is in case 3. Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and assume furthermore that $$\eta '(x')\in \mathrm{Spec}(S[{u_1\over u_2},{u_3\over u_2}][Z']/(h')), \ h':=u_2^{-p}h, \ Z':={Z \over u_2}.$$ If ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$, we have $$A_2(x')=B(x)-1, \ \gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x),$$ and there exist well adapted coordinates $(u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ at $x'$ such that the following holds:
- if $x'$ is in case 1, then $$\beta (x')\leq {\gamma(x) \over d} +1;$$
- if $x'$ is in case 3, then $$\beta (x')\leq \max\{\beta (x),0\}$$ and $\beta (x')< \beta (x)$ if ($k(x')\neq k(x)$ and $\beta (x)> 0$);
Moreover, $\Phi_{p-1}\neq 0$ implies $\beta (x')=0$ (resp. $\beta (x')<0$) if $x'$ is in case 1 (resp. in case 3).
We apply lemma \[lem532\] to the initial form polynomial $H_2$ in (\[eq6032\]). The initial form polynomial $H_2$ in (\[eq6033\]) at $x'$ has $A_1(x')=B(x)-1$ and the upper bounds for $\beta (x')$ follow from lemma \[lem532\].
By (\[eq6031\]), note that $$\mathrm{deg} F_i(U_2,U_3) -jA_2(x)\leq i\gamma (x)$$ in (\[eqcontactmax3\*\]) whenever $F_i(U_2,U_3)\neq 0$. One deduces the upper bounds $\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$ if $\beta (x)\geq 0$ as well as the sharper bound in (1) for $\gamma (x)\geq 2$, $d\geq 2$.
If $\Phi_{p-1}\neq 0$, it is a monomial in $U_1, U_2$ by theorem \[initform\] and the conclusion follows.
Following [@CoP2] lemma [**I.5.3**]{} on page 1966:
\[eclatpointcas3infiny\] With hypotheses and notations as above, let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and assume furthermore that $$x'=(Z':=Z/u_3,u'_1:=u_1/u_3,u'_2:=u_2/u_3,u_3).$$ If ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$, then $x'$ is in case 2, $(u'_1,u'_2,u_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$, $$A_3(x')=B(x)-1, \ \beta (x')=A_2(x)+\beta (x)-1, \ \gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x),$$ and the following holds:
- if $x$ is in case 1, then $C(x')\leq \min\{\beta (x)-C(x),C(x)\}$;
- if $x$ is in case 2, we have $C(x')\leq \min\{\beta (x) -A_2(x) -C(x),C(x)\}$.
- if $x$ is in case 3, we have $C(x')\leq \min\{\beta (x)-C(x), C(x)-\beta_2(x)\}$.
This relies on the characteristic free proposition \[originchart\]. The argument in [@CoP2] lemma [**I.5.3**]{} on page 1966 gives all statements except “$\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$”.
Finally, $\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$ is a trivial consequence of the definitions (\[eq6022\]) and (\[eq6031\]) except if ($x$ is in case 3 and $C(x)<0$). But then $\beta_2(x)=-1/i$ for some $i$, $1\leq i\leq \omega (x)$ and (3) gives $$C(x')\leq C(x)-\beta_2(x)<1,$$ so $\gamma (x')\leq 1$ as required.
We now go ahead to prove theorem \[contactmaxFIN\]. The key lemma goes as follows:
\[lemC=1\] Assume that div$(u_1)$ has weak contact maximal for $\cal C$. Let $\mu$ be valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$ and consider the quadratic sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]) along $\mu$, i.e. with ${\cal Y}_i=\{x_i\}$ for every $i\geq 0$.
Assume that one of the following holds:
- $x$ is in case 1 with: $\beta (x)=2$ and $$\Phi_{p,\alpha}=\sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)}U_1^{\omega (x)-i}\Phi_{p,\alpha ,i}(U_2,U_3)$$ has $\Phi_{p,\alpha ,1}\neq 0$ with notations as in (\[eq6034\]), where $\sigma_2:=\{(A_1(x),2)\}$;
- $x$ is in case 3 with $\beta (x)=1$.
Assume furthermore that $x_1= (Z':=Z/u_3,u'_1:=u_1/u_3,u'_2:=u_2/u_3,u_3)$, ${\cal C}(x_1)={\cal C}(x)$ and $\gamma (x_1)=2$. Then ${\cal C}(x_2)<{\cal C}(x)$ or $\gamma (x_2)=1$.
Note that $x_1$ is in case 2 with $\gamma (x_1)=2$ by assumption. By proposition \[eclatpointcas3infiny\], we get $A_2(x_1)=A_2(x)$ and respectively:
\(1) $C(x)=C(x_1)=1$, $A_3(x_1)=A_2(x)$, $\beta (x_1)=A_2(x)+1$;
\(2) $C(x)=0$, $\beta_2(x)=-1$, $C(x_1)=1$, $A_3(x_1)=A_2(x)-1$, $\beta (x_1)=A_2(x)$.
These facts furthermore imply that $$\Delta_2(x_1)=\{(y_1,y_2)\in \R^2_{\geq 0} : y_1+y_2\geq 1\}.$$ We are done by proposition \[eclatpointcas3infiny\] if $x_2$ is again in case 2. Otherwise, we may assume that ${\cal C}(x_2)={\cal C}(x)$ and apply proposition \[eclatpointcas12\] to estimate $\gamma (x_2)$. We get $\gamma (x_2)=1$ if $k(x_2)\neq k(x)$ by (1) of this proposition.
Assume that $k(x_2)= k(x)$. We claim that the following sharper bound holds, which concludes the proof: $$\label{eq6043}
\beta (x_2)\leq 1 \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ \beta (x_2)\leq 0)$$ if $x_2$ is in case 1 (resp. in case 3).
There are associated $d'_1,d'_2,d'_3 \in 1/p\N$ at $x_1$ with $d'_1=d_1$, $d'_2=d_2$ and $$d'_3=d_1+d_2-1 +{\omega (x) \over p} \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ d'_3=d_1+d_2-1 +{1+\omega (x) \over p})$$ if $x$ is in case 1 (resp. in case 3).
Under assumption (1), the initial form (\[eqcontactmax12\]) at $x_1$ has $F_1(U'_2,U_3)\neq 0$ and is of the form $$F_1(U'_2,U_3)={U'_2}^{a_2}U_3^{a_3}F(U'_2,U_3),$$ where $a_2\geq A_2(x)$, $a_3\geq A_3(x)$, and either $F\in k(x)$ or $$\label{eq6044}
a_2=a_3=A_2(x_1)\in \N \ \mathrm{and} \ F=\lambda_2U'_2+\lambda_3U_3, \ \lambda_3\neq 0.$$
By lemma \[lem532\](1) with $d=1$, we get (\[eq6043\]) provided $$d'_1 +(\omega (x)-1)/p \not\in\N \ \mathrm{or} \ d'_2+d'_3 + {A_2(x_1)+A_3(x_1)+1 \over p}\not \in \N.$$ When this fails to hold, we have (\[eq6044\]) with $\lambda_2 \neq 0$ and $$\label{eq6045}
d_1 +(\omega (x)-1)/p \in\N , \ 2(d_2+{A_2(x)+1 \over p}) \in \N$$ by the above calculations. Furthermore, $p\geq 3$ (statement $e'/p \not \in \N$ in lemma \[lem532\](1)). We deduce that $d_2+{A_2(x)+1 \over p} \in \N$, which in turn implies that $$U'_2 \in J({U'_2}^{pd_2 +A_2(x_1)}U_3^{pd'_3 +A_2(x_1)}F(U'_2,U_3), \mathrm{div}(u'_2u_3),\frak{m})$$ with notations as in lemma \[lem532\](1), applying $U_3{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_3}$. Then equality is strict in lemma \[lem532\](1) and the conclusion follows.
Under assumption (2), note that since $\beta_2(x)=-1$ we necessarily have $F_1(U'_2,U_3)\neq 0$ or $${H}^{-1}G^p =<{U_1}^{\omega (x)-1}U_2^{1+A_2(x)}>.$$ In the former case, the proof is parallel to that under assumption (1), exchanging the roles of $U'_2, U_3$; in the latter case, we conclude from proposition \[eclatpointcas12\] with $\Phi_{p-1}\neq 0$.
\[contactmaxeclatpoint\] Assume that div$(u_1)$ has weak maximal contact for $\cal C$. Let $\mu$ be valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$ and consider the quadratic sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]) along $\mu$, i.e. with ${\cal Y}_i=\{x_i\}$ for every $i\geq 0$.
If ${\cal C}(x_i)={\cal C}(x)$ for every $i\geq 0$, one of the following is true:
- $\gamma(x_i)=1$ for every $i>> 0$, or
- there exists a formal arc $\varphi : \ \mathrm{Spec}{\cal O}\rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ with $l|k(x)$ finite algebraic, support $Z:=Z(\varphi)$ with $$\eta (Z)\subseteq \mathrm{div}(u_1),$$ $\eta (Z)$ not an intersection of components of $E$, whose strict transform passes through $x_i$ for every $i\geq 0$.
Note that (ii) fails to hold if and only if: for every $i\geq 0$, there exists $i'>i$ such that either $k(x_{i'})\neq k(x_i)$ (i.e. some of proposition \[eclatpointcas12\], \[eclatpointcas3\] applies to $x_{i'}$ with $d\geq 2$) or $x_{i'}$ is in case 2.
Assume therefore that (ii) does not hold. By propositions \[eclatpointcas12\], \[eclatpointcas3\] and \[eclatpointcas3infiny\], we have $\gamma (x_{i+1})\leq \gamma (x_i)$ for every $i\geq 0$ and inequality is strict for $i'$ as above if $\gamma (x_{i'})\geq 3$. W.l.o.g. it can be assumed that $\gamma (x_i)=2$ for every $i\geq 0$. We now derive a contradiction by studying different cases.
\(a) if $x$ is in case 1 with $\beta (x)<2$, we are done by propositions \[eclatpointcas12\] and \[eclatpointcas3infiny\].
Assume that $x$ is in case 1 with $\beta (x)=2$. If proposition \[eclatpointcas12\] applies, we obtain $\beta (x_1)\leq 2$ ($\beta (x_1)< 2$ if $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$) if $x_1$ is again in case 1. If $x_1$ is in case 3, we get $\beta (x_1)<1$ (strict inequalities follow from lemma \[lem532\](1) in case $p=2$).
Assume that $x$ is in case 3. If proposition \[eclatpointcas3\] applies, we obtain $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ (with strict equality if $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$) if $x_1$ is again in case 3. If $x_1$ is in case 1, we get $\beta (x_1)\leq 2$; if furthermore $\beta (x)=1$, inequality is strict unless $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[lemC=1\](1). We deduce:
\(b) if $x$ is in case 3 with $\beta (x)=1$, we are done: this follows from lemma \[lemC=1\] and the previous comments.
\(c) if $x$ is in case 1 with $\beta (x)=2$, we are done: we may assume that proposition \[eclatpointcas3infiny\] applies by the previous comments; we reach (a)(b) or the assumptions of lemma \[lemC=1\](1) at $x_2$ since it is assumed that $\gamma (x_2)=2$.
\(d) the remaining cases: $x$ is in case 2 (resp. in case 3 with $\beta (x)>1$). The result is trivial if $x_i$ is in case 2 for every $i>>0$. Otherwise, note that: $C(x_1)\leq C(x)$ if $x_1$ is in case 2; $\beta (x_1)\leq C(x)$ if $x_1$ is in case 3 (resp. $C(x_1)<\beta (x)$ if $x_1$ is in case 2; $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ if $x_1$ is in case 3), applying propositions \[eclatpointcas3\] and \[eclatpointcas3infiny\]. The conclusion follows easily.
\[contactmaxpetitgamma\] Assume that div$(u_1)$ has maximal contact for $\cal C$ and that $\gamma (x)=1$. Let $\mu$ be valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent composition of local permissible blowing ups of the first kind: $$({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) ,$$ where $x_i \in {\cal X}_i$ is the center of $\mu$, such that ${\cal C} (x_r)<{\cal C} (x)$ or $x_r$ is resolved for $m(x)=p$.
We may assume that ${\cal C} (x_i)={\cal C} (x)$ for every $i\geq 1$ for the resolution process to be defined below; we will either derive a contradiction or prove that $x_r$ is resolved for $m(x)=p$ for some $r\geq 0$. Suppose that $i\geq 1$ and that $$\label{eqcontactmax11}
A_2(x_{i-1})<1 \ \mathrm{and} \ (x_{i-1} \ \hbox{is in case 2} \Longrightarrow \beta (x_{i-1}) < 1).$$
Then we consider the quadratic sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]) along $\mu$. In every case, we have $$A_2(x_i)\leq A_2(x_{i-1}),$$ where inequality is strict except if either proposition \[eclatpointcas3infiny\] applies, or ($x_{i-1}$ is in case 1 with $\beta(x_{i-1})=1$). If proposition \[eclatpointcas3infiny\] applies, we have $$\beta(x_i)=A_2(x_{i-1}) + \beta(x_{i-1})-1<1.$$ This proves in particular that (\[eqcontactmax11\]) holds at $x_{i'}$ for every $i'\geq i$. W.l.o.g. it can be assumed that $i=0$.
If $x$ is in case 1 with $\beta (x)=1$ and $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$, then $\beta(x_1)<1$ by proposition \[eclatpointcas3\]; if proposition \[eclatpointcas3infiny\] applies to $x$, then $\beta (x_1)< \beta (x)$. In other terms, we have $$(A_2(x_1),\beta (x_1))< (A_2(x),\beta (x))$$ for the lexicographical ordering except possibly if $x$ is in case 1 with $\beta (x)=1$ and $k(x_1)=k(x)$. So in the sequence (\[contactmaxeq1\]), we may assume that $x_i$ is in case 1 with $$A_2(x_i)=A_2(x)<1, \ \beta (x_i)=\beta (x)=1 , \ k(x_i)=k(x)$$ for every $i \geq 0$. Applying proposition \[permisarc\], we are done if alternative (2) of this proposition holds; if alternative (1) holds, it can be assumed that there exists a permissible curve of the first kind ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_3)\subseteq ({\cal X},x)$. Then $x$ is resolved by blowing up ${\cal Y}$: in view of definition \[Maximalcontact\], we need only consider the point $x':=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2,u_3)$ and get $\omega (x')< \omega (x)$ from proposition \[originchart\]. This proves the proposition under the extra assumption (\[eqcontactmax11\]).\
We now consider several cases which are proved consecutively:
\(a) $x$ [*is in case 1*]{}. We have $A_2(x)\geq 1$ if the extra assumption (\[eqcontactmax11\]) does not hold. Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and note that ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$ is a permissible curve of first kind. Blowing up along ${\cal Y}$, we are done except possibly if $x_1=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2,u_3)$, in which case $x_1$ is again in case 1 with $$(A_2(x_1),\beta (x_1))=(A_2(x)-1,\beta (x)).$$ The proof concludes by induction on $A_2(x)$. Before going along with the proof in cases 2 and 3, we make the following remark:
\[remmaxcont\] Assume that $x$ is in case 2 with $A_2(x)\geq 1$. Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ and denote ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$ with generic point $y$. Since $\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)$, ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind if and only if it is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E$, i.e. if $m(y)=m(x)=p$. Thus: $$\label{eq606}
{\cal Y} \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{permissible} \ \mathrm{of} \ \mathrm{the}
\ \mathrm{first} \ \mathrm{kind} \Leftrightarrow d_1+d_2 +{\omega (x)\over p}\geq 1.$$
Suppose that ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible. Blowing up along ${\cal Y}$ and arguing as in (a), we achieve: $$\label{eq6061}
x_1 \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ 2, \ A_2(x_1)=A_2(x)-1, \ A_3(x_1)=A_3(x).$$ This proves that it can be assumed to begin with that $$\label{eq6062}
A_j(x)<1 \ \mathrm{or} \ d_1+d_j +{\omega (x)\over p}< 1$$ for each of $j=2,3$.
Assume that $x$ is in case 2 with $d_1+\omega (x)/p<1$ and $x$ is blown up. If $x':=x_1$ is in case 3, we have: $$F_{p,Z}\in k(x)[U_2,U_3], \ d_1=0 \ \mathrm{and} \ d_2+d_3 +{\omega (x) \over p}\in \N$$ by theorem \[bupthm\](1). Let $(u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,v';Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x'$, so we have $$E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2), \epsilon (x')=1+\omega (x)<p, \ d'_1=0 \ \mathrm{and} \ d'_2\in \N .$$ Therefore $x'$ is resolved for $m(x)=p$ by blowing up codimension one centers of the form ${\cal Y}':=V(Z',u_2)$.
[*Algorithm:*]{} if $x$ is in case 2 and ${\cal Y}_j:=V(Z,u_1,u_j)$ is permissible for some of $j=2,3$, blow up along ${\cal Y}_j$; otherwise blow up along $x$.
We claim that this algorithm succeeds, i.e. produces $x_r$ in case 1, [*cf.*]{} (a), or $x_r$ resolved for $m(x)=p$. The proof is different for small values of $\omega (x)$:
\(b) [*proof when*]{} $d_1 +\omega (x)/p<1$. Let $x$ be in case 2. We may assume that (\[eq6062\]) holds.
(b1) if $d_1+d_j+\omega(x)/p<1$, $j=2,3$, the algorithm blows up along $x$. By the above remark \[remmaxcont\], it can be assumed that $x_1=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2, u_3/u_2)$ up to renumbering $u_2,u_3$. We obtain $$d'_1=d_1, \ d'_2=d_1+d_2+d_3 +\omega(x)/p-1< d_2, \ d'_3=d_3.$$ Assumption (b1) is stable by blowing up and can possibly repeat only finitely many times.
(b2) by the above remark \[remmaxcont\], the algorithm succeeds or produces an infinite sequence of points in case 2. By (\[eq6061\]), any subsequence of blowing ups along curves is finite, in particular $C(x_r)=0$ for every $r>> 0$. Take $r=0$ to begin with and assume w.l.o.g. that $x$ is blown up. The extra assumption (\[eqcontactmax11\]) holds if $0\leq A_2(x),A_3(x)<1$. Up to renumbering $u_2,u_3$, we may furthermore assume by (\[eq6062\]) that $$\label{eq6064}
(d_1+d_2+{\omega(x)\over p}<1, A_2(x)\geq 1), \ (d_1+d_3+{\omega(x)\over p}\geq 1, A_3(x)< 1).$$ Let $$\label{eq6063}
x'_1:=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2, u_3/u_2) \ \mathrm{and} \ x''_1:=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3, u_3).$$ If $x_1=x'_1$ (resp. $x_1=x''_1$), we have $d'_1=d_1$ and $$d'_3=d_3, \ A_3(x_1)=A_3(x), \ A_2(x_1)=A_2(x)+A_3(x)-1<A_2(x)$$ $$(\mathrm{resp.} \ d'_2=d_2, \ A_2(x_1)=A_2(x), \ A_3(x_1)<A_2(x), \ d'_3<d_3).$$ When $x_1=x''_1$ and the algorithm blows up again along a curve ($A_3(x_1)\geq 1$), note that $$d'_1+d'_3+\omega (x)/p-1< d'_3$$ since $d_1+\omega (x)/p<1$. This proves that any further blowing up at a closed point either satisfies: some of (b1) or (\[eqcontactmax11\]), or satisfies again (\[eq6064\]) with a smaller value of $(A_2(x),d_3)$ for the lexicographical ordering. Induction on $(A_2(x),d_3)$ completes the proof for $x$ in case 2 ([*vid.*]{} the same argument in [@CoP2] [**1.7.4**]{} on p. 1968).
Let now $x$ be in case 3. We are done unless $x_1$ is again in case 3. Then $$A_2(x_1)=A_2(x)+ C(x)-1<A_2(x).$$ Therefore the algorithm reaches (\[eqcontactmax11\]) after finitely many steps. This completes the proof of (b).
\(c) [*proof when*]{} $d_1 +\omega (x)/p\geq 1$. By the above remark \[remmaxcont\], we may assume that $0\leq A_2(x),A_3(x)<1$ to begin with if $x$ is in case 2. If $x$ is in case 2 (resp. in case 3), we let $$c'(x):=\beta (x) \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ c'(x):=A_2(x)).$$ We have $c'(x)\geq 1$ if the extra assumption (\[eqcontactmax11\]) does not hold. Applying propositions \[eclatpointcas12\], \[eclatpointcas3\] and \[eclatpointcas3infiny\], we obtain:
$\bullet$ if $x$ is in case 2 and $x_1=x'_1$ (resp. $x_1=x''_1$), notations of (\[eq6063\]), then $$A_3(x'_1)=A_3(x), \ c'(x'_1)\leq A_2(x)+\beta (x)-1<c'(x)$$ $$(\mathrm{resp.} \ A_2(x''_1)=A_2(x), \ c'(x''_1)=A_2(x)+\beta (x)-1<c'(x)).$$ Note that blowing up along the curve $${\cal Y}':=V(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2) \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ {\cal Y}'':=V(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_3))$$ if $A_2(x'_1)\geq 1$ (resp. if $A_3(x''_1)\geq 1$) does not change $c'(x'_1)$ (resp. does not increase again $c'(x''_1)$). If $x$ is in case 2 and $x_1$ is in case 3, then $$c'(x_1)=A_2(x)+A_3(x)+C(x)-1 \leq A_2(x)+\beta (x)-1 <c'(x).$$
$\bullet$ if $x$ is in case 3 and $x_1$ is in case 2 (resp. in case 3), then $$c'(x_1)= A_2(x)+\beta (x)-1<c'(x) \ (\mathrm{resp.}
\ c'(x_1)=A_2(x)+C(x)-1<c'(x)).$$
Induction on $c'(x)$ completes the proof.
Projection theorem: very transverse case, resolution of $\kappa (x)=2$.
=======================================================================
In this chapter, we prove theorem \[projthm\] when $\kappa (x)=2$ (definition \[defkappa\]). This is restated as theorem \[proofkkappa2\] at the end of this chapter.
Assume that a valuation $\mu$ of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$ is given. We consider finite sequences of local blowing ups along $\mu$: $$\label{eq701}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)$$ with Hironaka-permissible centers ${\cal Y}_i \subset ({\cal X}_i,x_i)$, where $x_i$, $0 \leq i \leq r$, denotes the center of $\mu$, see (\[eq402\]) and following comments. Also recall the definition of “resolved" and “good" (definition \[defgood\]) and remark \[quadsequence\] about the logical scheme of the proof of theorem \[projthm\].\
[*Up to the end of this chapter, “resolved" stands for “resolved for $(p,\omega (x),2)$”*]{}.
Preliminaries.
--------------
In this section, we study points $x'$ obtained by performing a permissible blowing up and such that $(m(x'),\omega (x'))=(m(x),\omega (x))$ and $\kappa (x')>\kappa (x)=2$.
\[sortiemonome\] Let $(u_1,u_2 ,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. Assume that $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)\geq 2$, $\kappa (x)\geq 2$ and $\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E$.
Assume furthermore $(d_1,d_2+1/p,d_3+\omega(x)/p)$ is the only vertex $\mathbf{v}=(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ of $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ in the region $v_1=d_1$.
Then $x$ is resolved.
Since $\kappa (x)\geq 2$, there is an expansion $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p + F_{p,Z}, \ H^{-1}F_{p,Z}\subseteq k(x)[U_1, U_2,U_3]_{\omega (x)}.$$ Any vertex of $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\cap \{\mathbf{v} : v_1+v_2+v_3=\delta (x)\}$ lies in the region $v_1>d_1$ by assumption and we deduce that $U_1 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$. Let $$\mathrm{in}_\mathbf{v}h=Z^p +\sum_{i=1}^pF_{i,\mathbf{v}} Z^{p-i}\in k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3][Z]$$ be the initial form polynomial with respect to $\mathbf{v}$. By theorem \[initform\], we have $F_{i,\mathbf{v}}=0$, $1 \leq i \leq p-2$, and $F_{p-1,\mathbf{v}}=-G_\mathbf{v}^{p-1}$ since $\epsilon (x)>0$. Moreover $G_\mathbf{v}^{p-1}\neq 0$ implies that $$\label{eq702}
\mathbf{v}\in \N^3, \ E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3) \ \mathrm{and}
\ (\mathrm{Disc}_Z(h))=(u_1^{pd_1}u_2^{pd_2+1}u_3^{pd_3+\epsilon (x)})^{p-1}.$$
Let ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_3)\subset {\cal X}$ and $y\in {\cal X}$ be its generic point. If ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind, i.e. $m(y)=p$ and $\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)$, we take ${\cal Y}_0:={\cal Y}$ in (\[eq701\]). By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $\iota (x_1)\leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ unless $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1> \ \mathrm{and} \ x_1=x':=(Z':=Z/u_3,u'_1:=u_1/u_3,u_2,u_3).$$ By proposition \[originchart\], $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u_2,u_3;Z')$ is minimal, and we deduce that $H(x')=({u'_1}^{pd_1}u_2^{pd_2+1}u_3^{p(d_1+d_3-1)+\epsilon (x)})$ and $\mathbf{v}':=(d_1,d_2+1/p, d_1+d_3-1+\epsilon (x)/p)$ is a vertex of $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u_2,u_3;Z')$. Therefore $\omega (x')\leq \epsilon (x')=1$ and the lemma holds.\
Assume now that ${\cal Y}$ is not permissible of the first kind. We take ${\cal Y}_0:=\{x\}$ in (\[eq701\]). If $\iota (x_1)\geq (p,\omega (x), 2)$, $x_1$ belongs to the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ by theorem \[bupthm\].
If $x_1=x':=(Z':=Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u'_3:=u_3/u_2)$ is the point on the strict transform of ${\cal Y}$, then $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal by proposition \[originchart\] and we deduce as above that $H(x')=({u'_1}^{pd_1}u_2^{p(d_1+d_2 +d_3-1)+\epsilon (x)}{u'_3}^{pd_3})$ and $\mathbf{v}':=(d_1,d_1+d_2 +d_3-1+(1+\epsilon (x))/p, d_3+\epsilon (x)/p)$ is the only vertex of $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u_2,u_3;Z')$ in the region $v'_1=d_1$. Since $\epsilon (x')\leq \epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, we deduce that $x_1$ satisfies again the assumptions of the lemma if $\iota (x_1)\geq (p,\omega (x),2)$.
The conclusion of proposition \[permisarc\](2.b) is not satisfied by the formal arc $\hat{{\cal Y}}\rightarrow {\cal X}$. Iterating, we deduce from proposition \[permisarc\](1) that one of the following three properties is satisfied for some $r \geq 1$:
- $\iota (x_r)\leq (p,\omega (x),1)$;
- $x_r$ belongs to the strict transform ${\cal Y}_r$ of ${\cal Y}$ in ${\cal X}_r$ and ${\cal Y}_r$ is permissible of the first kind at $x_r$, or
- $x_r$ does not belong to ${\cal Y}_r$.
The lemma holds when (1) is satisfied; it has been proved above that the lemma also holds when (2) is satisfied. If (3) is satisfied, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $r=1$. We claim that $x_1$ satisfies the conclusion of the lemma if $x_1\neq (Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3,u_3)$.
To prove the claim, first note that there exists a unitary polynomial $P(t)\in S[t]$, whose reduction $\overline{P}(t)\in k(x)[t]$ is irreducible, $\overline{P}(t) \neq t$, and $x_1=(X':=Z/u_3,u'_1:=u_1/u_3, u'_2:=u_3, u'_3:=P(u_2/u_3))$. We then denote $S':=S[u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3]_{(u'_1,u'_2,u'_3)}$ and $$h'=X'^p +\sum_{i=1}^pf_{i,X'}X'^{p-i} \in S'[X'], \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2).$$ We have $H(x')=({u'_1}^{pd_1}{u'_2}^{p(d_1+d_2 + d_3-1)+\epsilon (x)})$ by proposition \[bupformula\](iv) and $$\mathbf{v}':=(d_1, d'_2:=d_1+d_2 +d_3-1+(1 + \epsilon (x))/p, 0)$$ is a vertex of $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;X')$.
If $\mathbf{v}'$ is not solvable (in particular if $G_\mathbf{v}\neq 0$, see (\[eq702\]) above), we deduce that $\omega (x')\leq \epsilon (x')=1$ and the lemma holds.
If $\mathbf{v}'$ is solvable, we had $$\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{v}}h= Z^p +\lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2+1}U_3^{pd_3+\epsilon (x)},
\ \lambda \in k(x), \ \lambda \neq 0$$ to begin with. Let $\sigma ' \subset \Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;X')$ be the (noncompact) face with equations $v'_1=d_1$, $v'_2=d'_2$. The initial form polynomial corresponding to $\sigma '$ is $$\mathrm{in}_{\sigma '}h'={X'}^p +\lambda \overline{\left ({u_2 \over u_3}\right )^{pd_2+1}}
{U'_1}^{pd_1}{U'_2}^{pd'_2},$$ where $\overline{\theta}$ denotes the image in $S'/(u'_1,u'_2)$ of $\theta \in S'$. Let $\mu \in k(x')$ be the residue of $u_2/u_3$. Since $\mathbf{v}'$ is solvable, we have: $$\label{eq703}
(d_1, d'_2)\in \N^2, \ \lambda \mu^{pd_2+1} \in k(x')^p.$$ Take $Z':=X'-\varphi '$, $\varphi '\in S'$ such that $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal. We have $\varphi '=\gamma '{u'_1}^{d_1}{u'_2}^{d'_2}$, where $\gamma ' \in S'$ is a preimage of $(\lambda \mu^{pd_2+1})^{1/p}\in k(x')$. By (\[eq703\]), $\lambda U_2^{pd_2+1}$ is not a $p^\mathrm{th}$-power, since $\mathbf{v}$ was not a solvable vertex. We deduce that $$\lambda \overline{\left ({u_2 \over u_3}\right )^{pd_2+1}}+\overline{\gamma '}^p \in S'/(u'_1,u'_2)$$ is a regular parameter. Therefore $\mathbf{v}'_1:=(d_1,d'_2 +1/p,1/p)$ is a vertex of $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ and this proves that $\omega (x')\leq 1$. This concludes the proof of the claim.\
To conclude, take $x_1= x':=(Z':=Z/u_3,u'_1:=u_1/u_3,u'_2:=u_2/u_3,u'_3:=u_3)$. Since $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal by proposition \[originchart\], we deduce as before that $H(x')=({u'_1}^{pd_1}{u'_2}^{pd_2}{u'_3}^{pd'_3})$ and $\mathbf{v}':=(d_1,d_2+1/p,d'_3+1/p)$ is the only vertex of $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ in the region $v'_1=d_1$, where $d'_3:=d_1+d_2 +d_3-1+\epsilon (x)/p$. Therefore $\epsilon (x')\leq 2$ and we are done unless $\omega (x)=2$, $\iota (x')\geq (p,2,2)$ and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$, which we assume from now on.
We have $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2u'_3)$ and the initial form polynomial has an expansion $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={Z'}^p +F_{p,Z'}.$$ with ${H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'}=U'_1 (\lambda_1U'_1+\lambda_2U'_2+\lambda_3U'_3)+\mu U'_2U'_3$. The assumptions imply that $\mu H' U'_2U'_3 \not \in G(m_{S'})^p$ and $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\neq (0,0)$. Moreover, we have $$\lambda_j \neq 0 \Longrightarrow \lambda_jH'U'_1U'_j \not \in G(m_{S'})^p, \ 1 \leq j \leq 3.$$ If $\tau (x_1)=3$, we take ${\cal Y}_1:=\{x_1\}$ in (\[eq701\]) and obtain $\iota (x_2)\leq (p,2,1)$. We conclude by analyzing the cases $\tau (x_1)\leq 2$. By [@CoP2] [**II.1.5**]{} p.1888, this implies that $\lambda_1=0$. Therefore $\lambda_2\neq 0$, since $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\neq (0,0)$. It is then obvious that $\tau (x_1)\leq 2$ implies that $\lambda_3=0$ and we get $$\label{eq704}
{H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'}=U'_2(\lambda_2U'_1+\mu U'_3), \ \lambda_2 \mu \neq 0.$$ By lemma \[joyeux\] below with $(i, \omega)=(1,2)$, we have $p\geq 3$ and $$\label{eq705}
d_2+1/p \in \N, \ d_1, d'_3 \not \in \N \ \mathrm{and} \ \widehat{pd_1}+\widehat{pd'_3}+1=p.$$
Let ${\cal Y}_1:=(Z',u'_1,u'_3)$, $y_1\in {\cal X}_1$ be its generic point and $W_1:=(u'_1,u'_3)$. For $i$, $1 \leq i \leq p-1$, consider a finite monomial expansion (\[eq2036\]): $$f_{i,Z}=\sum_{\mathbf{a}\in \mathbf{S}(f_{i,Z})}\gamma(\mathbf{a}) u_1^{ia_1}u_2^{ia_2}u_3^{ia_3}\in S,
\ \mathbf{S}(f_{i,Z}) \subset \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z).$$ The polyhedron assumption on $h$ gives $$\mathbf{a}\in \mathbf{S}(f_{i,Z}) \Longrightarrow (a_1 \geq d_1 , \ a_2+a_3 \geq d_2+d_3 +{3\over p})$$ and that at least one of these inequalities is strict. Now $f_{i,Z'}=u_3^{-i}f_{i,Z}$ and one deduces that $$\label{eq706}
{\mathrm{ord}_{W_1}f_{i,Z'} \over i} =\min_{\mathbf{a}\in \mathbf{S}(f_{i,Z})}\{2a_1 +a_2+a_3 -1\}> d_1 +d'_3.$$ By (\[eq705\]), we have $i (d_1 +d'_3 +1)\in \N$, so (\[eq706\]) actually implies that $${\mathrm{ord}_{W_1}f_{i,Z'} \over i}\geq d_1 +d'_3 +1,$$ since $1 \leq i \leq p-1$ and $\mathrm{ord}_{W_1}f_{i,Z'} \in \N$. On the other hand, $\mathrm{ord}_{W_1}f_{p,Z'}=p(d_1+d'_3)+1 \geq p$ and we deduce that ${\cal Y}_1$ is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E'$ with $\epsilon (y_1)=1$. Arguing as before, on gets $\omega (x_2)\leq \epsilon (x_2)\leq 1$ (resp. $\iota (x_2)\leq (p,2,1)$) if the residue $\mu ' \in k(x_2)$ of $u'_3/u'_1$ does not satisfy (resp. satisfies) $\lambda_2+\mu \mu '=0$. This concludes the proof.
The following lemma extends the previous result when $\omega (x)=1$.
\[sortieomegaun\] Lemma \[sortiemonome\] remains valid when $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)=1$, $\kappa (x)\geq 2$ and $\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E \subseteq \mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, all other assumptions being otherwise unchanged.
Let ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)\subset {\cal X}$ and $y$ be its generic point. Arguing as in (\[eq702\]) above, any vertex of $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ is induced by $f_{p,Z}$. By proposition \[Deltaalg\], we have $\delta (y)=d_1+d_2+{1 \over p}=\delta (x)$, since $H^{-1}F_{p,Z}=<U_1>$. Then proposition \[deltainv\](ii) implies that $$(m(y'),\epsilon (y'))=(m(x'),\epsilon (x'))=(p,1).$$ Therefore ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind and we take ${\cal Y}_0:={\cal Y}$ in (\[eq701\]). By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $\iota (x_1)\leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ unless $$x_1=x':=(Z':=Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u_3), \ E':=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2).$$ By proposition \[originchart\], $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u_2,u_3;Z')$ is minimal. We deduce that $H(x')=({u'_1}^{pd_1}u_2^{p(d_1+d_2-1)+1})$ and $\mathbf{v}':=(d_1,d_1+d_2-1+1/p, 1/p)$ is a vertex of $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u_2,u_3;Z')$. Therefore $(m(x'),\omega (x'))\leq (p,0)$ and the lemma holds.
Given an integer $\alpha \in \N$, we denote by $\widehat{\alpha}\in \{0, \ldots , p-1\}$ the remainder of $\alpha$ modulo $p$. The following elementary lemma is useful.
\[joyeux\] Let $(i,\omega )\in \N^2$ satisfy $0<i<\omega $ and $F_0\in k(x)[U_1,U_2]_i$, $F_0\neq 0$. Take $E:=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ and let $$(a(1),a(2),a(3))\in \N^3, \ H:=U_1^{a(1)}U_2^{a(2)}U_3^{a(3)}\in G(m_S)=k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3].$$ We define $F:=HU_3^{\omega -i}F_0$; assume that $F\not \in G(m_S)^p$ and that $$<U_3,U_j> \nsubseteq \mathrm{Vdir}(J(F,E,m_S)) \ \mathrm{for} \ j=1 \ \mathrm{and} \ j=2.$$ Then $$\label{eq707}
\mathrm{Vdir}(J(F,E,m_S))=<U_3, U_1 +\lambda U_2>, \ \lambda \neq 0,$$ and the following holds:
- if $i\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, there exists $0\neq c \in k(x)$ such that $$F - c H U_3^{\omega -i}(U_1 + \lambda U_2)^i \in G(m_S)^p;$$
- if $i\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, let $a_j:=\widehat{a(j)}$, $1 \leq j \leq 3$, and $a:=\widehat{i}\neq 0$. Then: $$\label{eq7073}
a_3+\omega -a \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p, \ a_1a_2 \neq 0 \ \mathrm{and} \ a_1+a_2+a=p.$$ In particular $p\geq 3$. There exists $0\neq c\in k(x)^p$ such that $$F - c U_3^{a(3) +\omega -i}\Phi_i(U_1,\lambda U_2) \in G(m_S)^p,$$ where $$\label{eq7071}
\Phi_i(U_1,U_2):=(-1)^{a_2}U_1^{a(1)}U_2^{a(2)}\sum_{k=0}^a
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_2+k-1 \\
k \\
\end{array}
\right)
U_1^{a-k}(U_1+U_2)^{i-a +k}.$$
[@CoP2] [**II.5**]{} p.1896 for (i) and (\[eq7073\]). There remains to prove that there exists $0\neq c\in k(x)^p$ such that $$H_0F_0 - c \Phi_i(U_1,\lambda U_2) \in (k(x)[U_1,U_2])^p , \ H_0:=U_1^{a(1)}U_2^{a(2)}.$$ It is easily checked that (\[eq707\]) holds when $F=U_3^{a(3)+\omega (x)-i}\Phi_i(U_1,\lambda U_2)$. Note that $$\label{eq7072}
H_0^{-1}\Phi_i(U_1,\lambda U_2)=(-1)^{a_2}\lambda^{a(2)}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_2+a \\
a \\
\end{array}
\right)
U_1^i + \cdots .$$
Let $(\lambda_l)_{l \in \Lambda}$ be an absolute $p$-basis of $k(x)$ and let $$D_l:={\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \lambda_l} \ D_j:=U_j{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_j}, \ j=1,2.$$ We expand $$\label{eq708}
F_0:=\alpha U_1^i + \alpha_1 U_1^{i-1}U_2 + \cdots , \ \alpha , \alpha_1 \in k(x).$$ Since $H_0^{-1}D_l \cdot (H_0F_0) \in <(U_1 +\lambda U_2)^i>$ by (\[eq707\]), $l \in \Lambda \cup \{1,2\}$, it is easily seen that $\alpha \neq 0$.
Suppose that $\alpha \in k(x)^p$. Since $H_0^{-1}D_l\cdot (H_0F_0 )\in < (U_1 +\lambda U_2)^i>$, $l \in \Lambda$, and this polynomial is divisible by $U_2$, we have $D_l \cdot H_0F_0=0$ for $l \in \Lambda$ by (\[eq707\]). We deduce that $H_0F_0 \in k(x)^p[U_1,U_2]$ and in particular that $\lambda \in k(x)^p$. Let $$F':= H_0 F_0 -c \Phi_i(U_1,\lambda U_2),
\ c:=\alpha (-1)^{a_2}\lambda^{-a(2)}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_2+a \\
a \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1} \in k(x)^p.$$ By construction, we have $H^{-1}D_l\cdot F'=0$, $l \in \Lambda \cup \{1,2\}$, and (ii) is proved.
Suppose that $\alpha \not \in k(x)^p$. Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that $\alpha =\lambda_l$ for some $l\in \Lambda$. For $l'\neq l$, $U_2$ divides $H_0^{-1}D_{l'}\cdot (H_0 F_0)$, so $D_{l'}\cdot (H_0 F_0)=0$ by (\[eq707\]). This proves that $F_0 \in k(x)^p(\alpha)[U_1,U_2]$. We have $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
H_0^{-1}D_l\cdot (H_0 F_0) & = & U_1^i + (D_l \cdot \alpha_1) U_1^{i-1}U_2 + \cdots \hfill{} \\
& & \\
H_0^{-1}D_1\cdot (H_0 F_0) & = & (a_1 +a) \alpha U_1^i + (a_1 +a -1)\alpha_1 U_1^{i-1}U_2 + \cdots \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ from which we deduce the identity $$\label{eq7081}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
a \lambda \hfill{}& = & D_l \cdot \alpha_1 \hfill{} \\
& & \\
a (a_1+a) \alpha \lambda & = & (a_1 +a-1) \alpha_1 \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ Therefore $(a_1 +a-1)\alpha_1 =(a_1+a) (D_l \cdot \alpha_1)$. Expanding $\alpha_1 =:\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}c_j^p\alpha^j$, we then deduce that $$\label{eq7082}
\alpha_1=c_j^p\alpha^j, \ \mathrm{where} \ (a_1+a)j \equiv a_1+a-1 \ \mathrm{mod}p.$$ Since $a_1+a +a_2=p$ in this case (ii), we get $a_2(j-1)\equiv 1\ \mathrm{mod}p$ from (\[eq7082\]). One deduces from (\[eq7081\])-(\[eq7082\]) that $\alpha = d \lambda^{a(2)}$ for some $d \in k(x)^p$, $d \neq 0$. The proof now concludes as in the above case $\alpha \in k(x)^p$.
\[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] Assume that $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. If $(u_1,u_2 ,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates at $x$, then $$\mathrm{in}_Eh=Z^p +U_1^{pd_1}\overline{F}\in S/(u_1)[U_1][Z], \ \overline{F}\neq 0.$$
This is obvious if $\mathrm{char}S=p>0$ and $h$ is purely inseparable (case (c) of assumption [**(G)**]{}). Otherwise, [**(E)**]{} implies that $\mathrm{Disc}_Z(h)=\gamma u_1^D$ for some $D\geq p(p-1)d_1$ and $\gamma \in S$ a unit. Let $$\mathrm{in}_Eh=Z^p +\sum_{i=1}^p U_1^{id_1}F_iZ^{p-i}, \ F_i \in S/(u_1)[U_1]_{id_1},$$ where $F_i=0$ if $id_1 \not \in \N$. Since $\mathrm{char}S/(u_1)=p>0$, condition [**(G)**]{} implies that $\mathrm{in}_E h$ has $p$ distinct roots over an algebraic closure of $k(E)$ if $F_i\neq 0$ for some $i\neq p$. But then $D=p(p-1)d_1$: a contradiction since $\epsilon (x)>0$. We deduce that $F_i=0$, $1 \leq i \leq p-1$. We have $F_p\neq 0$ by proposition \[Deltaalg\].
\[sortiekappaegaldeux\] Assume that $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, $\kappa (x)\geq 2$ and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. Let $(u_1,u_2 ,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. Assume furthermore that $S/(u_1)\simeq k(x)[\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3]_{(\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3)}$ and the following two conditions are satisfied:
- the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_Eh$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] is of the form $$\mathrm{in}_E h=Z^p +U_1^{pd_1}\overline{F}, \ \overline{F}\in k(x)[\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3]_{1+\omega (x)};$$
- we have $$\overline{\mathrm{Vdir}(x)} +\mathrm{Vdir}\left ({\partial \overline{F} \over \partial \overline{u}_2},
{\partial \overline{F} \over \partial \overline{u}_3}\right ) =<\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}_3>,$$ where $\overline{\mathrm{Vdir}(x)}$ denotes the image of $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ in $<\overline{U}_2,\overline{U}_3>$.
Then $x$ is resolved.
[*Proof.*]{} The proof is the same as that of [@CoP2] [**II.3**]{} p.1890 and we only indicate the necessary changes. Since $\kappa (x)\geq 2$, we have $$\label{eq710}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p + F_{p,Z}, \ H^{-1}F_{p,Z}\subseteq k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3]_{\omega (x)}$$ and $U_1 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ as in the beginning of the proof of lemma \[sortiemonome\]. We discuss according to the value of $\tau '(x)$.
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=3$.*]{} The proposition follows from theorem \[bupthm\].
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=2$.*]{} Note that $\omega (x)\geq 2$. Since $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and $U_1 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$, we have $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1, \lambda_2 U_2 + \lambda_3U_3>$, $(\lambda_2, \lambda_3)\neq (0,0)$. By symmetry, it can be assumed that $\lambda_2=1$. If $\lambda_3\neq 0$, we let $v_2:=u_2+ \gamma_3u_3$, where $\gamma_3\in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda_3\in S/(u_1)
\simeq k(x)[\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3]_{(\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3)}$.
Let $(u_1,v_2,u_3;Z_1)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$, $Z_1=Z - \phi$, $\phi \in S$. By lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\], we have $\mathrm{ord}_{u_1}\phi>d_1$. Therefore $$\mathrm{in}_E h=Z_1^p +U_1^{pd_1}(\overline{F} +\overline{\phi}^p),$$ where $\overline{\phi} =0$ (resp. $\overline{\phi} =cl_0(u_1^{-d_1}\phi)\in S/(u_1)$) if $d_1\not \in \N$ (resp $d_1 \in \N$). Without loss of generality, it can be assumed that ($1+ \omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ and $\overline{\phi}\in k(x)[\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3]_{(1+ \omega (x))/p}$) if $\overline{\phi} \neq 0$. Assumptions (i) and (ii) are then unchanged, so it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1, U_2>$. Assumption (ii) now implies $$\overline{F}(\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3) \not \in <\overline{u}_2^{1+\omega (x)}>
\ (\mathrm{resp.} \ \overline{F}(U_2,U_3) \not \in <\overline{u}_2^{1+\omega (x)}, \overline{u}_3\overline{u}_2^{\omega (x)}>)$$ if $\omega (x) \not\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ (resp. if $\omega (x) \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$).
Let ${\cal X}' \longrightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing along $x$ and $x' \in {\cal X}'$ be the center of $\mu$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $\iota (x') \leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ except possible if $x'=(Z':=Z/u_1,u'_1:=u_1/u_3,u'_2:=u_2/u_3,u_3)$, since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1, U_2>$. If then $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),2)$, there are two cases to be considered as in [@CoP2] end of p.1891:
[*Case 1:*]{} $\overline{F}(\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3)=\lambda_0 \overline{u}_2^{1+\omega (x)}+
\lambda_1 \overline{u}_3\overline{u}_2^{\omega (x)}$, $\lambda_1 \neq 0$. Then $({\cal X}',x')$ satisfies the assumption of lemma \[sortiemonome\] (instead of [*ibid.*]{} [**II.1**]{} on p.1885) whose conclusion proves the proposition.
[*Case 2:*]{} $\overline{F}(\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3)=\lambda_0 \overline{u}_2^{1+\omega (x)}+
\lambda_1 \overline{u}_3\overline{u}_2^{\omega (x)}+\lambda_2\overline{u}_3^2\overline{u}_2^{\omega (x)-1}$, $\lambda_2 \neq 0$ and $\omega (x) - 1 \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. Then $\tau (x')=3$ by the characteristic free [*ibid.*]{} lemma [**II.3.3**]{} on p.1892. Blowing up again $x'$ then gives $\iota (x'')\leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ by theorem \[bupthm\], where $x''$ is the center of $\mu$.
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=1$.*]{} We have $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=k(x)U_1$ and $F_{p,Z}=\lambda U_1^{pd_1+\omega (x)}$ in (\[eq710\]). Assumption (ii) now reads $$\label{eq711}
\mathrm{Vdir}\left ({\partial \overline{F} \over \partial \overline{u}_2},
{\partial \overline{F} \over \partial \overline{u}_3}\right ) =<\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}_3>.$$
Let ${\cal X}' \longrightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing along $x$ and $x' \in {\cal X}'$ be the center of $\mu$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $\iota (x') \leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ except possible if $\eta '(x')$ lies on the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. By symmetry on $\overline{u}_2, \overline{u}_3$, it can be assumed that $x'=(Z':=Z/u_1,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2, u'_3:=P(u_3/u_2))$, where $P(t)\in S[t]$ is a unitary polynomial whose reduction $\overline{P}(t)\in k(x)[t]$ is irreducible. We have $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2)$. Let $$\tilde{P}(\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}_3):=
\overline{U}_2^{\mathrm{deg}\overline{P}}\overline{P}(\overline{U}_3/\overline{U}_2)
\in k(x)[\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}_3]_{\mathrm{deg}\overline{P}}.$$ By (\[eq711\]), we have $$a:=\mathrm{ord}_{\tilde{P}}({\partial \overline{F} \over \partial \overline{u}_2},
{\partial \overline{F} \over \partial \overline{u}_3} ) \leq \omega (x)-1.$$ If $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),2)$, there are two cases to be considered as in [@CoP2] p.1894:
[*Case 1:*]{} $a=\omega (x)-1$. If $\omega (x)\geq 2$, this implies that $k(x')=k(x)$. Arguing as in the above case $\tau '(x)=2$, it can be assumed that $P(t)=t$. Then $({\cal X}',x')$ satisfies the assumption of lemma \[sortiemonome\], whose conclusion proves the proposition.
If $\omega (x)=1$, then $({\cal X}',x')$ satisfies the assumption of lemma \[sortieomegaun\] or there is an expansion $$\label{eq712}
\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={Z'}^p + {U'_1}^{pd_1}{U'_2}^{p(d_1-1)+1}(\lambda'_1U'_1+\lambda'_2U'_2)
\in G(m_{S'})[Z']$$ with $\lambda'_1\lambda'_2\neq 0$, where $(u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$. With notations as in lemma \[joyeux\], we let $a_1:=\widehat{pd_1}$.
Assume in addition that $p=2$, or that $a_1 \neq (p-1)/2$. We have $\mathrm{Vdir}(x')=<U'_1,U'_2>$ by lemma \[joyeux\]. Let ${\cal Y}':=V(Z',u'_1,u'_2)\subset {\cal X}'$ with generic point $y'$. By (\[eq712\]), any vertex of $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ is induced by $f_{p,Z'}$ and we have $\delta (y')=2d_1-1+2/p=\delta (x')$, so ${\cal Y}'$ is permissible of the first kind at $x'$. Blowing up ${\cal Y}'$ then gives $\iota (x'')\leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ by theorem \[bupthm\], where $x''$ is the center of $\mu$.
Assume now that $p\geq 3$ and $a_1 = (p-1)/2$. If $d_1\geq 1$, the centers ${\cal Y}'_j:=V(Z',u'_j)$, $j=1,2$ are Hironaka permissible w.r.t. $E'$. Blowing up consecutively ${\cal Y}'_1$, then ${\cal Y}'_2$, and iterating, we reduce to the case $d_1 =a_1/p<1$. Blowing up again ${\cal Y}'$ as above then gives $m(x'')\leq 2<p$, where $x''$ is the center of $\mu$ and the conclusion follows.
[*Case 2:*]{} $a=\omega (x)-2$. Then $\omega (x)-1\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ and there is an expansion $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={Z'}^p + {U'_1}^{pd_1}{U'_2}^{pd'_1}
(U'_1\Phi (U'_1,U_2,U'_3)+\lambda 'U'_2{U'_3}^{\omega (x)-1})
\in G(m_{S'})[Z']$$ with $d'_1:=d_1-1+\omega (x)/p$, $ \lambda '\neq 0$, $\Phi \neq 0$, where $(u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$. Then $\tau (x')=3$ by the characteristic free [*ibid.*]{} lemma [**II.3.3**]{} on p.1892. Blowing up again $x'$ then gives $\iota (x'')\leq (p,\omega (x),1)$ by theorem \[bupthm\], where $x''$ is the center of $\mu$.
\[sortiebis\] Assume that $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)\geq 2$, $\kappa (x)\geq 2$ and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. Let $(u_1,u_2 ,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. Assume furthermore that the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_E h=Z^p +U_1^{pd_1}\overline{F}$, $\overline{F}\in S/(u_1)$, of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] satisfies the following two conditions:
- $\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3)}\overline{F}=\omega (x)+1$;
- the form $\Phi:=\mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)+1}\overline{F} \in k(x)[\overline{U}_2,\overline{U}_3]_{\omega (x)+1}$ is such that $${\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_3}=0 \ \mathrm{and} \
\mathrm{Vdir}({\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_2})=<\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}_3>.$$
Then $x$ is resolved.
This is a simpler variation of proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\] and we build upon its proof. To begin with, let $(u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ be another set of well adapted coordinates at $x$. There is an equality $$U'_3=\lambda_3 U_3 +\lambda_2U_2 +\lambda_1 U_1 \in G(m_S)_1=<U_1,U_2,U_3>, \ \lambda_3 \neq 0.$$ The corresponding initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_E h={Z'}^p +U_1^{pd_1}\overline{F}'$ satisfies $$\Phi ':=\mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)+1}\overline{F}'=
\overline{F}(\overline{U}_2, \lambda_3^{-1}(\overline{U}'_3-\lambda_2\overline{U}_2))
+\Theta^p \in k(x)[\overline{U}_2,\overline{U}'_3]_{\omega (x)+1},$$ where $\Theta \in k(x)[\overline{U}_2,\overline{U}'_3]_{(\omega (x)+1)/p}$, $\Theta =0$ if $d_1 \not \in \N$ or if $\omega (x)+ 1 \not\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. We deduce that $$\label{eq715}
{\partial \Phi ' \over \partial \overline{U}'_3}=0 \ \mathrm{and} \
\mathrm{Vdir}({\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_2})=<\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}'_3>.$$ In other terms, (i) and (ii) remains valid for the well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$.
Also note that no $\Phi$ satisfies (ii) when $\omega (x)+1 \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, since then $$\label{eq7151}
{\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_3}=0 \Longrightarrow
\Phi \in k(x)[\overline{U}_2^p, \overline{U}_3^p] \Longrightarrow {\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_2}=0.$$
Let ${\cal X}' \longrightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing along $x$, $x' \in {\cal X}'$ be the center of $\mu$ and suppose that $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),2)$. We discuss according to the values of $\tau ' (x)$ as in the proof of proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\].
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=3$.*]{} The proposition follows from theorem \[bupthm\].
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=2$.*]{} By (\[eq715\]), it can be assumed that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$ or $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_3>$. The polynomial assumption proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\] (i) on $\overline{F}$ is used only in cases 1 and 2 of the corresponding proof. Therefore under the assumptions of this proposition, it is sufficient to prove that $$\label{eq716}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\Phi \not\in <\overline{U}_2^{1+\omega (x)}, \overline{U}_3\overline{U}_2^{\omega (x)}>
& \mathrm{if} & \mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2> \\
& & \\
\Phi \not\in <\overline{U}_3^{1+\omega (x)}, \overline{U}_2\overline{U}_3^{\omega (x)}>
& \mathrm{if} & \mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_3> \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and that $$\label{eq717}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\Phi \not\in <\overline{U}_2^{1+\omega (x)}, \overline{U}_3\overline{U}_2^{\omega (x)},
\overline{U}_3^2\overline{U}_2^{\omega (x)-1}> & \mathrm{if} & \mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2> \\
& & \\
\Phi \not\in <\overline{U}_3^{1+\omega (x)}, \overline{U}_2\overline{U}_3^{\omega (x)},
\overline{U}_2^2\overline{U}_3^{\omega (x)-1}> & \mathrm{if} & \mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_3> \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ if furthermore $\omega (x)-1 \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. By (ii), we have $$\Phi \in k(x)[\overline{U}_2,\overline{U}_3^p] \backslash k(x)[\overline{U}_2] \ \mathrm{and} \
{\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_2}\not\in <\overline{U}_3^{\omega (x)}>$$ and (\[eq716\]) follows easily. Furthermore, (\[eq717\]) reduces to (\[eq716\]) except possibly if $p=2$; but assumption (ii) then implies that $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}2$ by (\[eq7151\]).
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=1$.*]{} We have $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1>$. The polynomial assumption proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\] (i) on $\overline{F}$ is also used only in cases 1 and 2 of the corresponding proof.
If $k(x')=k(x)$, one is then reduced to proving (\[eq716\])-(\[eq717\]) and the proof is identical as in (b).
If $[k(x'):k(x)]\geq 2$, the argument in [@CoP2] proof of [**II.3**]{} (cases 1 and 2 on p.1894) shows that $p=2$, $\omega (x)=3$ and $[k(x'):k(x)]= 2$; but assumption (ii) then implies $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}2$ by (\[eq7151\]) and the conclusion follows.
\[tauegaldeux\] Assume that $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, $\kappa (x)= 2$ and $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x) + k(x)U_1= <U_1,U_2,U_3>.$$ Then $x$ is good.
This follows from theorem \[bupthm\] if $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2,U_3>$, i.e. $\tau '(x)=3$.
Assume that $\tau '(x)=2$. Since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ and $\iota (x)$ do not depend on the choice of well adapted coordinates, it can be assumed that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)= <U_2,U_3>$. Since $\kappa (x)=2$, there is an expansion $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p + F_{p,Z}, \ H^{-1}F_{p,Z}\subseteq k(x)[U_2,U_3]_{\omega (x)}.$$ Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$, ${\cal X}_1 \longrightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along $x$ and $x_1 \in {\cal X}_1$ be the center of $\mu$. By theorem \[bupthm\], $\iota (x_1)<\iota (x)$ except possibly if $x_1=x':=(Z':=Z/u_1, u_1, u'_2:=u_2/u_1, u'_3:=u_3/u_1)$, so $E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and $k(x')=k(x)$.
By proposition \[originchart\], $\Delta_{S'} (h';u_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal. We deduce that $\epsilon (x')\leq \epsilon (x)$; if $x_1$ is very near $x$, we have $\epsilon (x_1)=\epsilon (x)=\omega (x_1)$ and $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h={Z'}^p -{G'}^{p-1}Z'+ F_{p,Z'}, \ {H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'}\subseteq k(x)[U_1,U'_2,U'_3]_{\omega (x)}.$$ Moreover proposition \[bupformula\](v) implies that $$J(F_{p,Z'},E',m_{S'}) \equiv U_1^{-\epsilon (x)}J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) \ \mathrm{mod}U_1 .$$ We deduce that $\kappa (x_1)=1$ (so $\iota (x_1)<\iota (x)$) if $G'\neq 0$. Otherwise we have $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)\equiv <U'_2,U'_3> \ \mathrm{mod}U_1$, so $x_1$ satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition. The proposition then follows from corollary \[permisarcthree\].
\[rempermkappa2\] All local blowing ups considered in this section are permissible of the first kind except when $p\geq 3$ and $\omega (x)\leq 2$ (proof of lemma \[sortiemonome\] for $\omega (x)=2$, proof of lemma \[sortiekappaegaldeux\] for $\omega (x)=1$).
Reduction to monic expansions.
------------------------------
In this section, we further reduce the proof of the projection theorem to those points with $\kappa (x)=2$ satisfying condition (\*) below. To begin with, let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates and $$\label{eq720}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p -G^{p-1}Z+F_{p,Z} \in G(m_S)[Z]$$ be the corresponding initial form. If $\kappa (x)=2$, we have $\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E \subseteq
\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ if $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$. We recall from definition \[defkappa\] that $G=0$ if $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$.
\[\*kappadeux\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$. We say that $x$ satisfies condition (\*) if there exists well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ such that one of the following properties are satisfied:
- $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$, $U_3 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ and $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)}$ contains a unitary polynomial in $U_3$;
- $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$, $U_3 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ and $H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_2}$ is (generated by) a unitary polynomial in $U_3$.
Condition (\*) is labeled (\*1) (resp. (\*2)) if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ (resp. if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$) when condition (i) holds. Condition (\*) is labeled (\*3) when condition (ii) holds.
\[redto\*\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$. Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$ and consider the quadratic sequence $$({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)\leftarrow \cdots$$ along $\mu$. The following holds:
- there exists $r \geq 0$ such that $x_r$ is resolved or ($\iota (x_r)=\iota (x)$ and $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*));
- if $x$ satisfies condition (\*), then $x_1$ is resolved or ($\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies again condition (\*));
- if $\omega (x) \not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, then $x$ is good.
We first prove together (i) and (ii) by a casuistic analysis. The discussion goes according to the value of $\tau '(x)$ and subdivides in the different situations $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$ and $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$.\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=3$.*]{} Then $\iota (x_1)< \iota (x)$ by theorem \[bupthm\], so $x$ is good and there is nothing more to be proved.\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=1$ and $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$.*]{} We may pick well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ such that $U_3 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$, so $$J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)=<U_3^{\omega (x)}>.$$ We deduce that $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ and $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2). This proves that (i) holds with $r=0$.\
To prove (ii), we may assume that $\iota (x_1)\geq \iota (x)$ (in particular $\omega (x_1)=\omega (x)$). There is an expansion (\[eq720\]) with $$\label{eq7201}
G=0 \ \mathrm{and} \ U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}=\lambda U_3^{\omega (x)}, \ \lambda \neq 0.$$ By theorem \[bupthm\], $x_1$ lies on the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(u_3)$. Let $$x':=(Z':={Z \over u_2}, u'_1:={u_1 \over u_2}, u_2, u'_3:={u_3 \over u_2}), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2).$$
If $x_1=x'$, then $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal by proposition \[originchart\]. One deduces from (\[eq7201\]) that $$\epsilon (x')=\omega (x) \ \mathrm{and} \ J(F_{p,Z'},E',m_{S'}) \equiv <U_3^{\omega (x)}> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_2)\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}.$$ This proves that ($\iota (x')=\iota (x)$ and $x'$ satisfies condition (\*2)), so (ii) holds.
If $x_1\neq x'$, there exists a unitary polynomial $P(t)\in S[t]$, whose reduction $\overline{P}(t)\in k(x)[t]$ is irreducible, such that $$\label{eq7206}
x_1=(X':={Z\over u_1},u_1,v_2:=P(u'_2),u'_3:={u_3 \over u_1}), \ u'_2:={u_2 \over u_1}, \ E_1=\mathrm{div}(u_1).$$
We have $S_1/(u_1)\simeq k(x)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{v}_2,\overline{u}'_3)}$. Let $(u_1, v_2,u'_3;Z_1)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_1$, where $Z_1=X' - \phi_1$, $\phi_1 \in S_1$. Let $d'_1:=d_1+ d_2 -1+ \omega (x)/p$ and $c\in k(x_1)$ be the residue of $u'_2$. Note that we may furthermore assume that $P(t)\neq t$ if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ by symmetry on $u_1$ and $u_2$, i.e. $c^{pd_2}\neq 0$ (and $c^{pd_2}=1$ if $c=0$).
[*Case 1:*]{} $d'_1 \not \in \N$ or $\lambda c^{pd_2}\not \in k(x_1)^p$. By (\[eq7201\]), it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $\mathrm{ord}_{(u_1)}\phi_1 > d'_1$. The initial form $\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h_1$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] is then of the form: $$\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h_1={Z_1}^p +\lambda U_1^{pd'_1}{\overline{u}'_2}^{pd_2}{\overline{u}'_3}^{\omega (x)}
\in S_1/(u_1)[U_1][Z_1].$$ We have $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$ and $$J(F_{p,Z_1},E_1,m_{S_1})\equiv <{U'_3}^{\omega (x)}> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_1)\cap G(m_{S_1})_{\epsilon (x_1)}.$$ Therefore $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1), so (ii) holds.
[*Case 2:*]{} $d'_1 \in \N$ and $\lambda c^{pd_2}\in k(x_1)^p$. It can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $$u_1^{-d'_1}\phi_1\equiv \gamma_1 {u'_3}^{{\omega (x)\over p}} \ \mathrm{mod}(u_1),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S_1$ is a preimage of $-(\lambda c^{pd_2})^{1/p}\in k(x_1)$. Since $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ is minimal, we have $$0\neq d(\lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2})\in \Omega^1_{G(m_S)/\F_p}.$$ We deduce that $(u_1,v'_2:=\gamma {u'_2}^{pd_2} +\gamma_1^p, u'_3)$ is a r.s.p. of $S_1$, where $\gamma \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda$. Let $(u_1, v'_2,u'_3;Z'_1)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_1$, so the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h_1$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] is now of the form: $$\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h_1={Z'_1}^p +U_1^{pd'_1}\overline{v}'_2{\overline{u}'_3}^{\omega (x)} \in S_1/(u_1)[U_1][Z'_1].$$ If $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$, then $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\], so $x_1$ is resolved. Otherwise we have $\epsilon (x_1)=1+\omega (x)$ and $${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'_1} \over \partial V_2}\equiv <{U'_3}^{\omega (x)}> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_1)\cap G(m_{S_1})_{\omega (x)}.$$ Then there exist well adapted coordinates of the form $(u_1, v'_2,v_3;Z')$ at $x_1$ satisfying definition \[\*kappadeux\], so $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3).\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=1$ and $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$.*]{} By definition \[defkappa\], we then have $H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_2}\neq (0)$, therefore $$\label{eq7205}
H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_2}=<U_3^{\omega (x)}>,$$ so $x$ satisfies condition (\*3). This proves that (i) holds.
To prove (ii), we may assume that $\iota (x_1)\geq \iota (x)$. By (\[eq7205\]), there is an expansion (\[eq720\]) with $$\label{eq7202}
G=0, \ U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z}=\lambda U_2U_3^{\omega (x)} + \Phi_0(U_2^p,U_3^p)+U_1\Phi (U_1,U_2^p,U_3^p), \lambda \neq 0.$$ This furthermore implies that $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, so $\Phi_0=0$. By theorem \[bupthm\], $x_1$ lies on the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(u_3)$. Note that we may furthermore assume that $$\label{eq7203}
\lambda =1 \ \mathrm{and} \ \mathrm{deg}_{U_3}\Phi (U_1,U_2^p,U_3^p)< \omega (x)$$ in (\[eq7202\]): this is achieved by possibly changing $u_2$ to $\gamma_0u_2 + \gamma u_1$, $\gamma_0 \gamma\in S$ a unit, then picking again well prepared coordinates. Let $$x':=(Z':={Z\over u_2}, u'_1:={u_1\over u_2}, u_2, u'_3:={u_3\over u_2}), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2).$$
If $x_1=x'$, the proof is identical as when $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$: one gets ($\iota (x')=\iota (x)$ and $x'$ satisfies condition (\*2)), so (ii) holds.
If $x_1\neq x'$, we let $d'_1:=d_1-1+ (1+\omega (x))/p$ and use notations as when $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$. We have $E_1=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and consider three cases.
[*Case 1:*]{} $d'_1 \not \in \N$. By (\[eq7202\]), $\mathrm{ord}_{(u_1)}\phi_1 > d'_1$.
If $x_1=x'_1:=(Z'_1:=Z/u_1, u_1,u'_2:=u_2/u_1, u'_3:=u_3/u_1)$, we have $\Phi \in k(x)[U_2^p,U_3^p]$ and the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h_1$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] is of the form: $$\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h_1={Z'_1}^p +U_1^{pd'_1}(\overline{u}'_2{\overline{u}'_3}^{\omega (x)}+
\Phi ({\overline{u}'_2}^p,{\overline{u}'_3}^p))\in S_1/(u_1)[U_1][Z_1].$$
If $\Phi =0$, we either have $\epsilon (x'_1)=\omega (x)$, so $x'_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\] and $x_1$ is resolved; or $\epsilon (x'_1)=1+\omega (x)$ and $${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'_1} \over \partial U'_2}\equiv <{U'_3}^{\omega (x)}> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_1)\cap G(m_{S_1})_{\omega (x)}.$$ Then $\iota (x'_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x'_1$ satisfies condition (\*3).
If $\Phi \neq 0$, we have $\epsilon (x'_1)=\omega (x)$ and $${H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'_1}\equiv <\Phi ({U'_2}^p,{U'_3}^p)> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_1)\cap G(m_{S_1})_{\omega (x)}.$$ If $U_2U_3$ divides $\Phi$, then $x_1$ is good by proposition \[tauegaldeux\]; otherwise $\Phi$ is monic in $U_2$ or in $U_3$, so $\iota (x'_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x'_1$ satisfies condition (\*1).
If $x_1\neq x'_1$, then $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$, $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1).
[*Case 2:*]{} $d'_1 \in \N$ and $c \not \in k(x_1)^p$. With notations as in (\[eq7206\]) [*sqq.*]{}, we get $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$ and $${H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z_1}\equiv <c{U'_3}^{\omega (x)} +\Phi_1 ({U'_2}^p,{U'_3}^p)> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_1)\cap G(m_{S_1})_{\omega (x)},$$ where $\mathrm{deg}_{U'_3}\Phi_1 ({U'_2}^p,{U'_3}^p)<\omega (x)$ by (\[eq7203\]). Therefore $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1).
[*Case 3:*]{} $d'_1 \in \N$ and $c \in k(x_1)^p$. It can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $$u_1^{-d'_1}\phi_1 \equiv \gamma_1 {u'_3}^{{\omega (x) \over p}} +
\sum_{i=1}^{{\omega (x) \over p}}\psi_i{u'_3}^{{\omega (x)\over p} -i} \ \mathrm{mod}(u_1),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S_1$ is a preimage of $c^{1/p}\in k(x_1)$ and $$\overline{\psi}_i\in k(x)[\overline{u}'_2]_{(\overline{v}_2)}\subset S_1/(u_1), \ 1 \leq i \leq {\omega (x)\over p}.$$ Then $(u_1,v'_2:=u'_2 +\gamma_1^p, u'_3)$ is a r.s.p. of $S_1$ ([*viz.*]{} above $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$, case 2). Let $(u_1,v'_2,u'_3;Z'_1)$ be well adapted coordinates. We have $$\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h_1={Z'_1}^p +U_1^{pd'_1}(\overline{v}'_2{\overline{u}'_3}^{\omega (x)}
+\Psi (\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)) \in S_1/(u_1)[U_1][Z'_1],$$ where $\Psi (\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)\in k(x)[\overline{u}'_2]_{(\overline{v}_2)}[\overline{u}'_3]$, $\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{v}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)}\Psi \geq \omega (x)$. Since $\omega (x')=\omega (x)$, we have $$\label{eq7204}
\overline{\Psi}:=\mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)}\Psi (\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)
\in ({\overline{V}'_2}^p k(x')[{\overline{V}'_2}^p,{\overline{U}'_3}^p])_{\omega (x)}.$$
If ($\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$ and $\overline{\Psi}=0$), then $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\], so $x_1$ is resolved.
If ($\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$ and $0 \neq \overline{\Psi}\in <{\overline{V}'_2}^{\omega (x)}>$), we have $$J(F_{p,Z'_1},E_1,m_{S_1})\equiv <{V'_2}^{\omega (x)}> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_1)\cap G(m_{S_1})_{\omega (x)}.$$ Therefore $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1).
If ($\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$ and $\overline{\Psi}\not \in <{\overline{V}'_2}^{\omega (x)}>$), we have $$\kappa (x')=2 \ \mathrm{and} \ \mathrm{Vdir}(x')+k(x')U_1 = <U_1,V'_2, U'_3> ,$$ so $x_1$ is good by lemma \[tauegaldeux\].
If $\epsilon (x_1)=1+\omega (x)$, we have $${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'_1} \over \partial V'_2}\equiv <{U'_3}^{\omega (x)}> \ \mathrm{mod}
(U_1,V'_2)\cap G(m_{S_1})_{\omega (x_1)}.$$ Then there exist well adapted coordinates of the form $(u_1, v'_2,v_3;Z')$ at $x_1$ satisfying definition \[\*kappadeux\], so $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3). This concludes the proof of (ii) when $\tau '(x)=1$.\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $\tau '(x)=2$.*]{} Up to a change of well adapted coordinates, it is easily seen that $x$ belongs to one of the following types:\
(T0) $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$, $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,U_2>$;
(T1) $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,U_2>$;
(T2) $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$, $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3, U_1 + \lambda U_2>$ with $\lambda \neq 0$;
(T3) $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,U_1>$;
(T4) $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)-1$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,U_1>$.
[*Claim:*]{} suppose $x$ is of type (Tk), $0 \leq j \leq 4$. Then $x_1$ is resolved or one of the following properties hold:
- $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*);
- $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$, $\tau '(x_1)=2$ and $x_1$ is of type (Tl) with $l\leq k$.
If moreover $x$ satisfies condition (\*), then $x_1$ is resolved or (a) holds.\
To prove the claim, we do a case by case analysis. If $k=0$, then $x$ is good by proposition \[tauegaldeux\].\
[*Assume that $k=1$*]{}. There is an expansion (\[eq720\]) with $$G=0 \ \mathrm{and} \ U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z}=F_{1+\omega (x)}(U_2,U_3) +
\sum_{i=1}^{1+\omega (x)}F_{1+\omega (x)-i}(U_2,U_3)U_1^i.$$ Since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_2,U_3>$, we have $$\label{eq721}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{Vdir}\left ({\partial F_{1+\omega (x)} \over \partial U_2}, {\partial F_{1+\omega (x)} \over \partial U_3}
\right )=<U_2,U_3> \hfill{}\\
\\
F_{1+\omega (x)-i}(U_2,U_3)\in k(x)[U_2^p,U_3^p], \ 1 \leq i \leq 1+\omega (x) \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ Assume that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. By theorem \[bupthm\], $x_1=x'$, where $$x':=(Z':=Z/ u_1, u_1, u'_2:=u_2/u_1, u'_3:=u_3/u_1).$$ We have $$E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1), S'/(u_1)\simeq k(x)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)}
\ \mathrm{and} \ H(x')= (u_1^{p(d_1-1)+1+\omega (x)}).$$ Assume that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. By proposition \[originchart\], $\Delta_{S'} (h';u_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal. The initial form $\mathrm{in}_{E'}h'$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] is of the form: $$\mathrm{in}_{E'}h'={Z'}^p +U_1^{p(d_1-1)+1+\omega (x)}\left (F_{1+\omega (x)}(\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3) +
\sum_{i=1}^{1 +\omega (x)}F_{1+\omega (x)-i}(\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)\right ).$$ This proves that $F_i(U_2,U_3)=0$, $2 \leq i \leq 1+\omega (x)$. We consider two cases:
[*Case 1:*]{} $F_{\omega (x)}(U_2,U_3)=0$. If $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$, then $x'$ satisfies all assumptions of proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\] by (\[eq721\]), so $x$ is good.
If $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)$, then $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$ and $${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_j}
\equiv <{\partial F_{1+\omega (x)} \over \partial U_j}(U'_2,U'_3)>
\ \mathrm{mod}(U_1)\cap G(m_{S'})_{\omega (x)},$$ for $j=2,3$ again by (\[eq721\]). We conclude that $\tau '(x')=3$ (so $x$ is good) or $x'$ is again of type (T1) as required. If $x$ satisfies condition (\*), so does $x'$.
[*Case 2:*]{} $F_{\omega (x)}(U_2,U_3)\neq 0$. We have $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$ and $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={Z'}^p + U_1^{p(d_1-1)+1+\omega (x)}(F_{\omega (x)}(U'_2,U'_3)+U_1\Phi '),
\ \Phi ' \in k(x')[U_1,{U'_2}^p,{U'_3}^p].$$ Therefore $\iota (x')= \iota (x)$. If $F_{\omega (x)}(U_2,U_3)$ is monic in $U_2$ or in $U_3$, then $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1). Otherwise $x'$ is of type (T0) and the conclusion follows.\
Note that if $\omega (x)=1$, $x$ is of type (T1) and satisfies condition (\*3). So we may assume from this point on that $\omega (x)\geq 2$.\
[*Assume that $k=2$*]{}. There is an expansion (\[eq720\]) with $G=0$ and $$F_{p,Z}=U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2}\sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)}F_{i}(U_1,U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)-i}.$$ Note that $F_i(U_1,U_2)=0$ whenever $\omega (x)-i \not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, since $\omega (x)=\epsilon (x)$; we have $F_i\neq 0$ for some $i$, $0\leq i \leq \omega (x)-1$ since $\kappa (x)=2$; moreover $F_0\neq 0$ iff $x$ satisfies condition (\*).
Assume that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $$x_1=x':=(X':=Z/u_1, u_1, u'_2:=1+ \gamma u_2/u_1 , u'_3:=u_3/u_1),$$ $\gamma \in S$ being a preimage of $\lambda$. We have $$E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1), \ k(x')=k(x) \ \mathrm{and} \ H(x')= (u_1^{p(d_1+d_2-1)+\omega (x)}).$$ Assume that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. Since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,U_1 + \lambda U_2>$, we consider two cases deduced from lemma \[joyeux\]:
[*Case 1:*]{} $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. By lemma \[joyeux\](i), it can be assumed w.l.o.g that $$\label{eq723}
F_{pi}(U_1,U_2)=c_{pi}(U_1 + \lambda U_2)^{pi}, \ c_{pi} \in k(x), 1 \leq i \leq {\omega (x) \over p}.$$ After blowing up, there is an expansion $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={X'}^p + F_{p,X'}$, where $$\label{eq7231}
U_1^{-pd'_1}F_{p,X'}=(- \lambda)^{-pd_2}\sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)/ p}c_{pi}{U'_2}^{pi}{U'_3}^{\omega (x)-pi}
+U_1\Phi ',$$ for some $\Phi ' \in k(x)[U_1,{U'_2}^p,{U'_3}^p]$, $d'_1:=d_1+d_2 -1 +\omega (x)/p$.
If $d'_1 \not \in \N$, then $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$ and $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$. Moreover $$k(x')U_1 +\mathrm{Vdir}(x')= <U_1,U'_2,U'_3>,$$ so $\tau '(x')=3$ or $x'$ is of type (T0). In both cases, $x$ is good.
If $(d_1,d_2) \in \N^2$, it can be assumed furthermore that $c_{pi}=0$ or $c_{pi} \not \in k(x)^p$ in (\[eq723\]). We have $d'_1 \in \N$ and we also get $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$ and $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$. Since $$J(F_{p,Z},E,x)=H^{-1}<{\partial F_{p,Z}\over \partial \lambda_l})_{l \in \Lambda_0}>$$ with notations as in (\[eq244\]), we get in any case since $k(x')=k(x)$: $$k(x')U_1 +\mathrm{Vdir}(x')= <U_1,U'_2,U'_3>.$$ Therefore $\tau '(x')=3$ or $x'$ is of type (T0), so $x$ is good.
If $d'_1 \in \N$, $d_2 \not \in \N$, we define $$I:=\{i : (-\lambda)^{-pd_2}c_{pi} \not\in k(x)^p\}.$$
If $I\neq \emptyset$, we also get $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$ and $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$. If $\omega (x)\in I$, $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1); otherwise $x'$ is good.
If $I=\emptyset$, let $(u_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x'$. We denote by $a\in \F_p$ the residue of $pd_2$. Since $d_2 \not \in \N$, we have $a\neq 0$. The initial form $\mathrm{in}_{E'}h'$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] is of the form: $$\mathrm{in}_{E'}h'={Z'}^p +U_1^{pd'_1}\overline{F}'(\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)\in S'/(u_1)[U_1,Z'],$$ where $ S'/(u_1) \simeq k(x)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)}$. The form $\Phi ':= \mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)+1}\overline{F}'$ is given by $$\Phi '= -a (-\lambda )^{-pd_2}
\sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)/p}c_{pi}{\overline{U}'_2}^{pi+1}{\overline{U}'_3}^{\omega (x)-pi}
\in k(x)[\overline{U}'_2,\overline{U}'_3]_{\omega (x)+1}.$$ If $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$, $x'$ thus satisfies all assumptions of proposition \[sortiebis\], so $x$ is good. Otherwise, we have $\epsilon (x')=1+\omega (x)$ and $$k(x')U_1 +\mathrm{Vdir}(x')= <U_1,U'_2,U'_3>.$$ Therefore $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$ and $x$ is good (if $\tau (x')=3$) or $x'$ is of type (T1). If $x$ satisfies condition (\*2), i.e. $c_0 \neq 0$, then $x'$ satisfies condition (\*3).
[*Case 2:*]{} $\omega (x)\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. Recall that $F_i(U_1,U_2)=0$ whenever $\omega (x)-i \not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. Therefore $a:=\widehat{\omega (x)}=\widehat{i}$ whenever $F_i\neq 0$. Let $a_j:=\widehat{pd_j}$, $j=1,2$. By lemma \[joyeux\](ii), we have $a_1a_2 \neq 0$, $a_1+a_2+a=p$. Moreover, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $$\label{eq7232}
U_1^{a(1)}U_2^{a(2)}F_{i}(U_1,U_2)=c_i\Phi_{i}(U_1,\lambda U_2), \ c_i \in k(x)^p, 1 \leq i \leq \omega (x),$$ with notations as in (\[eq7071\]). After blowing up, the initial form $\mathrm{in}_{E'}h'$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] is of the form: $$\mathrm{in}_{E'}h'={Z'}^p +U_1^{pd'_1}\overline{F}'(\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)\in S'/(u_1)[U_1,Z'],$$ where $ S'/(u_1) \simeq k(x)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3)}$. The form $\Phi ':= \mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)+1}\overline{F}'$ is given explicitly by $$\Phi '= \left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_2+a \\
a+1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor \omega (x)/ p \rfloor }c_{pi+a}{\overline{U}'_2}^{a+pi+1}{\overline{U}'_3}^{\omega (x)-a-pi}
\in k(x)[\overline{U}'_2,\overline{U}'_3]_{\omega (x)+1}.$$ If $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$, $x'$ thus satisfies all assumptions of proposition \[sortiebis\], so $x$ is good. Otherwise, we have $\epsilon (x')=1+\omega (x)$ and $$k(x')U_1 +\mathrm{Vdir}(x')= <U_1,U'_2,U'_3>.$$ Therefore $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$ and $x$ is good (if $\tau (x')=3$) or is of type (T1). Note that $x$ did not satisfy condition (\*2): since $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subset k[U_1,U_2,U_3^p]_{\omega (x)}$ and $\omega (x)\not\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)$ contains no monic polynomial in $U_3$.\
[*Assume that $k=3$*]{}. There is an expansion (\[eq720\]) with $G=0$ and $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}= \sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)}\lambda_i U_3^{\omega (x)-i}U_1^i.$$ Assume that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $x_1=x'$, where $$x':=(Z':=Z/u_2, u'_1:=u_1/u_2, u_2, u'_3:=u_3/u_2).$$ By proposition \[originchart\], $\Delta_{S'} (h';u'_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal and we have $$\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={Z'}^p + {U'_1}^{pd_1}U_2^{pd'_1}
(\sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)}\lambda_i {U'_3}^{\omega (x)-i}{U'_1}^i+U_2\Phi '),$$ where $d'_1:=d_1+d_2-1+\omega (x)/p$, $\Phi ' \in k(x')[U'_1,U_2,{U'_3}^p]$. since it is assumed that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. Then $$\iota (x')=\iota (x) \ \mathrm{and} \ k(x')U_2 + \mathrm{Vdir}(x')=<U'_1,U_2,U'_3>.$$ We conclude that $\tau '(x')=3$ (so $x$ is good) or $x'$ is of either type (T2) or (T3). If moreover $x$ satisfies condition (\*), i.e. $\lambda_0 \neq 0$, then $x'$ satisfies condition (\*2).\
[*Assume that $k=4$*]{}. We have $H^{-1}G^p \subseteq k(x)U_1^{\omega (x)+1}$ and there is an expansion (\[eq720\]) with $$\label{eq7233}
U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z}= F_{1+\omega (x)}(U_1,U_3) + \sum_{i=1}^{1+\omega (x)}F_{1+\omega (x)-i}(U_1,U_3)U_2^i.$$ Assume that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $x_1=x'$, where $$x':=(Z':=Z/u_2, u'_1:=u_1/u_2, u_2, u'_3:=u_3/u_2), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2).$$ By proposition \[originchart\], $\Delta_{S'} (h';u_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ is minimal. We deduce from (\[eq7233\]) that $$F_{1+\omega (x)-i}(U_1,U_3)=0, \ 2 \leq i \leq 1 +\omega (x),$$ since it is assumed that $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. Since $\kappa (x)=2$, we deduce from definition \[defkappa\] that $$\label{eq7235}
F_{\omega (x)}(U_1,U_3)\not \in <U_1^{\omega (x)}>.$$ In particular, we get from (\[eq7233\]): $$\epsilon (x')=\omega (x) \ \mathrm{and} \ \mathrm{Vdir}(x') \nsubseteq <U'_1,U_2>.$$ The initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'$ is therefore given by $$\label{eq7234}
\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={Z'}^p + {U'_1}^{pd_1}U_2^{pd'_2}(F_{\omega (x)}(U'_1,U'_3) +U_2\Phi ')$$ where $d'_2:= d_1+d_2-1+(1+\omega (x))/p$, $\Phi ' \in k(x')[U'_1,U_2,U'_3]$. This proves that $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$.
Suppose that $x$ satisfies condition (\*3), i.e. $F_{\omega (x)}(U_1,U_3)$ is unitary in $U_3$. We deduce from (\[eq7234\]) that $x'$ satisfies condition (\*2). Otherwise, $U_1$ divides $F_{\omega (x)}(U_1,U_3)$ and we deduce from (\[eq7235\]) that $$k(x')U_2 + \mathrm{Vdir}(x')=<U'_1,U_2,U'_3>.$$ Then $x$ is good (if $\tau '(x')=3$), or ($\tau '(x')=2$ and $x'$ is of type (T2) or (T3)). This concludes the proof of the claim. In particular, we have proved (ii).\
We now prove (i). Suppose on the contrary that for every $r \geq 0$, $x_r$ does not satisfy condition (\*). The above proof shows that $x_r$ is resolved for some $r \geq 0$ or there exists $r_0 \geq 0$ such that for every $r \geq r_0$, we have $$\tau '(x_r)=2 \ \mathrm{and} \ x_r \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{of} \ \mathrm{type} \ (Tk)$$ where $k \in \{1,3\}$ is independent of $r$. If $k=1$, we derive a contradiction from corollary \[permisarcthree\].
If $k=3$, there exists $$\hat{u}_3:=u_3 -\sum_{i=1}^\infty \gamma_{i,3}u_2^i \in \hat{S};
\ \hat{\phi}:= \sum_{i=1}^\infty \gamma_{i}u_2^i\in \hat{S}$$ with the following property: for every $i \geq 0$, we have $\iota (x_i)=\iota (x)$ and the strict transform in $({\cal X}_i,x_i)$ of the formal curve $\hat{{\cal Y}}=(Z-\hat{\phi},u_1,\hat{u}_3)\subset \hat{{\cal X}}$ is nonempty.
Note that the conclusion of proposition \[permisarc\](2) applied to the formal arc $\varphi: \ \hat{{\cal Y}}\rightarrow {\cal X}$ does not hold. To see this, note that [*ibid.*]{}(2.b) implies that $Z_{r_0(\varphi)}$ is an irreducible component of $E_{r_0}$; by [*ibid.*]{}(2.c) we have $\epsilon (x_{r_0})=1$: a contradiction, since it is assumed (from the beginning of this proof) that $\omega (x)\geq 2$.
Therefore the conclusion of proposition \[permisarc\](1) holds. Let $(u'_1, u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_{r_0}$, where ${\cal Y}:=(Z',u'_1,u'_3)\subset ({\cal X}_{r_0},x_{r_0})$ is permissible of the first kind at $x_0$. Since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_{r_0})=<U'_1,U'_3>$, $x_{r_0}$ is good by theorem \[bupthm\], hence $x$ is good.\
To prove (iii), it can be assumed by (i) that $x$ satisfies condition (\*). Suppose that $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$. Then $J(F_{p,Z},E,x)$ contains no monic polynomial in $U_3$, since $\omega (x)\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. So $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)+1$. It has been proved above that $$\tau '(x)=1 \Longrightarrow \omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p.$$ We deduce that $\tau '(x)\geq 2$. Therefore $x_r$ is resolved for some $r\geq 0$ or $$\iota (x_i)=\iota (x), \ \epsilon (x_i)=\omega (x)+1 \ \mathrm{and} \ \tau '(x_i)=2$$ for every $i\geq 0$. The above claim shows that $x_r$ is of type (T1) for every $r>>0$. We get $x_r$ resolved for some $r\geq 0$ arguing as in the above proof of (i), so $x$ is good.
A direct consequence of proposition \[redto\*\](iii) and remark \[rempermkappa2\] is:
\[omeganoncongp\] Projection Theorem \[projthm\] holds when $\kappa (x)=2$ and $\omega (x)\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. One may take all local blowing ups in (\[eq402\]) permissible of the first kind if $p=2$ or if $\omega (x)\geq 3$.
\[kappadeuxancien\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$, $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ and use notations as in proposition \[redto\*\].
Suppose that $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2) and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3). It follows from the above proof that $x_1$ is resolved or there exist well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ at $x_1$ such that $$\label{eq7236}
{H}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_2}\equiv <\Phi (U_2,U_3)>
\ \mathrm{mod}(U_1)\cap G(m_{S})_{\omega (x)},$$ where $\Phi (U_2,U_3) \in k(x_1)[U_2,{U_3}^p]$. This is precisely the definition used by the authors for $\kappa (x)=2$ when $\epsilon (x)=1+\omega (x)$ in [@CoP2] [**I.1**]{}(ii) on p.1899.
Suppose now that $\kappa (x)=2$, $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) and $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates satisfying the requirements in definition \[\*kappadeux\]. It also follows from the above proof that $x$ is good or $$H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_2}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
<U_3^{\omega (x)}> \hfill{}& \mathrm{if} & \tau '(x)=1 \hfill{}\\
& & \\
<F_{\omega (x)} (U_1,U_3)> & \mathrm{if} & \mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_3> \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ In particular, (\[eq7236\]) holds in both cases with $<\Phi >=<U_3^{\omega (x)}> $. We deduce the following: there exists $r\geq 0$ such that $x_r$ is resolved or for every $r>>0$, we have ($\iota (x_r)=\iota (x)$, $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*) and $$x_r \ \mathrm{satisfies} \ \mathrm{condition} \ (*3) \Longrightarrow (\ref{eq7236}) \ \mathrm{holds} \
\mathrm{at} \ x_r ).$$ Namely, otherwise we would have ($\iota (x_r)=\iota (x)$, $\tau ' (x_r)=2$ and $x_r$ is of type (T1)) for every $r>>0$ by the above. But this implies that $x_r$ is resolved for some $r\geq 0$ ([*viz.*]{} proof of proposition \[redto\*\](i) for $\tau '(x)=2$).
This matches the present definition of $\kappa (x)=2$ with that used in [@CoP2], and reduces the proof to the same situation (\[eq7236\]).
Monic expansions: secondary invariants.
---------------------------------------
Proposition \[redto\*\](i) has reduced the proof of the projection theorem to those points with $\kappa (x)=2$ satisfying condition (\*). Moreover, we may assume that $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ by corollary \[omeganoncongp\]. For such points, we introduce a new invariant $\gamma (x)\in \N$ in definition \[definvariants2\].
[*We assume in this section and in the following one that $\omega (x)\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ and $x$ satisfies condition (\*).* ]{}
Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates satisfying the condition in definition \[\*kappadeux\]. If $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2) (resp. condition (\*3)), then $$\label{eq730}
\mathbf{v}_0:= (\mathbf{b}_0,{\omega (x)\over p}),
\ \mathbf{b}_0:=(d_1,d_2) \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ \mathbf{b}_0:= (d_1,{1 \over p}))$$ is a vertex of $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$. Consider the projection from the point $\mathbf{v}_0$: $$\mathbf{p}'_2 : \R^3 \backslash \{x_3=\omega (x)/ p\}\longrightarrow \A :=\mathbf{b}_0 +\{(x_1,x_2,0),\ x_1,x_2 \in \R^2\}.$$ We view here $\A$ as an [*affine*]{} plane with origin $\mathbf{b}_0$ and coordinates $(x_1,x_2)$. Of course $\A$ as a set is independent of our choice of $ \mathbf{b}_0$. Let $\mathbf{p}_2:=\tau \circ \mathbf{p}'_2$, where $$\tau : \A \longrightarrow \A , \ \mathbf{b}_0+(y_1,y_2) \mapsto
\mathbf{b}_0+{1 \over {\omega (x) \over p}}(y_1,y_2).$$ Analytically, we have: $$\label{eq7302}
\mathbf{p}_2 : \ (x_1,x_2,x_3) \mapsto \mathbf{b}_0 + {(x_1,x_2) -\mathbf{b}_0 \over {\omega (x)\over p}-x_3}.$$
[*From now on, we will use affine coordinates in $\A$, i.e. $(y_1,y_2)\in \R^2$ represents the point $\mathbf{b}_0+(y_1,y_2)\in \A$.* ]{}
\[defDelta2\] With notations as above, we define a convex set: $$\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z):=
\mathbf{p}_2 \left ( \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\}\right )\subseteq \A .$$ Let furthermore $$\label{eq7301}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) & := & \mathrm{inf}_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_1+y_2\} \geq 1 \hfill{}\\
& & \\
\beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) & := & \sup_{\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) \hfill{}\\
y_1 +y_2=B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) \\
\end{array}
\right.
}\{y_2 \} \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
Indeed, $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ is a convex set because the set $$\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\}$$ is convex. We now prove some basic properties of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$. The situation is different and somewhat simpler when (\*1) or (\*2) holds.
\[structDelta2\] With notations as above, the following holds:
- there exists $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2,a_3)\in \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\}$ such that $\mathbf{p}_2(\mathbf{a})=:(\alpha_2,\beta_2)\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ satisfies $$\beta_2=\beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z), \ \alpha_2 +\beta_2=B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z).$$
- if $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2), then $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ is a (nonempty) rational polygon.
- if $x$ satisfies condition (\*3), then $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\cap\{y_2 \geq \beta_2\}$ is a (nonempty) rational polygon.
- assume that $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2) (resp. condition (\*3)). Let $$\sigma_2 \subset \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) \ (\mathrm{resp.}\sigma_2 \subset
\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\cap\{y_2 \geq \beta_2\})$$ be a compact face. The topological closure $\sigma$ of $$\label{eq731}
\sigma^{\circ} :=\mathbf{p}^{-1}_2 (\sigma_2)\cap \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)
\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\}$$ is a compact face of the polyhedron $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ (so $\sigma =\sigma_\alpha$ for some weight vector $\alpha \in \R^3_{>0}$, [*viz.*]{} definition \[definh\]). Moreover $\mathbf{p}_2(\sigma^\circ)=\sigma_2$ and $$\label{eq7313}
\sigma = \sigma^\circ \cup \{\mathbf{v}_0\}.$$
- assume that $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) and let $$\sigma_{2,\mathrm{in}} := \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\cap\{y_1+y_2 = B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\}.$$ If $B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)>1$, statement (4) extends to $\sigma_2=\sigma_{2,\mathrm{in}}$, with (\[eq7313\]) possibly replaced by $$\sigma = \mathrm{Conv}\left (\sigma^\circ \cup \{\mathbf{v}_0\}\cup \{({1 \over p}, 0 ,{\omega (x)\over p})\}\right ).$$ If $B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)=1$, then $$\sigma_\mathrm{in}:=\{\mathbf{x}\in \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z) : x_1+x_2+x_3=\delta (x)\}$$ is the unique compact face $\sigma$ of $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ such that $$\mathbf{p}_2\left (\sigma \cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\}\right )=\sigma_2.$$
Let $\mathbf{V}$ be the set of all vertices of $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ and $$\mathbf{V}_{-}:=\mathbf{V}\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\}.$$ We claim that $\mathbf{V}_{-}\neq \emptyset$. Namely, suppose that $\mathbf{V}_{-}= \emptyset$. By definition, this means that $$\mathrm{ord}_{(u_3)}f_{i,Z}\geq i{\omega (x) \over p}, \ 1 \leq i \leq p.$$ Since $\omega (x)/p\geq 1$, we deduce that ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_3)\subset \mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}$ by proposition \[deltainv\]: a contradiction with assumption [**(E)**]{}.\
In order to prove the lemma, we must understand the limit points $\mathbf{p}_2(\mathbf{x})\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ when $\mathbf{x}\in \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ tends to the hyperplane $\{x_3=\omega(x)/p\}$. By convexity, we have $$\mathbf{x}\in \mathrm{Conv}\left ( \bigcup_{\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{V}}\{\mathbf{v}+\R^3_{\geq 0}\}\right ).$$
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2).*]{} Let $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbf{V} \backslash \mathbf{V}_{-}$. Since $v_j \geq d_j$, $j=1,2$, and $v_3 \geq \omega (x)/p$, we have $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{v}_0$. One deduces immediately that $$\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)=\mathrm{Conv} \left ( \{\mathbf{p}_2(\mathbf{v})+ {\R}^2_{\geq 0},
\ \mathbf{v} \in \mathbf{V}_{-}\} \right ).$$ All statements in the lemma follow easily.\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $x$ satisfies condition (\*3).*]{} Let $\mathbf{a}=(a_1,a_2,a_3)\in \mathbf{V}_{-}$ be chosen in such a way that $$\label{eq7311}
(\alpha_2+\beta_2,-\beta_2):=\left ( {a_1+a_2-d_1-{1 \over p}\over {\omega (x)\over p}-a_3},
{-a_2+{1 \over p}\over {\omega (x)\over p}-a_3}\right )$$ is minimal for the lexicographical ordering, [*viz.*]{} (\[eq7302\]). We now prove (1). Let $\mathbf{v} \in \mathbf{V}\backslash \mathbf{V}_{-}$. Since $v_3>0$, theorem \[initform\] implies that $$\mathrm{in}_{\mathbf{v}}h =Z^p +\lambda U^{p\mathbf{v}}, \ \lambda \neq 0.$$ If $\mathbf{v}\neq \mathbf{v}_0$, we therefore have $$\label{eq7312}
v_3 \geq {1+\omega (x) \over p} \ \mathrm{or} \ \mathbf{v}=\mathbf{v}_k:=(d_1+{k \over p}, 0 , {\omega (x)\over p}) \
\mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ k\geq 1.$$ Let $$\alpha:=({\omega (x)\over p},{\omega (x)\over p}, \alpha_2+\beta_2)\in \R_{>0}^3,
\ L_\alpha (x_1,x_2,x_3):=x_1+x_2 + (\alpha_2+\beta_2)x_3.$$ By (\[eq7311\])-(\[eq7312\]), we have $$\label{eq7314}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
L_\alpha (\mathbf{v}_0)= L_\alpha (\mathbf{b}_0)+{\omega (x)\over p}(\alpha_2+\beta_2)=L_\alpha (\mathbf{a}) \\
L_\alpha (\mathbf{v})\geq L_\alpha (\mathbf{v}_0) \ \mathrm{if} \ \mathbf{v} \not \in \{\mathbf{v}_0,\mathbf{a}\} \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ This shows that $\mathbf{v}_0,\mathbf{a} \in \sigma_{\alpha}$, where $\sigma_{\alpha}$ is the compact face of the polyhedron $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ defined by $\alpha$. In particular we have proved that $$\alpha_2+\beta_2 =B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z).$$ Similarly, let $$\alpha ':=({\omega (x)\over p}\alpha'_1,{\omega (x)\over p}, \alpha'_1 \alpha_2+\beta_2)\in \R_{>0}^3,$$ where $\alpha'_1>1$ is chosen in such a way that $L_{\alpha '}(\mathbf{v})>L_{\alpha '}(\mathbf{a})$ for every $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbf{V}_{-}$. Such $\alpha'_1>1$ exists thanks to the minimal property in (\[eq7311\]). We now have $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
L_{\alpha'} (\mathbf{v}_0)= L_{\alpha'} (\mathbf{b}_0)+{\omega (x)\over p}(\alpha'_1\alpha_2+\beta_2)=L_{\alpha'} (\mathbf{a}) \\
L_{\alpha'} (\mathbf{v})> L_{\alpha'} (\mathbf{v}_0) \ \mathrm{if} \ \mathbf{v} \not \in \{\mathbf{v}_0,\mathbf{a}\} \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and this proves that the line $(\mathbf{v}_0\mathbf{a})$ meets $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ along an edge. This completes the proof of (1), and of (4) when $\sigma_2=\{(\alpha_2,\beta_2)\}$.
Statement (4) is proved along the same lines for arbitrary $$\sigma_2\subseteq \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\cap\{y_2 \geq \beta_2\}$$ and we omit the proof. Then (3) is a consequence of (4) because $\mathbf{V}_{-}$ is a finite set.
To prove (5) when $B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)>1$, note that equality possibly holds in (\[eq7314\]) only if $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{v}_1$ and the conclusion follows.
If $B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)=1$, we have $\alpha =(1,1,1)$ with notations as above and $\sigma_\mathrm{in}$ is the compact face of $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ generated by $\sigma^\circ$.
\[Delta2+\] With notations as above, let: $$\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z):=\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\cap \{y_2 \geq \beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\}.$$ Then $\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)=\mathrm{Conv} \left ( \{\mathbf{p}_2(\mathbf{x})+ {\R}^2_{\geq 0},
\ \mathbf{x} \in \mathbf{S}\} \right )$, where $\mathbf{S}$ is the set of vertices $\mathbf{x} \in \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ with $$0 \leq x_3 <{\omega (x)\over p} \ \mathrm{and} \ y_2:=(\mathbf{p}_2(\mathbf{x}))_2 \geq \beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z).$$
Taking $\sigma =\sigma_\alpha$ as in lemma \[structDelta2\](4) or (5), we deduce from theorem \[initform\] that: $$\mathrm{in}_\alpha h =Z^p +F_{p-1,Z, \alpha}Z +F_{p,Z, \alpha}\in \mathrm{gr}_\alpha S [Z].$$ Moreover, $F_{p-1,Z, \alpha}\neq 0$ implies that $F_{p-1,Z, \alpha}=-G_\alpha^{p-1}$ and $$\mathrm{cl}_{p(p-1)\delta_\alpha}(\mathrm{Disc}_Z(h))=<G^{p(p-1)}>.$$
In order to associate relevant combinatorial data to $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$, some minimizing process on the $u_3$ coordinate is required. This process is similar to that used in definition \[defsolvable\] and proposition \[Deltamin\].\
\[def2solvable\] Let $x$ satisfy condition (\*), $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ satisfying definition \[\*kappadeux\] and $\mathbf{y}=(y_1,y_2)\in \R^2$ be a vertex of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ (of $\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ in case (\*3)).
With notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](4) with $\sigma_2=\{\mathbf{y}\}$, we say that $\mathbf{y}$ is 2-solvable if $\mathbf{y}\in \N^2$ and $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathrm{in}_\alpha h=Z^p +\lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2}(U_3 -c U_1^{y_1}U_2^{y_2})^{\omega (x)} +\Phi^p
& \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{cases} \ (*1) \ \mathrm{or} \ (*2) \\
& \\
\mathrm{in}_\alpha h=Z^p +\lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_2(U_3 -c U_1^{y_1}U_2^{y_2})^{\omega (x)} +\Phi^p \hfill{}
& \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*3) \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\Phi \in \mathrm{gr}_\alpha S$ and $\lambda ,c \in k(x)$.
We say that $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ are well 2-adapted if furthermore the polygon $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ ($\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ in case (\*3)) has no 2-solvable vertex.
\[well2prepared\] With notations as above, there exists well 2-adapted coordinates. Furthermore, the polygon $\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ is independent of the well 2-adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$. For such $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$, let $$A_1(x):=\min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_1\}\geq 0;$$ the curve ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_3)\subset {\cal X}$ satisfies the equivalence: $$A_1(x)\geq 1 \Leftrightarrow {\cal Y} \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{permissible} \ (\mathrm{of} \ \mathrm{the}
\ \mathrm{first} \ \mathrm{or} \ \mathrm{second} \ \mathrm{kind}).$$
Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates and assume on the contrary that $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ are not well 2-adapted. Let $\mathbf{y}\in \N^2$ be a 2-solvable vertex of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ with $y_1+y_2$ minimal (and $y_2 \geq \beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ if $x$ satisfies condition (\*3)). Let $\gamma \in S$ be a preimage of $c\in k(x)$ given by definition \[def2solvable\]. Since $\mathbf{y}$ is a vertex of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$, we have $c\neq 0$, so $\gamma$ is a unit. We let $u'_3:=u_3 -\gamma u_1^{y_1}u_2^{y_2}$. Let $\alpha \in \R^3_{>0}$ define the edge $$\sigma :=\mathbf{p}^{-1}_2 (\mathbf{y})\cap \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)
\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\} \cup \{\mathbf{v}_0\}$$ of $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$. Computing now initial forms for the polyhedron $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z)$, we obtain $$\label{eq732}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathrm{in}_\alpha h=Z^p +\lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2}{U'_3}^{\omega (x)} +\Phi^p & \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{cases} \ (*1) \
\mathrm{or} \ (*2) \\
& \\
\mathrm{in}_\alpha h=Z^p +\lambda U_1^{pd_1}U_2{U'_3}^{\omega (x)} +\Phi^p \hfill{}
& \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{cases} \ (*3) \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ with notations as in definition \[def2solvable\].
Let now $\mathbf{y}'\neq \mathbf{y}$ be a vertex of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ (of $\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ if $x$ satisfies condition (\*3)). Let $\alpha '\in \R^3_{>0}$ define the corresponding edge $$\sigma ':=\mathbf{p}^{-1}_2 (\mathbf{y}')\cap \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)
\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\} \cup \{\mathbf{v}_0\}$$ given by lemma \[structDelta2\](4). In particular we have $$\mu_{\alpha '} (u_1^{y_1}u_2^{y_2})>\mu_{\alpha '} (u_3).$$ This implies that $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha '}h$ is unchanged when computed in $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ or in $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z)$, i.e. obtained by substituting the variable $U_3$ by the variable $U'_3$. Therefore $\sigma '$ is again an edge of $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z)$.
If $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2), we deduce that $$\mathbf{p}_2(\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z)\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\})
\subseteq \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z).$$
If $x$ satisfies condition (\*3), we obtain $$\mathbf{p}_2(\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z)\cap \{0\leq x_3<{\omega (x)\over p}\})\cap \{y_2\geq \beta_2\}
\subseteq \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z).$$
Let $(u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates, $Z':=Z-\phi$, $\phi \in S$. We first check that $(u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ satisfies definition \[\*kappadeux\], i.e. that $U'_3 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$. This is obvious if $y_1+y_2>1$, since $\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h$ is then unchanged. If $y_1+y_2=1$, then $\mathbf{y}\in \{(1,0), (0,1)\}$ because 2-solvable vertices have integer coordinates. By definition \[def2solvable\] and definition \[\*kappadeux\], we have $$U_3-cU_1 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)+<U_2> \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ U_3-cU_2 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)+<U_1>)$$ if $\mathbf{y}=(1,0)$ (resp. if $\mathbf{y}=(0,1)$). Therefore $\tau '(x)=3$ or $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3, U_1+dU_2> \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ \mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3, U_2+dU_1>)$$ for some $d \in k(x)$. In all cases, $U'_3 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ follows from the invariance of $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ (definition \[deftauprime\]) if $\tau '(x)=3$ or if $d=0$, or if ($d\neq 0$ and $x$ satisfies condition (\*2)). Otherwise, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $d=0$ by substituting $u_2$ by $u'_2=u_2 +\delta u_1$, where $\delta \in S$ is a preimage of $d \in k(x)$. Note that this substitution does not change the requirements in definition \[\*kappadeux\] and we thus get $U'_3\in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ as required.
By (\[eq732\]), we now have $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{v}_0\in \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')\subset \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)\\
\\
\mathbf{y} \not \in \Delta_2 (h;u_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')\hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
Iterating this construction, we deduce that there exists a sequence (finite or infinite) of 2-solvable vertices $(\mathbf{y}^{(i)})_{i\geq 0}$, $\mathbf{y}^{(0)}:=\mathbf{y}$ and corresponding well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3^{(i)};Z^{(i)})$, $Z^{(i)}:=Z^{(i-1)}-\phi^{(i-1)}$, $\phi^{(i-1)} \in S$ such that $$\label{eq7337}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{v}_0\in \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3^{(i)};Z^{(i)})\subset \Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3^{(i-1)};Z^{(i-1)})\\
\\
\mathbf{y}^{(i)} \not \in \Delta_2 (h;u_1,u_2;u_3^{(i-1)};Z^{(i-1)})\hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $i\geq 1$. Since $y_1^{(i)}+y_2^{(i)}$ is chosen to be minimal at each step, we have $y_1^{(i)}+y_2^{(i)}\rightarrow +\infty$ as $i\rightarrow +\infty$ if the process is infinite. Therefore $$\hat{u}_3=\lim_i u_3^{(i)}\in \hat{S}, \ \hat{Z}:=Z-\hat{\phi}, \ \hat{\phi}:=\sum_i\phi^{(i-1)}\in \hat{S}$$ exist and $(u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z})$ are well 2-adapted coordinates of $\hat{{\cal X}}=\mathrm{Spec}(\hat{S}[X]/(h))$. This proves the existence of well 2-adapted coordinates when $S=\hat{S}$.\
Let now $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ and $(u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ be two sets of well 2-adapted coordinates. To prove that $\Delta_2^+ (h;u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')=\Delta_2^+ (h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$, let first $\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2^+ (h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ and let $\alpha \in \R_{>0}^3$ be given by lemma \[structDelta2\](4) w.r.t. the face $\sigma_2:=\mathbf{y}$. Since $\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2^+ (h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$, we have $$\mu_\alpha (u_2)<\min\{\mu_\alpha (u_1), \mu_\alpha (u_3)\}.$$ Therefore $\mu_\alpha (u'_2)=\mu_\alpha (u_2)$. We deduce that $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h$ is unchanged when computed w.r.t. the coordinates $(u'_1,u'_2;u_3;Z)$. This implies furthermore that $\mathbf{y}$ is not 2-solvable in $\Delta_2 (h;u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ provided $\mu_\alpha (u'_3)=\mu_\alpha (u_3)$ for every $\alpha =\alpha (\mathbf{y})$. Otherwise, there is an expansion $$u'_3=\delta u_3 +\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in \Sigma}\gamma (\mathbf{x}) u_1^{x_1}u_2^{x_2},$$ with $\Sigma$ finite, $\delta , \gamma (\mathbf{x})\in S$ units and $\mu_\alpha (u_1^{x_1}u_2^{x_2})<\mu_\alpha (u_3)$ for some $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{x}_0\in \Sigma$ and $\alpha$. One deduces that $(\mathbf{v}_0\mathbf{x}_0)$ supports an edge of $\Delta_2 (h;u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ and that $1 /{\omega (x) \over p}\mathbf{x}_0$ is a 2-solvable vertex of $\Delta_2 (h;u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$. Choosing $\mathbf{x}_0$ with $x_1$ minimal gives $${1 \over {\omega (x) \over p}}\mathbf{x}_0 \in \Delta_2^+ (h;u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z').$$ This is a contradiction since $(u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ are well 2-adapted coordinates, so we get $$\Delta_2^+ (h;u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')=\Delta_2^+ (h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$$ as required.\
Let now $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$ satisfying definition \[\*kappadeux\]. Applying finitely many times the above algorithm and (\[eq7337\]), it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) & = & \alpha_2(h;u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z}) \\
\beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) & = & \beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z}) \\
\end{array}
\right.
,$$ where $(u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z})$ are well 2-adapted coordinates of $\hat{{\cal X}}=\mathrm{Spec}(\hat{S}[X]/(h))$, $\hat{Z}=Z-\hat{\phi}$. Moreover, $$(\alpha_2, \beta_2):=(\alpha_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z), \beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z))$$ is a vertex of both $\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ and $\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z})$. Let $\hat{x}$ be the closed point of $\hat{{\cal X}}$ and assume that $$\label{eq733}
A_1 (\hat{x})>A_1:=\min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_1\}.$$ Let $J:=\{1,3\}$ and consider the weight vector $\alpha :=({\omega (x) \over p},A_1)\in \R_{>0}^J$. We consider the initial form polynomial $$\mathrm{in}_\alpha h=Z^p+\sum_{i=1}^p F_{i,Z,\alpha}Z^{p-i} \in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z],$$ where $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S=S/(u_1)[U_1]\subseteq \mathrm{gr}_\alpha \hat{S}=\hat{S}/(u_1)[U_1] \hfill{}
& \mathrm{if} \ A_1=0 \\
& \\
\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S=S/(u_1,u_3)[U_1,U_3]\subseteq \mathrm{gr}_\alpha \hat{S}=\hat{S}/(u_1,u_3)[U_1,U_3] \hfill{}
& \mathrm{if} \ A_1>0 \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
[*Case 1:*]{} $A_1=0$. One deduces from the above algorithm and (\[eq7337\]) that there exists some $\hat{c} \in (\overline{u}_2)\hat{S}/(u_1)$ such that $$\label{eq7331}
F_{i,\hat{Z},\alpha}=\hat{g}_iU_1^{id_1}\overline{u}_2^{d_{2,i}}(\overline{u}_3 -\hat{c})^{i{\omega (x)\over p}}, \ 1 \leq i \leq p-1$$ for some $\hat{g}_i \in \hat{S}/(u_1)$ ($\hat{g}_i =0$ if $d_1 \not \in \N$), $d_{2,i}\geq id_2$, and $$\label{eq7332}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
F_{p,\hat{Z},\alpha}=\hat{l} U_1^{pd_1}\overline{u}_2^{pd_2}(\overline{u}_3 -\hat{c})^{\omega (x)}
& \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{cases} \ (*1) \ \mathrm{or} \ (*2) \\
& \\
F_{p,\hat{Z},\alpha}=\hat{l} U_1^{pd_1}\overline{u}_2(\overline{u}_3 -\hat{c} )^{\omega (x)} \hfill{}
& \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*3) \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ for some $\hat{l}\in \hat{S}/(u_1)$ a unit.
The regular local ring $T:=(\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)_{(U_1,\overline{u}_2, \overline{u}_3)}$ is excellent and the polynomial $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h \in T[Z]$ satisfies the assumptions of proposition \[Deltaalg\]. Let $$\Xi:=\mathrm{Spec}(T[Z]/(\mathrm{in}_\alpha h)), \ \hat{\Xi}:=\mathrm{Spec}(\hat{T}[Z]/(\mathrm{in}_\alpha h)).$$ Since $\mathbf{v}_0$ is a nonsolvable vertex of $\Delta_{\hat{T}}(\mathrm{in}_\alpha h; U_1,\overline{u}_2, \overline{u}_3;Z)$, we deduce from (\[eq7331\])-(\[eq7332\]) that $$\label{eq7333}
\hat{V}:=V(\hat{Z}, \overline{u}_3-\hat{c})\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}_p\widehat{\Xi} \subseteq
V(\hat{Z}, U_1\overline{u}_2^{pd_2}(\overline{u}_3-\hat{c})).$$ Since $T$ is excellent, one deduces that the Zariski closure $V$ of $\hat{V}$ in $\Xi$ is contained in $\mathrm{Sing}_p\Xi$. Let $$P : \ \Xi \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}T$$ be the projection. By (\[eq7333\]), $P (V)$ is an irreducible component of $P (\mathrm{Sing}_p\Xi)$ contained in $\mathrm{div}(U_1\overline{u}_2^{pd_2}(\overline{u}_3-\hat{c}))$. Since each of $\mathrm{div}(U_1)$, $\mathrm{div}(\overline{u}_2)$ is Zariski closed, there exist $\hat{\delta}' \in \hat{S}/(u_1)$ a unit such that $\overline{u}'_3:= \hat{\delta}'(\overline{u}_3-\hat{c})\in S/(u_1)$. Let $u'_3 \in S$ be a preimage of $\overline{u}'_3$. Applying again proposition \[Deltaalg\], there exist well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ at $x$ satisfying definition \[\*kappadeux\] and such that $$\label{eq7334}
\min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')}\{y_1\}> A_1.$$
[*Case 2:*]{} $A_1>0$. The argument runs along the same lines: we now have some $\hat{c} \in (\overline{u}_2)\hat{S}/(u_1,u_3)$, (\[eq7333\]) is replaced by $$V(\hat{Z}, U_3-\hat{c}U_1^{A_1})\subseteq \mathrm{Sing}_p\widehat{\Xi} \subseteq
V(\hat{Z}, U_1\overline{u}_2^{pd_2}(U_3-\hat{c}U_1^{A_1})),$$ with $\Xi$ as above and (\[eq7334\]) holds.
Applying this procedure and (\[eq7334\]) finitely many times, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $A_1=A_1(\hat{x})$. When $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2), one introduces similarly $$A_2:=\min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_2\}
\leq \min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_2\}=\beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z).$$
The same argument shows that there exists well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ at $x$ satisfying definition \[\*kappadeux\] and well 2-adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z})$ of $\hat{{\cal X}}=\mathrm{Spec}(\hat{S}[X]/(h))$, $\hat{Z}=Z-\hat{\phi}$, such that $$\label{eq7335}
A_j:=\min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_j\}
= \min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z})}\{y_j\}, \ j=1,2.$$
Finally, if $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2) (resp. (\*3)), (\[eq7335\]) (resp. (\[eq7334\])) proves that the region $$\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\backslash \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z})\subseteq \R^2_{\geq 0}$$ (resp. $\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)\backslash \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;\hat{u}_3;\hat{Z})$) is bounded. Therefore the above algorithm and (\[eq7337\]) can repeat only finitely many times. This proves the existence of well 2-adapted coordinates for arbitrary $S$.\
Let then $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates and define the curve ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_3)\subset {\cal X}$. By proposition \[Deltaalg\], the polyhedron $$\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,u_3;Z)=\mathrm{pr}^{\{1,3\}}\Delta_{\hat{S}}(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$$ is minimal and we have $$\label{eq7336}
\epsilon (y)=\omega (x) \times \min \{1, A_1(x)\}.$$ By definition \[deffirstkind\], ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind at $x$ if and only if ($x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2)) and $A_1(x)\geq 1$.
By proposition \[secondkind\], ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the second kind at $x$ only if $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) and $A_1(x)\geq 1$ by (\[eq7336\]). Conversely, definition \[defsecondkind\](i) is satisfied because $$m(y)\geq \epsilon (y) =\omega (x)\geq p.$$
By (\[eq7336\]), we have $\epsilon (y)=\epsilon (x)-1$. Suppose that $i_0(y)=p-1$. Let $W:=\eta ({\cal Y})$, so we have $$\mathrm{in}_{W}h =Z^p -G_W^{p-1}Z+F_{p,W,Z} \in G(W)[Z]$$ with $\delta (y)\in \N$, $G_W =g_WU_1^{\delta (y)}$ and $$0\neq \mathrm{cl}_{p(p-1)\delta(y)}\mathrm{Disc}_Zh=<g_W^{p(p-1)}U_1^{p(p-1)\delta(y)}>\in G(W)_{p(p-1)\delta(y)}$$ by theorem \[initform\]. Since $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, $g_W\in S/(u_1,u_3)$ is a unit by assumption [**(E)**]{}. We then get $$\epsilon (x)\leq {\mathrm{ord}_{m_S}(H(x)^{-(p-1)}f_{p-1,Z}^p) \over p-1}=\epsilon (y)= \epsilon (x)-1,$$ a contradiction. Therefore definition \[defsecondkind\](ii) is satisfied because $i_0(y)=p$. Finally it follows from definition \[\*kappadeux\](ii) that definition \[defsecondkind\](iii) is satisfied.
The previous theorem shows that the following invariants are actually independent of the choice of well 2-adapted coordinates.
\[definvariants2\] Let $x$ satisfy condition (\*) and $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates. We let $$A_j(x):=\min_{\mathbf{y}\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_j\}\geq 0 \ \ \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{div}(u_j)\subseteq E;
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $$ $$B(x):=B(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z); \ C(x):=B(x)-\sum_{\mathrm{div}(u_j)\subseteq E}A_j(x);$$ $$\beta (x):=\min_{(A_1(x),y_2)\in \Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)}\{y_2 \}\geq 0 ;
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $$ $$(\alpha_2(x),\beta_2(x)):=(\alpha_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z),\beta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)). \ \ \ $$
Finally, we define $\gamma (x)\in \N$ by: $$\gamma (x):= \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\lceil \beta (x)\rceil & \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*1) \\
1+\lfloor C(x)\rfloor & \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*2) \\
1+ \lfloor \beta (x)\rfloor & \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*3) \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
\[kappa2bupcurve\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$ and $x$ satisfies condition (\*). Let $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates and assume furthermore that $$A_1(x)\geq 1 \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ A_1(x)>1 \ \mathrm{or} \ (A_1(x)=1 \ \mathrm{and} \ \beta (x)< 1- {1 \over \omega (x)})$$ if $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2) (resp. condition (\*3)). Let $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_3)\subset {\cal X}$ and $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$. Then $x'$ is resolved or the following holds: $$x'=(Z':=Z/u_1, u_1, u_2,u'_3:=u_3/u_1)$$ and $x'$ satisfies again condition (\*1) or (\*2) (resp. (\*3)); the coordinates $(u_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')$ are well 2-adapted at $x'$ and $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\Delta_2(u_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')=\Delta_2(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) - (1,0) \hfill{}& \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*1) \ \mathrm{and} \ (*2) \\
\Delta_2^+(u_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')=\Delta_2^+(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z) - (1,0) & \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*3) \hfill{}\\
\end{array}
\right.
;$$ in particular $A_1(x')=A_1(x)-1$ and we have: $$A_2(x')=A_2(x), \ C(x')=C(x), \ \beta (x')=\beta (x) \ \mathrm{and} \ \gamma (x')=\gamma (x).$$
By theorem \[well2prepared\], the curve ${\cal Y}$ is permissible since $A_1(x)\geq 1$.
Since $U_3\in\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ by definition of well 2-prepared coordinates, $x$ is then good except possibly if $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3>$ by theorem \[bupthm\]; in this case, we have $x'=(Z/u_1, u_1,u_2,u_3/u_1)$.
Let $h':=u_1^{-p}h$. By proposition \[originchart\], $\Delta_{\hat{S}'}(h';u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ is again minimal. With usual notations, we have $d'_1=d_1+{\omega (x)\over p} -1$ and $\mathbf{v}'_0:=(d'_1,0,\omega (x)/p)$ ($\mathbf{v}'_0:=(d'_1,1/p,\omega (x)/p)$ in case (\*3)) is a nonsolvable vertex. We may assume that $x'$ is very near $x$.
If $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) (resp. (\*2)), then $\kappa (x')=2$ and $x'$ satisfies again condition (\*1) (resp. (\*2)).
If $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) and $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)$, then $\kappa (x')=2$ and $x'$ satisfies again condition (\*3).
If $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) and $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$, then $x'$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\], so $x$ is good if $A_1(x)>1$; if ($A_1(x)=1$ and $\beta (x)< 1 - 1/\omega (x)$), then $\Delta_2^+(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ has a vertex of the form $$\mathbf{y}_0=(1, (i_0-1)/i)=\beta (x) , \ 1 \leq i \leq \omega (x).$$ Therefore $i_0\leq i< \omega (x)$ or $i_0<i=\omega (x)$, since $\beta (x)< 1 - 1/\omega (x)$. Taking $i_0$ minimal with this property, $(d'_1,i_0/p,(\omega (x)-i)/p)$ is a vertex of $\Delta_{S'}(h';u_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ and therefore $$\epsilon (x')=\omega (x) \Longrightarrow i_0 +\omega (x)-i = \omega (x).$$ Therefore $i<\omega (x)$ since $(i_0,i)\neq (\omega (x),\omega (x))$; then $x'$ is good by proposition \[tauegaldeux\], so $x$ is good.
Let $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{p}_2(\mathbf{v})$ be a vertex of $\Delta_2(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ (of $\Delta_2^+(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ in case (\*3)). With notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](4) with $\sigma_2:=\{\mathbf{y}\}$, let $$\mathrm{in}_\alpha h =Z^p +U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2}(F_0(U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)} +\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)}F_i(U_1,U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)-i}),$$ where $0\neq F_0(U_2)\in k(x)$ ($0\neq F_0(U_2)\in k(x)[U_2]_1$ in case (\*3)). Then $\mathbf{y}':=\mathbf{y}-(1,0)$ is a vertex of $\Delta_2(u_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')$ (of $\Delta_2^+(u_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')$ in case (\*3)); the corresponding initial form in lemma \[structDelta2\](4) with $\sigma_2:=\{\mathbf{y}'\}$ is of the form: $$\mathrm{in}_{\alpha '}h' ={Z'}^p +U_1^{pd'_1}U_2^{pd_2}(F_0(U_2){U'_3}^{\omega (x)}
+\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)}U_1^{-i}F_i(U_1,U_2){U'_3}^{\omega (x)-i}).$$ It follows from definition \[def2solvable\] that $\mathbf{y}'$ is not 2-solvable, since $\mathbf{y}$ is not. The lemma follows easily.
\[kappa2gamma0\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$ and $x$ satisfies condition (\*). If $\gamma (x)=0$, then $x$ is good.
By theorem \[well2prepared\], there exist well 2-adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ at $x$. The assumption $\gamma (x)=0$ means that ($x$ is in case (\*1) and $\beta (x)=0$) or ($x$ is in case (\*3) and $\beta (x)<0$).
[*Assume that $x$ is in case (\*1).*]{} We have $$\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)=(A_1(x),0)+\R^2_{\geq 0}.$$ Since $B(x)\geq 1$ ([*viz.*]{} (\[eq7301\])), we have $A_1(x)\geq 1$.
[*Assume that $x$ is in case (\*3).*]{} We have $$\Delta_2^+(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)=(A_1(x),\beta (x))+\R^2_{\geq 0}$$ in this case. Note that we have $A_1(x)\geq 1$: namely, $\beta (x)=-1/i$ for some $i$, $1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)$ such that $$\epsilon (x)=1 +\omega (x)\leq iA_1(x)+\omega (x)-i+1,$$ so $A_1(x)\geq 1$.
Suppose that $1 \leq A_1(x) <2$. By lemma \[kappa2bupcurve\], $x$ is good or $x'$ satisfies again the assumption of the proposition with $A_1(x')=A_1(x)-1<1$: a contradiction with the previous remark. Induction on $\lfloor A_1(x)\rfloor$ concludes the proof.
Monic expansions: blowing up a closed point.
--------------------------------------------
In this section, we control the behavior of the secondary invariant $\gamma (x)$ (definition \[definvariants2\]) by blowing up a closed point. By proposition \[kappa2gamma0\] we may furthermore assume that $\gamma (x)\geq 1$. At this point, we connect the proof with the equal characteristic proof given in [@CoP2] chapter 3. Namely, this control is considered in lemmas [**I.8.3**]{} and [**I.8.8**]{} (resp. lemmas [**I.8.7**]{} and [**I.8.9**]{}) [@CoP2] chapter 3 when $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2) (resp. condition (\*3)). The proof relies on the definition of the form $$\mathrm{in}_\alpha h =Z^p -G_\alpha^{p-1}Z+F_{p,Z,\alpha}\in (\mathrm{gr}_\alpha S)[Z]$$ in lemma \[structDelta2\](4)(5) w.r.t. the initial face $\sigma_{2,\mathrm{in}}$ of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$, where $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ are well 2-adapted coordinates at $x$.\
[*Notations used in [@CoP2].*]{} The corresponding notation for $F_{p,Z,\alpha}$ is $$\label{eq7412}
F_{p,Z,\alpha}=U_1^{a(1)}U_2^{a(2)}\left (\overline{\phi}_0 U_3^{\omega (x)}
+\sum_{j\in J_0}U_3^{\omega (x)-j}\Phi_j(U_1,U_2) \right )$$ when $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2) (definition [**I.8.2.1**]{}), with $$a(j)=pd_j, \ j=1,2, \ 0\neq \overline{\phi}_0 \in k(x)\ \mathrm{and}
\ \Phi_j(U_1,U_2)\in k(x)[U_1,U_2].$$ By definition \[def2solvable\], we have $\Phi_j(U_1,U_2)\neq 0$ for some $j_0\neq 0$.
When $x$ satisfies condition (\*3), the notation is the same except that $\overline{\phi}_0$ and $\Phi_j(U_1,U_2)$ are replaced respectively by $U_2\overline{\phi}_0$, $\overline{\phi}_0 \in U_2^{-1}k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3]_1$, and by $U_2\Phi_j(U_1,U_2)$ with $\Phi_j(U_1,U_2)\in U_2^{-1}k(x)[U_1,U_2]$ (definition [**I.8.6.1**]{}). We have $a(2)=0$ in these formul[æ]{} in cases (\*1) and (\*3).
Similarly, the corresponding notation for $G_\alpha$ is $$\label{eq741}
G_\alpha^{p}=U_1^{a(1)}U_2^{a(2)}\mathrm{cl}_{B(x)\omega (x)}(H(x)^{-1}g^p)$$ when $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*2). When $x$ satisfies condition (\*3), we have $$\label{eq7411}
G_\alpha^{p}=U_1^{a(1)}\mathrm{cl}_{1+B(x)\omega (x)}(H(x)^{-1}g^p).$$
The numerical invariants $\beta (x)$ and $B(x)$ are denoted respectively by $\beta 3(x)$ and $B3(x)$ in [@CoP2] when $x$ satisfies condition (\*3). The statement “$\kappa (x)\leq 1$” in [@CoP2] stands for “$x$ is resolved” in this article. The vector spaces $\mathrm{cl}_{\mu_0,\omega (x)}J$ ([@CoP2] definitions [**I.8.2.3**]{} and [**I.8.6.3**]{}) are determined by the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h $. The proofs of the following lemmas are almost entirely based on the numerical lemmas [**I.8.2.2**]{} and [**I.8.6.2**]{} in [@CoP2] which are characteristic free. We simply refer to their counterpart in [@CoP2] except when they do not immediately adapt to our characteristic free setting.\
Assume that ($\kappa (x)=2$, $x$ satisfies condition (\*) and $\gamma (x)\geq 1$). Let $\pi : {\cal X}'\longrightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along $x$ and $x'\in \pi^{-1}(x)$. We denote by $d:=[k(x'):k(x)]$.
\[gamma2\*12\] With notations as above, assume that $x$ is in case (\*1) or (\*2). Let $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates at $x$ and assume furthermore that $$\eta '(x')\in \mathrm{Spec}(S[{u_2\over u_1},{u_3\over u_1}][Z']/(h')), \ h':=u_1^{-p}h, \ Z':={Z \over u_1}.$$ Then $x'$ is resolved or ($\kappa (x')=2$, $x'$ satisfies again condition (\*) with $$A_1(x')=B(x)-1, \ \gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x),$$ and there exist well 2-adapted coordinates $(u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ at $x'$ such that the following holds:)
- if $x'=(Z/u_1,u_1,u_2/u_1,u_3/u_1)$, then $x'$ is again in case (\*1) (resp. in case (\*2)) and we have $C(x')\leq C(x)$, $\beta(x')\leq \beta(x)$;
- if $x'\neq (Z/u_1,u_1,u_2/u_1,u_3/u_1)$, then $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*3), and either (3’) below holds or (3)-(4) below hold;
- the point $x$ satisfies condition (\*2) with $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}= \mu U_3^{p} +c_p(U_1 + \lambda U_2)^p ,$$ where $d_1 , d_2 \not \in \N$, $\lambda, \mu, c_{p} \in k(x)$, $\lambda \mu c_{p}\neq 0$ and $\mu^{-1}c_{p}\not \in k(x)^p$ up to change of well 2-adapted coordinates; furthermore, $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1), $k(x')=k(x)$ and we have $$\mathbf{y}':=(\alpha_2(x'),\beta_2(x'))=(0,p/(p-1)) \in \Delta_2(h';u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$$ and $$\label{eq742}
\mathrm{in}_{\alpha '} h'={Z'}^p +{U'_1}^{pd'_1}(\lambda '{U'_3}^p +U'_3{U'_2}^p),$$ with $d'_1\in \N$, $\lambda '\not\in k(x)^p$, notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](4) with $\sigma_2=\mathbf{y}'$;
- we have $$\beta (x')\leq {C(x) \over d} +{1 \over p};$$
- we have $$\beta (x') <
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
1+ \lfloor {C(x)\over d}\rfloor \hfill{}& \mathrm{if} \ x' \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*1) \\
& \\
1+ \lfloor {C(x)\over d}\rfloor -{1 \over \omega (x)} & \mathrm{if} \ x' \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{in} \ \mathrm{case} \ (*3) \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
We already know from proposition \[redto\*\](ii) that $x'$ is resolved or ($\kappa (x')=2$ and $x'$ satisfies condition (\*)). Note that we have $$B(x)>1 \Leftrightarrow \tau '(x)=1.$$ Namely, we have $<U_3>\subseteq \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ by definition \[\*kappadeux\], so $$\tau '(x)=1 \Leftrightarrow H^{-1}F_{p,Z}\in <U_3^{\omega (x)}> \Leftrightarrow B(x)>1,$$ where the left hand side equivalence is true because $\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ is minimal.
If $B(x)=1$, then $x$ is of type (T0), (T2) or (T3) as defined along the proof of proposition \[redto\*\]. What follows has been proved along the course of that proof: for type (T0), $x$ is good; for type (T3), $x'$ is resolved by theorem \[bupthm\] since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,U_1>$; for type (T2), $x$ is good or ($d_1+d_2\in \N$, $d_2 \not \in \N$, $B(x)=C(x)=1$). In this situation, we have $\kappa (x')=2$, $x'$ satisfies condition (\*) and there exist well 2-adapted coordinates $(u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ at $x'$ such that $A_1(x')=0$ and one of the following holds:
$\bullet$ $x'$ is in case (\*1) $$\label{eq7421}
\beta (x')= {i+1\over i}, \ i\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p,
\ p \leq i \leq \omega (x);$$
$\bullet$ $x'$ is in case (\*1) and $$\label{eq7422}
\beta (x')={\omega (x)\over \omega (x) -1};$$
$\bullet$ $x'$ is in case (\*3) and $\beta (x')=1$.
See the discussion in the proof of proposition \[redto\*\]: these three situations correspond respectively to $I=\{0\}$, $I=\{\omega (x)\}$ and $I=\emptyset$ therein. When (\[eq7422\]) holds with $\omega (x)=p$, we have (3’); otherwise, we have (3)(4). Note that $\gamma (x')=\gamma (x)=2$ here.\
If $B(x)>1$, statement (1) is easily deduced from the characteristic free proposition \[originchart\] as in [@CoP2]. The rest of the proof relies on the characteristic free transformation formula [@CoP2](4) on p.1918 and numerical lemma [**I.8.2.2**]{} and is identical to that of [**I.8.3**]{}(1)(2)(ii)(iv)-(vi). If $x'$ satisfies condition (\*3), note that (4) is an equivalent formulation of [@CoP2] lemma [**I.8.3**]{}(1).
\[boundsharp\] Let $\omega (x)=\overline{\omega}p^a$, $a \geq 2$, $\overline{\omega}/p \not \in \N$. We prove here that the bound in lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3) is sharp when $x'$ satisfies either condition (\*1) or (\*3).
Let $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $d_1 \in {1 \over p}\N \backslash \N$, $d_2 \in {1 \over p}\N$, $C\in \N$. Take $$G_\alpha =0, \ U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z,\alpha}=\left (U_3^p - U_1^{p-1}U_2(U_2-U_1)^{pC}\right )^{\overline{\omega}p^{a-1}},$$ where $C(x)=C$. Let $S':=S[u_2/u_1,u_3/u_1]_{(u_1,u'_2,u'_3)}$, where $$u'_2:=u_2/u_1 -1, \ u'_3:=u_3/u_1 -u_1^{C}{u'_2}^C.$$ Letting $g':={u'_3}^p - u_1^{pC}{u'_2}^{pC+1}$, we get $$h'={Z'}^p + \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}f_{i,Z'}{Z'}^{p-i} + u_1^{pd'_1}( f'+u_1f'_1) \in S'[Z'],$$ where $d'_1=d_1+d_2 +\omega (x)/p -1$, $\mathrm{ord}_{u_1}f_{i,Z'}>id'_1$, $f'_1\in S'$ and $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cccc}
f':= \delta ' {g'}^{\overline{\omega}p^{a-1}},\hfill{}& Z':= Z/u_1 \hfill{}
& \mathrm{if} & d_1+d_2 \not \in \N\\
& & & \\
f':= \delta 'u'_2{g'}^{\overline{\omega}p^{a-1}}, & Z':= Z/u_1 +u_1^{d'_1}{g'}^{\overline{\omega} p^{a-2}}
& \mathrm{if} & d_1+d_2 \in \N \\
\end{array}
\right.
,$$ with $\delta ' \in S'$ a unit. In both cases we get $\beta (x')=C+1/p$. Note that the above argument also works for ($a=1$ and $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1)).
We now turn to the (\*3)-version of the previous lemma. We point out that the situation $J_0 \subset p\N$ has [*not*]{} been correctly analyzed in the proof of [@CoP2] lemma [**I.8.7**]{}. Namely, the bound (3’) ([*ibid.*]{} p. 1929) may fail (case 2 on p.1930 when $d=1$) unlike stated therein; the [*same*]{} mistake occurs in [**I.8.7.5**]{} case 1.
We review and amend the corresponding statements in lemma \[gamma2\*3\](2) below. Adapting notations of (\[eq7412\]), there is an expansion $$\label{eq7426}
U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z,\alpha}=(\mu U_3 +c U_1+U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)}
+\sum_{j\in J_0}U_3^{\omega (x)-j}U_1^{b_j}\Psi_j(U_1,U_2),$$ where $\mu ,c \in k(x)$, $1+d_j :=\mathrm{deg}_{U_2}\Psi_j(U_1,U_2)$, with $b_j \geq jA_1(x)$, $d_j\leq j\beta (x)$, notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](5) (where $\mu =0$ if $B(x)>1$). The subset $J_0 \subseteq \{1, \ldots ,\omega (x)\}$ is defined by $$j\in J_0 \Leftrightarrow \Psi_j(U_1,U_2)\neq 0.$$
\[gamma2\*3\] Assume that $x$ satisfies condition (\*3). Let $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates at $x$ and assume furthermore that $$\eta '(x')\in \mathrm{Spec}(S[{u_2\over u_1},{u_3\over u_1}][Z']/(h')), \ h':=u_1^{-p}h, \ Z':={Z \over u_1}.$$ Then $x'$ is resolved or ($\kappa (x')=2$, $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*3) with $$A_1(x')=B(x)-1, \ \gamma (x')\leq 1+\gamma (x)$$ and there exist well 2-adapted coordinates $(u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ at $x'$ such that either (1’) below holds, or (1)-(3) below hold:)
- we have $$U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z}=U_2U_3^p +c_pU_1(U_2 +\lambda U_1)^p,$$ where $\lambda \neq 0$, ($d_1+1/p \not \in \N$ or $c_p \not \in k(x)^p$) up to change of well 2-adapted coordinates; furthermore $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1) and (\[eq742\]) holds at $x'$ with $\lambda '\neq 0$ and ($d'_1 \not \in \N$ or $\lambda ' \not \in k(x)^p$);
- we have $$\beta (x')\leq {\gamma(x) \over d} +{1 \over p}$$ and inequality is strict if $x'$ satisfies condition (\*3);
- if $\gamma (x') > \gamma (x)$, then $k(x')=k(x)$ and $x'$ is uniquely determined; up to a change of well 2-adapted coordinates, $x'=(Z/u_1,u_1,u_2/u_1,u_3/u_1)$ and (\[eq7426\]) reads $$\label{eq7429}
U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z,\alpha}=(\mu U_3 +U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)} +c U_1(U_3 + \lambda U_1^{k}U_2^{\gamma (x)})^{\omega (x)}$$ with $k\in \N$, $\lambda c \neq 0$, ($d_1 +1/p \not \in \N$ or $c \not\in k(x)^p$), and $\mu =0$ if $B(x)=k+\gamma (x)>1$; furthermore, we have $$A_1(x)=k+{1 \over \omega (x)}, \beta (x)= \gamma (x)-{1 \over \omega (x)}$$ and $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $$\beta (x')=\gamma (x)+{1 \over \omega (x)};$$
- if ($\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$ and $x'$ is in case (\*3)), then $$\beta (x')\leq \max \{\beta (x), {1 \over p}\}$$ and $\beta (x')< \beta (x)$ if ($k(x')\neq k(x)$ and $\beta (x)> 1/p$).
We already know from proposition \[redto\*\](ii) that $x'$ is resolved or ($\kappa (x')=2$ and $x'$ satisfies condition (\*)). Note that we have $$B(x)>1 \Leftrightarrow H^{-1}F_{p,Z}\in <U_1U_3^{\omega (x)}, U_2U_3^{\omega (x)}, U_3^{\omega (x)+1}>.$$ If $\tau '(x)\geq 2$, we certainly have $B(x)=1$ and $x$ is of type (T1) or (T4) as defined along the proof of proposition \[redto\*\]. For type (T4), $x'$ is resolved by theorem \[bupthm\] since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,U_1>$. For type (T1), note that we have $\beta (x)=1$, hence $\gamma (x)=2$. The following holds: $x$ is good or $\kappa (x')=2$, $x'$ satisfies condition (\*) and there exist well 2-adapted coordinates $(u'_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ at $x'$ such that $A_1(x')=0$ and either:
$\bullet$ $x'$ is in case (\*3) and $\beta (x')=1$, or
$\bullet$ $x'$ is in case (\*1) and $$\beta (x')={1+i\over i}, \ i\geq 1.$$ See the discussion along the course of the proof of proposition \[redto\*\]: these two situations correspond respectively to case 1 and case 2 therein. This proves that $x'$ is resolved or ($\gamma (x')=\gamma (x)=2$ and (1)(3) hold) when $\tau '(x)=2$.
Assume now that ($B(x)=1$ and $\tau '(x)=1$). The argument in the proof of proposition \[redto\*\], [*viz.*]{} (\[eq7202\])-(\[eq7203\]), gives $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p + U_1^{pd_1}\left ((\mu U_3 +U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)}
+U_1\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)/p}U_3^{\omega (x)-pi}\Phi_i (U_1^p,U_2^p)\right )$$ where $\mu \in k(x)$ and $\Phi_i\in k(x)[T_1,T_2]_{i}$, $1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)/p$. It is easily seen from this expression that $$\omega (x')\leq \omega (x) -p\min_{1\leq i \leq {\omega (x)\over p}}\left \{i-{\mathrm{deg}_{T_2}\Phi_i \over d}\right \},$$ so $\omega (x')=\omega (x)$ implies $d=1$, and $\Phi_i$ monic in $T_2$ whenever $\Phi_i\neq 0$. Similarly, we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)/p}\mathrm{Vdir}
\left (\{{\partial \Phi_i (U_1^p,U_2^p)\over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l \in \Lambda_0}\right )
=<U_1,U_2> \Longrightarrow \omega (x')< \omega (x),$$ with notations as in (\[eq2412\]). After possibly changing $Z$ with $Z- \phi$, $\phi \in S$, it can thus be assumed that $$\label{eq7423}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h=Z^p + U_1^{pd_1}\left ((\mu U_3 +U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)}
+U_1\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)/p}c_iU_3^{\omega (x)-pi}(U_2 +\lambda U_1)^{pi}\right ),$$ where $\mu \in k(x)$, $\lambda \in k(x)$ and $c_i \in k(x)$, $1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)/p$. Furthermore, we have $x'=(Z'/u_1, u_1, u_2/u_1 + \gamma , u_3/u_1)$, where $\gamma \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda$. The proof now goes on along the same lines as that of the case $B(x)=1$ in the previous lemma: $x'$ is resolved or $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1), $A_1(x')=0$ and one of (\[eq7421\])-(\[eq7422\]) holds (in particular $\gamma (x')=2$). When (\[eq7422\]) holds with $\omega (x)=p$, we have (1)’; otherwise, we have (1), (3) being pointless.
For (2), note that $x'$ satisfies the assumptions of proposition \[tauegaldeux\] (so $x$ is good) if $c_i \neq 0$ for some $i< \omega (x)/p$. Otherwise, we have $$\label{eq7424}
(\alpha_2(x),\beta_2(x))=({1 \over \omega (x)},1-{1 \over \omega (x)}).$$ By definition \[definvariants2\], we also have $\beta (x)= (i_1-1)/i$, $1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)$ and $i_1\in \N$. By assumption, $\gamma (x)=1$, so $\beta (x)<1$ and we get $$1-{1 \over \omega (x)} = \beta_2(x) \leq \beta (x)\leq 1-{1 \over i}.$$ We deduce that $i_1=i=\omega (x)$. By (\[eq7424\]), this implies that $$(A_1(x),\beta (x))=(\alpha_2(x),\beta_2(x))=({1 \over \omega (x)},1-{1 \over \omega (x)})$$ and the conclusion follows.\
If $B(x)>1$, the proof is identical to that of [@CoP2] lemma [**I.8.7**]{}(b)(b’)(d)(i)-(iii)(v): this relies on the numerical lemma [**I.8.6.2**]{} and characteristic free transformation formula for $\mathrm{cl}_{\mu_0, \omega (x)}J$ (definition [**I.8.6.3**]{}). As observed before stating this lemma, a mistake in [@CoP2] [**I.8.7.8**]{} (case 2, $B(x)\in \N$) has to be amended at this point. Namely, the bounds (3)(4) on p.1929 only hold when $G=\mu_2^{-1}{\partial F \over \partial U_2}\neq 0$ with notations as in there. The correct bounds are thus no better than those given in [**I.8.7.8**]{} case 3: $$\label{eq7425}
\beta (x') \leq {1 +d_{j_1} \over d j_1}+{1 \over p},
\ \beta 3(x') \leq {1 +d_{j_1} \over d j_1}+{1 \over p}-{1 \over p^a},$$ where $a:=\mathrm{ord}_p\omega (x)$: this gives (1) of the present lemma.
We note however that the bounds (3)(3’)(4)(4’) on p.1929-1930 are correct if $d\geq 2$ (this relies on lemma \[lem532\](2), statement “$d=1$ if equality holds”). This proves that $\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$ if $k(x')\neq k(x)$. There remains to prove (2) and (3) (resp. (3)) of the present lemma for $d=1$ (resp. for $d\geq 2$).\
[*First assume that*]{} $d\geq 2$, i.e. $k(x')\neq k(x)$. The conclusion follows trivially from (1) if $\beta (x)\geq 1$, so we may assume that $\beta (x)<1$.
The proof involves picking some element $G\in \mathrm{cl}_{\mu_0,\omega (x)}$, $G\neq 0$ [@CoP2] middle of p. 1930 and computing the order of its transform. [*This is done after possibly performing the Tschirnhausen transformation described in*]{} [@CoP2] [**I.8.3.6**]{}. We consider several cases:
[*Case 1: $J_0 \nsubseteq p\N$*]{}. Arguing as in [@CoP2] [**I.8.7.7**]{}, we get $$\beta (x')\leq {1 +d_{j_1}\over j_1 d} -{1 \over j_1}< {\beta (x) \over d}.$$
[*Case 2: $J_0 \subseteq p\N$ and $B(x)\not \in \N$*]{}. By [@CoP2] (4) on p.1930, we get $$\beta (x)-\beta (x') \geq \left ( 1-{1 \over d}\right )\beta (x) -{1 \over pd}>
{1 \over p} \left (1 - {2 \over d}\right )\geq 0.$$
[*Case 3: $J_0 \subseteq p\N$, $B(x) \in \N$ and $G=U_1^{-pd_1}{\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha} \over \partial U_2}$*]{}. Amending [@CoP2] [**I.8.7.8**]{} as in (\[eq7425\]), we obtain the bound $\beta (x')\leq \beta (x)/d$ except possibly if $j_1=p^a$; in this case, we let $$\label{eq7427}
a':=\max\{b : U_1^{b_{p^a}}\Psi_{p^a}(U_1,U_2)\in (k(x)[U_1,U_2])^{p^b}\}< a$$ and obtain the bound: $$\label{eq7428}
\beta (x') \leq \max\{p^{a'-a},\beta (x)\} \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ \beta (x') < \beta (x))$$ from lemma \[lem532\](2) (resp. [*ibid.*]{} with $\mathrm{deg}F\geq 2$ if $\beta (x)>1/p$).
[*Case 4: $J_0 \subseteq p\N$, $B(x) \in \N$ and $U_1^{-pd_1}{\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha} \over \partial U_2}=U_3^{\omega (x)}$*]{}. The bound is: $$\beta (x')\leq {1 +d_{j_1} \over d j_1}$$ as in case 2 with the same conclusion.\
[*Assume that*]{} $k(x')= k(x)$. By the independence statement in theorem \[well2prepared\], it can be assumed that $x'$ is the origin of the chart. We build upon (\[eq7426\]) and connect the proof with [@CoP2] [**I.8.7.5**]{}. First note that $x'$ satisfies condition (\*3) if and only if $\mu =0$, since $\Delta_S (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ is minimal. In this situation one gets easily $\beta (x')\leq \beta (x)$ from proposition \[originchart\] as in case 3 of [@CoP2] [**I.8.7.5**]{}. This completes the proof when $x'$ satisfies condition (\*3).
Assume now that $x'$ satisfies condition (\*1), so $c \neq 0$ in (\[eq7426\]). Note to begin with that we have $$\label{eq744}
{d_{j}\over j }\leq \beta (x) \Longrightarrow {1 +d_{j}\over j }\leq \gamma (x)$$ for each $j\in J_0$ in (\[eq7426\]). We again consider the same cases 1 to 4 as for $k(x')\neq k(x)$:
[*Case 1: $J_0 \nsubseteq p\N$*]{}. Arguing as in [@CoP2] [**I.8.7.7**]{}, we get $$\beta (x')\leq {1 +d_{j_1}\over j_1 } \leq \gamma (x).$$
[*Case 2: $J_0 \subseteq p\N$ and $B(x)\not \in \N$*]{}. Same as in case 1 by [@CoP2] (3’) on p.1929.
[*Case 3: $J_0 \subseteq p\N$, $B(x) \in \N$ and $G=U_1^{-pd_1}{\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha} \over \partial U_2}$*]{}. In this situation, equality in (\[eq744\]) implies $1 +d_j \in p\N$. Therefore $$\mathrm{deg}_{U_2}{\partial \Psi_j \over \partial U_2}\leq d_j-1$$ in (\[eq7426\]) and we get the same bound as in case 1.
[*Case 4: $J_0 \subseteq p\N$, $B(x) \in \N$ and $U_1^{-pd_1}{\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha} \over \partial U_2}=U_3^{\omega (x)}$*]{}. We now have $\Psi_j(U_1,U_2)=\Phi_j(U_1^p,U_2^p)$ for $j\in J_0$ and must take $$G:=U_1^{-pd_1} (D \cdot F_{p,Z,\alpha}), \ D= \lambda_l {\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \lambda_l} \ \mathrm{or} \
D=U_1{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_1} - (pd_1)U_2{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_2}.$$ Arguing as in the case ($B(x)=1$ and $\tau '(x)=1$), we obtain the same bound as in case 1 except possibly if $$\label{eq7441}
U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z,\alpha} = (c U_1 +U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)}
+U_1\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)/p}c_{pi}U_3^{\omega (x)-pi}U_1^{kpi}U_2^{pi\gamma (x)},$$ where $k:=B(x)-\gamma (x)\in \N$. Define: $$P(t):= c t^{\omega (x)} +\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)/p}c_{pi} t^{\omega (x)-pi}.$$ If $pd_1 +1 \not \in \N$ (resp. $pd_1 +1 \in \N$) and $P(t)\neq c (t + \lambda)^{\omega (x)}$ (resp. and $P(t)\neq c (t + \lambda)^{\omega (x)}+ Q(t)^p$ with $Q(t)\in k(x)[t]$) for some $\lambda \in k(x)$, then $$\mathbf{y}':=(B(x)-1, \gamma (x))\in \Delta_2(h';u_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$$ is a vertex which is not 2-solvable and we get $\beta (x')\leq \gamma (x)$. Otherwise, we may assume w.l.o.g. that $Q=0$ after changing $Z$ with $Z- \phi$, $\phi \in S$, which gives (\[eq7429\]). One concludes as in the case ($B(x)=1$ and $\tau '(x)=1$) above.
We now consider the remaining point “at infinity” for the blowing up $\pi : {\cal X}'\longrightarrow {\cal X}$ along $x$.
\[gamma2\*infty\] With notations as above, assume that $x$ satisfies condition (\*). Let $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates at $x$ and assume furthermore that $$x'=(Z':=Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u'_3:=u_3/u_2).$$ Then $x'$ is resolved or ($\kappa (x')=2$, $x'$ satisfies condition (\*2), $(u'_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')$ are well 2-adapted coordinates at $x'$, $$A_1(x')=A_1(x), \ A_2(x')=B(x)-1, \ \beta (x')=A_1(x)+\beta (x)-1, \ \gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x),$$ and the following holds:)
- if $x$ is in case (\*1), then $C(x')\leq \min\{\beta (x)-C(x),C(x)\}$;
- if $x$ is in case (\*2), we have $C(x')\leq \min\{\beta (x) -A_2(x) -C(x),C(x)\}$.
- if $x$ is in case (\*3), we have $C(x')\leq \min\{\beta (x)-C(x), C(x)-\beta_2(x)\}$.
This relies on the characteristic free proposition \[originchart\]. The argument in [@CoP2] lemmas [**I.8.8**]{} and [**I.8.9**]{} gives all statements before “$\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$”. Moreover equations (2) on p.1933 and (2) on p.1934 give: $$\label{eq743}
C(x')\leq \min\{\beta (x)-(B(x)-A_1(x)), \alpha_2(x)-A_1(x)\}.$$
Assume that $x$ is in case (\*1) or (\*3). We have $$\label{eq7431}
\alpha_2(x) + \beta_2 (x)=B(x), \ B(x)-A_1(x)=C(x).$$ This proves (3); if $x$ satisfies condition (\*1), then $\beta_2 (x)\geq 0$ and the conclusion follows from (\[eq743\]).
If $x$ satisfies condition (\*2), we have $\beta_2 (x)\geq A_2(x)$, so (\[eq7431\]) implies that $\alpha_2(x)-A_1(x)\leq C(x)$ and (2) follows easily. Since $\gamma (x)\geq 1$, $\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$ is a trivial consequence of definition \[definvariants2\] except if ($x$ is in case (\*3) and $C(x)<0$). But then we have $\beta_2(x)=-1/i$ for some $i$, $1\leq i\leq \omega (x)$ by lemma \[structDelta2\] and corollary \[Delta2+\]. Therefore $$C(x')\leq C(x)-\beta_2(x)<1$$ by (3) and we get $\gamma (x')\leq 1$.
Monic expansions: the algorithm.
--------------------------------
In this chapter, we prove theorem \[projthm\] when $\kappa (x)=2$. This is restated as theorem \[proofkkappa2\] below. The strategy of the proof has much in common with the one used for theorem \[contactmaxFIN\] or for Embedded Resolution of Singularities for surfaces [@Co3]: roughly speaking, the invariant $\gamma (x)$ is in general nonincreasing by blowing up a point $x$, and drops at a nonrational exceptional point or exceptional point “at infinity" $x'$. Infinite chains of rational points not “at infinity" do not occur by corollary \[permisarcthree\]. This general idea is illustrated by the proof of proposition \[kappa2fin0\] below which provides the logical scheme of the proof.
Considering however the [*precise*]{} behaviour of the invariant $\gamma (x)$ under blowing up, the situation turns out to be more complicated than expected. Two phenomena contribute: on the one hand, the directrix vector space $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ is not well-behaved under blowing up; on the other hand, $\gamma (x)$ does not necessarily drop at a nonrational exceptional point or exceptional point “at infinity" and may also increase in some special situations (lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1’)(2)). These phenomena make the proof very intricate when $\gamma (x)=2$, especially when $p=2$. One is then driven to a step by step proof where the main difficulty is to avoid loops (propositions \[kappa2fin20\] to \[kappa2fin3\]). We also emphasize that most of these intricacies actually occur when $S$ is equicharacteristic with algebraically closed residue field.
Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$ and consider the quadratic sequence $$\label{eq750}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)\leftarrow \cdots$$ along $\mu$. We will show that $x_r$ is resolved for some $r\geq 0$, hence $x$ is good as explained in remark \[quadsequence\].
\[proofkkappa2\] Projection Theorem \[projthm\] holds when $\kappa (x)=2$. One may take all local blowing ups in (\[eq402\]) permissible (of the first kind or second kind) if $p=2$ or if $\omega (x)\geq 3$.
By proposition \[redto\*\], it can be assumed that $\omega (x) \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ and that $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*) for every $r\geq 0$. Under these assumptions, an invariant $\gamma (x_r)\in \N$ is defined for $r\geq 0$ (definition \[definvariants2\]).
By proposition \[kappa2fin0\] below, there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that either $x_{r_0}$ is resolved or $\gamma (x_{r_0})\leq 2$.
If $\gamma (x_{r_0})=0$, then $x_{r_0}$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2gamma0\].
Suppose that $\gamma (x_{r_0})=1$. If $x_{r_0}$ satisfies condition (\*1) (resp. (\*2)), then $x_{r_0}$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin10\](1) (resp. proposition \[kappa2fin11\]) below. If $x_{r_0}$ satisfies condition (\*3) and $\beta (x)<1-1/\omega (x)$ (resp. and $\beta (x)=1-1/\omega (x)$, $(p,\omega (x))\neq (2,2)$; resp. and $\beta (x)=1/2$, $(p,\omega (x))= (2,2)$), then $x_{r_0}$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin10\](3) (resp. proposition \[kappa2fin20\](ii); resp. proposition \[kappa2fin22\](ii)).
Assume finally that $\gamma (x_{r_0})=2$. If $x_{r_0}$ satisfies condition (\*1) (resp. (\*2); resp. (\*3)), then $x_{r_0}$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i) or by proposition \[kappa2fin23\](i) (resp. by proposition \[kappa2fin24\]; resp. by proposition \[kappa2fin23\](ii) or by proposition \[kappa2fin3\]).
\[kappa2fin00\] With notations as above, assume that $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*2) for every $r\geq 0$. Then there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that $C(x_r)=0$ for every $r\geq r_0$.
We consider the points $$\mathbf{y}:=(A_1(x),A_2(x)+a (x)), \ \mathbf{y}':=(A_1(x)+a'(x),A_2(x)) \in \Delta_2(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z),$$ where $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ are well 2-adapted coordinates. By standard arguments on combinatorial blowing ups, we have $c(x_1)< c(x)$ for the lexicographical ordering whenever $C(x)>0$, where $$c(x):=(C(x)=\min\{a(x), a'(x)\},\max\{a(x), a'(x)\}).$$ Since these numbers belong to ${1 \over \omega (x)!}\N^2$, we get $C(x_r)=0$ for all $r>>0$.
\[kappa2fin0\] With notations as above, there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that $x_{r_0}$ is resolved or $\gamma (x_{r_0})\leq 2$.
Let $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates at $x$. We will name point “at infinity" for simplicity the origin $x'$ of the second chart of the blowing up, i.e. $$\label{eq7504}
x':=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2,u_3/u_2).$$ The notion is unambiguous if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, that is if $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*3). If $x$ satisfies condition (\*2), the point “at infinity" furthermore depends on the numbering of $u_1,u_2$, where $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$.
We may assume that $\gamma (x)\geq 3$ for the whole proof. Note that the special situations described in lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3’) and in lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1’) occur only when $\gamma (x)\leq 2$. We may thus disregard them in this proof. To prove the proposition, it is sufficient to prove that there exists $r\geq 1$ such that $x_r$ is resolved or $\gamma (x_r)<\gamma (x)$. We first bound $\gamma (x_1)$ in terms of $\gamma (x)$ at a nonrational point or at a point “at infinity".
[*Assume that $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$*]{}. We apply lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4) and lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1) with $d\geq 2$. Note that for $\alpha >1$, we have $$\label{eq7501}
1+\left \lfloor {\alpha \over d}\right \rfloor \leq \lceil \alpha \rceil$$ and equality holds if and only if $\alpha =d=2$. If $x$ is in case (\*1) or (\*2), we deduce that $$\label{eq7502}
x_1 \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{resolved} \ \mathrm{or} \ \gamma (x_1)<\gamma (x).$$
For $\alpha \in \N$, $\alpha \geq 3$, we have similarly $$\left \lceil {\alpha \over d} +{1 \over p}\right \rceil < \alpha .$$ If $x$ is in case (\*3), we deduce from lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1) that (\[eq7502\]) also holds.
[*Assume that $x_1=x'$ is the point at infinity (\[eq7504\]).*]{} By lemma \[gamma2\*infty\], $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies condition (\*2).
If $x$ is in case (\*1), lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](1) gives $$\label{eq7503}
\gamma (x_1)\leq 1+\left \lfloor {\beta (x) \over 2} \right \rfloor < \gamma (x)$$ by (\[eq7501\]), since $\beta (x)>2$.
If $x$ is in case (\*2), lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](2) gives $C(x_1)\leq C(x)$, so $\gamma (x_1)\leq \gamma (x)$.
If $x$ is in case (\*3), then lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](3) similarly gives $$\gamma (x_1)\leq 1+ \left \lfloor {1+\beta (x) \over 2}\right \rfloor
< 1 + \lfloor \beta (x)\rfloor = \gamma (x)$$ since $\beta (x) \geq 2$. The conclusion is again (\[eq7502\]).
[*Assume that $x_1\neq x'$ and $k(x_1)=k(x)$.*]{} If $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*3), the independence statement in theorem \[well2prepared\] shows that we may actually assume that $x_1=(Z/u_1,u_1,u_2/u_1,u_3/u_1)$.
If $x$ is in case (\*1), then $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again condition (\*1) with $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ by lemma \[gamma2\*12\](1).
If $x$ is in case (\*3), then $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies one of conditions (\*1) or (\*3). In the latter case, we have $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ by lemma \[gamma2\*3\](3); in the former case, we have $\gamma (x_1)\leq \gamma (x)$ except if
$$\label{eq7505}
``x \ \mathrm{satisfies} \ \mathrm{the} \ \mathrm{assumptions} \ \mathrm{of } \ \mathrm{lemma } \ \ref{gamma2*3}(2)".$$
This situation occurs only when $\beta (x)=\gamma (x)-1/\omega (x)$ and gives $$\beta (x_1)=\gamma (x)+1/\omega (x), \ \gamma (x_1)=\gamma (x)+1.$$
We first prove the proposition when $x$ satisfies either condition (\*1) or (condition (\*3) with $\beta (x)< \gamma (x)-1/\omega (x)$). By the above considerations, we are done except possibly if $x_1$ satisfies again condition (\*1) or (\*3) with ($k(x_1)=k(x)$ and $\gamma (x_1)=\gamma (x)$). Iterating, we conclude from corollary \[permisarcthree\] that $x_r$ is resolved or $\gamma (x_r)<\gamma (x)$ for some $r\geq 1$.
Assume now that $x$ satisfies condition (\*2). By the above considerations and lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4), we are done except possibly if $x_1$ satisfies again condition (\*2). Iterating, we conclude from lemma \[kappa2fin00\] above that $x_r$ is resolved or $\gamma (x_r)<\gamma (x)$ for some $r\geq 1$.
Assume finally that $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) with $\beta (x)= \gamma (x)-1/\omega (x)$. By the above considerations, we are done except possibly if $k(x_1)=k(x)$ and (1) or (2) below holds:
- $x_1$ satisfies again condition (\*3) with $\beta (x_1)=\beta (x)$;
- $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $\beta (x_1)=\gamma (x)+1/\omega (x)$, [*viz.*]{} (\[eq7505\]).
Suppose that (2) holds; we now review the above proof with this extra assumption in mind. Since $\beta (x_1)>3$, $\beta (x_1)\neq 4$, (\[eq7501\]) or (\[eq7503\]) applied to the point $x_1$ give the stronger $$\gamma (x_2)< \gamma (x_1)-1=\gamma (x).$$ We conclude that either $x_2$ is resolved, either $\gamma (x_2) < \gamma (x)$, or $x_2$ satisfies again condition (\*1) with $\beta (x_2)\leq \beta (x_1)$. If the latter inequality is strict, we have $\beta (x_2)\leq \gamma (x)$ and we are thus already done. Otherwise $x_2$ satisfies again (2).
Summing up, there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that either $x_{r_0}$ is resolved, either $\gamma (x_{r_0})< \gamma (x)$, or ($x_r$ satisfies one and the same property (1) or (2) above for every $r\geq r_0$). Iterating, we conclude again by corollary \[permisarcthree\].
\[kappa2fin10\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$ and one of the following properties holds:
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $\gamma (x) = 1$;
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*2) with $\beta (x) <1$;
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) with $\beta (x) < 1-1/ \omega (x)$.
Then $x$ is good.
Note that $A_1(x)>0$ if $x$ satisfies (2) or (3), since $$1 \leq B(x)\leq A_1(x)+\beta (x)$$ in any case. If ($x$ satisfies condition (1) with $A_1(x)=0$), then $x$ is good by proposition \[tauegaldeux\]. Applying repeatedly lemma \[kappa2bupcurve\] if $A_1(x)\geq 1$, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $$\label{eq752}
0< A_1(x)<1.$$ To prove the proposition, we first claim: $x_1$ is resolved or ($x_1$ satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition and $c(x_1)\leq c(x)$ for the lexicographical ordering), where $$c(x):=(A_1(x), \beta (x)).$$
If $x_1$ belongs to the first chart, i.e. $x_1$ is distinct from the point $x'$ at infinity (\[eq7504\]), we apply lemma \[gamma2\*12\] and lemma \[gamma2\*3\]. Note that the special situations described in lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3’) and in lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1’)(2) do not occur under the assumptions of the proposition, so we may also disregard them in this proof. We obtain that $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies again condition (\*) with $$\label{eq7521}
A_1 (x_1)=B(x)-1 \leq A_1(x)+\beta (x)-1 \leq A_1(x).$$
[*Assume that $x_1$ belongs to the first chart and $x$ satisfies (1)*]{}. We have $C(x)\leq \beta (x)\leq 1$. If $k(x_1)=k(x)$, it can be assumed that $x_1$ is the origin of the chart by the independence statement in theorem \[well2prepared\]. By lemma \[gamma2\*12\](1) we have $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ and the claim follows. Note that we obtain $c(x_1)=c(x)$ only if $\beta (x)=1$ by (\[eq7521\]), in which case $x_1$ satisfies again (1). If $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$, the claim follows from lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4) with strict inequality $c(x_1)<c(x)$.
[*Assume that $x_1$ belongs to the first chart and $x$ satisfies (2)*]{}. Since $\beta (x)<1$, inequality is strict in (\[eq7521\]). The claim also follows from lemma \[gamma2\*12\](1)(4) with strict inequality $c(x_1)<c(x)$.
[*Assume that $x_1$ belongs to the first chart and $x$ satisfies (3)*]{}. Note that if $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1), then $x_1$ satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition since lemma \[gamma2\*3\](2) does not occur for $\beta (x)<1-1/\omega (x)$; this is also true if $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3) by lemma \[gamma2\*3\](3) (note that $p=\omega (x)=2$ does not occur: (\[eq752\]) gives $A_1(x)=1/2$ while (3) gives $\beta (x)=0$, a contradiction with $B(x)\geq 1$). The claim now follows with strict inequality $c(x_1)<c(x)$ by (\[eq7521\]).
[*Assume that $x_1=x'$.*]{} Turning to lemma \[gamma2\*infty\], $x'$ is resolved or $x'$ satisfies condition (\*2) with $$A_1(x')=A_1(x), \ \beta (x')=A_1(x)+\beta (x)-1 < \beta (x)$$ by (\[eq752\]). This proves the claim with $c(x_1)<c(x)$ in this case.
Summing up, we have proved the claim with strict inequality $c(x_1)<c(x)$ except possibly if both $x$ and $x_1$ are in case (\*1), $k(x_1)=k(x)$ and $\beta (x_1)=\beta (x)=1$. One concludes the proof again by corollary \[permisarcthree\].
\[kappa2fin11\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$, $x$ satisfies condition (\*2) and $\gamma (x)=1$. Then $x$ is good.
By lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4), $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies the assumptions of proposition \[kappa2fin10\](1) or (3) if $x_1$ is not a point at infinity. Therefore $x_1$ is resolved in this case. If $x_1$ is the origin of a chart, then $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again the assumptions of this proposition by lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](2).
Applying lemma \[kappa2fin00\], it can thus be assumed that $C(x)=0$. Applying repeatedly lemma \[kappa2bupcurve\] if $A_1(x)\geq 1$ or if $A_2(x)\geq 1$, we then reduce to the case $$0 \leq A_1(x),A_2(x)< 1, \ C(x)=0.$$ Then $\beta (x)=A_2(x)<1$ and the conclusion follows from proposition \[kappa2fin10\](2).
\[kappa2fin20\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$ and one of the following properties holds:
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $\beta (x) < 2$;
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*3), $\beta (x) =1-1/\omega (x)$ and $(p,\omega (x))\neq (2,2)$.
Then $x$ is good.
Note that the special situations described in lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1’)(2) do occur here.
[*Assume that $x_1$ belongs to the first chart*]{}. Under assumption (i), $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*3); note that the latter occurs only if $k(x_1)$ is an inseparable extension of $k(x)$ (in particular $d\geq p$) and $d_1\in \N$. By lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4), $x_1$ satisfies again assumption (i) of the proposition with $k(x_1)=k(x)$ or is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin10\](1)(3).
Under assumption (ii), $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*3). If $x$ is as stated in lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1’), then $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies assumption (i) with $\beta (x_1)=p/(p-1)<2$, since $(p,\omega (x))\neq (2,2)$.
Otherwise we may apply lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1)-(3): if $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1), we get $\beta (x_1)\leq 1+1/p$, $\beta (x_1)\leq 1$ if $k(x')\neq k(x)$, from lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1); if $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3), we get $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$, strict inequality if $k(x')\neq k(x)$, from lemma \[gamma2\*3\](2)(3). By proposition \[kappa2fin10\](1)(3), $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition with $k(x_1)=k(x)$.
[*Assume that $x_1=x'$ is the point at infinity.*]{} Then $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*2) with $C(x_1)<1$ by lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](1)(3); therefore $x_1$ is resolved in any case by proposition \[kappa2fin11\].
One concludes the proof again by corollary \[permisarcthree\].
\[kappa2fin21\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$ and one of the following properties holds:
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $\beta (x) = 2$;
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) with $\beta (x)< 2$.
Let $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$ be well 2-adapted coordinates at $x$ and $$x':=(Z':=Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u'_3:=u_3/u_2)$$ be the point at infinity. Then $x'$ is resolved or ($x'$ satisfies condition (\*2) with $C(x')=1$ and the following respectively hold:)
- $p=2$ and $d_1\not \in \N$;
- $p\geq 3$.
By lemma \[gamma2\*infty\], $x'$ is resolved or $x'$ satisfies condition (\*2).
Under assumption (i), lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](1) furthermore gives $C(x') \leq 1$; if $C(x')<1$, we are done by proposition \[kappa2fin11\]. If $C(x')=1$, lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](1) implies that $C(x)=1$; moreover $$\label{eq7531}
A_1(x')=A_2(x')=A_1(x), \ C(x') = \beta (x')-A_2(x')=1.$$
We now prove that $x'$ is resolved unless ($p=2$ and $d_1\not \in \N$). To prove this, it is sufficient to prove that any possible $x_2$ in (\[eq750\]) is resolved when $x_1=x'$. Note that $(u'_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')$ are well 2-adapted coordinates at $x'$. Let $$\mathrm{in}_{\alpha'} h ={Z'}^p -{G'}_{\alpha '}^{p-1}Z'+ F_{p,Z',\alpha '},$$ notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](4) w.r.t. the face $\sigma_{2, \mathrm{in}}$ of $\Delta_2(h';u'_1,u_2;u'_3;Z')$. We expand $$\label{eq7532}
{U'_1}^{-pd_1}{U_2}^{-pd'_2}F_{p,Z',\alpha '}=
\mu {U'_3}^{\omega (x)}+\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)} \mu_i{U'_3}^{\omega (x)-i}P_i(U'_1,U_2),$$ where $d'_2:=d_1+\omega (x)/p-1$ and $$P_i(U'_1,U_2)={U'_1}^{a_i}U_2^{b_i}Q_i(U'_1,U_2),$$ with $Q_i(U'_1,U_2)$ zero or not divisible by either $U'_1$ or $U_2$. Since $C(x')=1$, we have by definition $$a_i, b_i \geq iA_1(x_1), \ i \geq \mathrm{deg}Q_i(U'_1,U_2)$$ whenever $Q_i(U'_1,U_2)\neq 0$, $1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)$. Since $C(x)=C(x')=\beta (x')=1$, we have $$\label{eq7533}
\mathrm{deg}_{U'_1}Q_{i_1}=i_1 \ \mathrm{and} \ \mathrm{deg}_{U_2}Q_{i_2}=i_2$$ for some $i_1,i_2$, $1 \leq i_1,i_2\leq \omega (x)$. Let $$x'_2:=(Z'/u_2,u'_1/u_2,u_2,u'_3/u_2), \ x''_2:=(Z'/u'_1,u'_1,u_2/u'_1,u'_3/u'_1)$$ be the points “at infinity”. If $x_2\in \{x'_2,x''_2\}$, then lemma \[gamma2\*12\](1) implies that $x_2$ is resolved or $x_2$ satisfies condition (\*2) with $C(x_2)=0$ by (\[eq7533\]). So $x_2$ is resolved in any case by proposition \[kappa2fin11\].
If $x_2\not \in \{ x'_2, x''_2\}$ and $k(x_2)\neq k(x')$, we apply lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4): then $x_2$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin10\](1)(3).
If $x_2\not \in \{ x'_2, x''_2\}$ and $k(x_2)= k(x')$, we apply lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3’)(3)(4). Note that the special situation in lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3’) yields $x_2$ resolved if $(p,\omega (x))\neq (2,2)$ by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i). Therefore $x_2$ is resolved or one of the following properties holds:
$(A)$ $x'$ satisfies the requirements in lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3’) for $p=\omega (x)=2$ and $x_2$ satisfies (\[eq742\]) (in particular $d_1\not\in \N$);
$(B)$ $x_2$ satisfies condition (\*3) with $\beta (x_2)\leq 1+1/p$.
Since $(d_1, 0,\omega (x)/p)$ is a vertex of $\Delta (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ which is not solvable, we have $\mu\not \in k(x)^p$ in (\[eq7532\]) if $d_1\in \N$. As $k(x_2)=k(x')$, $x_2$ satisfies condition (\*3) only if $$(d_1,d'_2) \not \in \N^2 \ \mathrm{and} \ d_1+d'_2 \in \N.$$ On the other hand $d'_2 - d_1 =\omega (x)/p-1 \in \N$, so the latter holds if and only if ($p=2$ and $d_1\not \in \N$) as required.\
Under assumption (ii), we are done by proposition \[kappa2fin11\] if $C(x')<1$. Assuming that $C(x')\geq 1$, we have $$1\leq \max\{\beta (x)-C(x),C(x)-\beta_2(x)\}<2$$ by lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](3). It is easily deduced that $$\label{eq7534}
\beta (x')-A_2(x')=\beta (x)-C(x)<2$$ and that $$\label{eq7536}
\beta (x)\geq 1, \ 0\leq C(x)\leq 1-1/\omega (x) \ \mathrm{and} \ \beta_2(x)\leq -1/\omega (x).$$ The proof is now a variation of that under assumption (i) and we explain now how it is to be adapted. To begin with, (\[eq7532\]) holds with $d'_2:=d_1+(1+\omega (x))/p-1$. Since $C(x)<1$, $\beta_2(x)<0$ and $C(x')\geq 1$, (\[eq7533\]) is now replaced by $$\label{eq7535}
\mathrm{deg}_{U'_1}Q_{i_1}=i_1 \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ i_1, \ 1 \leq i_1\leq \omega (x).$$ Note in particular that we have $C(x')=1$.
If $x_2\in \{x'_2,x''_2\}$, we apply lemma \[gamma2\*infty\]: $x'_2$ (resp. $x''_2$) is resolved or $C(x'_2)<1$ (resp. $C(x''_2)=0$) by (\[eq7534\]) (resp. by (\[eq7535\])). Therefore $x_2$ is resolved in any case by proposition \[kappa2fin11\].
If $x_2\not \in \{ x'_2, x''_2\}$ and $k(x_2)\neq k(x_1)$, then $x_2$ is resolved by the same argument as under assumption (i).
If $x_2\not \in \{ x'_2, x''_2\}$ and $k(x_2)= k(x_1)$, we first note that $x'$ is [*not*]{} as specified in lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3’): since $C(x)<1$, we have $A_1(x')=A_1(x)>0$. Applying then lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3)(4), the argument used under assumption (i) gives $x_2$ resolved or $d_1+d'_2 \in \N$. Since $d'_2 - d_1 -1/p\in \N$, this can possibly hold only if $p\geq 3$.
\[kappa2fin22\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$ and $x$ satisfies one of the following properties:
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*1), $\beta (x) = 2$ and, given well 2-adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$, the polynomial $\mathrm{in}_\alpha h =Z^p -G_\alpha^{p-1}Z+F_{p,Z,\alpha}$, where $$\label{eq754}
U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z,\alpha}=\mu U_3^{\omega (x)}+\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)}
\mu_iU_3^{\omega (x)-i}U_1^{iy_1}U_2^{iy_2},$$ notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](4) w.r.t. the face $$\sigma_2=\mathbf{y} :=(A_1(x), \beta (x))\in \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;u_3;Z)$$ has $\mu_i \neq 0$ for some $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq p-1$;
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) and $\beta(x)<2-1/p$.
Then $x$ is good.
We again consider three cases.
[*Assume that $x_1=x'$ is the point at infinity.*]{} We review the proof of lemma \[kappa2fin21\] with our extra assumptions and claim that $x'$ is resolved.
Under assumption (i), we get $1\leq i_2 \leq p-1$ in (\[eq7533\]) by (\[eq754\]). Turning to (A) and (B) in the proof of lemma \[kappa2fin21\], note that (A) does not hold since $\mu_1\neq 0$ in (\[eq754\]). Finally if (B) holds, then $\beta (x_2)\leq 1-1/(p-1)$ because $1\leq i_2 \leq p-1$. Therefore $x_2$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin10\](3).
Under assumption (ii), note that (\[eq7536\]) is strengthened to $$0\leq C(x)< 1-1/p \ \mathrm{and} \ \beta_2(x)< -1/p$$ since $\beta (x)<2-1/p$. We thus get $1\leq i_1 \leq p-1$ in (\[eq7535\]). We also get $\beta (x_2)\leq 1-1/(p-1)$ if (B) holds, so $x_2$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin10\](3).\
[*Assume that $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$.*]{} If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1), lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4) and lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1) give $\beta (x)<2$ in any case. Therefore $x_1$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i).
If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3), the same conclusion holds under assumption (i) except possibly if $C(x)=d=2$. By (\[eq754\]), we then get $\beta (x_1)\leq 1-1/(p-1)$ and $x_1$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin10\](3). Under assumption (ii), $x_1$ satisfies again the assumption (ii) in this lemma with $\beta (x_1)<\beta (x)$ by lemma \[gamma2\*3\](3).\
[*Assume that $x_1\neq x'$ and $k(x_1)= k(x)$.*]{} The independence statement in theorem \[well2prepared\] reduces to $$x_1=(Z':=Z/u_1, u_1,u'_2:=u_2/u_1,u'_3:=u_3/u_1).$$ Note that the extra assumption (\[eq754\]) is unaffected by this coordinate change.
Under assumption (i), lemma \[gamma2\*12\](1) shows that $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies again condition (\*1) with $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)=2$. By proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i), $x_1$ is resolved unless equality holds. In this case, we have $$C(x)=\beta (x)=\beta (x_1)=2$$ and $x_1$ satisfies again assumption (i) of this lemma.
Under assumption (ii), lemma \[gamma2\*3\] shows that $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies condition (\*1) or (\*3). If one of lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1’)(2) applies, we have $\gamma (x)=1$ and $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $\beta (x_1)\leq 2$. We are done if inequality is strict by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i); otherwise $\omega (x)=p=2$ and $x_1$ satisfies (i) of this lemma.
Any other situation yields $\gamma (x_1)\leq \gamma (x)$. If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3), then $x_1$ satisfies again (ii) of this lemma with $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ by lemma \[gamma2\*3\](3). If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1), we have $\beta (x_1)\leq 2$. We are done if inequality is strict by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i).
Assume then that ($x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1) and $\beta (x_1)=2$). We argue as in the proof of lemma \[gamma2\*3\]. Let $$\label{eq7543}
U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z,\alpha}=(\mu U_1+U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)}
+\sum_{j\in J_0}U_3^{\omega (x)-j}U_1^{b_j}\Psi_j(U_1,U_2),$$ where $\mu \in k(x)$, $1+d_j :=\mathrm{deg}_{U_2}\Psi_j(U_1,U_2)$, with $b_j \geq jA_1(x)$, $d_j\leq j\beta (x)$, notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](5). By assumption (ii), we have $$j\in J_0 \Longrightarrow {d_j \over j}< 2-1/p.$$ Note that for $j\in J_0$, we then have $1+d_j \leq 2j$, and inequality is strict if $j\geq p$. If $\min J_0\geq p$, arguing as in the proof of lemma \[gamma2\*3\] ($B(x)>1$, cases 1 to 4), we then get $\beta (x_1)<2$: a contradiction. This proves that $$\label{eq7541}
1 \leq j_0:=\min J_0 \leq p-1.$$ Let $\mathbf{y}':=(A_1(x_1), \beta (x_1))\in \Delta_2(h';u_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$, where $(u_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ are well 2-adapted coordinates. With notations as in lemma \[structDelta2\](4), the initial form polynomial $\mathrm{in}_{\alpha '} h'$ w.r.t. the face $\sigma'_2=\mathbf{y}'$ satisfies an equation (\[eq754\]), say $$\label{eq7542}
{U_1}^{-pd'_1}F_{p,Z',\alpha '} = \mu '{U'_3}^{\omega (x)}+\sum_{j=1}^{\omega (x)}
\mu'_j{U'_3}^{\omega (x)-j}{U_1}^{jA_1(x_1)}{U'_2}^{2j},$$ with $d'_1:=d_1+(1+\omega (x))/p-1$, $\mu'_{j_0} \neq 0$ by (\[eq7541\]). Therefore $x_1$ satisfies assumption (i) in this lemma.\
Summing up, the following has been proved: if $x$ satisfies (i), then $x_1$ is resolved or ($k(x_1)=k(x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies again (i)). If $x$ satisfies (ii), then $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies (i) or (ii); if (ii) holds, then $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ and inequality is strict if $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$.
Consider the quadratic sequence (\[eq750\]). By the previous considerations, there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that either $x_{r_0}$ is resolved, or ($x_r$ satisfies one and the same assumption in the lemma with $k(x_r)=k(x_{r_0})$ for every $r\geq r_0$). One concludes the proof again by corollary \[permisarcthree\].
We will now conclude the proof of theorem \[proofkkappa2\]. Note the interesting extra twist for $p=2$.
\[kappa2fin23\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$ and one of the following properties holds:
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $\beta (x) = 2$;
- $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) and $\beta(x)<2 -1/\omega (x)$.
Then $x$ is good.
This is a variation on the two previous lemmas. Note that we may disregard the special case stated in lemma \[gamma2\*3\](1’) in this proof.
[*Assume that $x_1=x'$ is the point at infinity.*]{} By lemma \[kappa2fin21\], $x'$ is resolved under assumption (i) (resp. (ii)) if $p\geq 3$ (resp. if $p=2$). Reviewing the proof of lemma \[kappa2fin21\], we are done except possibly when (A) or (B) stated therein hold. If (A) holds, then $x_2$ is resolved by lemma \[kappa2fin22\](i). If (B) holds, $x_2$ satisfies condition (\*3) with $\beta (x_2)\leq 1+1/p$. If $p\geq 3$ or if ($p=2$ and $\beta (x_2)<3/2$), we have $\beta (x_2)<2-1/p$ and the conclusion follows from lemma \[kappa2fin22\](ii). Therefore $x'$ is resolved or $$p=2 \ \mathrm{and} \ \beta (x_2)=3/2.$$ In the special case $p=\omega (x)=2$, an explicit computation gives $\beta (x_2)\leq 1$ if $x_2$ satisfies condition (\*3) ([*cf.*]{} (ii) of proof of lemma \[kappa2fin25\] below), so $x'$ is resolved. This proves that $x_2$ is resolved or satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition in any case.\
[*Assume that $k(x_1)\neq k(x)$.*]{} Under assumption (i), $x_1$ is resolved or $$\beta (x) \leq {C(x) \over d}+{1\over p} \leq 1+{1\over p}$$ by lemma \[gamma2\*12\](3). Then $x_1$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i) or by lemma \[kappa2fin22\](ii) except possibly if $x_1$ satisfies (ii) with ($p=2$, $\beta (x)=3/2$); in this case, note that ($x$ satisfies condition (\*1), $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3)) implies that $d_1\in \N$.
Under assumption (ii), $x_1$ is resolved or $$\beta (x) < {2 \over d}+{1\over p} \leq 1+{1\over p}$$ by lemma \[gamma2\*12\](2). Then $x_1$ is resolved in any case by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i) or by lemma \[kappa2fin22\](ii).\
[*Assume that $x_1\neq x'$ and $k(x_1)= k(x)$.*]{} We may assume once again that $x_1$ is the origin of the first chart of the blowing up.
Under assumption (i), $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies again assumption (i): same proof as in lemma \[kappa2fin22\](i).
Under assumption (ii), $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again one of (i)(ii): same proof as in lemma \[kappa2fin22\](ii). If $x_1$ satisfies again (ii), we have $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$ by lemma \[gamma2\*3\](3).
Summing up, it has been proved that $x_1$ is resolved or $x_1$ satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition. Under assumption (i), $x_1$ is resolved or one of the following properties holds:
- $k(x_1)=k(x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies again (i);
- $p=2$ and $x_1$ satisfies (ii) with $\beta (x_1)=3/2$;
- $p=2$ and $x_2$ satisfies (ii) with $\beta (x_2)=3/2$.
Under assumption (ii), $x_1$ is resolved or one of the following properties holds:
- $k(x_1)=k(x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies (i);
- $k(x_1)=k(x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies again (ii) with $\beta (x_1)\leq \beta (x)$.
Consider the quadratic sequence (\[eq750\]) and suppose that (2) (resp. (3)) above occurs. Suppose that event (1’) occurs again at $x_r$ for $r\geq 1$ (resp. for $r\geq 2$). By (2’) and lemma \[kappa2fin22\](ii), we may assume that $\beta (x_r)=3/2$, so $x_r$ is resolved by lemma \[kappa2fin25\] below. Therefore there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that either $x_{r_0}$ is resolved, or ($x_r$ satisfies one and the same assumption (i) or (ii) with $k(x_{r})=k(x_{r_0})$ for every $r\geq r_0$). The proof now concludes once again by corollary \[permisarcthree\].
\[kappa2fin25\] Assume that $p=2$, $\kappa (x)=2$ and $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) with $\beta (x)=3/2$. If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1), then $x_1$ is resolved.
We argue as in the proof of lemma \[kappa2fin22\] (\[eq7543\]) and (\[eq7542\]): we have $\beta (x_1)=2$ and, since $\beta (x)=3/2$, there exist well 2-adapted coordinates $(u_1,u'_2;u'_3;Z')$ at $x_1$ such that $$\label{eq756}
{U_1}^{-2d'_1}F_{2,Z',\alpha '} = \mu '{U'_3}^{\omega (x)}+\sum_{j=1}^{\omega (x)}
\mu'_j{U'_3}^{\omega (x)-j}{U_1}^{jA_1(x_1)}{U'_2}^{2j},$$ with $d'_1:=d_1+(1+\omega (x))/2-1$, $\mu'_1 \neq 0$ or $\mu'_2 \neq 0$. We conclude by lemma \[kappa2fin22\](i) if $\mu'_1\neq 0$.
Assume then that $\mu'_1= 0$ and let $a:=\mathrm{ord}_2\omega (x)$. If ($a=1$, $A_1(x)\in \N$ and $\mu'_2 {\mu'}^{-1}=\lambda^2$ for some $\lambda \in k(x)$), we may perform the Tschirnhausen transform $U'_3\mapsto U'_3 +\lambda U_1^{A_1(x)}{U'_2}^2$ and get $\mu'_2 = 0$ in (\[eq756\]). Since $\beta (x_1)=2$, we nevertheless obtain $\mu'_{j_0} \neq 0$ for some $j_0\geq 3$ in (\[eq756\]). In other terms, we may assume that one of the following assumptions holds:
- $a\geq 2$ and $\mu'_2\neq 0$;
- $a=1$, ($A_1(x)\not \in \N$ or $\mu'_2 {\mu'}^{-1}\not \in k(x)^2$) and $\mu'_2\neq 0$;
- $a=1$, $A_1(x) \in \N$, $\mu'_2= 0$ and $\mu'_{j_0}\neq 0$ for some $j_0\geq 3$.
We consider three cases and review again the proof of lemma \[kappa2fin22\]:
[*Assume that $x_2=x'_1$ is the point at infinity.*]{} Situation (A) has been solved in lemma \[kappa2fin22\](i). Situation (B) does not hold by [@CoP2] proof of [**I.8.3**]{}: equality $\beta (x_3)=3/2$ is achieved only in the situation of [*ibid.*]{} [**I.8.3.6**]{} case 2. This implies ($\mu'_{j}=0$ for $1 \leq j \leq 2^a-1$, and $\mu'_{2^a}\neq 0$): a contradiction with (i) and (iii) above. This also implies $B(x)=A_1(x)+\beta (x)\in \N$ [*viz.*]{} [@CoP2] [**I.8.3.4**]{} (so $A_1(x)\in \N$ since $\beta (x)=2$), and $${U'_1}^{-2d'_1}{\partial F_{2,Z',\alpha '} \over \partial \lambda_l }
\in <{U'_1}^{-2d'_1}U'_1{\partial F_{2,Z',\alpha '} \over \partial U'_1 }>, \ l \in \Lambda_0$$ [*viz.*]{} [@CoP2] [**I.8.3.5**]{} where $d'_1 \not \in \N$ here: a contradiction with (ii). One gets $\beta (x_3)<3/2$ (actually: $\beta (x_3)\leq 1$ if $x_3$ satisfies condition (\*3)), so $x'$ is resolved by lemma \[kappa2fin22\](ii).
[*Assume that $k(x_2)\neq k(x_1)$.*]{} Then $x_2$ is resolved.
[*Assume that $x_2\neq x'_1$ and $k(x_2)= k(x_1)$.*]{} Then $x_2$ is resolved or $x_2$ satisfies again (\[eq756\]) with $\mu'_j\neq 0$ for some $j\geq 1$, $j\leq 2$ if $a\geq 2$.
Iterating, the conclusion follows again from corollary \[permisarcthree\].\
\[kappa2fin24\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$, $x$ satisfies condition (\*2) with $\gamma (x)=2$. Then $x$ is good.
[*Proof.*]{} By lemma \[gamma2\*12\], $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again condition (\*) with $\gamma (x_1)\leq 2$.
If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1), then $x_1$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin20\](i) or by proposition \[kappa2fin23\](i).
If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*3), we have $\beta (x_1)<2 -1/\omega (x)$ by lemma \[gamma2\*12\](4). Therefore $x_1$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin23\](ii).
If $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*2) and $\gamma (x_1)=1$, $x_1$ is resolved by proposition \[kappa2fin11\]. Therefore $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again the assumptions of the lemma. The conclusion follows from lemma \[kappa2fin00\].
\[kappa2fin3\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=2$, $x$ satisfies condition (\*3) with $\beta (x)=2- 1/\omega (x)$. Then $x$ is good.
This is now a variation on proposition \[kappa2fin0\]. By lemma \[gamma2\*3\], $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again condition (\*) with $\gamma (x_1)\leq 2$ except in the special situation specified in lemma \[gamma2\*3\](2). Applying the previous lemmas, we are done except possibly if $k(x_1)=k(x)$ and (1) or (2) below holds:
- $x_1$ satisfies again condition (\*3) with $\beta (x_1)=\beta (x)=2-1/\omega (x)$;
- $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*1) with $\beta (x_1)=2+1/\omega (x)$.
Suppose that (2) holds; by lemma \[gamma2\*12\](1)(4) and lemma \[gamma2\*infty\](2), $x_2$ is resolved ($\gamma (x_2) \leq 2$, $\beta (x_2)<2-1/\omega (x)$ if $x_2$ satisfies condition (\*3)) or satisfies again (2) with $k(x_2)=k(x_1)$. We conclude once more by corollary \[permisarcthree\].
Projection theorem: transverse and tangent cases, reduction of $\kappa (x)=3, 4$ to monic expansions.
=====================================================================================================
In this chapter and the next one, we prove theorem \[projthm\] when $\kappa (x)=3,4$ (definition \[defkappa\]). This is restated as theorem \[proofkappa34\] below. The structure of the proof is similar to that of theorem \[proofkkappa2\]: first getting a stable form for the equation of $\mathrm{in}_{m_S}h$ (i.e. monic expansions, definition \[\*\*\] below), then introducing a projected polygon with secondary invariant $\gamma (x)$.
Two important differences with $\kappa (x)=2$ arise. On the one hand, no simple reduction works for each of $\kappa (x)=3,4$ separately and we have to deal with both cases at the same time. On the other hand, the monic case is resolved by blowing up Hironaka-permissible centers ${\cal Y}\subset {\cal X}$ which are not necessarily permissible in the sense of definitions \[deffirstkind\] and \[defsecondkind\].\
Given a valuation $\mu$ of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$, we consider finite sequences of local blowing ups along $\mu$: $$\label{eq801}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r)$$ with Hironaka-permissible centers ${\cal Y}_i \subset ({\cal X}_i,x_i)$, [*viz.*]{} (\[eq402\]).\
[*Up to the end of this chapter, “resolved" stands for “resolved for $(p,\omega (x),3)$" (remark \[quadsequence\])*]{}.\
\[\*\*\] Assume that $\kappa(x)\geq 3$. We say that $x$ satisfies condition (\*\*) if there exists well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ at $x$ such that the following conditions are fulfilled:
- $1+\omega(x)\not=\ 0\ \mod(p)$;
- $E=\div (u_1)$ (resp. $E=\div(u_1u_2))$, and $\mathbf{v}:=(d_1, d_2, (1+ \omega (x))/p)$ is the only vertex (resp. is a vertex) of $\Delta_{S} (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ in the region $x_1=d_1$.
Assume $\kappa(x)=4$, we say that $x$ satisfies condition (T\*\*) (for “towards (\*\*)”) if there exists well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ at $x$ such that [*one*]{} of the following conditions is fulfilled:
- $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, $\div(u_1)\subseteq E$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1>$;
- $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, $\div(u_1u_2)\subseteq E$ and $\mathbf{v}:=(d_1+ \omega (x)/p, d_2, d_3)$ is the only vertex of $\Delta_{S} (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ in the region $x_2=d_2$;
- $E=\div(u_1u_2)$ and $\mathbf{v}:=(d_1+ \omega (x)/p, d_2, 1/p)$ is the only vertex of $\Delta_{S} (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ in the region $x_2=d_2$.
When $x$ satisfies any of (\*\*) or (T\*\*), we simply say that “$h$ has a [*monic expansion*]{} for $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$”. In cases (\*\*) and (T\*\*)(iii), the nonexceptional variable $u_3$ will usually be denoted $v$.
\[remT\*\*\] If $x$ satisfies (i)(ii) or ((iii) with $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$) above for (T\*\*), we have $\kappa (x)\leq 2$ or $\kappa (x)=4$. On the other hand, one may have (iii) with $\kappa (x)=3$ if $\epsilon (x)=1+\omega (x)$. We however claim that $\tau '(x)=3$ in this situation. Namely, by definition \[defomega\], $$\kappa (x)=3 \Leftrightarrow H^{-1}{\partial TF_{p,Z} \over \partial U_3} \not \in k(x)[U_1,U_2].$$ W.l.o.g. it can be assumed that $U_3 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$. By (iii), we then have $$H^{-1}{\partial TF_{p,Z} \over \partial U_3} =\lambda U_1^{\omega (x)} + U_2\Phi (U_1,U_2,U_3),$$ with $\lambda \neq 0$ and $\Phi \not \in k(x)[U_1,U_2]$. It is then obvious that $\tau '(x)=3$.
As a consequence, it is sufficient for our purpose to check (i)(ii) or (iii) in order to check (T\*\*), since $x$ is already resolved if $\kappa (x)\leq 3$.
Preliminaries: transverse case.
-------------------------------
Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$, where $\kappa (x)=3$. In particular, we have $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)+1$. The initial form polynomial $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h=Z^p -G^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z}\in G(m_S)[Z]$$ has $H^{-1}G^p \subset k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_e]_{\omega (x)+1}$ and an expansion $$\label{eq802}
U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}=c U_3^{\omega (x)+1} + \sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)}U_3^{\omega (x)-i}\Phi_{i+1}(U_1,U_2),$$ with $U_3 \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$, $c \in k(x)$ and $\Phi_i\in k(x)[U_1,U_2]_{i+1}$, $0 \leq i \leq \omega (x)$. Since $\kappa (x)=3$, note that we have $$\label{eq8021}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
(\omega (x)+1\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p \ \mathrm{and} \ c \neq 0), \ \mathrm{or} \hfill{} \\
\\
\Phi_{i+1}(U_1,U_2)\neq 0 \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ i\leq \omega (x)-2, \ \omega (x)-i \not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
\[sortiebiskappaegaltrois\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=3$, $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ and $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3, \lambda_1U_1 + U_2>, \ \lambda_1 \neq 0.$$ Then $x$ is resolved.
Take ${\cal Y}_0:=\{x\}$ in (\[eq801\]) and assume that $x_1$ is very near $x$. Since $U_1 \not \in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$, we have $G=0$. Let $u'_j:=u_j/u_1$, $j=2,3$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $$x_1=(X':=Z/u_1, u_1, v:=u'_2 +\gamma_1, u'_3), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1), \ k(x_1)=k(x),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda_1 $. By assumption, $$\Psi :=U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_3}=
\sum_{i=0}^{\omega (x)}c_i(\lambda_1U_1 + U_2)^iU_3^{\omega (x)-i}$$ with $c_i\in k(x)$ and $c_i\neq 0$ for some $i\neq \omega (x)$. Let $(u_1,v,u'_3;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_1$. Applying proposition \[bupformula\](v) (with $W':=\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$), we have $$\label{eq8011}
(\Psi (1, \overline{v} -\lambda_1, {\overline{u}'_3}))\subseteq J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')
\subseteq k(x)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{v},\overline{u}'_3)}.$$
Since $\kappa (x_1)\geq 3$ is assumed, we have $$\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{v},\overline{u}'_3)}U_1^{-pd'_1}F_{p,Z',W'}=\epsilon (x),$$ where $$\label{eq8012}
d'_1=d_1+d_2 -1 + \epsilon (x)/p\in \N.$$
If $\epsilon (x_1)=\epsilon (x)$, we get $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)+<U_1>=<U_1, V,U'_3>$ by (\[eq8011\]), so $\kappa (x_1)=2$ by definition \[defkappa\]: a contradiction. Therefore $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$. Let $$\Phi ':=\mathrm{cl}_{\epsilon (x)}U_1^{-pd'_1}F_{p,Z',W'}\in k(x)[\overline{V},\overline{U}'_3]_{\epsilon (x)}.$$ We deduce from (\[eq8011\]) that $$\label{eq8013}
{\partial \Phi' \over \partial \overline{U}'_3}=\Psi (1, \overline{V} -\lambda_1, {\overline{U}'_3}),
\ \mathrm{Vdir}\left ({\partial \Phi' \over \partial \overline{U}'_3}\right ) =<\overline{V}, \overline{U}'_3>.$$
The proof is now a variation of that of proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\], $\tau '(x)=1$, which we state in the following lemma for further use. The assumptions are satisfied by (\[eq8012\])-(\[eq8013\]) and this concludes the proof.
\[sortiekappaegaldeuxbis\] Assume that $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$ and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. Let $(u_1,u_2 ,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$. Assume furthermore that the initial form polynomial $$\mathrm{in}_Eh=Z^p +U_1^{pd_1}\overline{F}, \ \overline{F}\in S/(u_1)$$ of lemma \[lemsortiekappaegaldeux\] has $d_1\in \N$ and $$\mathrm{Vdir}\left ({\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_2},
{\partial \Phi \over \partial \overline{U}_3}\right ) =<\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}_3>,$$ where $\Phi :=\mathrm{cl}_{\omega (x)+1}\overline{F} \in k(x)[\overline{U}_2, \overline{U}_3]_{\omega (x)+1}$. Then $x$ is resolved.
It can be assumed that $\kappa (x)=4$, i.e. $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1>$. We then review the proof of proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\] for $\tau '(x)=1$, cases 1 and 2. We take ${\cal Y}_0:=\{x\}$ in (\[eq801\]).
Case 2 of [*loc.cit.*]{} gives $\iota (x_1)\leq (p, \omega (x),2)$ after blowing up $x$, hence $x_1$ is resolved. Similarly, case 1 yields $\iota (x_1)\leq (p, \omega (x),2)$ or after possibly changing well adapted coordinates: $$\Phi \in <\overline{U}_3^{\omega (x)+1},\overline{U}_2\overline{U}_3^{\omega (x)}>,$$ with $\omega (x)\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ and $$\label{eq8015}
x_1=(Z':=Z/u_2, u'_1=u_1/u_2, u_2,u'_3:=u_3/u_2), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2).$$ The case $\omega (x)=1$ is dealt with as in proposition \[sortiekappaegaldeux\].
Assume that $\omega (x)\geq 2$. Let $E_1:=\mathrm{div}(u'_1)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$ be the strict transform of $E$. We get an expansion $$\mathrm{in}_{E_1}h'={Z'}^p +{U'_1}^{pd_1}\overline{F_1}, \ \overline{F}\in S'/(u'_1),$$ where $d'_1=d_1$, $d'_2=d_1-1+\omega (x)/p$ and $$\label{eq8016}
(\overline{u}_2)^{-(pd'_2+1)}\overline{F_1}\equiv ({\overline{u}'_3}^{\omega (x)})\ \mathrm{mod}\overline{u}_2.$$
It can be furthermore assumed that $\kappa (x_1)=4$. By lemma \[joyeux\](ii), we have $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1>$ or $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1,U_2>$ since $\widehat{pd_1}=0$ is assumed in this lemma. We take ${\cal Y}_1:=\{x_1\}$ in (\[eq801\]) and first consider the point $$x'':=(Z'':=Z'/u'_3, u''_1=u'_1/u_3, u''_2:=u_2/u'_3,u'_3), \ E''=\mathrm{div}(u''_1u''_2u'_3).$$ By (\[eq8016\]), we obtain $\omega (x'')< \omega (x)$ (resp. $\tau '(x'')=3$) if $\omega (x)\geq 3$ (resp. if $\omega (x)=2$), so $x''$ is resolved in any case. By theorem \[bupthm\] it can therefore be assumed that $$\label{eq8017}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1>.$$ Applying again (\[eq8016\]), we obtain $$(\overline{u}_2)^{-(pd'_2+1)}{\partial \overline{F_1} \over \partial \overline{u}'_3}\equiv
({\overline{u}'_3}^{\omega (x)-1})\ \mathrm{mod}\overline{u}_2.$$ Once again, we obtain $\iota (x_2)\leq (p,\omega (x),2)$ or after possibly changing well adapted coordinates: $$x_2=(Z'/u_2, u''_1:=u'_1/u_2, u_2,u'_3/u_2), \ E''=\mathrm{div}(u''_1u_2).$$
It is now clear that (\[eq8016\])-(\[eq8017\]) are stable by blowing up. Iterating, we obtain that $x_r$ is resolved for some $r\geq 1$ in (\[eq801\]) or there exists a formal curve $\hat{\cal Y}=V(\hat{Z},u_1,\hat{u}_3)$ whose strict transform passes through all points $x_r$, $r\geq 1$. By proposition \[permisarc\](1), it can be assumed that ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_3)$ is permissible of the first kind. Then $x$ is resolved by blowing up ${\cal Y}$ and the conclusion follows.
\[kappa3prelim\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=3$. Then $x$ is good, or there exist well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ at $x$ and an expansion (\[eq802\]) such that one of the following properties holds.
- we have $$\label{eq8022}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\Phi_{i+1} \in k(x)[U_1], \ 0 \leq i \leq \omega (x)-1, \ \mathrm{and} \hfill{} \\
\\
\Phi_{\omega (x)+1}=(\lambda_1 U_1 +\lambda_2U_2)U_1^{\omega (x)}, \ \lambda_1, \lambda_2 \in k(x) \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ Furthermore ($\Phi_i = 0$ for every $i\geq 0$) or ($x_1=x'$ in (\[eq801\])), where $${\cal Y}_0:=\{x\} \ \mathrm{and} \ x':=(Z':=Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2, u_2, u'_3:=u_3/u_2);$$
- we have $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $\tau '(x)=1$ and $x$ satisfies condition (\*\*) (definition \[\*\*\]).
We always take ${\cal Y}_0:=\{x\}$ in (\[eq801\]) and discuss according to $x_1$. It can be assumed that $\iota (x_1)\geq \iota (x)$ (in particular $\omega (x_1)=\omega (x)$).
First suppose that $x_1=x'$. By proposition \[originchart\], $(u'_1, u_2, u'_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$. Since $\epsilon (x')\geq \omega (x)$ by assumption, we deduce that $\mathrm{deg}_{U_2}\Phi_{i+1}\leq 1$, $0 \leq i \leq \omega (x)$. Similarly, $\Phi_{i+1}\in k(x)[U_1]$ for $\omega (x)-i\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ (resp. for $\omega (x)-i\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$, $i\neq \omega (x)$) because $\omega (x')=\omega (x)$ (resp. because $\kappa (x')>2$). Therefore (\[eq8022\]) holds if $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$.
Assume now that $x_1\neq x'$. By theorem \[bupthm\], $x_1$ is resolved if $$<U_1,U_3> \subseteq \mathrm{Vdir}(x).$$ If ($E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ and $\tau '(x)=2$), it can thus be assumed by symmetry on $u_1,u_2$ that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3,\lambda_1U_1+U_2>$, $\lambda_1\neq 0$. Then $x$ is resolved by proposition \[sortiebiskappaegaltrois\]. Since $x_1$ is very near $x$, it can be assumed from now on that $$\label{eq8025}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_3>.$$ We get in (\[eq802\]): $G=0$ and $\Psi_{i+1}=0$ for $\omega (x)-i\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. By (\[eq8021\]), we furthermore have $$\label{eq8023}
c\neq 0 \ \mathrm{and} \ \omega (x)+1\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p .$$ If $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, we therefore have (2) and the proof is complete.
Assume now that $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. Let $I:=\{i : \Phi_{i+1}\neq 0\}$. To conclude the proof, we will prove that $$I\neq \emptyset \Longrightarrow x_1 \ \mathrm{is} \ \mathrm{resolved}.$$
Let $i\in I$. By (\[eq8025\]) and (\[eq8023\]), we have $$\label{eq8026}
\omega (x)-i\equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p, \ i+1 \not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p.$$ There is an expansion $$\label{eq8024}
\Phi_{i+1}(U_1,U_2) =U_1^{a_i}\Psi_{i+1}(U_1,U_2) , \ a_i \geq 0.$$ where $U_1$ does not divide $\Psi_{i+1}$. By (\[eq8025\]), we have ${\partial \Phi_{i+1} \over \partial U_2}=0$, therefore $\Psi_{i+1}\in k(x)[U_1^p,U_2^p]$, whence $a_i\geq 1$ by (\[eq8026\]). Expand $$\Psi_{i+1}(U_1,U_2)=:\mu_i U_2^{pb_i} + \cdots , \ \mu_i \neq 0, \ b_i\in \N.$$ After possibly changing $Z$ with $Z-\phi$, $\phi \in S$, it can be assumed that $pd_1+a_i \not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p $ or $\mu_i \not \in k(x)^p$. In particular (\[eq8022\]) holds for $i=0$.
If $I=\{0\}$, $\kappa (x_1)>2$ implies that $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x_1)$: $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\] (or of lemma \[sortieomegaun\]) and the conclusion follows.
Suppose that $i\geq 1$ in what follows. We can take a unitary polynomial $P(t)\in S[t]$, whose reduction $\overline{P}(t)\in k(x)[t]$ is irreducible and $$x_1=(X':=Z/u_1,u_1, u'_2:=P(u_2/u_1), u'_3:=u_3/u_1).$$ Let $(u_1, u'_2, u'_3; Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_1$. Given $$D\in \left \{ U_1{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_1},
\ \{{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l\in \Lambda_0}\right \},$$ we let $\phi_{i,D}(t):=U_1^{-(pd_1+i+1)} (D \cdot U_1^{pd_1}\Phi_{i+1} )\in k(x)[t]_{\leq pb_i}$. By proposition \[bupformula\](v), we have $$\omega (x_1)\leq \min_{i,D}\{\omega (x)-i +\mathrm{ord}_{\overline{u}'_2}\phi_{i,D}(t)\}\leq \omega (x),$$ where equality holds only if $a_i=1 \ \mathrm{and} \ k(x_1)=k(x)$ by lemma \[lem532\](2). In particular we have $I \subset p\N$. Since $k(x_1)=k(x)$, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $P(t)=t$ and $$\Phi_{i+1}(U_1,U_2)=\mu_i U_1U_2^{i}, \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{every} \ i \geq 0$$ after possibly changing well adapted coordinates (including $i=0$, [*cf.*]{} above). Then $(u_1, u'_2, u'_3;X')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x_1$ by proposition \[originchart\]. We obtain: $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$ and $${H'}^{-1}F_{p,X'}=\sum_{k=0}^{\omega (x)/p}\mu_{kp}{U'_3}^{\omega (x)-kp}{U'_2}^{kp} +U_1\Phi ',$$ for some $\Phi ' \in k(x)[U_1,U'_2,U'_3]$. But then $\kappa (x_1)\leq 2$: a contradiction. This completes the proof when $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$.
Preliminaries: tangent case.
----------------------------
Let $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ be well adapted coordinates at $x$, where $\kappa (x)=4$. This splits into two different situations:
$\bullet$ if $\omega (x)=\epsilon(x)$, the initial form polynomial is of the form $$\label{eq9012}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h=Z^p +F_{p,Z}\in G(m_S)[Z],$$ where $H^{-1}F_{p,Z} \subset k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_e]_{\omega (x)}$, $1 \leq e \leq 3$.
$\bullet$ if $\omega (x)=\epsilon(x)-1$, the initial form polynomial is of the form $$\label{eq901}
\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h=Z^p -G^{p-1}Z +F_{p,Z}\in G(m_S)[Z]$$ with $H^{-1}G^p \subset k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_e]_{\omega (x)+1}$, $1 \leq e \leq 2$. By definition \[defomega\], we have $$\label{eq9011}
(0)\neq V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_e]_{\omega (x)}.$$
\[skewdir\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=4$ and $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$. We say that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ is skew if for every subset $J\subseteq \{1, \ldots ,e\}$, we have $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x)\neq <\{u_j\}_{j\in J}>.$$
Assume that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ is skew and first note that $e=2$ or $e=3$. Elementary casuistics, similar to that performed in the proof of proposition \[redto\*\], yield the following types up to reordering exceptional variables:\
(T0) $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ and $$\label{eq902}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<\lambda_1U_1 + \lambda_2U_2 +U_3>, \ \lambda_1\lambda_2\neq 0.$$
(T1) $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ and $$\label{eq903}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<\lambda_1U_1 + U_2 , \lambda_2U_2 +U_3>, \ \lambda_1\lambda_2 \neq 0.$$
(T2) $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ and $$\label{eq904}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<\lambda_1U_1 + U_2 , U_3>, \ \lambda_1 \neq 0.$$
(T3) $\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)\subseteq E \subseteq \mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ and $$\label{eq905}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<\lambda_1 U_1 +U_2>, \ \lambda_1 \neq 0.$$
\[skewresolved\] Assume that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ is skew. Assume furthermore that $$J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S) \nsubseteq (U_3)\cap G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)}$$ if $x$ is of type (T2) above. Take (\[eq801\]) to be the quadratic sequence along $\mu$.
Then there exists $r \geq 0$ such that either $x_r$ is resolved or $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*\*). If $\omega (x)<p$, then $x$ is resolved.
We discuss according to $x_1$ in (\[eq801\]), where $x_0=x$ is of type (T$k$) for some $k\in \{0,1,2,3\}$. It can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $\iota (x_1)\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$. Let $u'_j:=u_j/u_1$, $j=2,3$.
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $k=0$*]{}. By (\[eq902\]), we have $$\label{eq9021}
J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)=<(\lambda_1U_1 + \lambda_2U_2 +U_3)^{\omega (x)}>.$$ We expand $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}U_3^{-pd_3}F_{p,Z}=\lambda U_3^{\omega (x)} + (\lambda'_1 U_1 +\lambda'_2U_2) U_3^{\omega (x)-1} + \cdots$$ where $\lambda \neq 0$ by (\[eq9021\]).
Suppose that $\omega(x)\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. Since $\lambda_1\lambda_2 \neq 0$, we also have $\lambda'_1\lambda'_2 \neq 0$ by identifying the coefficient of $U_3^{\omega(x)-1}$ in (\[eq9021\]). By lemma \[joyeux\](ii) with $i=1$, we deduce that $$d_3+ {\omega(x)-1 \over p}\in \N.$$ But then $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}U_3^{-pd_3}\left ( U_3{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial U_3}\right )=\lambda U_3^{\omega (x)}+\Phi ,$$ with $\mathrm{deg}_{U_3}\Phi \leq \omega(x)-2$: a contradiction with (\[eq9021\]) since $\lambda \neq 0$.
This proves that $\omega(x) \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$ (in particular $\omega (x)\geq p$). By lemma \[joyeux\](i), it can thus be assumed that $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}U_3^{-pd_3}F_{p,Z}=\lambda (\lambda_1U_1 + \lambda_2U_2 +U_3)^{\omega (x)}$$ after possibly changing $Z$ with $Z-\phi$, $\phi \in S$. After possibly reordering exceptional variables, we have $$x_1=(X':=Z/u_1, u_1, v:=P(u'_2), w:= u'_3 + \gamma_2 u'_2 +\gamma_1),$$ where $\gamma_1 , \gamma_2 \in S$ are preimages of $\lambda_1, \lambda_2$ and $P(t)\in S[t]$ is a unitary polynomial whose reduction $\overline{P}(t)\in k(x)[t]$ is irreducible. Applying proposition \[bupformula\](v) (with $W':=\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$), we have $$\label{eq9022}
J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W')=({\overline{w}}^{\omega(x)})
\subseteq k(x_1)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{v},\overline{w})}.$$ Since $\iota (x_1)\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$ is assumed, (\[eq9022\]) reads $$U_1^{-pd'_1}({\partial F_{p,X',W'} \over \partial \overline{v}},{\partial F_{p,X',W'} \over \partial \overline{w}})
=({\overline{w}}^{\omega(x)})$$ when $E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. If (\[eq9022\]) is achieved by ${\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \overline{v}}$, we then have $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$ and $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\]; hence $x_1$ is resolved. Otherwise (\[eq9022\]) gives $$U_1^{-pd'_1}U_2^{-pd'_2}F_{p,Z',W'}=({\overline{w}}^{1+\omega(x)}),$$ for $E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ or $E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1v)$. This proves that $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*\*).\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $k=1$*]{}. By theorem \[bupthm\] and (\[eq903\]), we have $$x_1=(X':=Z/u_1, u_1, v:=u'_2 +\gamma_1, w:= u'_3 + \gamma_2 ), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$$ where $\gamma_1 , \gamma_2 \in S$ are preimages of $\lambda_1, \lambda_2$.
Assume that $\epsilon (x_1)=\omega (x)$. By proposition \[bupformula\](v), $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiekappaegaldeuxbis\] and the conclusion follows.
Assume now that $\epsilon (x_1)=1+\omega (x)$. Let $(u_1,v,w;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_1$. By proposition \[bupformula\](v) and (\[eq903\]), we have $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)+<U_1>=<U_1,V,W>.$$ This is a contradiction with definition \[defkappa\], since $\kappa (x_1)\geq 3$ by assumption.\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $k=2$*]{}. By theorem \[bupthm\] and (\[eq904\]), we have $$x_1=(X':=Z/u_1, u_1, v:=u'_2 +\gamma_1, u'_3), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1u'_3), \ k(x_1)=k(x),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda_1 $. By assumption, there exists $$\Phi :=\sum_{i=0}^{\epsilon (x)}\Phi_i(U_1,U_2)U_3^{\omega (x)-i} \in J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)$$ with $\Phi_i \in k(x)[U_1,U_2]_i$ and $\Phi_{\omega (x)}= c(\lambda_1U_1+U_2)^{\omega (x)}$, $c\neq 0$. Applying proposition \[bupformula\](v) (with $W':=\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$), we have $$\label{eq9041}
(\Phi (1, \overline{v} -\lambda_1, {\overline{u}'_3}))\subseteq J(F_{p,Z,W'},E',W')
\subseteq k(x)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{v},\overline{u}'_3)}.$$
Therefore $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*\*) since $E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1u'_3)$, $c\neq 0$.
Assume now that $\omega (x)<p$. By lemma \[joyeux\](ii), we have $$\label{eq9042}
d_1,d_2 \not \in \N, \ d_3\in \N, \ \widehat{pd_1}+\widehat{pd_2}+\omega (x)=p.$$
If $d_j\geq 1$, $j=1,2,3$, the center ${\cal Y}_j:=V(Z,u_j)$ is Hironaka-permissible w.r.t. $E$. Blowing up finitely many times, we reduce to the case $d_3=0$, $0<d_1,d_2<1$. By (\[eq9042\]), we thus have $$p\delta (x)=p(d_1+d_2) +\omega (x)=p, \ \omega (x)\leq p-2.$$ We thus deduce that $m(x_1)\leq 1+\omega (x)<p$, hence $x_1$ is resolved.\
$\bullet$ [*Assume that $k=3$*]{}. If $\omega (x)<p$, we may assume to begin with that $\delta (x)=1$ arguing as in (\[eq9042\]) [*sqq.*]{} Let $$x':=(Z':=X/u_3, v_1:=u_1/u_3, v_2:=u_2/u_3, u_3), \ E':=\mathrm{div}(v_1v_2u_3).$$
First assume that $x_1\neq x'$. We have $$x_1=(Z/u_1, u_1, v:=u'_2 +\gamma_1, w:= P(u'_3)),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda_1$ and $P(t)\in S[t]$ is a unitary polynomial whose reduction $\overline{P}(t)\in k(x)[t]$ is irreducible. Let $(u_1,v,w;Z'_1)$ be well adapted coordinates. Applying proposition \[bupformula\](v) (with $W':=\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$), we have $$\label{eq9043}
J(F_{p,Z'_1,W'},E',W')=({\overline{v}}^{\omega(x)})
\subseteq k(x_1)[\overline{u}'_2,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{v},\overline{w})}.$$ The conclusion follows as for type (T0): $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*\*) or $x_1$ is resolved by lemma \[sortiemonome\]. The latter holds if $\omega (x)<p$.
Assume now that $x_1=x'$. By proposition \[originchart\], $(v_1,v_2,u_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$. We deduce that $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$. Furthermore, (\[eq905\]) implies that $$\label{eq9051}
J(F_{p,Z'},E',m_{S'})\equiv <(\lambda_1V_1+V_2)^{\omega (x)}>
\ \mathrm{mod} (U_3)\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}.$$
Suppose that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x')$ is [*not*]{} skew. By (\[eq9051\]), we have $\tau '(x')=3$, hence $x'$ is resolved.
Suppose that $\mathrm{Vdir}(x')$ is skew. By (\[eq9051\]), $x'$ is of type (Tk) for some $k \in \{0,1,2,3\}$. Furthermore if $k=2$, then $x'$ satisfies again the extra assumption in the proposition also by (\[eq9051\]). We are already done if $k\leq 2$, so we may assume again that $x'$ is of type (T3) and iterate. In particular, we have $e=3$. In case $\omega (x)<p$, we again have $d'_j=d_j$, $1 \leq j \leq 3$.
By proposition \[permisarc\], it can be assumed that ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$ is permissible of the first kind. Let $\pi : {\cal X}' \rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along ${\cal Y}$ and $x'_1 \in \pi^{-1}(x)$ satisfy $\iota (x'_1)\geq (p, \omega (x),3)$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $$x'_1=(X/u_1, u_1, v:=u_2/u_1 +\gamma_1,u_3), \ E'_1= \mathrm{div}(u_1u_3),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda_1 $. Then $x'_1$ satisfies condition (\*\*). If $\omega (x)<p$, then $m(x'_1)<p$ and $x$ is resolved.
\[skewresolvedbis\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=4$, $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$ and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$. Assume furthermore that the following properties are satisfied:
- $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$;
- the polyhedron $\Delta_{S}(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ has a vertex of the form $$\mathbf{v}:=(v_1, d_2, v_3), \ v_1+v_3={1 +\omega (x) \over p}, \ v_3>{1 \over p},$$ where $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates at $x$.
Take (\[eq801\]) to be the quadratic sequence along $\mu$. There exists $r \geq 0$ such that either $x_r$ is resolved or $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*\*). If $\omega (x)<p$, then $x$ is resolved.
Suppose that $x_1$ is very near $x$. By (i) and theorem \[bupthm\], we have $$x_1:=(Z':=Z/u_3,u'_1:=u_1/u'_3,u'_2:=u_2/u_3,u_3), E':=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2u_3),$$ and the polyhedron $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u'_2,u_3;Z')$ is minimal by proposition \[originchart\]. Since $v_3>0$ in (ii), $\mathbf{v}$ is induced by $f_{p,Z}$ by theorem \[initform\], and $f_{p,Z}$ has an expansion $$f_{p,Z}=\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in \mathbf{S}}\gamma(\mathbf{x}) \prod_{j=1}^3u_j^{px_j} ,
\ \gamma(\mathbf{x})\in S$$ such that $\gamma(\mathbf{v})$ is a unit. By (ii), $x_1$ is very near $x$ only if $v_3=2/p$, i.e. $$\label{eq8033}
{U'_1}^{-pd'_1}{U'_2}^{-pd'_2}{U_3}^{-pd'_3}F_{p,Z'}=
U_3(\lambda ' {U'_1}^{\omega (x)-1}+ U_3\Phi ')+\Phi (U'_1,U'_2)$$ for some $\Phi ' \in k(x)[U'_1,U'_2,U_3]$, where $\lambda ' \neq 0$ is induced by $\mathbf{v}$, and $$\label{eq8034}
(d'_1,d'_2,d'_3)=(d_1, d_2, d_1+d_2-1+ {\omega (x) \over p}).$$
To conclude the proof, we compute $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)$. First note that $$\label{eq8041}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)+<U_3>=<U'_1,U'_2,U_3>$$ by (i). If $\tau '(x_1)=3$, then $x_1$ is resolved by theorem \[bupthm\].
Suppose that $\tau '(x_1)\leq 2$. This gives $$\label{eq8042}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1 +\lambda'_1U_3,U'_2+\lambda'_2U_3>, \ \lambda'_1, \lambda'_2 \in k(x).$$
Since $\lambda '\neq 0$, we have $(\lambda'_1, \lambda'_2)\neq (0,0)$. We are done by proposition \[skewresolved\] if $\lambda'_1\lambda'_2\neq 0$ (type (T1)) or if $\lambda'_2= 0$ (type (T2) where the extra assumption holds by (\[eq8033\])-(\[eq8042\])).
Suppose finally that $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1 ,U'_2+\lambda'_2U_3>, \ \lambda'_2 \neq 0.$$
We now apply lemma \[joyeux\](ii) to the ${U'_1}^{\omega (x)-1}$-term in (\[eq8033\]), i.e. for the variables $(U_3,U'_2,U'_1)$ respectively and $i=1$. We deduce from (\[eq7073\]) that $$d'_1+ {\omega (x)-1 \over p}\in \N, \ d'_2,d'_3 \not \in \N \ \mathrm{and}
\ \widehat{pd'_2}+\widehat{pd'_3}+1 =p .$$ Turning back to (\[eq8034\]), we get $$\widehat{pd'_3}=\widehat{pd'_2}+1, \ 2(\widehat{pd'_2}+1) =p.$$ This is a contradiction, since $p\geq 3$, and the proof is complete.
Reduction to monic expansions (\*\*) and (T\*\*).
-------------------------------------------------
We can now conclude the reduction to monic expansions.
\[redto\*\*3\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=3$. Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent sequence of local permissible blowing ups of the first kind (\[eq801\]) along $\mu$ such that one of the following holds for some $r\geq0$:
- $x_r$ is resolved or satisfies condition (T\*\*);
- $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*\*).
If $\omega (x)<p$ and $\tau '(x)=2$, then (i) holds.
It can be assumed that the conclusion of lemma \[kappa3prelim\](1) above holds.
If $\Phi_{i+1}=0$ for every $i\geq 0$, then $x_1$ satisfies condition (\*\*) and we are done. Otherwise, we may furthermore assume that $$x_1=x'=(Z':=Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u'_3:=u_3/u_1), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2)$$ with $\iota (x')\geq \iota (x)$. Note that when $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, (\[eq8022\]) marks an exceptional component $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ of $E$.
If ($c\neq 0$ and $\omega (x)+1\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$), then $x'$ satisfies condition (\*\*) and we are done for $\omega (x)\geq p$. Otherwise (i.e. if either $\omega (x)< p$, either $c= 0$, or $\omega (x)+1 \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$), we have $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2)$ and $(u'_1, u_2, u'_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$. Furthermore $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_3>$ (by (\[eq8022\]) if $\omega (x)\geq p$, by assumption $\tau '(x)=2$ if $\omega (x)< p$). Let $$\Phi (U_1,U_3):=U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z} \in k(x)[U_1,U_3]_{\omega (x)+1}$$ and consider two cases:
[*Case 1:*]{} $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$. We have $\kappa (x')=4$ and $$\label{eq804}
\Phi'(U'_1,U_2):= {U'_1}^{-pd'_1}U_2^{-pd'_2}F_{p,Z'}= \lambda_2 {U'_1}^{\omega (x)} + U_2 \Phi'_1(U'_1,U_2),$$ with $\Phi'_1\in k(x)[U'_1,U_2]_{\omega (x)-1}$.
If $\tau '(x')=1$ (i.e. $\Phi'_1=0$ or $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_2+\lambda U_1>$, $\lambda \in k(x)$), then $x'$ satisfies condition (T\*\*) or $x'$ satisfies the assumptions of proposition \[skewresolved\] type (T3) respectively, and the proof is complete. We may thus furthermore assume that $$\label{eq8032}
\mathrm{Vdir}(x')=<U'_1,U_2>.$$
Since $\kappa (x)=3$, we have at this point: $$\label{eq803}
{\partial \Phi \over \partial U_3}(U_1,U_3)\not \in k(x)[U_1].$$ Therefore $\Delta_{S'}(h';u'_1,u_2,u'_3;Z')$ has a vertex of the form $$\mathbf{v}':=(v'_1, d'_2, v'_3), \ v'_1+v'_3={1 +\omega (x) \over p}, \ v'_3={\mathrm{deg}_{U_3}\Phi \over p},$$ where $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates at $x$. The proposition follows from proposition \[skewresolvedbis\] whose assumptions are satisfied by (\[eq8032\])-(\[eq803\]).
[*Case 2:*]{} $\epsilon (x')=\epsilon (x)$. We again have $\kappa (x')=3$ and may iterate. Note that for $\omega (x)<p$, we have $\lambda_2=0$ in (\[eq8022\]) and $${H'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z'} \over \partial U'_3} \equiv \Phi (U'_1,U'_3) \ \mathrm{mod}(U_2)\cap G(m_{S'})_{\epsilon (x')}.$$ Then $\mathrm{Vdir}(x')+<U_2>= <U'_1,U_2,U'_3>$, so $\tau '(x')\geq 2$. We are done if $\tau '(x')=3$ and may iterate if $\tau '(x')=2$ as asserted.
Since the exceptional component $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ of $E$ has been marked ([*cf.*]{} beginning of the proof), the theorem holds except possibly if $x_r$ is in case 2 for every $r\geq 0$. In this situation, we apply proposition \[permisarc\](1): w.l.o.g. it can be assumed that ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_3)$ is permissible of the first kind. Since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_3>$, it follows from theorem \[bupthm\] that $x$ is resolved by blowing up ${\cal Y}$.
\[redto\*\*4lem\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=4$ and $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$. Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent sequence of local permissible blowing ups of the first kind (\[eq801\]) along $\mu$ such that one of the following holds for some $r\geq 0$:
- $x_r$ is resolved or satisfies condition (T\*\*);
- $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*\*).
If $\omega (x)<p$, then (i) holds.
By proposition \[skewresolved\], it can be assumed that one of the following conditions holds:
- $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ is skew and satisfies condition (T2);
- $\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)\subseteq E$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$.
Take (\[eq801\]) to be the quadratic sequence along $\mu$. Under assumption (1), we have $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ and $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1, \lambda_2 U_2 +U_3>$, $\lambda_2\neq 0$ up to renumbering variables. By proposition \[skewresolved\], it can be assumed that $$J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)\subseteq (U_1)G(m_S)_{\epsilon (x)}.$$ By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $$x_1=(Z/u_2, u'_1:=u_1/u_2, u_2, v:=u_3/u_1 +\gamma ), \ E'= \mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2),$$ where $\gamma \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda $. Let $W':=\mathrm{div}(u_2)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$ and $(u'_1,u_2,v;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_1$. By proposition \[bupformula\](v), we have $$J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')=U_2^{-pd'_2}J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)
\subseteq k(x_1)[\overline{u}'_1,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{u}'_1,\overline{v})}.$$
If $\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}'_1,\overline{v})}H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'}= \omega (x)$, we have $\kappa (x_1)\leq 2$ (so $x$ is resolved) or $${H'}^{-1}F_{p,Z'}\equiv <{U'_1}^{\omega (x)}> \ \mathrm{mod}(U_2) \cap G(m_{S'})_{\omega (x)}.$$
In this last situation, the conclusion follows in each of the following possible cases:
$\bullet$ $x_1$ satisfies condition (T\*\*) if $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1>$;
$\bullet$ $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of proposition \[skewresolved\] if $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1+\lambda 'U_2>$, $\lambda '\neq 0$;
$\bullet$ $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of proposition \[skewresolvedbis\] if $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1,U_2>$.
If $\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}'_1,\overline{v})}H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'}= \omega (x)+1$, we are also done by proposition \[redto\*\*3\] if $\kappa (x_1)=3$, since $\tau '(x_1)\geq 2$. Assume finally that $\kappa (x_1)=4$, i.e. $$\epsilon (x_1)=\omega(x)=\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}'_1,\overline{v})}
H_{W'}^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z',W'}\over \partial \overline{v}}
<\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}'_1,\overline{v})}H_{W'}^{-1}F_{p,Z',W'}=\epsilon (x).$$ Similarly, $x_1$ satisfies condition (T\*\*) unless $\mathrm{Vdir}(x_1)=<U'_1,U_2>$. The conclusion then follows again from proposition \[skewresolvedbis\].
Under assumption (2), it can be assumed that $x_1=x'$, $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$, where $$x':=(Z':=Z/u_3, u'_1:=u_1/u_3, u'_2:=u_2/u_3, u_3), \ E':=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2u_3).$$ By proposition \[originchart\], $(u'_1,u'_2,u_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$. We get $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$ and $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x')+<U_3>=<U'_1,U'_2,U_3>.$$ If $\tau '(x')=3$, then $x'$ is resolved by theorem \[bupthm\]. Otherwise, $x'$ satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition, with (1) up to renumbering variables or (2) above.
Iterating, the proof concludes as in the proof of proposition \[redto\*\*3\]: $x$ is resolved or the curve ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$ is permissible of the first kind; then $x$ is resolved by blowing up ${\cal Y}$, since $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$.
\[redto\*\*4\] Assume that $\kappa (x)=4$. Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent sequence of local permissible blowing ups of the first kind (\[eq801\]) along $\mu$ such that one of the following holds for some $r\geq 0$:
- $x_r$ is resolved or satisfies condition (T\*\*);
- $x_r$ satisfies condition (\*\*).
If $\omega (x)<p$, then (i) holds.
By lemma \[redto\*\*4lem\], we are done if $\epsilon (x)=\omega(x)$. Otherwise one of the following conditions holds up to reordering exceptional variables:
- $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$;
- $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<\lambda_1 U_1+U_2>$, $\lambda_1 \neq 0$;
- $\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E \subseteq \mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1>$.
Take (\[eq801\]) to be the quadratic sequence along $\mu$. We may always assume that $$\label{eq8051}
\iota (x_1)\geq (p,\omega (x),3) \ \mathrm{and} \ \epsilon (x_1)=1 + \omega (x)$$ in this proof. Let $$x':=(Z/u_3, u'_1:=u_1/u_3, u'_2:=u_2/u_3, u_3), \ \mathrm{div}(u'_1u_3)\subseteq E',$$ where ${\partial TF_{p,Z} \over \partial U_3}\neq 0$. If $x_1=x'$, we have $\epsilon (x')=\omega (x)$: a contradiction with (\[eq8051\]). This concludes the proof under assumption (1) by theorem \[bupthm\].
Assume that $x_1\neq x'$. Under assumption (2), we can take a unitary polynomial $P(t)\in S[t]$, whose reduction $\overline{P}(t)\in k(x)[t]$ is irreducible, and $$x_1=(X':=Z/u_1, u_1, v:=u_2/u_1 +\gamma_1, w:=P(u_3/u_1)), \ E'= \mathrm{div}(u_1),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S$ is a preimage of $\lambda_1 $.
Let $W':=\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$ and $(u_1,v,w;Z')$ be well adapted coordinates at $x_1$, $Z':=X'-\phi$, $\phi \in S'$. By proposition \[bupformula\](v), we deduce that $$\mathrm{in}_{W'}h'={Z'}^p + F_{p,Z',W'}\in G(W')[Z'],$$ where $G(W')=k(x_1)[\overline{u}'_1,\overline{u}'_3]_{(\overline{v},\overline{w})}[U_1]$ and $$\label{eq805}
(\overline{v}^{\omega (x)}) \subseteq J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W').$$
If $\omega (x)<p$, assumption (2) reads: $$H^{-1}F_{p,Z}=U_3(U_2+\lambda_1 U_1)^{\omega (x)} +\Phi (U_1,U_2), \ G=0.$$ If $\Phi =0$, this is a contradiction since then $\kappa (x_1)=2$ by (\[eq805\]). After possibly performing a linear change of coordinates in $u_3$, then picking again well adapted coordinates, we reduce to: $$\Phi (U_1,U_2)=U_1U_2\Psi(U_1,U_2).$$ Since $\Delta (h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ is minimal, we have $U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2}\Phi \not \in G(m_S)^p$ and obtain $$\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{v},\overline{w})}J(F_{p,Z',W'},E',W')\leq \mathrm{deg}\Psi=\omega (x)-1,$$ also a contradiction, since $\omega (x_1)=\omega (x)$ is assumed.
If $\omega (x)\geq p$, we may then furthermore assume that $\epsilon (x_1)=\epsilon (x)$ by (\[eq8051\]), so $\kappa (x_1)= 3$ by (\[eq805\]). We conclude by proposition \[redto\*\*3\].
Under assumption (3), we define a refinement ${\cal C}$ of the function $x\mapsto (m(x),\omega (x))$, [*cf.*]{} chapter 6. Let $\pi : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along a permissible center of the first kind ${\cal Y}\subseteq \mathrm{div}(u_1)$, $x_1\in \pi^{-1}(x)$. We set: $${\cal C}(x_1)<{\cal C}(x) \Leftrightarrow x_1 \ \mathrm{satisfies} \ \mathrm{the} \ \mathrm{conclusion}
\ \mathrm{of} \ \mathrm{the} \ \mathrm{proposition}.$$ By theorem \[bupthm\], we have ${\cal C}(x_1)<{\cal C}(x)$ unless $x_1$ belongs to the strict transform $\mathrm{div}(u'_1)\subseteq E'= \mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2)$ of $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. Otherwise, we let ${\cal C}(x_1)={\cal C}(x)$.
With notations as in chapter 6, we claim that $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ has maximal contact for the condition ${\cal C}$ (definition \[Maximalcontact\]). To see this, suppose that ${\cal C}(x_1)={\cal C}(x)$ and apply proposition \[redto\*\*3\], lemma \[redto\*\*4lem\] and (1) and (2) above. It can be assumed that $$\epsilon (x_1)=\epsilon (x), \ \kappa (x_1)\geq 3 \ \mathrm{and} \ {\cal Y}=\{x\}.$$
If $\omega (x)\geq p$, we are done unless $x_1$ satisfies again (3) and the claim is proved; if $\omega (x)<p$, we must still check that the situation $$\kappa (x_1)=3, \ \tau '(x_1)=1$$ does not occur. By assumption (3), (\[eq9011\]) with $G=0$ gives an expansion $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}= L(U_1,U_2,U_3)U_1^{\omega (x)} +
\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)}Q_{i+1}(U_2,U_3)U_1^{\omega (x)-i}$$ with $L(0,0,U_3)\neq 0$, $Q_{\omega (x)+1}(U_2,U_3)\in k(x)[U_2^p,U_3^p]$. Therefore $$(0)\neq V(F_{p,Z'},E',m_{S'})\subseteq k(x')[U'_1, U_2]_{\omega (x)}$$ after blowing up, where $(u'_1,u_2,v';Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$: a contradiction with $\kappa (x_1)=3$, $\tau '(x_1)=1$. This concludes the proof of the claim when $\omega (x)<p$. The proposition now follows from theorem \[contactmaxFIN\].
Resolution of $\kappa(x)=3,4$ with monic expansions.
====================================================
In this chapter, we prove projection theorem \[projthm\] in the case where $\kappa(x)\geq 3$.
Basic notations, an exit case.
------------------------------
In the particular case where $ \omega(x)<p$, there may appear a very special kind of points $x$.
\[combinatoire\]
The point $x$ is [*combinatoric*]{} if $\omega(x)<p$ and if the following algorithm starts and stops with success.
\(i) if there exists $\div(u_i)\subset E$ such that $\div(u_i)\cap X$ is Hironaka-permissible, choose one and blow up $X$ along this one,
\(ii) if the center $x' \in X'$ of our valuation is not $\omega$-near $x$: success,
\(iii) if $x' \in X'$ $\omega$-near $x$, and $\bar{e}(x')\leq 2$: success,
\(iv) if $x' \in X'$ $\omega$-near $x$, and $\bar{e}(x')=3$ and there exists $\div(u_i)\subset E'$ such that $\div(u_i)\cap X'$ is Hironaka-permissible, go to (i),
\(v) else failure.
The reader sees easily that:
\(i) if $\div(u_1)\cap X$ is Hironaka-permissible, and if we blow up $X$ along $\div(u_1)\cap X$, there is at most one near point (in Hironaka’s sense): the point $x'$ of parameters $X/u_1,u_1,u_2,u_3$,
\(ii) if it is so, $\omega(x')=\omega(x)$.
From (T\*\*) to (\*\*), resolution for $\epsilon(x)=\omega(x)<p $.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this section is to reduce theorem \[projthm\] for $\kappa (x)=3,4$ to points satisfying condition (\*\*) in definition \[\*\*\]. We prove the following proposition.
\[redto\*\*casT\*\*\] Let $x$ be in the case (T\*\*) of definition \[\*\*\], and $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent sequence of permissible blowing ups of the first kind $$({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r),$$ where $x_i$ is the center of $\mu$ in ${\cal X}_i$, $0\leq i \leq r$, such that $x_r$ is resolved or ($x_r$ satisfies condition (\*\*) and $\omega (x)\geq p$).
By proposition \[T\*\*contactmaximal\] below, there is weak maximal contact (definition \[Maximalcontact\]) for the condition $${\cal C}:=\{(T^{**}) \ \mathrm{and} \ \iota (x)\geq (p, \omega (x),3)\}.$$ Furthermore nonresolved points created by blowing up along closed points satisfy condition (\*\*) with $\omega (x)\geq p$ (proposition \[T\*\*contactmaximal\](i)).
Theorem \[contactmaxFIN\] does not apply directly since maximal contact does not necessarily hold (proposition \[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\] below). We must check that its proof remains valid when using only those blowing ups of the first kind which are well behaved w.r.t. ${\cal C}$. Blowing ups along permissible curves ${\cal Y}$ of the first kind are used in:
[*Proof of theorem \[contactmaxFIN\](b)*]{}: ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_3)$, $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$. Then ${\cal Y}$ satisfies assumption (3) of proposition \[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\] except possibly in case (T\*\*)(i). Let $W:=\eta ({\cal Y})$ and expand: $$U_1^{-pd_1}\overline{u}_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z,W}=\overline{\gamma}_0 U_1^{\omega (x)}+
\overline{u}_2\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)}\overline{\gamma}_i U_1^{\omega (x)-i}U_3^i \in G(W)_{\omega (x)},$$ with $\overline{\gamma}_i \in S/(u_1,u_3)$, $\overline{\gamma}_0$ a unit. We are done by proposition \[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\](1) if $\overline{\gamma}_i=0$ for $1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)$. Otherwise, blow up along $x$. There is nothing to prove except at the point $x':=(Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u_3/u_2)$ on the strict transform ${\cal Y}'$ of ${\cal Y}$, $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u_2)$. Then $x'$ is now in case (T\*\*)(ii) and the conclusion follows from proposition \[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\], assumption (2).
[*Proof of proposition \[contactmaxpetitgamma\](a)*]{}: ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$, $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$. We use notations as in proposition \[contactmaxpetitgamma\]. Assumption (1) in proposition \[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\] is equivalent to $A_2(x)>1$. If $A_2(x)=1$, there is an expansion $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z,W}=\overline{\gamma}_0 U_1^{\omega (x)}+
\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)}\overline{\gamma}_i U_1^{\omega (x)-i}U_2^i, \ W:=\eta ({\cal Y}),$$ with $\overline{\gamma}_i \in S/(u_1,u_2)$, $\overline{\gamma}_0$ a unit. Then $$\min_{1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)} \left \{{\mathrm{ord}_{\overline{u}_3}\overline{\gamma}_i \over i}\right \}=\beta (x)\leq 1,$$ since $\gamma (x)=1$ is assumed here. We prove that proposition \[redto\*\*casT\*\*\] holds in this situation.
If $\beta (x)>0$, we have $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1>$ and get $\iota (x')\leq (p,\omega (x),2)$ after blowing up, so $x$ is resolved by blowing up along ${\cal Y}$.
If $\beta (x)=0$, we blow up along $x$. By proposition \[T\*\*contactmaximal\] below (proof in case (T\*\*)(ii)), we get $x'$ resolved or ($x'$ satisfies condition (\*\*) with $\omega (x)\geq p$) except if $x'=(Z/u_3,u'_1:=u_1/u_3,u'_2:=u_2/u_3,u_3)$ is the point on the strict transform ${\cal Y}'$ of ${\cal Y}$, $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2u_3)$. We now have $\mathrm{VDir}(x')=<U'_1,U'_2>$ or $\mathrm{VDir}(x')=<\lambda_1U'_1 +U'_2>$, $\lambda_1 \neq 0$. Blowing up along ${\cal Y}'$ gives $x''$ resolved or ($x''$ satisfies (\*\*) with $\omega (x)\geq p$), arguing as in the proof of proposition \[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\] below, assumption (2).
[*Proof of proposition \[contactmaxpetitgamma\](b)(c)*]{}: ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_j)$, $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$, $j=2$ or $j=3$. Assumption (1) (resp. assumption (2)) of proposition \[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\] is equivalent to $A_j(x)>1$ (resp. to: $j=3$ and $A_2(x)>0$). By symmetry, there remains to deal with the case ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_3)$ with $A_2(x)=0$, $A_3(x)=1$. There is an expansion $$u_1^{-pd_1}u_2^{-pd_2}u_3^{-pd_3}f_{p,Z}=\gamma u_1^{\omega (x)}+
\sum_{i=1}^{\omega (x)}f_iu_1^{\omega (x)-i}u_3^i, \ f_i\in S$$ with $\gamma \in S$ a unit. Let $\overline{f}_i \in S/(u_1)$ be the residue of $f_i$. Then $$\min_{1 \leq i \leq \omega (x)} \left \{{\mathrm{ord}_{(\overline{u}_2,\overline{u}_3)}\overline{f}_i \over i}\right \}
=C (x)< 1,$$ since $\gamma (x)=1$ is assumed here. Arguing as in (a) above, we consider two cases: $C(x)>0$ and $C(x)=0$. Blowing up along ${\cal Y}$, we get respectively $x$ resolved; $x'$ resolved or ($x'$ satisfies (\*\*) with $\omega (x)\geq p$). Proposition \[redto\*\*casT\*\*\] holds in any case.
This proposition leads to:
\[omega(x)=epsilon(x)<p\] Assume that $\omega(x)<p$ and either $\kappa (x)=4$, or ($\kappa (x)=3$ and $\tau '(x)=2$). Then $x$ is resolved.
Indeed, by propositions \[redto\*\*3\] and \[redto\*\*4\], there exists an independent sequence of local blowing ups (\[eq801\]) along $\mu$ such that $x_r$ is resolved or $x_r$ satisfies condition (T\*\*). In the last case, apply proposition \[redto\*\*casT\*\*\].
\[T\*\*contactmaximal\] Let $x$ be in the case (T\*\*) of definition \[\*\*\]. Then $\div(u_1)$ has weak maximal contact (definition \[Maximalcontact\]) for the condition (T\*\*) and $\kappa(x)\geq 3$. More precisely, let $\pi : \ {\cal X}' \longrightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along $x$ and $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$, with $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$:
- if $x'$ is not on the strict transform of div$(u_1)$, then $x'$ is resolved or satisfies (\*\*) with $\omega(x)\geq p$;
- if $x'$ is on the strict transform of div$(u_1)$, then $x'$ satisfies (T\*\*).
In the case (T\*\*)(i), the reader sees that $<U_1>=\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ and, if we blow up along $x$, any point $x'$ with $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$ verifies (T\*\*)(ii) or (iii).
In the case (T\*\*)(ii) and not (i), we have $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}U_3^{-pd_3}F_{p,Z}= \lambda_0 U_1^{\omega(x)}+U_2P(U_1,U_2,U_3),$$ by (\[eq9012\]), with $0\neq \lambda_0 \in k(x)$, $0\neq P\in k(x)[U_1,\ldots ,U_e]_{\omega (x)-1}$.
Either $$\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>,$$ then $\iota (x')>(p,\omega (x),1)$ only if $x'=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3,u_3)$ by theorem \[bupthm\]. Clearly $\iota(x')<(p,\omega(x),3)$ or $x'$ satisfies (T\*\*)(ii). Or we have $$\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<\lambda_1U_1+U_2>, \ \lambda_1 \neq 0.$$ This is case (T3) of proposition \[skewresolved\]. Arguing as in its proof, [*cf.*]{} (\[eq9043\]), $x'$ satisfies condition (\*\*) with $\omega (x)\geq p$ or $x'$ is resolved by lemma \[sortiemonome\] except possibly if $x'=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3,u_3)$. Then $\iota(x')<(p,\omega(x),3)$ or $x'$ satisfies again (T\*\*)(ii).
In the case (T\*\*)(iii), we apply lemma \[sortiemonome\] when $\epsilon(x)=\omega(x)$: $x$ is resolved for $\iota=(p,\omega(x),2)$. Assume that $\epsilon(x)=1 +\omega(x)$. By remark \[remT\*\*\], we may assume $\kappa (x)=4$.
If $x'=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3,u_3)$, we have $\omega(x')\leq \omega(x)$ and in case of equality, $\epsilon(x')=\omega(x)$ and $x'$ satisfies (T\*\*)(ii). In particular, we are done if $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$ by theorem \[bupthm\]. There remains to deal with the case $\tau '(x)=1$.
[*Case 1:*]{} $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1>$. Expand $$\label{eq911}
U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}=U_3 U_1^{\omega(x)}+U_2Q, \ Q \in k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3]_{\omega (x)}.$$ If $Q=0$, the reader sees that $x'$ satisfies (T\*\*)(ii) or (T\*\*)(iii) if $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$. The difficult case is $Q\neq 0$. By (\[eq9011\]), we have $$V(TF_{p,Z},E,m_S)=H^{-1}{\partial TF_{p,Z} \over \partial U_3}\subseteq < U_1^{\omega(x)}>.$$ This gives ${\partial Q \over \partial U_3}=0$, i.e. $Q \in k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3^p]$ in both cases $G= 0$ and $G\neq 0$. Expand again $$\label{eq912}
Q=\sum_{i=0}^{i_0} U_1^{\omega (x)-i} Q_{i}(U_2,U_3^p),
\ Q_{i_0}[U_2,U_3^p]\neq 0 .$$
If $i_0 =0$, we reduce to $Q=0$ after possibly picking new well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,v;Z')$ at $x$.
If $i_0\geq 1$, we apply proposition \[bupformula\](v) to those elements of $J(F_{p,Z},E,m_S)$ of the form: $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}D \cdot F_{p,Z}=\lambda_D U_3 U_1^{\omega(x)}+
U_2\sum_{i=0}^{i_0} U_1^{\omega (x)+1-i} Q_{i,D}(U_2,U_3^p),$$ where $D\in \{U_1{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_1}, U_2{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial U_2},
\{{\partial \hfill{} \over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l\in \Lambda_0}\}$.
By lemma \[lem532\](2) (applied to $F:= Q_{i_0}(U_2,U_3^p)$), we get $\omega (x')\leq \omega (x)$ with strict equality if $k(x')\neq k(x)$. If $k(x')= k(x)$, it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $x'=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2,u_3/u_2)$. Then $\iota (x')\leq (p, \omega (x),2)$ by (\[eq911\])-(\[eq912\]) and the conclusion follows.
[*Case 2:*]{} $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<\lambda_1U_1+U_2>$, $\lambda_1 \neq 0$. We now have $G=0$ and expand $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}=U_3 (\lambda_1U_1+U_2)^{\omega(x)}+U_2Q, \ Q \in k(x)[U_1,U_2,U_3^p]_{\omega (x)}.$$ If $Q\neq 0$, we expand again $$Q=\sum_{i=0}^{i_0} U_3^{pi}Q_{\omega (x)-i}(U_1,U_2),
\ Q_{\omega (x)-i_0}[U_1,U_2]\neq 0.$$ Since $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates, we have $$U_1^{pd_1}U_2^{pd_2+1}Q_{\omega (x)-i_0}[U_1,U_2]\not \in G(m_S)^p.$$
If $i_0=0$, we argue as in the proof of proposition \[redto\*\*4\], [*cf.*]{} (\[eq805\]) [*sqq.*]{}: after possibly picking new well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,v;Z')$ at $x$, it can be assumed that $U_1$ divides $Q=Q_{\omega (x)}[U_1,U_2]$. We get $\omega (x')<\omega (x)$ if $Q\neq 0$; if $Q=0$, we obtain $\iota (x')\leq (p, \omega (x),2)$ or $x'$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\] (lemma \[sortieomegaun\] if $\omega (x)=1$), so $x'$ resolved. In particular, the proof is complete if $\omega (x)<p$.
If $i_0\geq 1$, arguing as in case 1, we obtain $\omega (x')<\omega (x)$ except possibly if $k(x')=k(x)$ and $$a(1):=pd_1, \ a(2):=pd_2+1, \ a(3):=0, \ F_0:=Q_{\omega (x)-i_0}[U_1,U_2]$$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[joyeux\] with $\lambda =\lambda_1^{-1}$. Then it can be assumed w.l.o.g. that $x'=(Z/u_1,u_1, \gamma_1 +u_2/u_1,u_3/u_1)$, where $\gamma_1 \in S$ is a unit with residue $\lambda_1$. We obtain $\iota (x')\leq (p, \omega (x),2)$ or $x'$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiekappaegaldeuxbis\]. Then $x'$ is resolved and this concludes the proof.
\[T\*\*eclatementcourbe\] Let $x$ be in the case (T\*\*) of definition \[\*\*\] and $\mathcal{Y}\subset ({\cal X},x)$ be a permissible curve of the first kind, $\eta ({\cal Y})\subset \mathrm{div}(u_1)$, with generic point $y$. Let $$\pi : \ {\cal X}' \longrightarrow ({\cal X},x)$$ be the blowing up along $\mathcal{Y}$ and $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$, $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$. Assume furthermore that one of the following extra assumptions holds:
- $\mathrm{VDir}(y)=<U_1>$;
- ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_3)$ and $x$ satisfies (T\*\*)(ii) or (iii),
where $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates. Then one of the following holds:
- $x'$ is resolved, or ($x'$ satisfies (\*\*) with $\omega(x)\geq p$);
- $x'$ maps to the strict transform of div$(u_1)$ and satisfies (T\*\*).
As $\mathcal{Y}$ has normal crossings with $E$, we can choose in any case well adapted coordinates $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ at $x$ such that $\mathcal{Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_i)$, $i=2$ or $i=3$.
Let us see the case where $\mathcal{Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$, $\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2) \subseteq E$, up to renumbering $u_2, u_3$. As $\mathcal{Y}$ is a permissible curve of the first kind, we have $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}U_3^{-pd_3}F_{p,Z}\in k(x)[U_1,U_2]_{\epsilon (x)}$$ by proposition \[firstkind\], in particular $\epsilon(x)=\omega(x)$.
If $<U_1>\subseteq \mathrm{VDir}(x)$, we are done by theorem \[bupthm\] unless equality holds and $x'=(Z':=Z/u_2,u'_1:=u_1/u_2,u_2,u_3)$. We may therefore assume that $x$ satisfies (T\*\*)(i). Note that $(u'_1,u_2,u_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$ by proposition \[originchart\]. The proof is trivial under assumption (1) and we get $x'$ resolved or (T\*\*)(ii). Under assumption (2) (with $u_2,u_3$ relabeled), we have $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ and there is an expansion $$u_1^{-pd_1}u_2^{-pd_2}u_3^{-pd_3}f_{p,Z}\equiv \gamma u_1^{\omega (x)} \ \mathrm{mod} u_3(u_1,u_2)^{\omega (x)},$$ with $\gamma \in S$ a unit. We get $x'$ resolved or (T\*\*)(ii).
Finally if $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<\lambda_1U_1+U_2>$, $\lambda_1\neq 0$, $x$ is in case (T\*\*)(ii) with $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$, assumption (2) (with $u_2,u_3$ relabeled). We are done by theorem \[bupthm\] unless $$x'=(X':=Z/u_1,u_1,v:=\gamma_1 + u_2/u_1,u_3), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_3),$$ where $\gamma_1 \in S$ is a unit with residue $\lambda_1$. Applying proposition \[bupformula\](v) (with $W':=\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subset \mathrm{Spec}S'$), we get $$\label{eq913}
J(F_{p,X',W'},E',W')=({\overline{v}}^{\omega(x)})\subseteq S/(u_1,u_2)[\overline{u}'_2]_{(\overline{v},\overline{u}_3)}.$$ If $\iota (x_1)\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$, (\[eq913\]) thus reads $$U_1^{-pd'_1}\overline{u}_3^{-pd_3}{\partial F_{p,X',W'} \over \partial \overline{v}}=({\overline{v}}^{\omega(x)}),$$ where $d'_1:=d_1+d_2 +\omega (x)/p-1$, i.e. $x'$ satisfies condition (\*\*). This situation occurs only if $(d'_1,d_3)\in \N^2$; therefore $x'$ is combinatoric if $\omega (x)<p$.
Let us now see the case where $\mathcal{Y}=V(Z,u_1,u_3)$, $E=\div(u_1u_2)$. If $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)$, we thus have $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1>$ by proposition \[firstkind\], in particular $x$ satisfies (T\*\*)(i) or (ii). We are done by theorem \[bupthm\] unless $x'=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2,u_3)$. The reader ends the proof easily as above, under either assumption (1) or (2): we get $x'$ resolved or (T\*\*)(ii).
If $\epsilon (x)=1+\omega (x)$, $x$ satisfies (T\*\*)(iii) by assumption (2). By proposition \[firstkind\], we have $H^{-1}F_{p,Z}=<U_3U_1^{\omega (x)}>$. Since $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1>$, we are done by theorem \[bupthm\] unless $x'=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2,u_3)$. The reader ends the proof easily as before.
Resolution for (\*\*), the end.
-------------------------------
The purpose of this section is to prove the following proposition and theorem which end the proof of projection theorem \[projthm\].
\[END\] Assume that $x$ is in case (\*\*) (definition \[\*\*\]), then $x$ is resolved for $\iota=(p,\omega(x),3)$.
This follows from corollary \[corEprime\] and propositions \[\*\*versgammaegal1\] and \[\*\*gammaegal1\] below.
\[proofkappa34\] Assume that $\kappa(x)\geq 3$, then $x$ is resolved.
By propositions \[redto\*\*3\] and \[redto\*\*4\], it can be assumed that $$\kappa(x)\geq 3,\ x \ \hbox{satisfies (**) or (T**)}.$$ By proposition \[redto\*\*casT\*\*\], the remaining case is when $x$ satisfies (\*\*). This case is just the assumption of proposition \[END\].
### An extra assumption on the singular locus.
The following extra assumption [**(E)’**]{} is used as a shortcut in order to ensure that certain exceptional curves on ${\cal X}$ are Hironaka-permissible and can be blown up in order to reduce $\omega (x)$. Such blowing up centers are not used in [@Co5] and the authors do not know if such blowing ups are relevant in dimension $n \geq 4$.
\[defEprime\] We say that $(S,h,E)$ satisfies condition [**(E)’**]{} if it satisfies condition [**(E)**]{} and if $$\omega (x)\geq p \Longrightarrow \eta^{-1}(E) = \mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X}.$$ where $\eta^{-1}(m_S)=:\{x\}$.
As stated after definition \[conditionE\], we have in any case $\mathrm{Sing}_p{\cal X} \subseteq \eta^{-1}(E) $ whenever $(S,h,E)$ satisfies condition [**(E)**]{}.
\[Eprimestable\] Let $\pi : {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ be a permissible blowing up (of the first or second kind) at $x \in \eta^{-1}(m_S)$ and $x' \in \pi^{-1}(x)$. If $(S,h,E)$ satisfies condition [**(E)’**]{}, then $(S',h',E')$ satisfies again [**(E)’**]{} at $x'$.
This reduces to proposition \[Estable\] if $\omega (x)\leq p-1$. Assume that $\omega (x)\geq p$, so we have $d_j\geq 1$, $1 \leq j \leq e$, by assumption [**(E)’**]{}. Let ${\cal Y} \subset {\cal X}$ be permissible with generic point $y$, $W:=\eta ({\cal Y})=V(\{u_j\}_{j\in J}) \subset E$ and $I(W)S'=:(u)$, where $$\eta ' : \ ({\cal X}',x') \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S'$$ is the projection. By definition \[deffirstkind\] or proposition \[secondkind\], we have $\epsilon (y)\geq \omega (x)\geq p$. Applying proposition \[bupformula\](iv), we have $H(x')=u^{\epsilon (y)-p}H(x)S'$, therefore $$\mathrm{ord}_{(u)}H(x')=\epsilon (y)-p + \mathrm{ord}_{W}H(x)\geq \min\{pd_j: j\in J_E\}\geq p$$ and the conclusion follows.
\[corEprime\] It can be assumed that condition [**(E)’**]{} holds in the proof of proposition \[END\] and theorem \[proofkappa34\].
All blowing ups used in the proofs of propositions \[redto\*\*3\], \[redto\*\*4\] and \[redto\*\*casT\*\*\] are permissible of the first kind.
\[lemEEprime\] Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent composition of local permissible blowing ups of the first kind: $$({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) ,$$ where $x_i \in {\cal X}_i$ is the center of $\mu$, such that $x_r$ is resolved or $H(x_r)\neq (1)$.
It can be assumed that $\omega (x)\geq p$. Since resolved means “resolved for $(p,\omega (x),3)$” in this section, it can be assumed that $$\omega (x_i)=\omega (x), \ \kappa (x_i)\geq 3$$ for every $i\geq 0$ along the process to be defined. Note that $\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S_1}}H(x_1)>0$ is achieved by blowing up $x$ if $\delta (x)>1$.
Assume now that $\delta (x)=1$, i.e. $\tau (x)\geq 2$ (definition \[defmult\]). Since $\kappa (x)\geq 3$ and $\epsilon (x)=\omega (x)=p$, we actually have $\kappa (x)=4$, i.e. $$\label{eq820}
\mathrm{in}h =Z^p +F_{p,Z}, \ 0\neq F_{p,Z} \in k(x)[U_1, \ldots ,U_e]_p,$$ where $(u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ are well adapted coordinates.
$\bullet$ if $\tau '(x)=3$, let ${\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along $x$. Then $x$ is resolved by theorem \[bupthm\].
$\bullet$ if $\tau '(x)=2$, let also ${\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along $x$. W.l.o.g. we have $$\label{eq821}
\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1 + \alpha_1 U_3, U_2 +\alpha_2 U_3>, \ \alpha_1 , \alpha_2\in k(x),$$ where $\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)\subseteq E$, and $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2u_3)$ if $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\neq (0,0)$. By theorem \[bupthm\], we have $k(x_1)=k(x)$. By proposition \[bupformula\](v), we deduce that $$\label{eq822}
<\{{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial \lambda_l}\}_{l\in \Lambda_0}>\subseteq k(x)[\{U_j : \alpha_j=0\}],$$ where $\eta_1 : ({\cal X}_1,x_1)\rightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S_1$ is the projection, since $\kappa (x_1)\geq 3$.
If $\alpha_1\alpha_2\neq 0$, we therefore have $F_{p,Z}\in k(x)^p[U_1,U_2,U_3]$. In particular, $$0<d:=\mathrm{deg}_{U_1}F_{p,Z}<p,$$ since $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,u_3;Z)$ is minimal. Lemma \[joyeux\](ii) applied to the term in $U_1^d$ of $F_{p,Z}$ gives a contradiction with (\[eq821\]), since $d\not \equiv 0 \ \mathrm{mod}p$. We now assume that $\alpha_1=0$.
If $\alpha_2 \neq 0$, we derive a contradiction in a similar way: by (\[eq822\]), the coefficient of degree 0 in $U_1$ in $F_{p,Z}$ must be zero; lemma \[joyeux\](ii) applied to the term of minimal degree $d$ in $U_1$ of $F_{p,Z}$ gives again a contradiction, since $0<d<p$. This proves that $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$.
By proposition \[originchart\], we have $\delta (x_1)=1$ and may iterate. By proposition \[permisarc\], this process is finite or the curve ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$ is permissible of the first kind. Since $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$, blowing up along ${\cal Y}$ then completes the proof.
$\bullet$ if $\tau '(x)=1$, it can be assumed that (\[eq820\]) has the form $$\label{eq823}
\mathrm{in}h =Z^p +\lambda (U_1 +\alpha_2U_2 +\alpha_3U_3)^p, \ \lambda \not \in k(x)^p,$$ with $\mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E$, and $\mathrm{div}(u_j)\subseteq E$ if $\alpha_j\neq 0$, $j=2,3$.
If $\alpha_2\alpha_3\neq 0$, let ${\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along $x$. We get a contradiction with $\kappa (x_1)\geq 3$ unless $\lambda \in k(x_1)^p$; but then $\delta (x_1)=1$ implies that $x_1$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\] from which the conclusion follows. We now assume that $\alpha_3=0$.
If $\alpha_2 \neq 0$, let also ${\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along $x$. The previous argument works in the same way unless $x_1=(Z/u_3,u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3,u_3)$. Then $x_1$ satisfies again (\[eq823\]) for some $\alpha_3\in k(x)$ and we may iterate. By proposition \[permisarc\], this process is finite or the curve ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,u_2)$ is permissible of the first kind and we blow up along ${\cal Y}$. But then $k(x_1)=k(x)$, and this gives a contradiction with $\kappa (x_1)\geq 3$. Therefore the lemma is proved unless $$\label{eq824}
\mathrm{in}h =Z^p +\lambda U_1^p, \ \lambda \not \in k(x)^p, \ \mathrm{div}(u_1)\subseteq E.$$
We now define a refinement ${\cal C}$ of the function $x\mapsto (m(x),\omega (x))$, [*cf.*]{} chapter 6. Let $\pi : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along a permissible center of the first kind ${\cal Y}\subseteq \mathrm{div}(u_1)$, $x'\in \pi^{-1}(x)$. We set: $${\cal C}(x')<{\cal C}(x) \Leftrightarrow x' \ \mathrm{satisfies} \ \mathrm{the} \ \mathrm{conclusion}
\ \mathrm{of} \ \mathrm{the} \ \mathrm{lemma}.$$ By theorem \[bupthm\], we have ${\cal C}(x')<{\cal C}(x)$ unless $x' \in \mathrm{div}(u'_1)$, where $\mathrm{div}(u'_1)\subseteq E'$ is the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. Otherwise, we let ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$.
With notations as in chapter 6, we claim that $\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ has maximal contact for the condition ${\cal C}$ (definition \[Maximalcontact\]). To see this, suppose that ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$. Note that $\delta (x')>1$ or $x'$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[sortiemonome\] if $\lambda \in k(x')^p$: a contradiction. If $\delta (x')=1$ and $\lambda \not \in \in k(x')^p$, we get an expansion $$\mathrm{in}h'={Z'}^p +F_{p,Z'}, \ 0\neq F_{p,Z'} \in k(x)[U'_1, \ldots ,U'_{e'}]_p,$$ where $(u'_1,u'_2,u'_3;Z')$ are well adapted coordinates at $x'$, and the leading coefficient of $F_{p,Z'}$ in $U'_1$ is $\lambda {U'_1}^p$. Since ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$ is assumed, we actually have $$\mathrm{in}h' ={Z'}^p +\lambda {U'_1}^p$$ by (\[eq824\]) and the claim is proved. The conclusion now follows from theorem \[contactmaxFIN\].
\[EEprime\] Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent composition of local permissible blowing ups of the first kind: $$\label{eq825}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) ,$$ where $x_i \in {\cal X}_i$ is the center of $\mu$, such that $x_r$ is resolved or $x_r$ satisfies condition [**(E)’**]{}.
It can also be assumed that $\omega (x)\geq p$ and that $$\omega (x_i)=\omega (x), \ \kappa (x_i)\geq 3$$ for every $i\geq 0$ along the process to be defined. By lemma \[lemEEprime\], we may assume that $H(x)\neq (1)$ to begin with. Order $$d_1\geq \cdots \geq d_e \geq 0=:d_{e+1}, \ d_1>0,$$ where $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1 \cdots u_e)$. We define $e_0$, $1 \leq e_0\leq e$, by: $$\min\{1,d_{e_0}\}=\min\{1,d_1\} \ \mathrm{and} \ d_{e_0+1}<\min\{1,d_1\}.$$ The invariant is: $$d(x):=(d'(x):=\max\{0,1-d_1\}, d''(x):=e-e_0)_{\mathrm{lex}}.$$ Note that $d(x)=(0,0)$ if and only if $x$ satisfies condition [**(E)’**]{}.
Let $\pi : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ be the blowing up along a permissible center of the first kind ${\cal Y}$ and $x'\in \pi^{-1}(x)$. We refine the function $x\mapsto (m(x),\omega (x))$, [*cf.*]{} chapter 6, by setting: $${\cal C}(x')<{\cal C}(x)\Leftrightarrow d(x')< \min\{d(x), (d'(x),1)\}.$$ Otherwise, we let ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$. To prove the proposition, it is sufficient to prove that there exists a sequence (\[eq825\]) such that ${\cal C}(x_r)<{\cal C}(x)$. We claim the following: assume that $$\label{eq830}
\eta ({\cal Y})\subset \mathrm{div}(u_j) \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ j, \ 1 \leq j \leq e_0.$$ Then $d(x')\leq d(x)$; if $d(x')=d(x)$ (resp. if ${\cal C}(x')={\cal C}(x)$), then $x'$ belongs to the strict transform of $\mathrm{div}(u_j)$ for every $j$ (resp. for some $j$) such that $e_0<j\leq e$.
To prove this claim, let $W:=\eta ({\cal Y})$ and $I(W)S'=:(u)$, where $$\eta ' : \ ({\cal X}',x') \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}S'$$ is the projection. By proposition \[bupformula\](iv), we have $H(x')=u^{\epsilon (y)-p}H(x)S'$, therefore $$\label{eq831}
d'_1\geq {\mathrm{ord}_uH(x')\over p}= {\epsilon (x) \over p}-1+ {\mathrm{ord}_{W}H(x) \over p}\geq \min\{1,d_1\}$$ by (\[eq830\]). We get $$d'(x')= \max\{0,1-d'_1\}\leq \max\{0,1-d_1\}=d'(x).$$ If equality holds, (\[eq831\]) implies that $\min\{1,d'_1\} = \mathrm{ord}_uH(x')/ p$, i.e. $${\mathrm{ord}_uH(x')\over p}=d'_{j'} \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{some} \ j', \ 1 \leq j '\leq e'_0:=e_0(x').$$ The claim follows immediately.
We now define $\Omega (x)\subset ({\cal X},x)$ to be the Zariski closure of the set: $$\Omega^\circ (x):=\{y\in {\cal X}: m(y)=p, \ \omega (y)>0 \ \mathrm{and}
\ \forall j, \ 1 \leq j \leq e_0, \ y \not \in \mathrm{div}(u_j)\}.$$ By proposition \[omegapositiveclosed\], $\Omega (x)$ is a (possibly empty) curve. Note that
- $\Omega (x')$ is the strict transform of $\Omega (x)$ in $({\cal X}',x')$ if ${\cal Y}$ satisfies (\[eq830\]), and
- $\Omega (x)=\emptyset$ if $e_0\geq 2$ or if $d''(x)=0$.
We consider two cases:
[*Case 1:*]{} $\Omega (x)=\emptyset$. This implies that any permissible center of the first kind ${\cal Y}$ satisfies (\[eq830\]). By the above claim, there exists $j$, $e_0<j \leq e$ such that $\mathrm{div}(u_j)$ has maximal contact for the condition ${\cal C}$. By theorem \[contactmaxFIN\], we obtain a sequence (\[eq825\]) such that ${\cal C}(x_r)<{\cal C}(x)$.
[*Case 2:*]{} $\Omega (x)\neq \emptyset$. Consider the quadratic sequence along $\mu$. By the above claim and (1), we either obtain ${\cal C}(x_r)<{\cal C}(x)$ (in particular if we reach case 1), or achieve that $\Omega (x_{r_1})$ is irreducible for some $r_1\geq 0$; by proposition \[permisarc\], it can be furthermore assumed that $\Omega (x_{r_1})$ is permissible of the first kind when the latter holds. Let then $y_1\in ({\cal X}_{r_1},x_{r_1})$ be the generic point of $\Omega (x_{r_1})$. By (2), we also have: $$\label{eq832}
e_0(x_r)=e_0=1 \ \mathrm{and} \ d''(x_{r_1})\geq 1.$$ Let $\pi_1 : \ {\cal X}' \rightarrow ({\cal X}_{r_1},x_{r_1})$ be the blowing up along $\Omega (x_{r_1})$ and $x'\in \pi_1^{-1}(x)$. Since $d'(x')\leq d'(x_{r_1})=d'(x)$, we have ${\cal C}(x')<{\cal C}(x)$ or are done by (1) and case 1 unless $$d'(x')=d'(x), \ e'_0:=e_0(x')=1 \ \mathrm{and} \ d''(x')\geq 1.$$ Then $\pi_1$ restricts to a finite morphism $$\label{eq833}
\Omega (x') \longrightarrow \Omega (x_{r_1}).$$
We now iterate this construction: this constructs a sequence $$({\cal X}_{r_1},x_{r_1}) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_{r_2},x_{r_2}) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_{r_k},x_{r_k})
\leftarrow \cdots$$ where $x_{r_i} \in {\cal X}_{r_i}$ is the center of $\mu$. If ${\cal C}(x_{r_k})={\cal C}(x)$, there is an induced two-dimensional quadratic sequence $$({\cal X}_{r_1},y_1) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_{r_2},y_2) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_{r_k},y_k)
\leftarrow \cdots$$ where $y_k \in ({\cal X}_{r_k},x_{r_k})$ is the generic point of the permissible curve $\Omega (x_{r_k})$ by (\[eq833\]). By two-dimensional resolution, we have $(m(y_k),\omega (y_k))< (p,\omega (x))$ for $k>>0$: a contradiction with permissibility. Therefore the above sequence achieves ${\cal C}(x_{r_k})<{\cal C}(x)$ for some $k\geq 0$ and the proof is complete.
### Proof of proposition \[END\].
From now on, we assume that **(E)’** is satisfied.
\[kappa3preparation\] [**(Preparation)**]{}. Assume that $x$ is in case (\*\*) (definition \[\*\*\]). We define $$\mathrm{pr}:\{\mathbf{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in \R_{\geq 0}^3 \vert \ c < {1+\omega(x) \over p}\} \longrightarrow \R_{\geq 0}^2,$$ as the translation by the vector $(-d_1,-d_2,0)$ followed by projection from the point $(0,0,{1+\omega(x) \over p})$ over the $(x_1,x_2)$-plane, followed by the homothety of ratio ${p \over 1+\omega(x)}$. We will write $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)$, even $\Delta_2$ if no confusion is possible instead of pr$\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ for short.
Let $\mathbf{x}$ be a vertex of $\Delta_2$. We say that $\mathbf{x}$ is a left vertex if its ordinate is bigger or equal the ordinate of the vertex of bigger ordinate of the side of slope $-1$.
Let $\mathbf{x}$ be a vertex of $\Delta_2$. Let pr$^{-1}(\mathbf{x})$ the edge of $\Delta(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ giving $\mathbf{x}$ by projection, this edge is defined by an equation $\alpha_1 x_1+ \alpha_2 x_2 + \alpha_3 x_3=1$, $\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3>0$, as usual we define the monomial valuation $v_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}$ by $$v_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}(Z)=1,\ v_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}(u_1)=\alpha_1, \ v_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}(u_2)=\alpha_2, \ v_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}(v)=\alpha_3.$$ We say that $\mathbf{x}$ is prepared if $$Z^p- G_{\mathbf{x}}^{p-1}Z+ F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}}:=\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}(h)\in k(x)[Z,U_1,U_2,V]$$ verifies one of the following:
1- either $G_{\mathbf{x}}\not=0$,
2- either $H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}}\over \partial V}$ is not proportional to an $\omega(x)$-power,
3- or $H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}}\over \partial V}=\lambda V^{\omega(x)}$, $\lambda \in k(x)^*$.
We say that $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ is totally prepared if
\(i) $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ minimal,
\(ii) when $pd_2=0$ (f.i. when $E=\div(u_1)$), all the left vertices of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)$ are prepared,
\(iii) when $pd_1>0$ and $pd_2>0$ ($\Leftrightarrow \ E=\div(u_1u_2)$ when $\omega(x)\geq p$), all the vertices of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)$ are prepared.
\[kappa3prepatot\] Assume that $x$ is in case (\*\*) definition \[\*\*\]. There exists $v\in S$, $\phi \in S$ such that $(Z-\phi,u_1,u_2,v)$ is totally prepared. Furthermore $x$ is resolved for $m(x)=p$ if $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z-\phi)=\emptyset$.
We apply a strategy similar to Hironaka’s strategy of minimizing in [@H3]. Let us start by the a vertex $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,x_2)$ not prepared. With the notations as above, we have $\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}}}(h)=Z^p+ F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}}$, with $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}}=\lambda V^{1+\omega(x)}+\sum_{1\leq j \leq 1+\omega(x)}\lambda_j V^{1+\omega(x)-j}U_1^{jx_1}U_2^{jx_2},
\ \lambda \in k(x)^*,$$ $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}{\partial F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}} \over \partial V}
=(1+\omega(x))\lambda(V+\lambda' U_1^{x_1}U_2^{x_2})^{\omega(x)}, \ \lambda' \in k(x)^* ,$$ in particular, $x_i \in \N$, $i=1,2$. We take any invertible $\gamma_{\mathbf{x}}\in S$ whose residue is $\lambda'$ and we define $$w:=v+ \gamma_{\mathbf{x}} u_1^{x_1}u_2^{x_2}.$$ Then $(Z,u_1,u_2,w)$ is a regular system of parameters of $S$. $$\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z)\subset \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z).$$ Furthermore, let $\mathbf{y}=(y_1,y_2)$ another vertex of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z)$, let $$\alpha'_1 x_1+ \alpha'_2 x_2 + \alpha'_3 x_3=1$$ be an equation of the edge of $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ defined by $\mathbf{y}$, of course $v_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(u_1^{x_1}u_2^{x_2})>1$, so $\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(v)=\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(w)$. In particular, $y$ is still a vertex of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z)$ and, if it was prepared for $(u_1,u_2,v;Z)$, it is still prepared for $(u_1,u_2,w;Z)$. Furthermore, if we make an eventual translation on $Z\leftarrow Z-\phi$, $\phi \in S$ to minimize $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,w;Z)$, as $\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(v)=\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(w)$, in the of expansion $\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(h)$, we just change $\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(v)$ by $\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(w)$: we can choose $\phi$ with $v_{\alpha_{\mathbf{y}}}(\phi)>1$. So $$\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z-\phi)\subset \Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z),$$ any prepared vertex $\mathbf{y}=(y_1,y_2)$ of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)$ is a prepared vertex of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z-\phi)$.
We apply this process to each $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,x_2)$ to be prepared, starting by those of smallest modules. When this process is finite, we get the announced result.
When this process is infinite, we get $\phi, \psi \in \hat{S}$ such that $(u_1,u_2,v-\psi ; Z-\phi)$ is totally prepared. Let us remark that $x$ is resolved if $$\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z-\phi)\not=\emptyset.$$ The contrary would mean that $\Delta(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z-\phi)$ has only one vertex $(d_1,d_2,1+\omega(x))$: $\V(Z-\phi, w)$ would be a component of dimension $two$ of the locus of multiplicity $\min\{p, 1+\omega (x)\}$, $\eta( \V(Z-\phi, w))\nsubseteq E$. This contradicts [**(E)**]{} if $\omega (x)\geq p$ or if $h$ is separable (assumption (ii) in theorem \[luthm\]). If $\omega(x)<p$ and $h=Z^p +f_{p,Z}$, $\mathrm{char}S=p$, $x$ is resolved for $m(x)=p$ by a combinatorial algorithm, [*vid.*]{} proof of theorem \[omegazero\].
The remark above implies that, after a finite number of steps, we apply infinitely the process to vertices of smallest abscissa or (smallest ordinate and $E=\div(u_1u_2)$) of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ and this smallest abscissa or smallest ordinate remains constant.
Let us study the very special case where $\mathbf{x}:=(A,\beta)$ is the vertex of smallest abscissa of $\Delta_2$ and that the process dissolves it, creating a new vertex $(A,\beta')$, $\beta'>\beta$ infinitely times. This implies $A,\beta,\beta' \in \N$.
Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,0,\alpha_3)$, such that $\alpha_1 x_1+ \alpha_3 x_3=1$ is the equation of the non compact face of $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ whose image by pr is the non compact face $x_1=A$ of $\Delta_2$. We get $\alpha_1pd_1+\alpha_3(1+\omega(x))=p$, $\alpha_1 A- \alpha_3=0$, and $$\clin_{\alpha}h=Z^p- G^{p-1}_{\mathbf{x}}Z+ F_{p,\mathbf{x}}\in \mathrm{gr}_{\alpha}(S[Z])={S\over (v,u_1)}[U_1,V][Z].$$ Let ${\cal C}:=\mathrm{Spec}{S\over (v,u_1)}$. By quasi-homogeneity and the uniqueness of the solution [@H3] Corollary (4.1.1), there exists $\Phi\in \widehat{{\cal O}_{\cal C}[U_1,V]}= \widehat{{\cal O}_{\cal C}}[[U_1,V]]$ with $$\Phi^p\in U_1^{pd_1}(V, U_1^A)^{1+\omega (x)}, \ \Psi \in \bar{u_2}^{{ \beta }} U_1^{{A }} \widehat{{\cal O}_{\cal C}}[[U_1,V]],$$ such that $$\label{eq834}
\clin_{\alpha}h=(Z-\Phi)^p+U_1^{pd_1}\overline{\gamma} (V-\Psi)^{1+\omega(x)}.$$
\[nettoyageinfini\] There exists $$\phi \in S, \ \phi^p\in u_1^{pd_1}(v, u_1^A)^{1+\omega (x)} \ \mathrm{and} \
w\in S, \ v-w \in (v^2,u_1^A u_2^{\beta} )S$$ such that $$\clin_{\alpha}h=(Z-\clin_{\alpha}\phi)^p+U_1^{pd_1}\overline{\gamma} W^{1+\omega(x)}.$$
When $\omega (x)\geq p$, (\[eq834\]) means that $\V(Z-\Phi,V-\Psi)$ is the only component in the locus of multiplicity $p$ of $$\Xi:=\mathrm{Spec}(\widehat{{\cal O}_{\cal C}}[[U_1,V]]/(\clin_{\alpha}h))$$ not contained in div$(U_1)$. Since ${\cal O}_{\cal C}[U_1,V]$ is excellent and Noetherian, by [@CoJS] lemma **1.37**, this component is algebraic and the conclusion follows.
When $\omega (x)< p$, $\V(Z-\Phi,V-\Psi)$ is the only component in the locus of multiplicity $1+\omega(x)$ of $\Xi$ not contained in div$(U_1)$: we conclude as above. This ends the proof of lemma \[nettoyageinfini\].
Let us remark that, if there exists another vertex ${\mathbf{x}}_1$ which is already prepared, then $$\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}_1}}(Z)=\clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}_1}}(Z-\phi),\ \clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}_1}}(v)= \clin_{\alpha_{\mathbf{x}_1}}(w),$$ so ${\mathbf{x}}_1$ is still prepared for $(u_1,u_2,w;Z-\phi)$.
By applying lemma \[nettoyageinfini\], we see that there exists $\phi\in S$ and $w\in S$ such that the vertex of smallest abscissa of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z-\phi)$ is prepared.
The case where the process is infinite along points of smallest ordinates is, mutatis mutandis, the same: by applying the remark above, we see that, when $E=\div(u_1u_2)$, there exists $\phi\in S$ and $w\in S$ such that both the vertices of smallest abscissa and smallest ordinate of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;w;Z-\phi)$ are prepared. This ends the proof of proposition \[kappa3prepatot\].
\[kappa3invariants\] [**(Invariants).**]{} Suppose $\kappa(x)= 3$, suppose that $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ is totally prepared. In the case where $E=\div(u_1u_2)$, we choose $u_1$ so that $d_1>0$ and let
\(i) $(A_1(Z,u_1,u_2,v),\beta(Z,u_1,u_2,v))$ is the vertex of smallest abscissa of $\Delta_2$;
\(ii) $B(Z,u_1,u_2,v)=\mathrm{inf}\{ \vert \mathbf{x} \vert \ \vert \mathbf{x}\in $pr$\Delta\}$;
\(iii) $A_2(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ is the inf of the ordinates of points in $\Delta_2$, $$C(Z,u_1,u_2,v)=B(Z,u_1,u_2,v)-A_1(Z,u_1,u_2,v)-A_2(Z,u_1,u_2,v);$$
\(iv) $\gamma(Z,u_1,u_2,v) \in \N$ is given by: $$\gamma(Z,u_1,u_2,v):=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lceil \beta(Z,u_1,u_2,v)\rceil & \mathrm{if} & E=\div(u_1) \hfill{} \\
\\
1+\lfloor C(Z,u_1,u_2,v)\rfloor & \mathrm{if} & E=\div(u_1u_2) \hfill{} \\
\end{array}
\right.
.$$
For sake of simplicity, most of the time, we will skip $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ and write $A_1(x),A_2(x),B(x),C(x),\beta(x), \gamma(x)$.
\[kappa3instable\] Suppose $x$ satisfies conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{} with $\kappa(x)=3$ and $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ is totally prepared. The following holds:
- $V\in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$ or $x$ is resolved;
- if $B(x)=1$ and $E=\div(u_1)$, $x$ is resolved or $$x':=(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v')=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2,v/u_2)$$ is the unique closed point $x_1\in \pi^{-1}(x)$ in the blowing up $\pi : {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ along $x$ such that $\iota (x_1)\geq \iota (x)$, and $x'$ then satisfies conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{};
- if $B(x)=1$ and $\omega(x)<p$, $x$ is resolved.
When $B(x)>1$, clearly $V\in\mathrm{Vdir}(x)$. When $B(x)=1$, then $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}=\lambda V^{1+\omega(x)}+\sum_{1\leq i \leq 1+\omega(x)} V^{1+\omega(x)-i}Q_i(U_1,U_2), \ \lambda \neq 0.$$ Suppose $V\not\in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$, then $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial V}\not= (1+\omega(x))\lambda V^{\omega(x)},$$ so $\tau '(x)\geq 2$ by total preparedness. By proposition \[sortiebiskappaegaltrois\] and lemma \[kappa3prelim\], $x$ is resolved except possibly if $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<V+aU_2,U_1>, \ a \in k(x)$$ up to renumbering $u_1,u_2$ if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$.
Suppose $a\neq 0$, then it would mean that $\mathbf{x}=(0,1)$ is a vertex of $\Delta_2$. This implies that $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}{\partial F_{p,Z} \over \partial V}=({1+\omega(x)})\lambda (V+aU_2)^{\omega(x)}
+\sum_{1\leq i \leq \omega(x)} \lambda_i (V+aU_2)^{1+\omega(x)-i} U_1^i,$$ so $H^{-1}{\partial F_{p,Z,\mathbf{x}} \over \partial V}=({1+\omega(x)})\lambda (V+aU_1)^{\omega(x)}$ with notations as in definition \[kappa3preparation\]: a contradiction with total preparedness and (i) is proved.
Assume that $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, so we have $$\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<V> \ \mathrm{or} \ \mathrm{VDir}(x)=<V,U_1>$$ by (i). Apply now lemma \[kappa3prelim\](1) and note that the form (\[eq8022\]) is automatically achieved when $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ is totally prepared: if $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<V>$, we have $$\label{eq92}
U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z}\in k(x)[U_1,V]_{\epsilon (x)}$$ by (\[eq8022\]); if $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<V,U_1>$, we have $$U_1^{-pd_1}F_{p,Z}\in k(x)[U_1,V]_{\epsilon (x)}\oplus <U_1^{\omega (x)}U_2>$$ by (\[eq8022\]). Therefore (ii) follows from lemma \[kappa3prelim\](1) and proposition \[Eprimestable\].
To prove (iii), it can be assumed that $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<V>$ by (i) and corollary \[omega(x)=epsilon(x)<p\]. In particular, we have $$\mathrm{in}_{m_S} h =Z^p +F_{p,Z} , \ U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z}=\lambda V^{1+\omega (x)}+Q(U_1,U_2),$$ with $\lambda \neq 0$, $Q \neq 0$, and $Q \in k(x)[U_1]$ if $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. We blow up along $x$ and let $x':=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2,v/u_2)$.
Assume that $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. By (ii) and (\[eq92\]), the only point to consider is $x'$. By corollary \[omega(x)=epsilon(x)<p\], we are done unless $\iota (x')=\iota (x)$, so $x'$ satisfies again assumption (iii) of the proposition with $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2)$. Note that we have $A_1(x')>0$ by (\*\*).
Assume that $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ and let $x_1\in \pi^{-1}(x)$ with $\iota (x_1)\geq \iota (x)$. By corollary \[omega(x)=epsilon(x)<p\], we are done unless $\iota (x_1)=\iota (x)$. If $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1)$, we have $B(x')=1$ except possibly if $$a(1):=pd_1, \ a(2):=pd_2, \ F_0:=Q(U_1,U_2)$$ satisfies the assumptions of lemma \[joyeux\](ii). This holds only if $$d'_1:=d_1 + d_2 + {1+\omega (x) \over p}\in \N.$$ Then $x_1$ is resolved for $m(x)=p$ by blowing up $d'_1$ times along codimension two centers of the form $(Z',u'_1)$. Otherwise, we have $<Q>=<U_1^{1 + \omega (x)}>$, $x_1=x'$ up to renumbering $u_1,u_2$, so $B(x')=1$ and $x'$ satisfies again assumption (iii) of the proposition. Note that no renumbering is necessary if $A_1(x)>0$.
Summing up, $x$ is resolved or we construct a sequence of infinitely near points lying on the successive strict transforms of a formal curve $$\hat{{\cal Y}}=V(\hat{Z},u_1,u_2, \hat{v})\subset \hat{{\cal X}}={\cal X}\times_S\mathrm{Spec}\hat{S}.$$ By proposition \[permisarc\] we may assume that ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of the first kind, so $x$ is resolved by blowing up along ${\cal Y}$.
\[redto3\*\*casii\] Assume that $x$ satisfies conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{} with $\kappa(x)=4$ and let $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ be totally prepared. Let us call ${\cal Y}:=V(Z,u_1,v)$ with generic point $y$.
- if $\omega(x)<p$, $x$ is resolved;
- if $\omega(x)\geq p$ and $\epsilon(y)\geq 2$, then $(d_1,d_2,{1+\omega(x)\over p})$ is the only vertex of $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ in the region $x_1=d_1$. Furthermore ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible and $x$ is resolved.
- if $\omega(x)\geq p$ and $E=\div(u_1)$, let $\pi : {\cal X}'\rightarrow {\cal X}$ be the blowing up along $x$ and $x'\in \pi^{-1}(x)$ with $\iota (x')\geq (p,\omega (x),3)$. Then $x'$ is resolved or there is a Hironaka-permissible line $$D'=V(Z',u'_1,u'_2), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2).$$
Let $\pi ': {\cal X}''\rightarrow {\cal X}'$ be the blowing up along $D'$ and $x'' \in {\pi '}^{-1}(x')$ with $\omega (x'')\geq \omega (x')$. Then:
\(i) $x''$ satisfies again [**(E)’**]{} and $\omega(x'')= \omega(x)$;
\(ii) $x''$ satisfies condition (\*\*), $E''=\mathrm{div}(u''_1u''_2)$ and $\kappa(x'')=3$;
\(iii) $C(x'')<1-{1 \over 1+\omega(x)}$, $A_1(x'')<1,\ A_2(x'')<1$.
Statement (1) has been proved in corollary \[omega(x)=epsilon(x)<p\]. From now on, we assume that $\omega(x)\geq p$.
Let us prove (3). As $\kappa(x)=4$, $E=\div(u_1)$, we have $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1>$. By (\*\*): $$f_{p,Z}=u_1^{-pd_1}(\gamma v^{1+\omega(x)} + \gamma' u_1^{\omega(x)}+ u_1\phi),\ \gamma,\gamma'\ \mathrm{invertible},\ \phi \in m_S^{\omega(x)}.$$
We blow up along $x$: if $x'$ is $\omega$-near $x$, $x'$ is on the strict transform of $\div(u_1)$. In the chart of origin $(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v):=(Z/v,u_1/v,u_2/v,v)$, we get, before any preparation: $$f_{p,Z'}={u'_1}^{pd_1}v^{pd_1+\omega(x)-p}(\gamma v +u'_1\phi'),\ \phi'\in S', \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1v).$$ As $1+\omega(x)\not=\ 0\ \mod(p)$, the monomial ${u'_1}^{pd_1}v^{pd_1+\omega(x)-p} v$ is not a $p^{th}$-power, it cannot be spoilt by any translation on $Z'$: $\omega(x')=1<p\leq \omega(x)$. The only difficult point is the point $$x'=(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v'):=(Z/u_2,u_1/u_2,u_2,v/u_2), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1u'_2).$$ There is an expansion $h'={Z'}^p +\sum_{i=1}^p f_{i,Z'}{Z '}^{p-i}$, with $$\label{eq93}
f_{p,Z'}={u'_1}^{pd_1}{u'_2}^{pd_1+\omega(x)-p}(\gamma {v'}^{1+\omega(x)}u'_2 +\gamma' {u'_1}^{\omega(x)}+u'_1u'_2\psi'),\ \psi'\in S'.$$ As we are at the origin of a chart, $(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v)$ are well adapted: $\epsilon(x')\leq \omega(x)$. As $\omega(x)\geq p$, we keep condition [**(E)’**]{} at $x'$ (proposition \[Eprimestable\]). We are done unless $$\iota (x')=\iota (x), \ \mathrm{ord}_{x'}(u'_1u'_2\psi')\geq \omega(x).$$ In particular, we have $\mathrm{in}_{m_{S'}}h'={Z'}^p + F_{p,Z'}$.
$\bullet$ Case ord$_{x'}(u'_1u'_2\psi')= \omega(x)$. Since $\kappa (x')=4$, we have $$\mathrm{Vdir}(x')\subseteq <U'_1,U'_2>.$$ By (\[eq93\]), we have $<U'_1>\subsetneq \mathrm{Vdir}(x')$, so $\mathrm{Vdir}(x')= <U'_1,U'_2>$.
Then we blow up along $x'$, the only possible $\omega$-near point is $$x''=(Z'',u''_1,u''_2,v''):=(Z'/v',u'_1/v',u'_2/v',v'), \ E''=\mathrm{div}(u''_1u''_2v'').$$ There is an expansion $$f_{p,Z''}={u''_1}^{pd_1}{u''_2}^{pd_1+\omega(x)-p}{v''}^{2(pd_1+\omega(x)-p)}(\gamma {v''}^{2}u''_2 +\gamma' {u''_1}^{\omega(x)}+u''_1u''_2 \psi''),\ \psi''\in S''$$ and we get $\omega(x'')\leq 3$: we are done for $\omega (x)\geq 4$.
When $\omega(x)=3$, in $J(F_{p,Z''},E'',m_{S''})$, there is an homogeneous polynomial $$P:={V''}^{2}U''_2 +U''_1U''_2 (\lambda U''_1+\mu U''_2+\nu V'')+ \delta {U''_1}^3, \ \lambda,\mu,\nu,\delta \in k(x)=k(x'').$$ Applying the Hasse-Schmidt derivation $2\times {\partial^2 P\over \partial {V''}^2}=U''_2$ gives $U''_2\in \mathrm{Vdir}(x'') $. The reader ends the computation and sees that $\tau'(x'')=3$: $x''$ is is resolved.
When $\omega(x)=2$, $\psi''$ is invertible, we have $\mathrm{VDir}(x'')=<U''_1, U''_2>$. We blow up along $x''$, at the only possible $\omega$-near points, we have, with suitable variables: $$f_{p,Z'''}={u'''_1}^{pd_1}{u'''_2}^{pd_1+\omega(x)-p}{v'''}^{3(pd_1+\omega(x)-p)}(\gamma {v'''}u'''_2 +\gamma' {u'''_1}^{\omega(x)}+u'''_1u'''_2 \psi''').$$ A quick computation shows that $\tau'(x''')=3$, so $x'''$ is resolved.
$\bullet$ Case ord$_{x'}(u'_1u'_2\psi')> \omega(x)$. We get $\mathrm{Vdir}(x')=<U'_1>$. We may decompose in (\[eq93\]): $$\psi'=\psi'_1+v\psi'_2,\ \psi'_1\in (u'_1,u'_2)^{\omega(x)-1}, \ \psi'_2 \in (u'_1,u'_2).$$ By condition [**(E)’**]{}, the line $D':=\mathrm{V}(Z',u'_1,u'_2)$ with generic point $y'$ is Hironaka-permissible, $\epsilon(y')=1$.
Let us blow up along $D'$. Let us begin with the point $x'_2$ at infinity, i.e. $$x'_2:=(Z'',u''_1,u''_2,v'')=(Z'/u'_1,u'_1,u'_2/u'_1,v'), \ E''=\mathrm{div}(u''_1u''_2).$$ We get $H(x'_2)=({u''_1}^{2pd_1+\omega(x)+1-2p}{u''_2}^{pd_1+\omega(x)-p})$ and $$H(x'_2)^{-1}f''_{p,Z''}=\gamma{v''}^{1+\omega(x)}u''_2+ \gamma' {u''_1}^{\omega(x)-1}+ {u''_1}^{\omega(x)} \psi'_1+ {u''_2}u''_1v''\psi'_2.$$ As we are at the origin of a chart, the coordinates $(Z'',u''_1,u''_2,v'')$ are well adapted, so $\epsilon(x'_2)\leq \omega(x)-1$.
For $x_2\in {\pi '}^{-1}(x')$ in the chart of origin $$x'':=(Z'',u''_1,u''_2,v''):=(Z'/u'_2,u'_1/u'_2,u'_2,v'), \ E''=\mathrm{div}(u''_1u''_2),$$ we get $H(x_2)=({u''_1}^{{pd_1}}{u''_2}^{2pd_1+\omega(x)+1-2p})$ (in particular [**(E)’**]{} holds) and $$H(x_2)^{-1}f_{p,Z"}=\gamma{v''}^{1+\omega(x)}+{u''_2}^{\omega(x)-1} \gamma' {u''_1}^{\omega(x)}+ {u''_2}^{\omega(x)} u''_1\psi'_1+ {u''_2}u''_1v''\psi'_2.$$ As $1+\omega(x)\not=0\ \mod(p)$, the monomial $H(x_2){v''}^{1+\omega(x)}$ cannot be spoilt by any translation on $Z''$: we have $(m(x_2),\omega(x_2))\leq (p,\omega(x))$. Because of the monomial $H(x_2){u''_2}^{\omega(x)-1} {u''_1}^{\omega(x)}$, we must have $u''_1(x_2)=0$: therefore $x_2=x''$ is the origin of the chart. We have $$\min\{\mathrm{ord}_{m_{S''}}({u''_2}^{\omega(x)} u''_1\psi'_1), \mathrm{ord}_{m_{S''}}({u''_2}u''_1v''\psi'_2)\}\geq \omega(x)+1$$ if $(m(x''),\omega(x''))= (p,\omega(x))$: $x''$ is in case (\*\*) with $\kappa (x'')=3$. This proves (i) and (ii).
Let us prove assertion (iii) which is valid only for the point $x''$ of parameters $$(Z'',u''_1,u''_2,v''):=(Z'/v',u'_1/u'_2,u'_2,v')=(Z/u_2^2,u_1/u_2^2,u_2,v/u_2).$$ In the expansion of $f_{p,Z}$, the monomial $(u_1^{pd_1})\times u_1^au_2^b v^c=H(x)u_1^au_2^b v^c$ becomes $${u''_2}^{2p}{u''_1}^{pd_1}{u''_2}^{2pd_1+\omega(x)+1-2p}\times {u''_1}^a{u''_2}^{2a+b+c-(\omega(x)+1)}{v''}^{c}.$$ As $f_{p,Z"}={u''_2}^{-2p}f_{p,Z}$, to the monomial $H(x)u_1^au_2^b v^c$ corresponds the monomial $H(x'') {u''_1}^a{u''_2}^{2a+b+c-(\omega(x)+1)}{v''}^{c}$ in the expansion of $f_{p,Z"}$. The point $$({a\over 1+\omega(x)-c},{b\over 1+\omega(x)-c})\in \mathrm{pr}(\Delta(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z))$$ gives the point $({a\over 1+\omega(x)-c},{2a+b\over 1+\omega(x)-c}-1)$ of pr$(\Delta(h;u''_1,u''_2,v'';Z''))$. For example, the monomial $H(x)\gamma' u_1^{\omega(x)}$ becomes $$H(x''){u''_1}^{\omega(x)}{u''_2}^{\omega(x)-1}.$$
Choose $(a_0,b_0,c_0)$ such that $({a_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0},{b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1)$ is a vertex of of pr$(\Delta(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z))$ with ${2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}$ minimal. Then, because of the monomial $H(x)\gamma' u_I^{\omega(x)}$, $$\label{eq931}
{2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1\leq {2\omega(x) \over \omega(x)+1}-1=1-{2 \over \omega(x)+1} ,$$ in particular $$\label{eq931bis}
{a_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}\leq {a_0+b_0/2\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}\leq {\omega(x) \over \omega(x)+1}<1,$$ so the point $$({a_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0},{2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1)$$ has both coordinates $<1$, it is the vertex of $\Delta_2(h'';u''_1,u''_2;v'';Z'')$ of smallest ordinate.
Let us note that if $(a_0,b_0,c_0)\not=(\omega(x),0,0)$, then, as $\Idir(x)=<U_1>$, we have $a_0+b_0\geq 1+\omega(x)-c_0$, so ${2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1\geq {a_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}>0$, the last inequality because $u_1$ divides $g$. When $(a_0,b_0,c_0)=(\omega(x),0,0)$, we get $${2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1={2\omega(x)\over 1+\omega(x)}-1={\omega(x)-1\over 1+\omega(x)}\geq {p-1\over 1+\omega(x)}>0,$$ $$\label{eq932}
f_{p,Z"}= H(x'')( \gamma {v''}^{1+\omega(x)}+u''_1u''_2 \vartheta),\ \vartheta \in S''.$$
As we saw above, $\epsilon(x'')=\omega(x'')+1$, $\kappa(x'')=3$ and we have (\*\*). Then $({a_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0},{2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1)$ is the vertex of $\Delta_2(h'';u''_1,u''_2;v'';Z'')$ of smallest ordinate, both coordinates are $<1$ and positive. As $x'$ and $x''$ are origins of chart, $(Z'', u''_1,u''_2,v'')$ are well prepared and no translation on $v''$ can spoil this vertex. By (\[eq931\])(\[eq931bis\]), we get: $$C(x'')\leq {a_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-A_1(x'')<1-{1 \over 1+\omega(x)} ,$$ $$0<A_2(x'')={2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1<1,$$ $$A_1(x'')\leq {a_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}\leq {2a_0+b_0\over 1+\omega(x)-c_0}-1<1.$$ Note that $A_1(x'')>0$ because of (\[eq932\]). This proves (iii).
Let us prove (2). Since $\epsilon (y)>0$, we have $A_1(x)>0$ and $(d_1,d_2,{1+\omega(x)\over p})$ is the only vertex of $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,v;Z)$ in the region $x_1=d_1$, $U_1\in \mathrm{Vdir}(x)$. If $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$, then, if we blow up along $x$, as $\omega(x)\geq p\geq 2$, there is no $\omega$-near point. The only case we have to look at is $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<U_1>$.
As $\omega(x)\geq p$, by condition [**(E)’**]{} at $x$: $pd_1\geq p$, ${\cal Y}$ is Hironaka-permissible. Let us denote by $d:=\epsilon(y)\geq 2$. Then $\gamma v^{1+\omega(x)} + g\in (v,u_1)^d$ with $g=\gamma' u_1^{\omega(x)}+ u_1\phi$, $\phi \in m_S^{\omega(x)}\cap (v,u_1)^{d-1}$, $\gamma'$ invertible. Up to change $\gamma'$ modulo $m$, there is a decomposition: $\phi=v\phi_1+u_2\phi_2$, $\phi_1\in (u_1,v)^{\omega(x)-1}$, $\phi_2\in (u_1,v)^{d-1}$. $$f_{p,Z}={u_1}^{pd_1}{u_2}^{pd_2}(\gamma {v}^{1+\omega(x)}+\gamma' u_1^{\omega(x)}+u_1v\phi_1+u_1u_2\phi_2).$$ Let us blow up along ${\cal Y}$. In the first chart of origin $$(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v'):=(Z/u_1,u_1,u_2,v/u_1),$$ we get $$f_{p,Z'}={u'_1}^{pd_1+d-p}{u'_2}^{pd_2}(\gamma {v'}^{1+\omega(x)}{u'_1}^{\omega(x)+1-d}+\gamma' {u'_1}^{\omega(x)-d}+{u'_1}^{\omega(x)-d+1}\phi'_1+u'_2\phi'_2),$$ $\phi'_1,\phi'_2 \in S'$. Because of the monomial $${u'_1}^{pd_1+d-p}{u'_2}^{pd_2}\gamma' {u'_1}^{\omega(x)-d}=H(x')\gamma' {u'_1}^{\omega(x)-d},$$ we get $\omega(x_1)\leq \omega(x)-d < \omega(x)-1$ for any $x_1$ in this chart.
Let us see the point at infinity $x'=(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v'):=(Z/v,u_1/v,u_2,v)$, we get $$f_{p,Z'}={u'_1}^{pd_1}{u'_2}^{pd_2}{v'}^{pd_1+d-p}(\gamma v^{\omega(x)+1-d}+ {u'_1}\phi'),$$ $\phi'_1,\phi'_2,\phi'_3 \in S'$. As we are at the origin of a chart, $(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v)$ are well adapted: $\epsilon(x')\leq \omega(x)+1-d\leq \omega(x)-1$.
\[betapetitto3\*\] Assume that $x$ satisfies conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{} with $\kappa(x)=4$, $E=\div(u_1)$ and let $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ be totally prepared. With the notations of proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\], assume furthermore that $$\epsilon(y)= 1\ \mathrm{ and}\ \beta(Z,u_1,u_2,v) < 1.$$ Then $x$ is resolved.
By proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\](1), we may assume $\omega(x)\geq p$. As $A_1(x)>0$ by condition (\*\*), $\epsilon(y)= 1$ implies that $\Delta_S(h;u_1,u_2,v)$ has a vertex $$\mathbf{x}=({d_1 +1\over p}, {b \over p}, 0), \ b\in \N.$$ This leads to $$A_1(x)= {1 \over 1+\omega(x)}, \ \beta (x)={ b \over 1+\omega(x)}.$$ On the other hand, since $\kappa (x)=4$, we have $b\geq \omega (x)$, i.e. $b=\omega (x)$.
Let us come back to the proof of proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\](2). The only point to consider is the point $x'$ at infinity, $E'=\mathrm{div}(u'_1v)$. We get an expansion $$\label{eq941}
f_{p,Z'}={u'_1}^{pd_1}{v'}^{pd_1+1-p}(\gamma v^{\omega(x)}+ {u'_1}\phi'), \ (\phi ')\equiv (u_2^{\omega (x)}) \ \mathrm{mod}(v').$$ The conclusion follows from lemma \[sortiemonome\] applied to the well prepared coordinates $(v',u'_1,u_2;Z')$.
The following proposition produces bounds identical to those occurring for embedded resolution of surfaces [@Co3].
\[\*\*gamma\] Assume that $x$ satisfies conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{} with $\kappa(x)\geq 3$. Consider Hironaka-permissible blowing ups $\pi : \ {\cal X}'\rightarrow ({\cal X},x)$ of the following kinds:
Case 1: $E=\div(u_1u_2)$ and $\omega(x)\geq p$; we blow-up along $D:=(Z,u_1,u_2)$.
Case 2: $\kappa(x)=3$; we blow up along $x$.
Let $x'\in \pi^{-1}(x)$ with $(m(x'),\omega (x'))\geq (p,\omega (x))$. Then $\omega(x')\leq \omega(x)$ and ($x'$ is resolved or the following holds):
\(i) conditions (\*\*) and **(E)’** are satisfied at $x'$ and we have $$\gamma (x')\leq \max\{\gamma (x),1\}.$$
\(ii) if $E=\div(u_1u_2)$ and $\eta '(x')\in \mathrm{Spec}S[u'_2]$ (resp. $\eta '(x')\in \mathrm{Spec}S[u'_2,v']$), where $$(u_1,u'_2:= {u_2 \over u_1},v) \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ (u_1,u'_2,v':={v \over u_1}))$$ in case 1 (resp. case 2), then $A_1(x')=B(x)$, (resp. $A_1(x')=B(x)-1$) and, $$\beta(x')\leq A_2(x)+C(x)\leq \beta(x);$$
if ($k(x')\neq k(x)$ and $\beta(x)\geq 1$), we have $\beta(x')<\beta(x)$;
if $u'_2\in m_{S'}$, then $C(x')\leq \min\{C(x), \beta (x)-C(x)\}$, so $C(x')\leq {\beta(x)\over 2}$;
if $u'_2\not \in m_{S'}$, then $\beta(x')< 1+ \lfloor C(x)\rfloor$;
\(iii) if $x'$ is the origin of the second chart, i.e. $$x'=(Z':={Z \over u_2} ,u'_1= {u_1 \over u_2},u_2,v) \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ (Z', u'_1,u_2,{v\over u_2}))$$ in case 1 (resp. case 2), then $A_1(x)=A_1(x')$, $C(x')\leq {\beta(x)\over 2}$ and $$\beta(x')=A_1(x) +\beta(x) \ (\mathrm{resp.} \ \beta(x')=A_1(x) +\beta(x)-1);$$
\(iv) if $E=\div(u_1)$, $E'=\div(u'_1)$ and $\beta(x) >0$, then $\beta(x')\leq \beta(x)$, with strict inequality if ($k(x')\neq k(x)$ and $\beta (x)\geq 1$).
We first prove the proposition in case 1. Let $x'$ be in the chart with origin $(X':={Z \over u_1} ,u_1,u'_2,v)$. In the expansion of $f_{p,Z}$ the monomial $u_1^{pd_1}u_2^{pd_2}v^{1+\omega(x)-i}u_1^au_2^b$ transforms into $u_1^{pd_1+pd_2-p}{u_2'}^{pd_2}v^{1+\omega(x)-i}u_1^{a+b}{u_2'}^b$ in the expansion of $f_{p,Z'}$, $0\leq i \leq 1+\omega(x)-i$. This leads to: $$f_{p,Z'}=u_1^{pd'_1}{u_2'}^{pd_2}(\gamma v^{1+\omega(x)}+u_1 \phi), \ d'_1:=d_1+d_2-1.$$ As $1+\omega(x)\not\equiv 0\ \mod \ p$, the monomial $u_1^{pd'_1}{u_2'}^{pd_2}\gamma v^{1+\omega(x)}$ will not be spoilt by any translation on $Z'$: $x'$ satisfies (\*\*) and $(m(x'),\omega (x'))\leq (p,\omega (x))$. If $\omega (x)\geq p$, we have $d_1,d_2\geq 1$, so $x'$ satisfies condition **(E)’**. Statement $\gamma (x')\leq \gamma (x)$ follows from (ii). There remains to prove (ii).
The monomials defining $B(x)$ in the expansion of $f_{p,Z}$ are minimal for the monomial valuation $v_\alpha$ defined by the weight vector $\alpha :=(a,a,aB(x))$: $$v_\alpha(Z)=1,\ v_\alpha(u_1)=v_\alpha(u_2)=a,\ v_\alpha(v)=a B(x),$$ with $$a:={p \over pd_1+pd_2+B(x)(1+\omega(x))}.$$ Let us denote by $$\clin_{v_\alpha}h=Z^p-G_\alpha^{p-1}Z+F_{p,Z,\alpha}\in \mathrm{gr}_{\alpha} S[Z]$$ At $x'$, there exists $P(t)\in S[t]$, unitary of degree $d:=[k(x'):k(x)]$, whose reduction modulo $m_S$ is irreducible and $w:=P(u'_2)$ is such that $(X',u_1,w,v)$ is a system of coordinates at $x'$. Of course, we take $w=u'_2$ when $x'$ is the origin of the chart. In this special case where $x'$ is the origin, the reader verifies that $(X',u'_1,w,v)$ is totally prepared and that all the statements of (ii) are true.
From now on, $E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$. Monomials defining $B(x)$ become the monomials defining $A_1(x')=B(x)$. The monomials defining the vertices of smaller abscissa of $\Delta_2(h';u'_1,w,v';X')$ are those minimal for the valuation $v_{\alpha '}$ given by $$v_{\alpha '}(X')=1,\ v_{\alpha '}(u_1)=a,\ v_{\alpha '}(w)=0, \ v_{\alpha '}(v)=a B(x).$$
Let us denote by $$\clin_{v_{\alpha '}}h={X'}^p-{G}_{\alpha '}^{p-1}{X'}+F_{p,X',{\alpha '}}
\in \mathrm{gr}_{\alpha '}S=k(x)[\overline{u}'_2]_{(\overline{w})}[U_1,V,X'].$$ When $G_{\alpha '}\not=0$, we have $A_1(x')=B(x)$, $\beta(x')=0$, so (ii) holds. Assume now that $G_{\alpha '}\neq 0$.
[*Subcase 1.1:*]{} when $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}{\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha}\over \partial V}\not \in <V^{\omega(x)}>.$$ We expand $$\label{eq950}
U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}{\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha}\over \partial V}=
\lambda V^{\omega(x)}+\sum_{1\leq i \leq \omega(x)} V^{\omega(x)-i}U_1^{a_1(i)}U_2^{a_2(i)}Q_i(U_1,U_2),$$ with $\lambda \neq 0$, $Q_i=0$ or $Q_i$ divisible neither by $U_1$, nor by $U_2$. For $Q_i\not=0$: $$a_j(i)\geq iA_j(x), \ \mathrm{deg}(Q_i)\leq iC(x).$$
By proposition \[bupformula\](v), ${\partial F_{p,X',\alpha '}\over \partial V}$ is the transform of ${\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha}\over \partial V}$. Then, by [@Co3] lemma 6.2.3 a and page 92, the lowest abscissa of the vertices of the polygon $$\Delta({\partial F_{p,X',\alpha '}\over \partial V};U_1,\overline{w};V;X')$$ is $B(x)$. The non compact face of lowest abscissa is not solvable and, after a possible translation: $$Z'= X'+\phi ', \ \phi '\in {U'_1}^{\lceil B(x)\rceil} k(x)[\overline{u}'_2]_{(\overline{w})}[V],$$ the ordinate $\beta'$ of the vertex of lowest abscissa of $$\Delta({\partial F_{p,Z',\alpha '}\over \partial V};U_1,\overline{w};V;Z')$$ satisfies $$\beta '<1 + \lfloor {C(x)\over d} \rfloor, \ \beta'\leq \beta_2(x),$$ where $\beta_2(x)$ is the ordinate of the left vertex of the initial face of the polygon $\Delta({\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha}\over \partial V};U_1,U_2;V;Z)$. Then we have $$\label{eq951}
\beta(x')\leq \beta' <1+\lfloor {C(x)\over d} \rfloor ,\ \beta(x')\leq \beta' \leq \beta_2(x)\leq \beta(x).$$ This implies all the assertions in subcase 1-1.
[*Subcase 1.2:*]{} when $$U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}{\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha}\over \partial V}\in <V^{\omega(x)}>.$$ We now have an expansion $$\label{eq952}
U_1^{-pd_1}U_2^{-pd_2}F_{p,Z,\alpha}=
\lambda V^{1+\omega(x)}+\sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor {1+\omega (x)\over p}\rfloor} V^{pi}U_1^{a_1(i)}U_2^{a_2(i)}Q_i(U_1,U_2),$$ with $\lambda \neq 0$, $Q_i=0$ or $Q_i$ divisible neither by $U_1$, nor by $U_2$. For $Q_i\not=0$: $$a_j(i)\geq (1+\omega (x)-pi)A_j(x), \ \mathrm{deg}(Q_i)\leq (1+\omega (x)-pi)C(x).$$ Take $i_0$, $1\leq i_0 < (1+\omega(x))/p$ maximal such that $U_1^{pd_1+a_1(i_0)}U_2^{pd_2+a_2(i_0)}Q_{i_0}$ is not a $p^{th}$-power. This $i_0$ exists by total preparation. By (\[eq952\]), the transform of ${\partial F_{p,Z,\alpha}\over \partial V}$ now reads $$\label{eq953}
{U_1}^{-pd'_1}{\partial F_{p,X',\alpha '}\over \partial V}
= \lambda '{V}^{\omega(x)}, \ \lambda '\ \mathrm{a} \ \mathrm{unit}.$$ Preparation along the face of abscissa $B(x)$ will thus be a translation $Z'=X'+\phi '$ on $X'$, no translation on $v$: this will just add a $p^{th}$-power to the term ${U_1}^{pd'_1+(1+\omega (x)-pi_0)B(x)}{\overline{u}'_2}^{pd_2}Q_{i_0}(1,\overline{u}'_2)$ in (\[eq952\]), which will become of the form $$\overline{\gamma} '{U_1}^{pd'_1+(1+\omega (x)-pi_0)B(x)}\overline{w}^c,
\ \overline{\gamma} ' \in k(x)[\overline{u}'_2]_{(\overline{w})}, \ \overline{\gamma} ' \ \mathrm{invertible}.$$
By the usual computations ([@Co3] page 92 or the blowing up formula applied to $ U_1^{pd_1+a_1(i_0)}U_2^{pd_2+a_2(i_0)}Q_{i_0}(U_1,U_2)$), we have $$\label{eq954}
c\leq 1+{\mathrm{deg}(Q_{i_0})\over d};\ \hbox{when }d_2=0,\ c\leq a_2(i_0)+\mathrm{deg}(Q_{i_0})\leq \beta_2(x)\leq \beta(x).$$ This implies all the assertions in subcase 1-2, $x'$ not the origin and (ii) is proved. Permuting $u_1$ and $u_2$ gives (iii).
We now turn to case 2. Let $x'$ be in the chart of origin $(X':={Z \over u_1} ,u_1,u'_2,v')$. By proposition \[kappa3instable\](ii), we may assume that $B(x)>1$, i.e. $<V>= \Vdir(x)$, so $v'\in m_{S'}$. In the expansion of $f_{p,Z}$ the monomial $$u_1^{pd_1}u_2^{pd_2}v^{1+\omega(x)-i}u_1^au_2^b, \ 0\leq i \leq 1+\omega(x)-i$$ becomes $u_1^{pd_1+pd_2+1+\omega(x)-p}{u_2'}^{pd_2}v^{1+\omega(x)-i}u_1^{a+b}{u_2'}^b$ in the expansion of $f_{p,Z'}$. This leads to: $$f_{p,Z'}=u_1^{pd'_1}{u_2'}^{pd_2}(\gamma v^{1+\omega(x)}+u_1 \phi), \ d'_1:=d_1+d_2+{1+\omega (x) \over p} -1.$$ Then $x'$ is resolved or $x'$ satisfies conditions (\*\*) and **(E)’** as in case 1. Then the proof runs along the same lines as above: equations (\[eq951\]) and (\[eq954\]) remain true.
The case where $x'$ is the origin of the second chart is given by a permutation of $u_1$ and $u_2$ in the computations above and the fact that the vertices of $\Delta_2(h';u_1/u_2,u_2;v/u_2;Z/u_2)$ are the transforms of the **left vertices** of $\Delta_2(h;u_1,u_2;v;Z)$ by the affinity $(x_1,x_2)\mapsto (x_1,x_1+x_2-1)$: they are totally prepared.
\[\*\*versgammaegal1\] Assume that $x$ satisfies conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{}. Let $\mu$ be a valuation of $L=k({\cal X})$ centered at $x$. There exists a finite and independent composition of local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups w.r.t. $E$: $$\label{eq970}
({\cal X},x)=:({\cal X}_0,x_0) \leftarrow ({\cal X}_1,x_1) \leftarrow \cdots \leftarrow ({\cal X}_r,x_r) ,$$ where $x_i \in {\cal X}_i$ is the center of $\mu$, such that $x_r$ is resolved or ($x_r$ satisfies again conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{} together with one of the following):
- $E_r=\div(u_{1,r})$, $\beta(x_r)<1$;
- $E_r=\div(u_{1,r}u_{2,r})$, $C(x_r)=0$.
Let $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ be totally prepared. Let ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,v)$ with generic point $y$. We define by induction on $i\geq 0$ a sequence of local Hironaka-permissible blowing ups w.r.t. $E$, or composition of two such local blowing ups. Take $i=0$ w.l.o.g. in the following definition.
\(1) if ($E=\div(u_1)$, $\kappa(x)=3$), blow up along $x$ (proposition \[\*\*gamma\], case 2);
\(2) if ($E=\div(u_1)$, $\kappa(x)=4$, $\epsilon(y)\leq 1$), blow up along $x$, then along $D'=V(Z',u'_1,u'_2)$ (notations of proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\](3));
\(3) if ($E=\div(u_1)$, $\kappa(x)=4$, $\epsilon(y)\geq 2$), blow up along ${\cal Y}$ (proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\](2));
\(4) if ($E=\div(u_1u_2)$, $\omega(x)\geq p$), blow up along $D=(Z,u_1,u_2)$ (proposition \[\*\*gamma\], case 1);
\(5) if ($E=\div(u_1u_2)$, $\omega(x)< p$), blow up along $x$ (proposition \[\*\*gamma\], case 2).
We must prove that (A) this algorithm is well defined, i.e. $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{}, so it builds up a sequence (\[eq970\]), then (B) this sequence is finite.
Note that any $x$ fits into some of (1)-(5). To prove (A)(B), we recollect results from the previous propositions. By proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\], applying (2) produces $x_1$ satisfying again the assumptions of the lemma and fitting into (4) with $\kappa (x_1)=3$, $\gamma (x_1)=1$; applying (3) shows that $x$ is resolved.
We now turn to proposition \[\*\*gamma\]. Statement (i) shows that $x_1$ is resolved or satisfies again the assumptions of the lemma. The proof of (A) is thus complete and we turn to (B). Assume w.l.o.g. that $x$ neither satisfies (i) nor (ii). In particular $\gamma (x)\geq 1$. We first claim that there exists $r_0\geq 0$ such that $x_{r_0}$ is resolved or $$\label{eq971}
\gamma (x_r)=1 \ \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{all} \ r\geq r_0.$$ By proposition \[\*\*gamma\](i), we have $\gamma (x_1)\leq \gamma (x)$; by proposition \[\*\*gamma\](iii), inequality is strict if: $$E=\mathrm{div}(u_1), \ E_1=\mathrm{div}(u_{1,1}u_{2,1})$$ provided $\gamma (x)\geq 2$, $\beta (x)\neq 2$. In case $\beta (x)=2$, we obtain $C(x_1)\leq 1$. Then any further occurrence of $E_r=\mathrm{div}(u_{1,r})$ along the algorithm will satisfy $\beta (x_r)<2$ by proposition \[\*\*gamma\](ii)-(iv). Therefore it can be assumed that $E$ and $E_i$ have [*the same number*]{} of irreducible components for every $i\geq 0$ in order to prove (\[eq971\]) (note that we are done if (2) is applied).
If $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, we reach (i) or $k(x_i)=k(x)$ for $i>>0$ by proposition \[\*\*gamma\](iv). The claim follows from corollary \[permisarcthree\].
If $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, we get (\[eq971\]) by standard arguments on combinatorial blowing ups.
To conclude the proof, we may hence assume that ($E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, $\beta (x)=1$) or ($E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $C (x)<1$).
When ($E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, $\beta (x)=1$), this is stable by blowing up or yields $E_1=\mathrm{div}(u_{1,1}u_{2,1})$ (proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\](3) and proposition \[\*\*gamma\](iii)). Stability ends after finitely many steps by proposition \[\*\*gamma\](iv) and corollary \[permisarcthree\].
When ($E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$, $C (x)<1$), this is stable by blowing up or yields (i) (proposition \[\*\*gamma\](ii)). Stability ends up in (ii) for $r>>0$ by standard arguments on combinatorial blowing ups.
\[\*\*gammaegal1\] Assume that $x$ satisfies conditions (\*\*) and [**(E)’**]{} together with one of the following:
- $E=\div(u_1)$, $\beta(x)<1$;
- $E=\div(u_1u_2)$, $A_1(x)<1$, $C(x)<{1 \over 2}$, $\beta(x) <1-{1\over 1+\omega(x)}$;
- $E=\div(u_1u_2)$ and $C(x)=0$.
Then $x$ is resolved for $(p,\omega(x),3)$.
We assume that $(Z,u_1,u_2,v)$ is totally prepared. Let $$c(x):=(A_1(x),\beta(x))$$ with lexicographical ordering. First suppose that $$\label{eq980}
A_1(x)<1 \ \mathrm{and} \ (x \ \hbox{is in case (iii)} \Longrightarrow A_2(x) < 1).$$
If $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ and $\kappa (x)=3$, we blow up along $x$. Let $x'$ be a point $\omega$ near $x$. When $x'$ is the origin of a chart, by proposition \[\*\*gamma\](i)-(iii), $x'$ satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition with $c(x')<c(x)$. When $x'$ is in the first chart with $E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$, proposition \[\*\*gamma\](ii) gives $$A_1(x')=B(x)-1\leq A_1(x)+\beta(x)-1<A_1(x) \ \mathrm{and} \ \beta(x')<1.$$ In both cases, $x'$ satisfies again the assumptions of the proposition together with (\[eq980\]) and $c(x')<c(x)$.
If $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1u_2)$ and $\kappa (x)=4$, we let ${\cal Y}_j:=V(Z,v,u_j)$ with generic point $y_j$, $j=1,2$. The condition $\epsilon (y_j)\geq 2$ is equivalent to $A_j(x)>{1\over 1+\omega(x)}$. We apply proposition \[redto3\*\*casii\](1)(2): then $x$ is resolved except possibly if $A_j(x)\leq {1\over 1+\omega(x)}$, $j=1,2$. Then $$1-{1\over 1+\omega(x)} \leq B(x)\leq A_1(x)+\beta (x)<1.$$ We deduce that equality holds and that $\mathrm{VDir}(x)=<U_1,U_2>$. Since $\omega (x)\geq p\geq 2$, we obtain $\omega (x')<\omega (x)$ after blowing up along $x$, so $x$ is resolved.
If $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and $\kappa (x)=3$, we blow up along $x$. Note that $\beta (x)>0$ since $A_1(x)<1$. Let $$x':=(Z':={Z \over u_2} ,u'_1= {u_1 \over u_2},u_2,v'={v\over u_2})), \ E'=\div(u'_1u_2).$$ If $x_1\neq x'$, proposition \[\*\*gamma\](iv) gives $$A_1(x')=B(x)-1\leq A_1(x)+\beta(x)-1<A_1(x) \ \mathrm{and} \ \beta(x')\leq \beta (x).$$ Therefore $x_1$ satisfies again assumption (i) of the proposition together with (\[eq980\]) and $c(x')<c(x)$.
If $x_1=x'$, proposition \[\*\*gamma\](iii) gives $$A_1(x')= A_1(x),\ C(x')<{1 \over 2}, \ \beta(x')=\beta(x)+A_1(x)-1<\beta(x).$$ Therefore $x'$ satisfies again assumption (ii) of the proposition together with (\[eq980\]) and $c(x')<c(x)$.
If $E=\mathrm{div}(u_1)$ and $\kappa (x)=4$, $x$ is resolved by propositions \[redto3\*\*casii\](1)(2) and \[betapetitto3\*\].
Therefore the proposition holds by induction on $c(x)$ under the extra assumption (\[eq980\]).
Assume now that $x$ satisfies assumption (i) with $A_1(x)\geq 1$. In particular $\epsilon(x)=1+\omega(x)$ and $V\in \Vdir(x)$ by proposition \[kappa3instable\]. Furthermore, $$\label{eq981}
d_1+{1+\omega (x)\over p}>1.$$ We have $m(y)=m(x)$, $\epsilon(y)=\epsilon(x)$ where ${\cal Y}=V(Z,u_1,v)$ with generic point $y$, so ${\cal Y}$ is permissible of first kind. Let us blow up along ${\cal Y}$.
We are done by theorem \[bupthm\] if $\mathrm{Vdir}(x)=<V,U_1>$. Otherwise we have $A_1(x)>1$ or $\beta(x)>0$. Since $V\in \Vdir(x)$, the only point which may be $\omega$-near $x$ is the point $$\label{eq982}
x':=(Z',u'_1,u'_2,v')=(Z/u_1,u_1,u_2,v/u_1), \ E'=\mathrm{div}(u_1).$$ These are well adapted coordinates. If $A_1(x)>1$, we have $$\beta(x')=\beta(x),\ A_1(x')=A_1(x)-1>0,\ d'_1=d_1+{1+\omega(x)\over p}-1.$$ Then $x'$ satisfies again conditions (\*\*) and **(E)’** by (\[eq981\]). By induction on $A_1(x)$, we reduce to $A_1(x)=1$, since $A_1(x)<1$ is (\[eq980\]).
If $A_1(x)=1$, expand $$f_{p,Z}=u_1^{pd_1}(\gamma v^{1+\omega(x)}+\sum_{1\leq i \leq 1+\omega(x)} \gamma_i v^{1+\omega(x)-i}u_1^i u_2^{a_2(i)} +f_1),$$ with $f_1\in (v,u_1)^{2+\omega(x)}$, $\gamma \in S$ invertible, $\gamma_i\in S$ invertible or zero, $\gamma_{i_0}$ invertible for some $i_0$ with $a_2(i_0)=i_0\beta(x)<i_0$. We get $$f_{p,Z'}={u'_1}^{pd_1+1+\omega(x)-p}(\gamma {v'}^{1+\omega(x)}
+\sum_{1\leq i \leq 1+\omega(x)} \gamma_j {v'}^{1+\omega(x)-i} {u'_2}^{a_2(i)} +u'_1f'_1), \ f'_1\in S'.$$ Clearly $\iota(x')\leq (p,\omega(x),2)$ and $x$ is resolved for $(p,\omega(x),3)$.
There remains to prove the proposition in case (iii) with $A_i(x)\geq 1$, $i=1$ or $2$. See [@CoP1] **II.6.2** and **II.6.3** on pp. 1950-1951. The argument is similar to the one used in the proof of proposition \[contactmaxpetitgamma\](b)(c).
If ($\omega (x) \geq p$ and $A_1(x)\geq 1$), then ${\cal Y}:=(Z,u_1,v)$ is permissible of the first kind. Blowing up along ${\cal Y}$, the only point which may be $\omega$-near $x$ is the point $x'$ as in (\[eq982\]). We have $$A_1(x')=A_1(x)-1,\ A_2(x')=A_2(x'),\ C(x')=0, \ d'_1=d_1+{1+\omega(x) \over p}-1\geq 1.$$ Then $x'$ satisfies again conditions (\*\*) and **(E)’**. A descending induction on $\max \{A_1(x),A_2(x)\}$ reduces to $A_1(x),A_2(x)<1$ which is (\[eq980\]) and the proof is complete.
If $1+\omega(x)< p$, we argue by induction on $$c'(x):=(\max\{A_1(x),A_2(x)\},\max\{d_1,d_2\},n)$$ where $n:=2$ if $(A_1(x)=A_2(x),d_1=d_2)$, $n:=1$ otherwise.
Suppose that $A_1(x)\geq 1$, $d_1+{1+\omega(x) \over p}\geq 1$. Up to renumbering $u_1,u_2$, it can be assumed that $c'(x)=(A_1(x),d_1,n)$ or ($c'(x)=(A_2(x),d_2,1)$ with $d_2+{1+\omega(x) \over p}<1$. Blowing up along ${\cal Y}:=(Z,u_1,v)$, the only point which may be $\omega$-near $x$ is the point $x'$ as in (\[eq982\]). If $(m(x'),\omega (x'))=(p,\omega (x))$, $x'$ is in case (\*\*) and we have $$A_1(x')=A_1(x)-1, \ C(x')=0, \ d'_1=d_1+{1+\omega(x) \over p}-1 < d_1.$$ It is easily seen that $c'(x')<c'(x)$.
The remaining case: up to renumbering $u_1,u_2$, we have $$A_1(x)<1 \leq A_2(x), \ d_2+{1+\omega(x) \over p}<1 \leq d_1+{1+\omega(x) \over p}.$$ We then blow up along $x$. As case (i) is resolved, we have just to look at the origins of both charts. Let us look at the first chart, of origin the point $x'$ as above. If $(m(x'),\omega (x'))=(p,\omega (x))$, $x'$ is in case (\*\*) and we have $A_2(x')=A_2(x)$, $d'_2=d_2$ and $$A_1(x')=A_1(x)+A_2(x)-1<A_2(x), \ C(x')=0, \ d'_1=d_1+{1+\omega(x) \over p}-1 < d_1.$$ Therefore $c'(x')<c'(x)$. The last point to look at is the point $$x''=({Z\over u_2},{u_1\over u_2},{u_2},{v\over u_2}).$$ If $(m(x''),\omega (x''))=(p,\omega (x))$, $x''$ is in case (\*\*), and we have $A_1(x'')=A_1(x)$ and $$A_2(x'')=A_1(x)+A_2(x)-1<A_2(x), \ C(x'')=0.$$ Therefore $c'(x'')<c'(x)$. This concludes the proof.
[99]{}
, Local uniformization on algebraic surfaces over ground fields of characteristic $p\ne 0$, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**63**]{} (1956), 491-526.
, On the valuations centered in a domain, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**78**]{} (1956), 321-348.
, Ramification theoretic methods in algebraic geometry, [*Ann. of Math. Studies*]{} [**43**]{}, Princeton University Press (1959).
, Resolution of singularities of arithmetical surfaces, [*Arithmetical Algebraic Geometry (Proc. Conf. Purdue Univ., 1963)*]{}, Harper and Row (1965), 111-152.
, Resolution of singularities of embedded algebraic surfaces, second edition, [*Springer Monographs in Math.*]{}, Springer Verlag (1998).
, Smoothness, semistablility, and toroidal geometry, [*J. Alg. Geom.*]{} [**6**]{} (1997), 789-801.
, Monoidal transforms and invariants of singularities in positive characteristic, [*Compos. Math.*]{} [**149**]{} (2013), no. 8, 1267-1311.
, On elimination of variables in the study of singularities in positive characteristic, [*preprint*]{} arXiv:1103.3462, 1-35.
, Computing Hironaka’s invariants: ridge and directrix, [*in*]{} Arithmetic, geometry, cryptography and coding theory 2009, [*Contemp. Math.*]{} [**521**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence RI (2010), 9-20.
, Canonical desingularization in characteristic zero by blowing up the maximum strata of a local invariant, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**128**]{} (1997), 207-302.
, Singularities in positive characteristic, stratification and simplification of the singular locus, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**224**]{} (2010), 1349-1418.
, Desingularization strategies for three-dimensional vector fields, [*Lect. Notes in Math.*]{} [**1259**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1987).
, Reduction of the singularities of codimension one singular foliations in dimension three, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} (2) [**160**]{} (2004), no. 3, 907-1011.
, Reduction of singularities of three-dimensional line foliations, [*Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Math. RACSAM*]{} [**108**]{} (2014), no. 1, 221-258.
, Sur le polyèdre caractéristique d’une singularité, [*Bull. Soc. math. France*]{} [**103**]{} (1975), 13-19.
, Desingularization of embedded excellent surfaces, [*Tohoku Math. J.*]{}, II. Ser. [**33**]{} (1981), 25-33.
, Resolution of surface singularities, in [*Lect. Notes in Math.*]{} [**1101**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1984), 79-98.
, Forme normale d’une fonction sur un k-schéma de dimension 3 and de caractéristique positive, [*in*]{} Géométrie algébrique et applications, C. R. $2^{\hbox{\`eme}}$ Conf. int., La Rabida/Espagne 1984, I: Géométrie and calcul algébrique, [*Trav. Cours*]{} [**22**]{} (1987), 1-21.
, Polyèdre caractéristique d’une singularité, [*Thesis*]{}, Université de Paris-Sud, Centre d’Orsay (1987), 1-424.
, Polyèdre caractéristique et éclatements combinatoires, [*Rev. Mat. Iberoam.*]{} [**5**]{} No.1/2 (1989), 67-95.
, Contact maximal en caractéristique positive et petite multiplicité, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**63**]{} (1991), no.1, 57-64.
, Modèle projectif régulier et désingularisation, [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**293**]{} (1992), no.1, 115-122.
, Désingularisation en dimension 3 et caractéristique $p$, Proc. La Rabida. [*Progress in Math.*]{} [**134**]{}, Birkhauser (1996) 1-7.
, Uniformisation et désingularisation des surfaces, dédié à O. Zariski (Hauser, Lipman, Oort, Quiros Éd.), [*Progress in Math.*]{} [**181**]{}, Birkhauser (2000), 239-258.
, Canonical embedded and non-embedded resolution of singularities for excellent two-dimensional schemes, [*preprint*]{} arXiv:0905.2191 (2009), 1-169.
, Resolution of singularities of threefolds in positive characteristic I. Reduction to local uniformization on Artin-Schreier and purely inseparable coverings, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**320**]{} (2008), no. 3, 1051-1082.
, Resolution of singularities of threefolds in positive characteristic II, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**321**]{} (2009), no. 7, 1836-1976.
, Characteristic polyhedra of singularities without completion, [*Math. Ann.*]{} (2014), 1-11, DOI 10.1007/s00208-014-1064-0.
, Resolution of Singularities of Threefolds in Mixed Characteristics. Case of small multiplicity, [*Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Math. RACSAM*]{} [**108**]{} (2014), no. 1, 113-151.
, Resolution of singularities, [*Grad. Stud. in Math.*]{} [**63**]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2004).
, Toroidalization of dominant morphisms of 3-folds, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**190**]{} (2007).
, Resolution of singularities for 3-folds in positive characteristic, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**131**]{} (2009), no. 1, 59-127.
, A skeleton key to Abhyankar’s proof of embedded resolution of characteristic p surfaces, [*Asian J. Math.*]{} [**15**]{} (2011), no. 3, 369-416.
, A simpler proof of toroidalization of morphisms from 3-folds to surfaces, [*Ann. Inst. Fourier*]{} [*63*]{} (2013), no. 3, 865-922.
, Étude locale des singularités, Cours de $3^{\hbox{\`eme}}$ cycle, [*Publ. Math. d’Orsay*]{} [**26**]{}, Univ. Paris XI, Orsay (1972).
, Contact maximal en caractéristique positive, [*Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Sup.*]{} $4^{\hbox{\`eme}}$ série [**8**]{} (1975), no. 2, 201-234.
, Éléments de géométrie algébrique IV-2, [*Publ. Math. I.H.E.S.*]{} [**24**]{} (1965).
, Éléments de géométrie algébrique IV-4, [*Publ. Math. I.H.E.S.*]{} [**32**]{} (1967).
, Algebraic Geometry, [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{} [**52**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1977).
, Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero, [*Ann. of Math*]{} [**79**]{} (1964), 109-326.
, Desingularization of excellent surfaces, Advanced Science Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine (1967).
, Characteristic polyhedra of singularities, [*J. Math. Kyoto Univ.*]{} [**7**]{} 1967, no.3, 251-293.
, Additive groups associated with points of a projective space, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**92**]{} (1970), 327-334.
, Idealistic exponents of singularity, (J.J. Sylvester symposium, John Hopkins Univ., Baltimore 1976), John Hopkins Univ. Press (1977), 52-125.
, Theory of infinitely near singular points, [*J. Korean Math. Soc.*]{} [**40**]{} (2003), no.5, 901-920.
, Three key theorems on infinitely near singularities, Singularités Franco-Japonaises Paris 2005, in [*Sémin. Congr. SMF*]{} [**10**]{}, 87-126.
, Travaux de Gabber sur l’uniformisation locale et la cohomologie étale des schémas quasi-excellents. Seminaire a l’École Polytechnique 2006-2008, [*preprint*]{} arXiv:1207.3648 (2007), 1-416.
, Smoothness, semistability and Alterations, [*Publ. Math. I.H.E.S.*]{} [**83**]{} (1996), 51-93.
, Toward resolution of singularities over a field of positive characteristic I. Foundation; the language of the idealistic filtration, [*Publ. RIMS*]{} [**43**]{} (2007), no. 3, 819-909.
, Toward resolution of singularities over a field of positive characteristic (the idealistic filtration program) Part II. Basic invariants associated to the idealistic filtration and their properties, [*Publ. RIMS*]{} [**46**]{} (2010), no. 2, 359-422.
, Every place admits local uniformization in a finite extension of the function field, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**221**]{} (2009), 428-453.
, Desingularization of two-dimensional schemes, [*Ann. Math.*]{} [**107**]{} (1978), 151-207.
, Almost étale resolution of foliations, [*J. Diff. Geom.*]{} [**95**]{} (2013), no. 2, 279-319.
, Commutative ring theory, 3rd edition, [*Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics*]{} [**8**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press (1986).
, On a Newton polygon approach to the uniformization of singularities of characteristic $p$, [*in*]{} Algebraic geometry and singularities (La Rábida, 1991), [*Progr. Math.*]{} [**134**]{} (1996), Birkhäuser, 49-93.
, On the bound of $d_2$, [*Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Math. RACSAM*]{} [**108**]{} (2014), no. 1, 211-220.
, Reduction of Local Uniformization to the rank one case, [*preprint*]{} arXiv:1204.4751 (2012), 1-22.
, Resolution of singularities of real-analytic vector fields in dimension three, [*Acta Math.*]{} [**197**]{} (2006), no. 2, 167-289.
, An axiomatic version of Zariski’s patching theorem, [*Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Math. RACSAM*]{} [**107**]{} (2013), no. 1, 91-121.
, Sur la strate de Samuel du sommet d’un cne en caractŕistique positive, [*Bull. Sci. Math.*]{}(2) [**98**]{} (1974), no. 3, 173-182.
, Reduction of singularities of the differential equation $Ady=Bdx$, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**90**]{} (1968), 248-269.
, Valuations in function fields of surfaces, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**112**]{} (1990), 107-156.
, Valuations, Deformations and Toric Geometry, [*in*]{} Valuation theory and its applications, Vol. II (Saskatoon, SK, 1999), [*Fields Inst. Commun.*]{} [**33**]{} (2003), 361-459.
, Overweight deformations of affine toric varieties and local uniformization, [*preprint*]{} arXiv:1401.5204 (2014).
, Inseparable local uniformization, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**373**]{} (2013), 65-119.
, Patching local uniformizations, [*Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup.*]{} [**25**]{} (1992), no. 6, 629-677.
, Simple Hironaka resolution in characteristic zero, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**18**]{} (2005), no. 4, 779-822.
, Local uniformization of algebraic varieties, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**41**]{} (1940), 852-896.
, Reduction of the singularities of algebraic three dimensional varieties, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} [**45**]{} (1944), 472-542.
, The fundamental ideas of abstract algebraic geometry, [*Proc. Int. Congress Math.*]{} Vol. II (1950), 78-89, [*in*]{} Oscar Zariski: Collected Papers, Vol. 3, MIT Press (1978), 363-375.
, Commutative Algebra I, 2nd edition, [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{} [**28**]{}, Springer-Verlag (1979).
, Commutative Algebra II, Van Nostrand, Princeton (1960).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Given an action $\alpha$ of a discrete group on a unital $C^*$-algebra $A$, we introduce a natural concept of $\alpha$-negative definiteness for functions from $G$ to $A$, and examine some of the first consequences of such a notion. In particular, we prove analogs of theorems due to Delorme-Guichardet and Schoenberg in the classical case where $A$ is trivial. We also give a characterization of the Haagerup property for the action $\alpha$ when $G$ is countable.
0.9cm [**MSC 2010**]{}: 46L55, 43A50, 43A55.
[**Keywords**]{}: negative definite function, C$^*$-dynamical system, C$^*$-crossed product, equivariant action, one-cocycle, Schoenberg type theorem, semigroup of completely positive maps, Haagerup property for actions.
author:
- 'Erik Bédos, Roberto Conti\'
title: 'Negative definite functions for $C^*$-dynamical systems'
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{}
\[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{}
[H]{} Ł[[L]{}]{} Ø[[O]{}]{} ¶[[P]{}]{} §[[S]{}]{}
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Given a $C^*$-dynamical system $(A, G, \alpha)$, Anantharaman-Delaroche introduced in [@AD1] the concept of positive definiteness for $A$-valued continuous functions on $G$ relative to the action $\alpha$. She also explained how this notion could be used to characterize the amenability of actions of discrete groups on von Neumann algebras and on commutative $C^*$-algebras. More recently, it has been shown [@DoRu; @BeCo6] that any $\alpha$-positive definite function on $G$ taking values in the center of $A$ naturally induces a completely positive map both on the reduced and the full $C^*$-crossed products associated to a discrete unital system $(A, G, \alpha)$.
Parallel to the classical notion of positive definiteness for a complex function on a group, it has also been very fruitful to consider negative definite functions. (By negative definite we always mean the same as what is called conditionally negative definite, or conditionally of negative type, by some authors). Such functions play an important role in characterizing several properties of groups, such as the Haagerup property [@CCJJV] and property (T) [@HV; @BHV]. Somewhat surprisingly, a study of negative definite functions for $C^*$-dynamical systems so far has been missing in the literature. Our main goal in writing this paper is to start filling this gap by introducing and investigating the first basic concepts. In order to make this paper easily accessible, we stick to the case of a unital discrete $C^*$-dynamical system $(A, G, \alpha)$, but we do not see see any serious obstruction in extending most of our results to the general case almost [*mutatis mutandis*]{}.
We note that (conditionally) negative definiteness for real functions on locally compact groupoids were introduced by Tu in [@Tu99] (see also [@Ren10]). As for groups, his definition has a natural generalization to complex functions. In the case of the transformation groupoid associated to an action of a discrete group $G$ on a compact Hausdorff space $\Omega$, it is not difficult to deduce that our concept of negative definiteness for a function from $G$ to $C(\Omega)$ (relative to the induced action) is the same as the one obtained after transposing Tu’s definition. We also mention a very recent paper [@MM] of Moslehian where he considers conditionally positive kernels on sets with values in $C^*$-algebras. It should be noted that our definition of $\alpha$-negative definiteness may be formulated by using his terminology (see Remark \[mosle\]), but that there is otherwise little overlap between our paper and his.
Among our main results, we mention a Delorme-Guichardet type theorem (cf. Theorem \[cocyclerep\]), saying that a function $\psi$ on $G$ taking values in the positive cone of $A$ and vanishing on the identity of $G$ is $\alpha$-negative definite if and only if it can be represented in the form $\psi(g) = \langle c(g),c(g) \rangle$ for a symmetric one-cocycle $c$ relative to an $\alpha$-equivariant action of $G$ on a Hilbert $A$-module. We also obtain a natural generalization of the classical Schoenberg theorem, which provides a bridge between $\alpha$-positive and $\alpha$-negative definiteness for center-valued functions on $G$ (cf. Theorem \[schoenberg\]). As an application, we obtain a characterization of the Haagerup property for $\alpha$ when $G$ is countable (cf.’Theorem \[Haa-sp-prop\]). This notion was recently introduced by Dong and Ruan in [@DoRu].
We hope that the present work will provide useful tools in noncommutative harmonic analysis and potential theory, e.g., in the study of $C^*$-dynamical systems, of semigroups of completely positive maps, and of noncommutative Dirichlet forms. We discuss briefly a couple of examples of this sort, but we expect that other similar applications will appear soon. In a different direction, it might be interesting to enlarge our set up and study negative definiteness for functions from $G \times A$ into $A$ that are linear in the second variable, as we did for positive definiteness in [@BeCo6]. We plan to return to this in a subsequent work.
Preliminaries {#Preliminaries}
=============
Let $A$ be a $C^*$-algebra. We will denote the center of $A$ by $Z(A)$, the self-adjoint part of $A$ by $A_{\rm sa}$, the cone of positive elements in $A$ by $A^+$ and the $n\times n$ matrices over $A$ for some natural number $n$ by $M_n(A)$. By a Hilbert $A$-module we will mean a right Hilbert $C^*$-module over $A$, as defined for instance in [@La1].
We record here some lemmas that we will need in the sequel. The first one is proven in [@LN] (see Lemma 3.1 therein).
\[schur\] The Schur product of a positive matrix in $M_n(A)$ and a positive element in $M_n(Z(A))$ is still positive in $M_n(A)$.
\[transposed0\] Assume $B$ is a commutative $C^*$-algebra, $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and let $[b_{ij}]\in M_n(B)^+$. Then $[b^*_{ij}]\in M_n(B)^+$.
We may write $[b_{ij}]=C^*C$ for some $C=[c_{ij}]\in M_n(B)$. Consider $i,j \in \{1,\ldots, n\}$. Then we have $b_{ij} =\sum_{k=1}^n c_{ki}^* c_{kj}$. Since $B$ is commutative, we get $$b_{ij}^* = \sum_{k=1}^n c_{kj}^* c_{ki} = \sum_{k=1}^n (c^*_{ki})^* c_{kj}^*\,.$$ Thus, setting $D=[c^*_{ij}] \in M_n(B)$, we get $[b^*_{ij}] = D^*D \in M_n(B)^+$.
\[transposed\] Let $X$ be a Hilbert $A$-module and assume $x_1,\ldots, x_n\in X$ are such that $\langle x_i,x_j \rangle \in Z(A)$, for all $i,j=1,\ldots,n$. Then the transposed matrix $\big[\langle x_j,x_i \rangle\big]$ is positive in $M_n(Z(A))$.
It is well known (cf. [@La1 Lemma 4.2]) that the matrix $[\langle x_i,x_j \rangle]$ is positive in $M_n(A)$. Since this matrix lies in $M_n(Z(A))$ by assumption, it follows that $\big[\langle x_i,x_j \rangle\big] \in M_n(Z(A))^+$. Thus, using Lemma \[transposed0\], we get$$\big[\langle x_j,x_i \rangle\big] = \big[\,\langle x_i,x_j \rangle^*] \in M_n(Z(A))^+\,.$$
\[schurexp\] Assume $B$ is a commutative $C^*$-algebra. Let $\Gamma = [\gamma_{ij}] \in M_n(B)$ and let $e^{\circ \Gamma}:=[e^{\gamma_{ij}}] \in M_n(B)$ denote its Schur exponential. If $\Gamma$ is positive, then $e^{\circ \Gamma}$ is positive too.
It is well known that the assertion is true when $B = {\mathbb C}$. Realizing $B$ as the continuous functions on its Gelfand spectrum $\Omega$ and identifying $M_n(B)$ with $C_0(\Omega,M_n(\mathbb{C}))$ in the natural way, we have $$e^{\circ \Gamma}(\omega) = [e^{\gamma_{ij}}(\omega)] = [e^{\gamma_{ij}(\omega)}] = e^{\circ [\gamma_{ij}(\omega)]} = e^{\circ \Gamma(\omega)}$$ for all $\omega \in \Omega$. Assume now that $\Gamma \in M_n(B)^+$ and let $\omega\in \Omega$. Then we have $\Gamma(\omega) \in M_n(\mathbb{C})^+$, so we get $e^{\circ \Gamma}(\omega) = e^{\circ \Gamma(\omega)} \in M_n(\mathbb{C})^+$. This shows that $e^{\circ \Gamma} \in M_n(B)^+$.
Let $\alpha:G\to {\rm Aut}(A)$ denote an action of a (discrete) group $G$ on $A$. Following [@AD1; @AD2] we will say that a function $\varphi: G \to A\,$ is *$\alpha$-positive definite* if for any $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$, we have $$\Big[\alpha_{g_i}\Big(\varphi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\Big)\Big] \geq 0$$ in $M_n(A)$. In other words, for any $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$ and $a_1, \ldots, a_n \in A$, we have $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n a_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\varphi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)a_j \geq 0$$ in $A$. In the scalar case (i.e., $A = {\mathbb C}$), one recovers the classical notion of positive definiteness.
We recall from [@AD1 Proposition 2.4] that if $\varphi:G\to A$ is $\alpha$-positive definite, then for every $g\in G$ we have $$\label{pdh}
\alpha_g(\varphi(g^{-1})) = \varphi(g)^*\,.$$ Moreover, if $e$ denotes the identity of $G$, we have $$\label{pdh2}\varphi(e) \in A^+\,.$$ We will also need the following two results.
\[phistar\] Assume $\varphi: G\to Z(A)$ is $\alpha$-positive definite. Define $\varphi^*:G\to Z(A)$ by $\varphi^*(g) = \varphi(g)^*$ for each $g\in G$. Then $\varphi^*$ is $\alpha$-positive definite.
Let $g_1, \ldots, g_n \in G$. Then $\big[\alpha_{g_i}\big(\varphi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)\big] \in M_n(Z(A))^+$. Using Lemma \[transposed0\], we get $$\big[\alpha_{g_i}\big(\varphi^*(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)\big] =
\big[\alpha_{g_i}\big(\varphi(g_i^{-1}g_j)^*\big)\big] = \big[\alpha_{g_i}\big(\varphi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)^*\big] \in M_n(Z(A))^+\,.$$
\[posdefprod\] Assume $\varphi_1: G\to A$ and $\varphi_2: G\to Z(A)$ are both $\alpha$-positive definite. Then the pointwise product $\varphi_1\varphi_2$ from $G$ to $A$ is also $\alpha$-positive definite.
This follows from a straightforward application of Lemma \[schur\].
Negative definite functions relative to a $C^*$-dynamical system
================================================================
Since the concept of (conditionally) negative definiteness for complex functions on groups is useful in many contexts (see e.g. [@BCR; @CCJJV]), it is natural to investigate a notion of negative definiteness relative to $C^*$-dynamical systems. Throughout this paper, we let $\alpha:G\to {\rm Aut}(A)$ denote an action of a (discrete) group $G$ on a unital $C^*$-algebra $A$ and let $A^\alpha=\{a\in A\mid \alpha_g(a) = a \text{ for all } g\in G\}$ denote the fixed-point algebra of $A$ under $\alpha$. The identity element of $G$ will be denoted by $e$ and the unit of $A$ will be denoted by $1_A$.
The following definition is the natural generalization of the classical notion.
\[negdef\] We will say that a function $\psi: G \to A$ is *$\alpha$-negative definite* if $$\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1})) = \psi(g)^*$$ for all $g \in G$ and, for any $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in A$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$, we have $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j \leq 0$$ in $A$. We will say that an $\alpha$-negative definite function $\psi$ is *normalized* when $\psi(e) = 0$. Moreover, we will let ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ denote the set of all $\alpha$-negative definite functions and set ${{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}=\{ \psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}\mid \psi(e)=0\}$.
Clearly, ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ contains every constant function from $G$ to $A$ of the form $g\to t\, 1_A$ for some $t\in \mathbb{R}$. Also, it follows immediately that ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ is a cone (that is, the sum of $\alpha$-negative definite functions as well as any positive multiple of an $\alpha$-negative definite function are again $\alpha$-negative definite) and that ${{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$ is a subcone of ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$. Moreover, we have:
\[pointwise\] The cones ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ and ${{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$ are closed w.r.t. the pointwise norm-topology.
As ${{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$ is closed in ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ with respect to the pointwise norm-topology, it suffices to prove the assertion for ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$. Assume that $\{\psi_\beta\}$ is a net in ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ converging to some $\psi: G \to A$ w.r.t. the pointwise norm topology. Then for every $g \in G$ we have $$\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1})) = \lim_\beta \alpha_g(\psi_\beta(g^{-1})) = \lim_\beta \psi_\beta(g)^* = \psi(g)^*\,.$$ Moreover, let $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$ and let $b_1, \ldots, b_n \in A$ satisfy $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$. Then for every $\beta$ we have $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi_\beta(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j \leq 0\,,$$ so we get $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j
= \lim_\beta\Big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi_\beta(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j \Big) \leq 0$$ since $A^+$ is norm-closed in $A$. Thus $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$.
\[basicnegdef\] Let $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$. Then we have $\psi(e)^* = \alpha_e\big(\psi(e^{-1})\big) = \psi(e)\,,$ so $\psi(e) \in A_{\rm sa}$. Moreover, taking $n=2$, $g_1 = e$, $g_2 = g$, $b_1 = 1_A = -b_2$ in Definition \[negdef\], we get $$\psi(e) - \psi(g) - \alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1})) + \alpha_g(\psi(e))
= \psi(e) + \alpha_g(\psi(e)) - 2\, {\rm Re}\big( \psi(g)\big) \leq 0\,,$$ hence $${\rm Re}\big( \psi(g)\big) \geq \frac{1}{2}\big(\psi(e) + \alpha_g(\psi(e))\big)$$ for all $g \in G$. In particular, if $\psi(e) \geq 0$, then $\,{\rm Re} \big(\psi(g)\big) \in A^+$ for all $g \in G$.
Let $\psi:G\to A$ and define $\psi_0 : G \to A$ by $$\psi_0(g) = \psi(g) - \psi(e)\,$$ for every $g\in G$, so $\psi_0(e) = 0$. Assume that $\psi(e) \in A_{\rm sa} \cap A^\alpha$. We leave to the reader to verify that $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ if and and only if $\psi_0 \in {{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$.
\[oneminus\] Let $\varphi: G \to A$ be $\alpha$-positive definite. In particular, $\varphi(e) \in A_{\rm sa}$, cf. (\[pdh2\]). Assume that we also have $\varphi(e) \in A^\alpha$. Then the function $\psi: G\to A$ defined by $$\psi(g)= \varphi(e) - \varphi(g)$$ belongs to ${{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$.
Indeed, consider $g\in G$. Then, using (\[pdh\]), we have $$\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}))=\alpha_g\big(\varphi(e) - \varphi(g^{-1})\big) = \varphi(e) - \alpha_g(\varphi(g^{-1}))
= \varphi(e)^* - \varphi(g)^*=\psi(g)^*\,.$$ Moreover, for any $g_1,\ldots, g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in A$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$, we have $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j=\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i} \big(\varphi(e) - \varphi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big) b_j
= - \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i} \big(\varphi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big) b_j \leq 0 \,,$$ as desired.
\[gamma\] Let $\psi:G\to A$ and define $\gamma:G\times G \to A$ by $$\label{kernel}
\gamma(g,h) =
\psi(g)^* + \psi(h) -\psi(e) - \alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}h))$$ for all $g,h \in G$. Then the following two assertions are equivalent:
- $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)};$
- For every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$, the matrix $[\gamma(g_i,g_j)]$ is positive in $M_n(A)$.
Suppose that $\psi \in ND(\alpha)$ and let $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$, $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in A$. Set $b_0 = - \sum_{i=1}^n b_i$ and $g_0 = e$. Then $\sum_{i=0}^n b_i = 0$, so we get $$\sum_{i,j=0}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big) b_j \leq 0 \,.$$ This gives that $$b_0^*\,\psi(e)\,b_0\,-\Big(\sum_{i=1}^n b_i^*\Big) \sum_{j=1}^n \psi(g_j) b_j\, - \sum_{i=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1})\big) \Big(\sum_{j=1}^n b_j\Big)
+ \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j \leq 0 \,.$$ As $b_0^*\,\psi(e)\,b_0= \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^*\,\psi(e)\,b_j$ and $\alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1})\big) = \psi(g_i)^*$ for every $i$, this gives that $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^*\gamma(g_i, g_j)b_j=-\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \Big( \psi(e) -\psi(g_j) - \psi(g_i)^* + \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big) \Big) b_j \, \geq 0 \,.$$ Thus we have shown that $(ii)$ holds.
Conversely, suppose that $(ii)$ is true. Note first that $\gamma(e,e) = \psi(e)^* -\psi(e) $. Since $\gamma(e, e)\in A^+$, we get that $\gamma(e,e) = \gamma(e,e)^* = \psi(e)-\psi(e)^* = -\gamma(e,e)$, so $\gamma(e,e) = 0$, hence $\psi(e)^*=\psi(e)$. Let now $g\in G$. Note that $\gamma(g,e) =
\psi(g)^*-\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}))$, while $\gamma(e,g) =
\psi(e)^*+\psi(g)-\psi(e) -\psi(g)=\psi(e)^*-\psi(e)= 0$. Since $$\left[\begin{array}{cc} \gamma(e,e) &\gamma(e,g)\\ \gamma(g,e) &\gamma(g,g)\end{array}\right] \in M_2(A)^+$$ we have $\gamma(e,g)^*= \gamma(g,e)$. Thus, we get $\psi(g)^*-\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}))
=\gamma(g,e) = \gamma(e,g)^*= 0$, that is, $\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1})) = \psi(g)^*$.
Next, consider $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in A$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j=1}^n & b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j\\
& = \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j
-\Big(\sum_{i=1}^n b_i\Big)^* \sum_{j=1}^n \psi(g_j) b_j
- \sum_{i=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}(\psi(g_i^{-1})) \Big(\sum_{j=1}^n b_j\Big)\\
&=-\Big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^*\gamma(g_i, g_j)b_j\Big)\leq 0\,,
\quad \text{since} \big[\gamma(g_i,g_j)\big] \in M_n(A)^+\,. \end{aligned}$$ Thus $\psi \in ND(\alpha)$, as desired.
\[mosle\] In a very recent work [@MM], Moslehian studies positive and conditionally positive kernels on sets with values in $C^*$-algebras. One easily sees that a function $\psi : G\to A$ is $\alpha$-negative definite in our sense if and only if the kernel from $G\times G$ into $A$ given by $ K(g,h) = -\,\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}h))$ is Hermitian and conditionally positive as defined in [@MM]. Proposition \[gamma\], which says that $\psi$ is $\alpha$-negative definite if and only if the kernel $\gamma$ is positive, may then be deduced from [@MM Theorem 2.4]. We have included a self-contained proof of Proposition \[gamma\] for the ease of the reader. There is otherwise very little overlap between our paper and [@MM].
\[scalarnegdef\] Let $f: G \to {\mathbb C}$ and consider $\widetilde{f}: G \to A$ defined by $\widetilde{f}(g) = f(g)\,1_A$. If the function $\widetilde{f}$ is $\alpha$-negative definite, then it is immediate that $f$ is negative definite. Conversely, if $f$ is negative definite, then the kernel $$F(g,h):=\overline{f(g)} + f(h) - f(e) + f(g^{-1}h) \in \mathbb{C}$$ on $G\times G$ is positive (cf. Proposition \[gamma\]). But this implies that the kernel $\widetilde{F}(g, h) := F(g,h)\,1_A \in A$ is positive, and Proposition \[gamma\] gives now that $\widetilde{f}$ is $\alpha$-negative definite.
We will let $\alpha'$ denote the action of $G$ on $Z(A)$ obtained by restricting each $\alpha_g$ to $Z(A)$. If $\psi \in {\rm ND}(\alpha)$ is $Z(A)$-valued, then obviously $\psi \in {\rm ND}(\alpha')$. Conversely, assume that $\psi \in {\rm ND}(\alpha')$. Then $\psi$ is $Z(A)$-valued, and $\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1})) = \alpha'_g(\psi(g^{-1})) = \psi(g)^*$ for every $g \in G$. Moreover, let $\gamma$ be defined as in (\[kernel\]). Of course, we also have $$\gamma(g,h) =
\psi(g)^* + \psi(h)
-\psi(e) - \alpha'_g(\psi(g^{-1}h))$$ for all $g, h \in G$. Now, consider $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$. Using Proposition \[gamma\] (with $\alpha'$ instead of $\alpha$), we get that $\Gamma:=\big[\gamma(g_i,g_j)\big] \in M_n(Z(A))^+$, and this implies that $\Gamma \in M_n(A)^+$. Proposition \[gamma\] (now with $\alpha$) gives that $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$. This means that we have:
\[normalized\] One has ${\rm ND}(\alpha') = \big\{\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}\ | \ \psi
\ \text{is
$Z(A)$-valued}\big\}.$
Assume that there exists a conditional expectation $E : A \to Z(A)$ satisfying $\alpha'\circ E = E\circ \alpha$. Then the map $\psi \to E\circ \psi$ gives a surjection from ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ onto ${\rm ND}(\alpha')$. This follows readily from the fact that a conditional expectation is completely positive (cf. [@BrOz]). Similarly, if there exists a state $\omega$ on $A$ which is $\alpha$-invariant, then the map $\psi \to \omega \circ \psi$ gives a surjection from ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ onto ${\rm ND}(G)$, the complex negative definite functions on $G$.
We also record the following:
\[commut\] If $\psi \in {\rm ND}(\alpha')$, then ${\rm Re}\, \psi \in {\rm ND}(\alpha')$. If, in addition, $\psi$ is normalized, then ${\rm Re}\, \psi$ is $Z(A)^+$-valued.
We may assume that $A$ is commutative and $\alpha'=\alpha$. So consider $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$. We have to show that ${\rm Re}\, \psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$.
One readily verifies that for each $g\in G$ we have $\alpha_g\big(({\rm Re}\, \psi)(g^{-1})\big) =
({\rm Re}\, \psi)(g)^*$. Next, consider $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in A$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$. Then $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^*\, \alpha_{g_i}\big(({\rm Re}\, \psi)(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)\,b_j
=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i} \big( \psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i} \big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)^*\big)b_j$$ Since the first term on the right hand-side of this equality is negative, it suffices to show that the second term is also negative. Now, using that $A$ is commutative, we have $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i} \big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)^*\big)b_j =
\sum_{i,j=1}^n \big(b_j^* \alpha_{g_i} \big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_i\big)^*
=\Big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n (b_i^*)^* \alpha_{g_i} \big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j^*\Big)^*$$ which is negative since $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i^* = 0$ and $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$. Thus, ${\rm Re}\, \psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$.
Finally, if $\psi \in {{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$, then Remark \[basicnegdef\] gives that ${\rm Re}\, \psi$ is $A^+$-valued.
In general, we do not know whether ${\rm Re}\, \psi$ belongs to ${{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ whenever $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$.
Let $\psi\in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ and assume $\psi$ takes its values in $A^+$ (or in $Z(A)^+$). When $A = \mathbb{C}$, it is known that $\psi^{1/2}$ (or, more generally, $\psi^\beta$ with $0 < \beta < 1$) is still $\alpha$-negative definite, see for example [@BCR Corollary 2.10]. One might wonder whether this holds in general. The first condition for $\alpha$-negative definitess of $\psi^{1/2}$ is satisfied since for every $g\in G$ we have $\alpha_g(\psi^{1/2}(g^{-1})) =\alpha_g((\psi(g^{-1}))^{1/2})= \big(\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}))\big)^{1/2} =\psi(g)^{1/2} = \psi^{1/2}(g)$. However, it is not obvious how to proceed to handle the second condition.
It is now time to introduce a natural class of normalized $\alpha$-negative definite functions related to $\alpha$-equivariant actions of $G$ on Hilbert $A$-modules and one-cocycles for such actions, much in the same way as normalized complex negative definite functions on $G$ are related to unitary representations of $G$ on Hilbert spaces and their associated one-cocycles. We recall from [@AD1] (see also [@Com]) that an [*$\alpha$-equivariant action*]{} $u$ of $G$ on a Hilbert $A$-module $X$ is a homomorphism $u: g\mapsto u_g$ from $G$ into the group $\mathcal{I}(X)$ of bijective $\mathbb{C}$-linear isometries from $X$ into itself, satisfying:
- $\alpha_g\big(\langle x, y\rangle\big) = \langle u_g x, u_g y\rangle$,
- $u_g (x\cdot a) = (u_g x)\cdot \alpha_g(a)$,
for all $g\in G, \,x,y\in X$, and $a \in A$.
We will say that $x \in X$ is $u$-[*symmetric*]{} if $\langle x, u_g x \rangle \in A_{\rm sa} $ for all $g \in G$, and that it is $u$-[*central*]{} if $\langle x, u_g x \rangle \in Z(A) $ for all $g\in G$.
It follows easily by using property (i) of $u$ that $x\in X$ is $u$-symmetric (resp. $u$-central) if and only if $\langle u_g x, u_h x \rangle$ belongs to $ A_{\rm sa} $ (resp. $Z(A)$) for all $g, h \in G$.
Let $x \in X$ be $u$-symmetric (resp. $u$-central) and let $\psi: G \to A^+$ (resp. $Z(A)^+$) be defined by $$\psi(g) = \langle u_g x - x, u_g x - x \rangle\,.$$ Then $\psi \in {{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$. Indeed, it is clear that $\psi(e) = 0$, and for every $g\in G$ we have $$\alpha_g\big(\psi(g^{-1}\big)= \alpha_g \big(\langle u_{g^{-1}} x - x, u_{g^{-1}} x - x \rangle\big)
= \langle x - u_g x, x - u_g x \rangle = \psi(g) = \psi(g)^*\,.$$ Moreover, for any $g_1,\ldots, g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in A$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j) \big) b_j
&=\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\langle u_{g_i^{-1}g_j}x - x,u_{g_i^{-1}g_j}x - x \rangle \big) b_j \\
&= \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \langle u_{g_j}x - u_{g_i}x,u_{g_j}x - u_{g_i}x \rangle b_j \\
& = \Big(\sum_{i=1}^n b_i^* \Big) \Big(\sum_{j=1}^n \langle u_{g_j}x,u_{g_j}x \rangle b_j \Big)
- \Big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \langle u_{g_j}x,u_{g_i}x \rangle b_j \Big) \\
& \quad - \Big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \langle u_{g_i}x,u_{g_j}x \rangle b_j \Big)
+ \Big(\sum_{i=1}^n b_i^* \langle u_{g_i}x,u_{g_i}x \rangle \Big) \Big(\sum_{j=1}^n b_j \Big) \\
& = - \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \langle u_{g_j}x,u_{g_i}x \rangle b_j
- \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \langle u_{g_i}x,u_{g_j}x \rangle b_j \,. \end{aligned}$$ The last expression can be seen to be negative without too much difficulty. As we will show this in the proof of Proposition \[cocyclenegdef\] in a more general case, we skip the argument.
We notice that a $u$-symmetric (resp. $u$-central) vector $x$ gives rise to a symmetric (resp. central) one-cocycle $c : G\to X$ (w.r.t. $u$), as defined below, by setting $c(g) = u_g x - x$ for each $g \in G$.
A map $c: G \to X$ will be called a *one-cocycle* $($w.r.t. $u$$)$ if it satisfies that $$c(gh) = c(g) + u_g(c(h))\,,\quad \text{for all}\ g,h \in G \,.$$ Moreover, such a one-cocycle $c$ will be called
- *symmetric* if $\langle c(g),c(h) \rangle \in A_{\rm sa}$ for all $g,h \in G$, or, equivalently, if\
$$\langle c(g),c(h) \rangle = \langle c(h),c(g) \rangle \quad \text{ for all } \ g,h \in G\,;$$
- *central* if $\langle c(g),c(h) \rangle \in Z(A)$ for all $g,h \in G$.
One-cocycles (wr.r.t. $u$) of the form $c(g) = u_g x - x $ should be thought of as coboundaries.
Assume that $c:G\to X$ is a one-cocycle (w.r.t. $u$). For each $g \in G$ one may define a bijective affine map $a_g: X \to X$ by $$a_g x = u_g x + c(g)\,.$$ Then each $a_g$ is isometric in the sense that $\|a_g x - a_g y \| = \|x - y\|$ for all $x,y \in X$, and one easily checks that $a_{gh} = a_g \,a_h$ for all $g,h \in G$. Hence $g \mapsto a_g$ is a homomorphism from $G$ into the group of affine isometric bijections from $X$ into itself.
\[cocyclenegdef\] Let $c: G \to X$ be a one-cocycle $($w.r.t. $u$$)$ and suppose that $c$ is symmetric $($resp. central$)$. Let $\psi:G\to A^+$ $($resp. $Z(A)^+$$)$ be defined for each $g\in G$ by $$\psi(g) = \langle c(g),c(g) \rangle\,.$$ Then $\psi \in {{\rm ND}_0(\alpha)}$.
One has $c(g) = c(ge) = c(g) + u_g(c(e))$, thus $c(e) = 0$ and it follows at once that $\psi(e) = 0$. Now, $0 = c(e) = c(g^{-1}g) = c(g^{-1}) + u_{g^{-1}}(c(g))$, that is $c(g^{-1}) = - u_{g^{-1}}(c(g))$ and therefore $$\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1})) = \alpha_g \big(\langle c(g^{-1}),c(g^{-1}) \rangle\big) = \langle u_g(c(g^{-1})),u_g(c(g^{-1})) \rangle
= \langle c(g), c(g) \rangle = \psi(g)=\psi(g)^*$$ for every $g \in G$. Now, for $g,h \in G$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c(g^{-1}h), c(g^{-1}h) \rangle
& = \big\langle c(g^{-1}) + u_{g^{-1}}(c(h)), c(g^{-1}) + u_{g^{-1}}(c(h)) \big\rangle \\
& =\big\langle u_{g^{-1}}(c(h) - c(g)), u_{g^{-1}}(c(h)-c(g)) \big\rangle \,,\end{aligned}$$ so we get $$\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}h)) = \alpha_g \big(\langle c(g^{-1}h), c(g^{-1}h) \rangle \big) = \langle c(h) - c(g),c(h)-c(g) \rangle \,.$$ Hence, for any given $g_1,\ldots, g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in A$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$, we have $$\sum_{i,j = 1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j) \big) b_j
= \sum_{i,j = 1}^n b_i^* \big\langle c(g_j) - c(g_i), c(g_j) - c(g_i) \big\rangle b_j\, .$$ The last sum above is negative if $c$ is symmetric or central. Indeed, if $c$ is symmetric, then $$\sum_{i,j = 1}^n b_i^* \big\langle c(g_j) - c(g_i), c(g_j) - c(g_i) \big\rangle b_j
= - 2 \sum_{i,j=1}^n b^*_i \langle c(g_i), c(g_j) \rangle b_j \,,$$ which is negative since the matrix $[\langle c(g_i), c(g_j) \rangle]$ is positive (cf. [@La1]). If $c$ is central, then $$\sum_{i,j = 1}^n b_i^* \big\langle c(g_j) - c(g_i), c(g_j) - c(g_i) \big\rangle b_j
= - \sum_{i,j=1}^n b^*_i \langle c(g_i), c(g_j) \rangle b_j - \sum_{i,j=1}^n b^*_i b_j \langle c(g_j), c(g_i) \rangle$$ which is seen to be negative by using Lemma \[schur\] and Lemma \[transposed\].
A well known result of Delorme and Guichardet [@Del; @Gui] says that any normalized negative definite function $f: G \to {\mathbb R}^+$ can be written in the form $f(s) = \|c(s)\|^2$ for a suitable unitary representation $\pi$ of $G$ on a Hilbert space $H$ and a one-cocycle $c$ for $\pi$, i.e., a map $c: G \to H$ satisfying $c(gh) = c(g) + \pi_g\big(c(h)\big)$ for all $g,h \in G$. In our context, as a converse to Proposition \[cocyclenegdef\], we have the following analogous result:
\[cocyclerep\] Let $\psi: G \to A^+$ be a normalized $\alpha$-negative definite function. Then there exists a Hilbert $A$-module $X$, an $\alpha$-equivariant action $u$ of $G$ on $X$ and a symmetric one-cocycle $c: G \to X$ $($w.r.t. $u$$)$ such that $$\psi(g) = \langle c(g),c(g) \rangle$$ for all $g \in G$. Moreover, the $A$-submodule of $X$ generated by the $c(g)$’s is dense in $X$. Finally, if $\psi$ takes values in $Z(A)^+$, then $c$ is also central.
For every $(g,h) \in G\times G$, we set $$\gamma(g,h) = \frac{1}{2} \Big(\psi(g) + \psi(h) - \alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}h))\Big) \in A_{\rm sa}\,.$$ Note that since $\psi(e) = 0$, this agrees with the expression for $\gamma(g,h)$ given in (\[kernel\]), except for the normalization factor $1/2$. Since $\psi$ is $\alpha$-negative definite, we have that $\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}h)) = \alpha_h\big(\alpha_{h^{-1}g}(\psi((h^{-1}g)^{-1}))\big)= \alpha_h(\psi(h^{-1}g))$ and it readily follows from this equality that $\gamma(g,h) = \gamma(h,g)$ for all $g,h \in G$. Moreover, according to Proposition \[gamma\], we have $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \gamma(g_i,g_j) b_j \geq 0$$ for all $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots, b_n \in A$.
Let now $X_0 := C_c(G,A)$ denote the space of all $A$-valued, finitely supported functions on $G$. We can then define a right action of $A$ on $X_0$ by $(f \cdot a)(g) = f(g)a$ for every $f \in X_0$ and every $a \in A$, and an $A$-valued semi-inner product on $X_0$ by $$\langle f_1, f_2 \rangle_0 := \sum_{g,h \in G} f_1(g)^* \gamma(g,h) f_2(h) \,.$$ As usual, setting $N = \{f \in X_0 \ | \ \langle f, f \rangle_0 = 0\}$ and defining $$\langle f_1 + N, f_2 +N \rangle := \langle f_1, f_2 \rangle_0 \,,$$ $X_0 / N$ becomes an inner product $A$-module. We let $X$ be its Hilbert $A$-module completion and identify $X_0/N$ with its canonical image in $X$.
Next, we define $c: G \to X$ by $$c(g) := (\delta_g \odot 1_A) + N \quad \text{for each } g \in G \,,$$ where $\delta_g \odot 1_A$ denotes the function in $X_0$ which takes the value $1_A$ at $g$ and is zero otherwise. Then we clearly have that $X_0/N = {\rm Span}\big\{c(g) \cdot a \ | \ g \in G, a \in A \big\}$, so the $A$-submodule of $X$ generated by the $c(g)$’s is dense in $X$. We also note that $$\label{cgamma}
\langle c(g),c(h) \rangle = \langle \delta_g \odot 1_A, \delta_h \odot 1_A \rangle_0 = \gamma(g,h)$$ for all $g,h \in G$, which immediately yields that $c$ is symmetric. This also gives that $\langle c(e),c(e)\rangle = \gamma(e,e) = \psi(e)/2 =0$, so that $c(e) = 0$. Moreover, using (\[cgamma\]), we get that for all $g,h,h' \in G$, $$\begin{aligned}
\big\langle c(gh) - c(g) &, c(gh') - c(g) \big\rangle = \gamma(gh,gh') - \gamma(gh,g) - \gamma(g,gh') + \gamma(g,g) \\
& = \frac{1}{2}\Big[ \psi(gh) + \psi(gh') - \alpha_{gh}(\psi((gh)^{-1}gh')) - \psi(gh) - \psi(g)
+ \alpha_{gh}(\psi((gh)^{-1}g)) \\
& \quad \quad - \psi(g) - \psi(gh') + \alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}gh')) + 2\, \psi(g)\Big] \\
& = \frac{1}{2}\, \alpha_g\Big( - \alpha_h(\psi(h^{-1}h')) + \alpha_h(\psi(h^{-1})) + \psi(h')\Big) = \alpha_g\big(\gamma(h,h') \big)\\
& = \alpha_g\Big(\big\langle c(h),c(h') \big\rangle \Big) \,. \end{aligned}$$ Consider now $g,g_1,\ldots,g_n,g'_1,\ldots,g'_m \in G$, $a_1,\ldots,a_n, a'_1,\ldots,a'_m \in A$, and $$F = \sum_{i=1}^n c(g_i) \cdot a_i\,, \quad F' = \sum_{j=1}^m c(g'_j) \cdot a'_j \,,$$ $$U = \sum_{i=1}^n \big(c(gg_i) - c(g)\big)\cdot \alpha_g(a_i)\,, \quad U' = \sum_{j=1}^m \big(c(gg'_j) - c(g)\big)\cdot \alpha_g(a'_j)$$ in $X_0/N$. Then, using our previous observation, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle U , U' \rangle & = \sum_{i,j} \big\langle (c(gg_i)-c(g)) \cdot \alpha_g(a_i), (c(gg'_j)-c(g))\cdot \alpha_g(a'_j) \big\rangle \\
& = \sum_{i,j} \alpha_g(a_i)^* \big\langle c(gg_i)-c(g), c(gg'_j)-c(g)\big\rangle \alpha_g(a'_j) \\
& = \sum_{i,j} \alpha_g(a_i)^* \, \alpha_g \big(\langle c(g_i), c(g'_j)\rangle\big) \, \alpha_g(a'_j) \\
& = \alpha_g\Big(\sum_{i,j} \langle c(g_i) \cdot a_i, c(g'_j) \cdot a'_j \rangle \Big) \\
& = \alpha_g(\langle F, F' \rangle) \ .
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\|U\| = \| \langle U,U \rangle \|^{1/2}_A = \| \alpha_g(\langle F,F \rangle) \|^{1/2}_A = \|\langle F,F \rangle \|^{1/2}_A = \|F\|$.
As $X_0/N = {\rm Span}\big\{c(g) \cdot a \ | \ g \in G, a \in A \big\}$, we see that, for each $g \in G$, the map $u_g: X_0/N \to X_0/N$ given by $$u_g \Big(\sum_{i=1}^n c(g_i) \cdot a_i\Big) = \sum_{i=1}^n \big(c(gg_i) - c(g) \big) \cdot \alpha_g(a_i)$$ is well-defined, isometric and satisfies $\langle u_g F, u_g F' \rangle = \alpha_g\big(\langle F,F' \rangle\big)$ for all $F,F' \in X_0/N$. It therefore extends to an isometry on $X$, that we also denote by $u_g$, satisfying $$\langle u_g x,u_g y \rangle = \alpha_g(\langle x,y\rangle)$$ for all $x,y \in X$ (by continuity). For $F$ as above and $a \in A$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
u_g(F \cdot a) & = u_g\Big(\sum_{i=1}^n c(g_i) \cdot (a_i a)\Big) \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^n \big(c(gg_i) - c(g)\big) \cdot \alpha_g(a_i a) = (u_g F) \cdot \alpha_g(a) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $u_g(x \cdot a) = u_g(x) \cdot \alpha_g(a)$ for all $x \in X$ and $a \in A$ (by continuity).
Consider now $g,h \in G$. For every $k \in G$ and $a \in A$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(u_g u_h)(c(k) \cdot a) & = u_g\big((c(hk)-c(h)) \cdot \alpha_h(a) \big) \\
& = \big(c(ghk) - c(g)\big) \cdot \alpha_g(\alpha_h(a)) - \big(c(gh)-c(g)\big) \alpha_g(\alpha_h(a)) \\
& = (c(ghk) - c(gh)) \cdot \alpha_{gh}(a) = u_{gh}(c(k) \cdot a) \,. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, by linearity, density and continuity, we get that $u_g u_h = u_{gh}$. In particular, $$u_g u_{g^{-1}} = u_{g^{-1}} u_g = u_e = {\rm id}_X$$ (since $u_e(c(k) \cdot a) = (c(k) - c(e)) \cdot a = c(k) \cdot a$, as $c(e)=0$). Hence each $u_g$ is invertible.
Altogether, we have shown that $u: g \mapsto u_g$ is an $\alpha$-equivariant action of $G$ on $X$.
Finally, by the definition of $u$, for all $g,h \in G$, we have $$u_g(c(h)) = \big(c(gh)-c(g)\big) \cdot \alpha_g(1_A) = c(gh)-c(g)\,.$$ So $c$ is a symmetric one-cocycle (w.r.t. $u$). Since $\langle c(g),c(g) \rangle = \gamma(g,g) = \psi(g)$ for all $g \in G$, we are done with the first two assertions of the theorem.
If $\psi$ is assumed to be $Z(A)^+$-valued, then we see from (\[cgamma\]) that $\langle c(g), c(h)\rangle$ belongs to $Z(A)$ for all $g,h\in G$, i.e., $c$ is central.
Theorem \[cocyclerep\] may probably be generalized to give a representation of any $\alpha$-negative definite function (see [@Del; @Gui] for the classical case). However, for the time being we leave this as an open problem.
The triple $(X,u,c)$ associated to $\psi$ in the previous theorem is unique in the following sense. If $X'$ is another Hilbert $A$-module, equipped with an $\alpha$-equivariant action $u'$ of $G$ and a symmetric one-cocycle $c': G \to X'$ (w.r.t. $u'$) such that $\psi(g) = \langle c'(g),c'(g) \rangle'$ for all $g \in G$ and the $A$-submodule of $X'$ generated by the $c'(g)$’s is dense in $X'$, then there exists a unitary operator $V$ from $X$ to $X'$ satisfying $V u_g V^* = u'_g$ and $Vc(g) = c'(g)$ for all $g \in G$.
To see this, the main observation is that we have $\langle c(g),c(h) \rangle = \langle c'(g),c'(h) \rangle'$ for all $g,h \in G$; indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
2 \langle c(g),c(h) \rangle & = \psi(g) + \psi(h) - \alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}h)) \\
& = \langle c'(g),c'(g) \rangle' + \langle c'(h),c'(h) \rangle' - \langle u'_g(c'(g^{-1}h)), u'_g(c'(g^{-1}h)) \rangle' \\
& = \langle c'(g),c'(g) \rangle' + \langle c'(h),c'(h) \rangle' - \langle c'(h) - c'(g), c'(h) - c'(g) \rangle' \\
& = \langle c'(h),c'(g) \rangle' + \langle c'(g),c'(h) \rangle' \\
& = 2 \langle c'(g),c'(h) \rangle \,. \end{aligned}$$ It is then easy to check that the map $V: X \to X'$ determined by $$V \Big(\sum_i c(g_i) \cdot a_i \Big) = \sum_i c'(g_i) \cdot a_i, \quad g_i \in G, a_i \in A$$ will do the job.
It follows readily from Proposition \[cocyclenegdef\] and Theorem \[cocyclerep\] that the cone of $A^+$-valued normalized $\alpha$-negative definite coincides with the set of functions of the form $g\mapsto \langle c(g), c(g)\rangle$ where $c$ ranges over all symmetric one-cocycles (with respect to $\alpha$-equivariant actions of $G$). Similarly, the subcone of $Z(A)^+$-valued normalized $\alpha$-negative definite coincides with the set of functions of the form $g\mapsto \langle c(g), c(g)\rangle$ where $c$ ranges either over all symmetric and central one-cocycles, or over all central one-cocycles (with respect to $\alpha$-equivariant actions of $G$).
Consider a function $\psi: G \to A^+$ given by $\psi(g) = \langle c(g),c(g) \rangle$ for some $\alpha$-equivariant action $u$ of $G$ on Hilbert $A$-module $X$ and a one-cocycle $c: G \to X$ (w.r.t. $u$). Such a function will satisfy the first requirement, but not necessarily the second, in the definition of $\alpha$-negative definiteness. Instead of the second requirement, it will satisfy $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)\big)b_j \leq 0$$ for any $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_n \in Z(A)$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$. It might be worth to have a closer look at this class of functions in the future.
A well known consequence of Schoenberg’s theorem (see e.g. [@BCR; @BHV]) is that a function $\psi: G \to {\mathbb C}$ is negative definite if and only if the function $\varphi_t:=e^{-t\psi}$ is positive definite for all $t > 0$. We now proceed to show that a version of this result continues to hold in our generalized setting, at least for central-valued functions.
\[schoenberg\] Let $\psi: G \to A$ and consider the following two claims:
- $\psi$ is $\alpha$-negative definite;
- $e^{-t \psi}$ is $\alpha$-positive definite for all $t > 0$.
Then $(ii)$ implies $(i)$.\
Moreover, suppose that $\psi$ is $Z(A)$-valued Then $(i)$ implies $(ii)$. Thus, in this case, the two claims above are equivalent.
Assume that $(ii)$ holds. Let $g\in G$. From [@AD1 Proposition 2.4] we get that $$\alpha_g\big(e^{-t\psi(g^{-1})}\big) = \big(e^{-t\psi(g)}\big)^*\,,$$ hence $$e^{-t\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1}))} = e^{-t\psi(g)^*}$$ for all $t > 0$. Then [@DS Theorem VIII.1.2] gives that $$\label{first}
\alpha_g(\psi(g^{-1})) = \psi(g)^*\,.$$ Next, suppose $g_1, \ldots, g_n \in G$, $b_1, \ldots, b_n \in A$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n b_i = 0$ and let $\omega$ be a state on $A$. By assumption, the scalar-valued function $${\mathbb R} \ni t \mapsto \omega\Big(
\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(e^{-t\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)}\big) b_j
\Big)$$ is non-negative for $t>0$ and vanishes at $t=0$. Thus its right-derivative at $t=0$ must be non-negative, i.e., $$\label{omeganeg}
- \omega\Big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j) \big) b_j\Big) \geq 0\,.$$ Now, using (\[first\]) with $g=g_i^{-1}g_j$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j) \big) b_j\Big)^* &=
\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_j^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)^* \big) b_i \\
&= \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_j^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\alpha_{g_i^{-1}g_j}\big(\psi(g_j^{-1}g_i) \big) \big) b_i \\
& = \sum_{i,j=1}^n b_j^* \alpha_{g_j}\big(\psi(g_j^{-1}g_i) \big) b_i\,, \end{aligned}$$ which shows that $\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j) \big) b_j$ is self-adjoint. As (\[omeganeg\]) holds for every state $\omega$ on $A$ we can therefore conclude that $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n b_i^* \alpha_{g_i}\big(e^{-t\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)}\big) b_j \leq 0\,.$$ Thus we have shown that $\psi \in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$, that is, $(i)$ holds.
Suppose now that $\psi$ $\in {{\rm ND}(\alpha)}$ is $Z(A)$-valued. In order to show that $(ii)$ holds in this case, it is enough to show that $e^{-\psi}$ is $\alpha$-positive definite, i.e., that the $Z(A)$-valued matrix $\big[\alpha_{g_i}(e^{-\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)})\big]$ is positive in $M_n(Z(A))$ for any given $g_1,\ldots,g_n \in G$. To this end, using the properties of the exponential function, we may write $$\alpha_{g_i}\big(e^{-\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j)}\big) = e^{-\alpha_{g_i}(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j))}
= e^{\psi(g_i)^* + \psi(g_j) - \psi(e) -\alpha_{g_i}(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j))} \ e^{-\psi(g_i)^* - \psi(g_j) + \psi(e)} $$ for every $i, j$. Setting $b_i = e^{\frac{1}{2}\psi(e)-\psi(g_i)} \in Z(A)$ for $i=1, \ldots, n$, we get that $$\Big[e^{-\psi(g_i)^* - \psi(g_j) + \psi(e)}\Big] = \big[\,b_i^*\,b_j\,\big]$$ is positive in $M_n(Z(A))$. Therefore, using Lemma \[schur\], it is enough to show that $$\label{exppos}
\Big[e^{\psi(g_i)^* + \psi(g_j) - \alpha_{g_i}(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j))}\Big] \geq 0\,.$$ Now, Proposition \[gamma\] gives that the matrix $\Big[\psi(g_i)^* + \psi(g_j) - \alpha_{g_i}(\psi(g_i^{-1}g_j))\Big]$ is positive in $M_n(Z(A))$. Since Lemma \[schurexp\] says that the Schur exponential of a $Z(A)$-valued positive matrix is still positive, we see that (\[exppos\]) is satisfied. Hence we are done.
\[1-par\] Let $\psi$ be a normalized $Z(A)$-valued $\alpha$-negative definite function. Then there exists a one-parameter semigroup $(M_t)_{t \geq 0}$ of unital completely positive maps on the full crossed product $C^*(A, G, \alpha)$ satisfying $$M_t (F) = e^{-t \psi} F$$ for all $t\geq0$ and all $F\in C_c(G,A)$. Moreover, if $\Lambda$ denotes the canonical homomorphism from $C^*(A, G, \alpha)$ onto the reduced crossed product $C_r^*(A, G, \alpha)$, then there also exists a one-parameter semigroup $(M^r_t)_{t \geq 0}$ of unital completely positive maps on $C_r^*(A, G, \alpha)$ satisfying $$M^r_t \big(\Lambda(F)\big) = \Lambda (e^{-t \psi} F)$$ for all $t\geq0$ and all $F\in C_c(G,A)$, i.e., $M^r_t \circ \Lambda = \Lambda \circ M_t$ for all $t\geq0$.
Both statements follow by combining Theorem \[schoenberg\] with [@BeCo6 Proposition 4.3]. The second statement can also be deduced from Theorem \[schoenberg\] and [@DoRu Theorem 3.2].
Let $(M_t)_{t \geq 0}$ be as described in Corollary \[1-par\]. Arguing as in [@Ren10 Proposition 4.5] one obtains that the generator $-\Delta$ of this semigroup has the dense $*$-subalgebra $C_c(G,A)$ as its essential domain, and we have $\Delta F=\psi F$ for all $F\in C_c(G,A)$. (A similar remark is true for the semigroup $(M^r_t)_{t \geq 0}$.) Following Sauvageot [@Sau3] (see also [@Ren10]), one may then associate to $(M_t)_{t \geq 0}$ a Dirichlet form $\mathcal{L}$ on $C_c(G,A)$, which may be described in terms of a $C^*$-correspondence $E$ over $C^*(A,G,\alpha)$ and a derivation $\delta: C_c(G,A)\to E$. When $A=C(\Omega)$ is commutative, one may identify $C^*(A,G,\alpha)$ with the full $C^*$-algebra of the associated transformation groupoid $(G, \Omega)$. In this case, Renault gives in [@Ren10 Theorem 4.6] a concrete description of the pair $(E, \delta)$. We believe it should be possible to obtain an analogous description also when $A$ is noncommutative.
We recall that a function $f: G \to A$ is said to [*go to zero at infinity*]{} if, for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists a finite subset $F \subset G$ such that $\|f(g)\| < \epsilon$ for all $g \notin F$ (that is, $g \mapsto \|f(g)\| \in C_0(G)$). We denote by $C_0(G,A)$ the space of all such functions.
Next, assume that $G$ is countable. We recall from [@DoRu] that $\alpha$ is said to have the [*Haagerup property*]{} if there exists a sequence $(h_n)$ of $\alpha$-positive definite $Z(A)$-valued functions on $G$ such that $h_n(e)=1_A$ , $h_n \in C_0(G,A)$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\|h_n(g) - 1_A\| \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ for all $g \in G$. (Note that Dong and Ruan’s definition of $\alpha$-positive definiteness in [@DoRu] is slightly different than the one introduced in [@AD1], but this is essentially a matter of convention and does not affect the definition of the Haagerup property for $\alpha$). It is easy to check that $\alpha$ has the Haagerup property if the same property holds for a net $(h_\iota)_{\iota \in I}$ instead of a sequence. It is a simple exercise to check that if $G$ has the Haagerup property, then $\alpha$ has the Haagerup property. On the other hand, if $\alpha$ has the Haagerup property and there exists an $\alpha$-invariant state $\omega$ on $A$, then $G$ has the Haagerup property (for if $(h_n)$ is sequence that works for $\alpha$, then $(\omega\circ h_n)$ will work for $G$).
We will say that a function $\psi: G \to A^+$ is [*spectrally proper*]{} if the function $$\ell_\psi : g \mapsto \inf {\rm sp}\big(\psi(g)\big)$$ is proper as a function from $G$ to ${\mathbb R}^+$. Notice that this is a stronger property than requiring that the function $g \mapsto \|\psi(g)\|$ is proper in the usual sense.
The Haagerup property for a countable group $G$ may be characterized by the existence of a proper normalized negative definite function from $G$ into $\mathbb{R}^+$ (see [@CCJJV] and references therein). Analogously, we have:
\[Haa-sp-prop\] Assume that $G$ is countable. Then $\alpha$ has the Haagerup property if and only if and there exists there exists a spectrally proper $Z(A)^+$-valued normalized $\alpha$-negative definite function on $G$.
Assume first that $\alpha$ has the Haagerup property and let $(h_n)$ be a sequence as in the definition. For each $n\in \mathbb{N}$ define $\varphi_n:G\to Z(A)^+$ by $\varphi_n(g) = h_n(g)^*h_n(g)$ for all $g\in G$. Then using Lemmas \[phistar\] and \[posdefprod\] we get that $(\varphi_n)$ is a sequence in $C_0(G,A)$ of $Z(A)^+$-valued $\alpha$-positive definite functions satisfying $\varphi_n(e) = 1_A$, and $\|\varphi_n(g) - 1_A\| \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ for all $g \in G$.
Let now $(K_n)$ be an increasing and exhausting sequence $(K_n)$ of finite subsets of $G$. Passing to a subsequence of $(\varphi_n)$ if necessary, we can assume that $\|1_A - \varphi_n(g)\| \leq 1/2^n$ for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $g \in K_n$. Since $\|\varphi_n(g)\| \leq \|\varphi_n(e)\| = 1$ (cf. [@AD1 Proposition 2.4 ii)]), we get that $1_A - \varphi_n(g) \in Z(A)^+$ for all $n$ and $g$. Moreover, $(1-1/2^n)1_A \leq \varphi_n(g) \leq 1_A$ for all $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $g \in K_n$. Now, each function $1-\varphi_n$ is a $Z(A)^+$-valued normalized $\alpha$-negative definite function, cf. Remark \[oneminus\]. Since $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \|1_A - \varphi_j(g)\| < +\infty$ for all $g \in G$, we can define $\psi:G\to Z(A)^+$ by $\psi(g)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty \big(1_A - \varphi_j(g)\big)$. Using Lemma \[pointwise\] we get that $\psi$ is a normalized $\alpha$-negative definite function. It remains to show that $\psi$ is spectrally proper.
For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, using that $\varphi_n \in C_0(G,A)$, we can find a finite subset $F_n \subset G$ such that $\|\varphi_n(g)\| < 1/2$ for any $g \notin F_n$. Since $\varphi_n(g) \geq 0$, we have $\varphi_n(g) < \frac{1}{2}1_A$ for all $g \notin F_n$ and $K_n \subset F_n$ for each $n$.
Define $G_n = \bigcup_{j=1}^n F_j$, so $K_n \subset G_n$ and $(G_n)$ is an increasing and exhausting sequence of finite subsets of $G$. Consider $g \notin G_n$. Then $\varphi_j(g) < \frac{1}{2}\, 1_A$ for $j=1,\ldots,n$, so $$\psi(g) = \sum_{j=1}^\infty (1_A - \varphi_j(g)) \geq \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{2}1_A = \frac{n}{2} \,1_A \ .$$ Thus $\ell_\psi(g) \geq n/2$. It is now clear that $\ell_\psi$ is proper, i.e., $\psi$ is spectrally proper, as desired.
Conversely, assume that there exists a spectrally proper $Z(A)^+$-valued normalized $\alpha$-negative definite function $\psi$ on $G$, and consider the net $(e^{-t \psi})_{t > 0}$. By Theorem \[schoenberg\], each $e^{-t \psi}$ is $\alpha$-positive definite and takes its values in $Z(A)^+$. Clearly, $e^{-t \psi(e)} = 1_A$ for every $t>0$. Moreover, for $t >0$ and $g\in G$, we have $$\|e^{-t \psi(g)}\| = \sup \big\{ e^{-t\lambda} \ | \lambda \in {\rm sp}(\psi(g))\big\} = e^{-t \,\ell_\psi(g)}\,,$$ which goes to $0$ as $g \to \infty$ for each $t>0$ since $\ell_\psi$ is proper. Thus $e^{-t \psi} \in C_0(G,A)$ for all $t>0$. Finally, it is clear that $\lim_{t \to 0} \|e^{-t \psi(g)} - 1_A\| = 0$ for all $t \in {\mathbb R}^+$. Hence we conclude that $\alpha$ has the Haagerup property.
Let us say that $\alpha$ is [*centrally amenable*]{} if there exists a net $(h_i)$ of finitely supported $\alpha$-positive definite $Z(A)$-valued functions on $G$ such that $h_i(e)=1_A$ for all $i$ and $\|h_i(g) - 1_A\| \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$ for all $g \in G$. Clearly, this is a stronger property than the Haagerup property for $\alpha$. We also note that if $\alpha$ is centrally amenable, then $\alpha$ is amenable in the sense of Anantharaman-Delaroche [@AD1] (and also as defined in [@BeCo6]).
Now, assume that $\alpha$ is amenable as defined by Brown and Ozawa in their book [@BrOz]. Then $\alpha$ is centrally amenable. Indeed, if $(\xi_i)$ is a net satisfying the requirements of [@BrOz Definition 4.3.1], then it is not difficult to see that the net $(h_i)$ in $C_c(G,A)$ defined by $$h_i(g) = \big\langle \xi_i, \widetilde{\alpha}_g(\xi_i)\big\rangle,$$ where $$\big\langle \xi, \eta\big\rangle = \sum_{s\in G} \xi(s)^*\eta(s)\quad \text{ and } \quad [\widetilde{\alpha}_g(\xi)](h) = \alpha_g\big(\xi(g^{-1}h)\big)$$ for $\xi, \eta \in C_c(G,A)$ and $g, h\in G$, satisfies all the conditions needed for showing that $\alpha$ is centrally amenable. The main point is that each $h_i$ is $\alpha$-positive definite, as follows from [@AD1 p. 300-301]. Hence, if $G$ is countable, we can conclude that $\alpha$ has the Haagerup property, and Theorem \[Haa-sp-prop\] gives that there exists a spectrally proper $Z(A)^+$-valued normalized $\alpha$-negative definite function on $G$.
Recall (see e.g. [@CCJJV; @BHV]) that when $G$ is countable, then $G$ has property (T) if and only if every negative definite function from $G$ to $\mathbb{C}$ is bounded. One could therefore say that an action $\alpha$ has property (T) (resp. has the central property (T)) if every $\alpha$-negative definite function (resp. every center-valued $\alpha$-negative definite function) is bounded. Clearly $\alpha$ will have the central property (T) whenever it has property (T). Moreover, $G$ will have property (T) whenever $\alpha$ has the central property (T).
Indeed, assume $\alpha$ has the central property (T) and let $f:G\to \mathbb{C}$ be negative definite. Define $f_0:G\to \mathbb{C}$ by $f_0(g) = f(g) -f(e)$. Then $f_0$ is normalized and negative definite. Now let $\psi: G\to A$ be given by $\psi(g)= f_0(g)\, 1_A$. Then $\psi$ is center-valued and normalized, and it follows from Remark \[scalarnegdef\] that $\psi$ is $\alpha$-negative definite. Using the assumption, $\psi$ has to be bounded. So $f_0$ is bounded, and this clearly implies that $f$ is bounded too. Hence, $G$ has property (T).
Note that if $A$ has the strong property (T), as defined by Leung-Ng in [@LN], and $G$ has property (T), then any $C^*$-crossed product of $A$ by $G$ also has the strong property (T) [@LN Theorem 4.6]. If one assumes that $\alpha$ has property (T), or the central property (T), it would be interesting to know if one can find some (weaker) conditions on $A$ ensuring that $C^*(A,G,\alpha)$ (or $C_r^*(A,G,\alpha)$) still has the strong property (T).
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} Most of the present work was done during visits made by E.B. at the Sapienza University of Rome and by R.C. at the University of Oslo in 2015 and 2016. Both authors would like to thank these institutions for their kind hospitality.
[90]{}
C. Anantharaman-Delaroche: Systèmes dynamiques non commutatifs et moyennabilité. [*Math. Ann.*]{} [**279**]{} (1987), 297–315.
C. Anantharaman-Delaroche: Amenability and exactness for dynamical systems and their C$^*$-algebras, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**354**]{} (2002), 4153–4178.
E. Bédos, R. Conti: The Fourier-Stieltjes algebra of a $C^*$-dynamical system. [*Internat. J. Math.*]{} [**27**]{} (2016), 1650050 \[50 pages\].
B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe, A. Valette: Kazhdan’s property (T). New Mathematical Monographs, 11. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
C. Berg, J. P. Reus Christensen, P. Ressel: Harmonic analysis on semigroups. GTM [**100**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1984.
B. Blackadar: Operator algebras. Theory of C$^*$-algebras and von Neumann algebras. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 122. Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
N.P. Brown, N. Ozawa: C$^*$-algebras and finite-dimensional approximations. [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}, [**88**]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008.
P.-A. Cherix, M. Cowling, P. Jolissaint, P. Julg, A. Valette: Groups with the Haagerup property. Gromov’s a-T-menability. Progress in Mathematics, [**197**]{}. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2001.
F. Combes: Crossed products and Morita equivalence. [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**49**]{} (1984), 289–306.
P. Delorme: 1-cohomologie des repr[' e]{}sentations unitaires des groupes de Lie semi-simples et r[' e]{}solubles. Produits tensoriels continus de repr[' e]{}sentations. [*Bull. Soc. Math. France*]{} [**105**]{} (1977), 281–336.
Z. Dong, Z.-J. Ruan: A Hilbert module approach to the Haagerup property. [*Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory*]{} [**73**]{} (2012), 431–454.
N. Dunford, J.T. Schwartz: Linear Operators. I. General Theory. Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 7 Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York; Interscience Publishers, Ltd., London, 1958.
A. Guichardet: Symmetric Hilbert spaces and related topics. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. [**261**]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972.
P. de la Harpe, A. Valette: La propri[' e]{}t[é]{} (T) de Kazhdan pour les groupes localement compacts (avec un appendice de Marc Burger). Ast[' e]{}risque [**175**]{} (1989).
C. Lance: Hilbert C$^*$-modules. A toolkit for operator algebraists. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, [**210**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
C.-W. Leung, C.-K. Ng: Property (T) and strong property (T) for unital $C^*$-algebras. [*J. Funct. Anal.* ]{} [**256**]{} (2009), 3055–3070.
M. Moslehian. Conditionally positive definite kernels on Hilbert $C^*$-modules. Preprint, arXiv 1611.08382.
J. Renault: Groupoid cocycles and derivation. [*Ann. of Funct. Anal.*]{} [**3**]{} (2012), 1–20.
J.-L. Sauvageot: Tangent bimodule and locality for dissipative operators on $C^*$-algebras. Quantum probability and applications IV. [*Lecture Notes in Mathematics*]{} [**1442**]{} (1989), 322–338.
J.L. Tu: La conjecture de Baum-Connes pour les feuilltages moyennables. [*K-Theory*]{} [**17**]{} (1999), 215–264.
D.P. Williams: Crossed products of C$^*$-algebras. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 134, Amer. Math. Soc. (2007).
Addresses of the authors:\
Erik Bédos, Institute of Mathematics, University of Oslo,\
P.B. 1053 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway.\
E-mail: [email protected]\
Roberto Conti, Università Sapienza di Roma,\
Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’Ingegneria,\
via A. Scarpa 16, I-00166 Roma, Italy.\
E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
\
Department of Physics, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany\
Department of Physics, University of Cyprus, P.O. Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus\
E-mail:
- |
Francesco Knechtli\
Department of Physics, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany\
E-mail:
- |
Tomasz Korzec\
Department of Physics, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany\
E-mail:
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Comparison between models of QCD with and without dynamical charm quarks
---
Introduction
============
In this work we want to study the charm sea effects on charmonium systems, that are bound states made of a charm quark ($c$) and a charm antiquark ($\bar{c}$). The high mass of a charm quark allows the description of $c\bar{c}$ states in terms of certain non-relativistic potential models and this makes the charmonium system an important testing ground for a comparison of theory with experiment. Moreover, in the last few years, experiments also discovered a large number of unexpected charmonium-like states, many of which are still poorly understood. This highlights the need for a more complete theoretical understanding of these systems starting from first principles and lattice QCD represents one of the most suitable tools to reach these purposes.
Up to date many simulations of QCD are carried out using $N_f = 2 + 1$ dynamical light quarks (up, down, strange). A more complete setup would include a dynamical charm quark, but this increases the computational cost of the simulations. Thus, to give a reliable estimate of the effects of a dynamical charm quark in QCD, we compare results for physical observables obtained with two different models: $N_f=0$ QCD and QCD with $N_f=2$ degenerate charm quarks.
The absence of light quarks allows us to keep the volumes moderately large, which in turn makes simulations at extremely fine lattice spacings feasible. The main goal of this work is to determine the impact of a dynamical charm quark on meson masses and decay constants, with special focus on the mesons $\eta_c$ and $J/\psi$ (pseudo-scalar and vector channel respectively). Our first results in this direction can be found in [@Korzec:2016eko]. Here, we show an update of our previous results, which includes a better strategy of the tuning of the twisted mass parameter $\mu$, continuum extrapolations performed with a larger number of lattice spacings and increased statistics and our first results on the meson decay constants.
Numerical setup
===============
We employ six $N_f=2$ ensembles at the charm mass $M_c$ and four $N_f=0$ ensembles, exploring a set of lattice spacings in the range $0.02\text{ fm}\lesssim a \lesssim 0.07\text{ fm}$ (see Table \[tab:ens\]). The aim is to disentangle the charm sea effects from possible cut-off effects due to the small correlation lengths which are associated with charmonium states. As a lattice discretization scheme we use a clover improved doublet of twisted-mass Wilson fermions [@Sheikholeslami:1985ij; @Frezzotti:2000nk; @Frezzotti:2003ni] and Wilson’s plaquette gauge action [@Wilson:1974sk] for the gluon sector. To achieve maximal twist, the hopping parameter $\kappa$ has been set to its critical value by interpolating the data published in Refs. [@Fritzsch:2012wq; @Fritzsch:2015eka]. Open boundary conditions in the temporal direction are imposed to keep auto-correlation times associated with the topological charge manageable [@Luscher:2011kk]. For further details regarding the generation of these ensembles we refer to Ref. [@Knechtli:2017xgy].
Methodology
===========
Meson masses and decay constants
--------------------------------
To extract meson masses and decay constants we compute the two-point correlation function $$f_{O_{\Gamma_1},O_{\Gamma_2}}(x_0,y_0) = \frac{a^6}{L^3}\sum_{\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}}\langle O_{\Gamma_1}(x_0,\mathbf{x})O_{\Gamma_2}^{\dagger}(y_0,\mathbf{y})\rangle,\quad O_{\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2}\in\lbrace\bar{c}_1\gamma_5c_2, \bar{c}_1\gamma_{i=1,2,3}\gamma_5 c_2, \bar{c}_1\gamma_0\gamma_5c_2\rbrace
\label{eq:2point_function}$$ between two meson states, created and annihilated by the operators $O_{\Gamma_2}^{\dagger}$ and $O_{\Gamma_1}$ at the source and sink, having coordinates $(y_0 ,\mathbf{y})$, $(x_0 ,\mathbf{x})$ respectively. In Eq. $c_1$ and $c_2$ denote two flavors in a twisted mass doublet, the sum over spatial coordinates $\mathbf{x}$, $\mathbf{y}$ is performed to compute the two-point function of the hadron at zero-momentum and the triangular brackets $\langle\cdots\rangle$ represent the expectation value of the observable on the ensemble of gauge and fermion fields. The ground state energy $am_O$ in a given channel $O$ is then determined by the weighted plateau average of the effective mass $$am^{eff}_O(x_0+a/2,y_0) = \log\left( \frac{f_{OO}(x_0,y_0)}{f_{OO}(x_0+a,y_0)} \right).$$ From the correlators it is also possible to extract the pseudo-scalar and vector decay constants of the mesons $\eta_c$ and $J/\psi$, whose definitions in twisted mass QCD are given by [@Jansen:2003ir; @Jansen:2009hr] $$f_{\eta_c}m^2_{\eta_c} = 2\mu \langle 0\vert \bar{c}_1\gamma_5c_2\vert\eta_c\rangle,\quad f_{J/\psi}m_{J/\psi} = \frac{1}{3}\sum_{i=1}^3\langle 0\vert \bar{c}_1\gamma_i\gamma_5c_2\vert J/\psi\rangle.$$ The twisted mass formulation of QCD is a particularly convenient setup for the pseudo-scalar decay constant $f_{\eta_c}$, because the renormalization factors $Z_P$ and $Z_{\mu}$ of $\bar{c}_1\gamma_5c_2$ and $\mu$ respectively obey $Z_PZ_{\mu} = 1$. Therefore the calculation of $f_{\eta_c}$ does not need any renormalization factors [@Jansen:2003ir]. As concerns the lattice calculation of $f_{J/\psi}$, the relevant matrix element must be multiplied by the renormalization factor $Z_A$ of $\bar{c}_1\gamma_i\gamma_5c_2$, which is known from Refs. [@Luscher:1996jn; @DellaMorte:2005xgj; @DallaBrida:2018tpn] for the ensembles considered here. Since we use open boundary conditions in the temporal direction, computing the meson decay constant through an exponential fit to the two-point correlation function may lead to unreliable results, because of the boundary effects. For this reason, we use the method described in Ref. [@Bruno:2016plf], whose advantage is to remove the unwanted boundary effects from our lattice calculation by forming a suitable ratio of the two-point correlation functions , which contains a boundary-boundary correlator. However, when source and sink are close to the boundaries, a determination of the correlator at a good accuracy is very difficult to achieve, because the relative precision of the solution of the Dirac equation deteriorates at large distances and this becomes much more prominent for heavy quark masses. To overcome this problem, we use the distance preconditioning for the Dirac operator proposed in Refs. [@deDivitiis:2010ya; @Collins:2017iud]. This procedure improves the quality of the signal at large time separations, at the price that more iterations are required for the solver to converge to the exact solution of the Dirac equation.
Mass shifts
-----------
To match $N_f=0$ and $N_f=2$ QCD we choose the low energy observable $m^{had}=1/\sqrt{t_0}$, where $t_0$ is the hadronic scale that can be extracted from the Wilson flow and introduced in Ref. [@Luscher:2010iy]. For this observable decoupling of heavy quarks applies [@Weinberg:1980wa] and we can assume $\left[\sqrt{t_0}\right]^{N_f=2}_{M=M_c}=\left[\sqrt{t_0}\right]^{N_f=0}$. Our original strategy to compare $N_f = 2$ with $N_f = 0$ results is explained in [@Korzec:2016eko]. It relies on first performing the simulations at fixed charm mass and taking the continuum limit of the pseudo-scalar mass $\left[\sqrt{t_0}m_{\eta_c}\right]^{N_f=2}_{\text{cont.}}$ in the $N_f=2$ theory. This value is then used to set the twisted mass parameter $\mu^{\star}$ for the measurements of meson correlators on the quenched ensembles, by matching $\left[\sqrt{t_0}m_{\eta_c}\right]^{N_f=0}=
\left[\sqrt{t_0}m_{\eta_c}\right]^{N_f=2}_{\text{cont.}}$. However, doing so there is an uncertainty in the value of $\mu^{\star}$ originating from the statistical error associated to $\left[\sqrt{t_0}m_{\eta_c}\right]^{N_f=2}_{\text{cont.}}$. Here, to refine our strategy, we compare $N_f=0$ and $N_f=2$ QCD fixing for both theories the charm mass $M_c$ such that $\sqrt{t_0}m_{\eta_c}$ approximately corresponds to its physical value, i.e. $\sqrt{t_0}m_{\eta_c}\equiv 1.8075$[^1]. In $N_f=2$ QCD this requires the shift of $\mu$ and of a generic observable $R$ by Taylor expansions, for which we need to compute the derivative $dR/d\mu$. For primary observables $O_i$, such derivatives are given by $$\frac{d\langle O_i\rangle}{d\mu} = - \left\langle\frac{dS}{d\mu}O_i\right\rangle + \left\langle\frac{dS}{d\mu}\right\rangle\left\langle O_i\right\rangle + \left\langle\frac{dO_i}{d\mu}\right\rangle,
\label{eq:twisted_mass_derivative1}$$ where $S$ is the action of the system. By denoting with $D_{c_1}^{-1}(x,y)$ the inverse of the twisted mass Dirac operator for the quark flavor $c_1$, the action derivative reads (cf.[@Jansen:2008wv]) $$\left\langle\frac{dS}{d\mu}\right\rangle = -2\mu \sum_{x,y}\left\langle \text{Tr}\left[ D_{c_1}^{-1^\dagger}(x,y) D_{c_1}^{-1}(x,y)\right] \right\rangle^{\text{gauge}}.$$ In the case of the meson correlators , the first term of requires the computation of new Wick contractions, whilst the third term is zero because there is no explicit dependence on $\mu$. However, in this work we focus on observables $R$ (like the vector mass $\sqrt{t_0}m_{J/\psi}$, $\sqrt{t_0}M_c$, the hyperfine splitting $(m_{J/\psi} - m_{\eta_c})/m_{\eta_c}$, etc.), which in general are non-linear functions of $N_{obs}$ *primary observables* (the meson correlators). Therefore, their derivatives assume the form $$\frac{dR(\langle O_1\rangle,\langle O_2\rangle,\cdots\langle O_{N_{obs}}\rangle)}{d\mu} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{obs}}\frac{\partial R}{\partial\langle O_i\rangle}\frac{d\langle O_i\rangle}{d\mu} + \frac{\partial R}{\partial \mu}.$$
In a pure gauge theory the action does not depend on the quark masses and we need the twisted mass parameter $\mu$ only for the inversion of the Dirac operator. Thus, to reproduce the tuning value $\mu^{\star}$ for our $N_f=0$ ensembles, we carry out the measurements at three different values of the twisted mass parameter $\mu$ and the tuning point $\mu^{\star}$ is found through a linear interpolation of the measurements. The critical hopping parameters have been obtained through an interpolation of the values reported in Ref. [@Luscher:1996ug].
Results
=======
After Wick contractions, the computation of the meson correlators and their derivatives with respect to $\mu$ requires the evaluation of traces of matrices, that we compute making use of stochastic time-diluted estimators with 16 U(1) noise vectors. Our results are summarized in Figs. \[fig:eff\_mass\_and\_latt\_art\], \[fig:mvec\_and\_splitting\] and \[fig:rgimass\_and\_decay\].
![*Left panel*: effective masses and plateaux averages for the mesons $\eta_c$ (circles) and ${J/\psi}$ (squares) on the $N_f=2$ ensemble at $\beta=6.0$. *Right panel*: Continuum extrapolations linear in $a^2$ of $m_{J/\psi}$ using the two coarsest lattices (red band) and the five finest lattices (blue band) listed in the first six rows of Table 1.[]{data-label="fig:eff_mass_and_latt_art"}](ps_vec_tmWm2.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}![*Left panel*: effective masses and plateaux averages for the mesons $\eta_c$ (circles) and ${J/\psi}$ (squares) on the $N_f=2$ ensemble at $\beta=6.0$. *Right panel*: Continuum extrapolations linear in $a^2$ of $m_{J/\psi}$ using the two coarsest lattices (red band) and the five finest lattices (blue band) listed in the first six rows of Table 1.[]{data-label="fig:eff_mass_and_latt_art"}](lat_art.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![*Left panel*: Continuum extrapolation of $m_{J/\psi}$ in $N_f = 0$ and $N_f = 2$ QCD, performed for lattice spacings $a \lesssim 0.06$ fm. *Right panel*: Continuum extrapolation of the hyperfine splitting $(m_{J/\psi} - m_{\eta_c} )/m_{\eta_c}$ in $N_f = 0$ and $N_f = 2$ QCD. The red star denotes the physical value of the hyperfine splitting.[]{data-label="fig:mvec_and_splitting"}](mvec_cont_limit.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}![*Left panel*: Continuum extrapolation of $m_{J/\psi}$ in $N_f = 0$ and $N_f = 2$ QCD, performed for lattice spacings $a \lesssim 0.06$ fm. *Right panel*: Continuum extrapolation of the hyperfine splitting $(m_{J/\psi} - m_{\eta_c} )/m_{\eta_c}$ in $N_f = 0$ and $N_f = 2$ QCD. The red star denotes the physical value of the hyperfine splitting.[]{data-label="fig:mvec_and_splitting"}](hyperfine_splitting_cont_limit.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![*Left panel*: Continuum extrapolation for the running mass $\bar{m}$. The continuum values in the two theories are then converted to the RGI mass $M_c$. *Right panel*: Preliminary results of the meson decay constants $f_{\eta_c}$ and $f_{J/\psi}$ on our $N_f = 0$ (red markers) and $N_f = 2$ (blue markers) ensembles.[]{data-label="fig:rgimass_and_decay"}](rgimass_cont_limit.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}![*Left panel*: Continuum extrapolation for the running mass $\bar{m}$. The continuum values in the two theories are then converted to the RGI mass $M_c$. *Right panel*: Preliminary results of the meson decay constants $f_{\eta_c}$ and $f_{J/\psi}$ on our $N_f = 0$ (red markers) and $N_f = 2$ (blue markers) ensembles.[]{data-label="fig:rgimass_and_decay"}](decay_constants_crop.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:eff\_mass\_and\_latt\_art\] (left panel) we show the effective masses and the plateaux averages for the $N_f=2$ ensemble with $\beta=6$. As can be seen, our numerical setup allows to take the plateau averages of the effective masses for a large range of temporal slices and this is crucial to determine the size of the charm sea effects with great accuracy. On the right panel of Fig. \[fig:eff\_mass\_and\_latt\_art\] a study of the lattice artifacts for the vector mass $m_{J/\psi}$ is presented. Beyond $a\approx 0.06 - 0.07$ fm the discretization effects are considerable, as was also already found in the context of the precision computation of the $D_s$ meson decay constant in quenched QCD [@Heitger:2008jq]. In particular, we find a non-trivial dependence on the lattice spacing and that lattice spacings $a\lesssim 0.06$ fm have to be employed to obtain reliable continuum extrapolations at $1\%$ precision. In Fig. \[fig:mvec\_and\_splitting\] we compare the continuum limits of $\sqrt{t_0}m_{J/\psi}$ (left panel) and of the hyperfine splitting $(m_{J/\psi} - m_{\eta_c} )/m_{\eta_c}$ (right panel) in $N_f = 0$ and $N_f = 2$ QCD. As can be seen, dynamical charm effects on these observables are not resolvable at a precision of $0.1\%$ and $2\%$ respectively. The discrepancy between our continuum estimate of the hyperfine splitting with its physical value is probably due to effects of light sea quarks, disconnected contributions and electromagnetism that are neglected in this work. Finally, in Fig. \[fig:rgimass\_and\_decay\] we present our results for the RGI quark mass $M_c$ (left panel) and preliminary results for the meson decay constants (right panel). To compute the RGI mass, first we determine the continuum limit of the running masses $\bar{m}$ in $N_f=0$ and $N_f=2$ QCD and then multiply these values by the ratio $M/\bar{m}$, which is known in both theories. In this case the dynamical charm effects seem relevant and we observe a deviation between the RGI masses of the two theories of around $5\%$, albeit with large statistical uncertainty (the effect is $\simeq 2.7\sigma$). As concerns the meson decay constants, we present a preliminary study for some of our ensembles. We see that $f_{J/\psi}$ is almost $10\%$ larger than $f_{\eta_c}$ and it seems less affected by cut-off effects. In a future work, we plan to increase the statistics and explore more lattice spacings to estimate the charm sea effects on $f_{\eta_c}$ and $f_{J/\psi}$ in the continuum limit.
We gratefully acknowledge the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing (GCS) for providing computing time on the supercomputers JURECA, JUQUEEN (at the Jülich Supercomputing Centre) and SuperMUC (at the Leibniz Supercomputing Centre). S.C. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 642069. We thank J. Heitger and K. Eckert for sharing the implementation of the distance preconditioning method.
[^1]: Note that for $N_f=2$ QCD we find $\sqrt{t_0(M_c)}\simeq 0.11$ fm, which significantly deviates from its physical value [@Bruno:2016plf].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[bbs]{}
ß ø i Ł
ICN-UNAM-98-01\
February 4, 1998
0.5 truein
[Quantum Field Theory in the Limit $x\ll 1\,$[[^1]]{}]{} 0.4truein [**C.R. Stephens[^2], A. Weber[^3], J.C. López Vieyra[^4] and P.O. Hess[^5]**]{}\
0.25truein Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM,\
Circuito Exterior C.U., A. Postal 70-543,\
04510 México D.F., Mexico,\
Tel. (52)-5-622 46 90, Fax (52)-5-622 46 93
1truein [**Abstract:**]{} The asymptotic high momentum behaviour of quantum field theories with cubic interactions is investigated using renormalization group techniques in the asymmetric limit $x\ll1$. Particular emphasis is paid to theories with interactions involving more than one field where it is found that a matrix renormalization is necessary. Asymptotic scaling forms, in agreement with Regge theory, are derived for the elastic two-particle scattering amplitude and verified in one-loop renormalization group improved perturbation theory, corresponding to the summation of leading logs to all orders. We give explicit forms for the Regge trajectories of different scalar theories in this approximation and determine the signatures. 0.35truein PACS numbers: 11.10.Gh, 11.10.Jj, 11.10.St, 12.40.Nn\
Keywords: renormalization group, Regge limit, high-energy behaviour
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
It is a pleasure to thank U. Ellwanger and D. O’Connor for interesting and helpful discussions. We would also like to thank S. Dilcher for help with the graphics and reading of the manuscript.
[99]{} G. Altarelli, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**81**]{} (1982) 1. M. Derrick et al., [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C69**]{} (1996) 607. E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin, [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**45**]{} (1977) 199. R.J. Eden, P.V. Landshoff, D.I. Olive and J.C. Polkinghorne, [*“The Analytic S-Matrix”*]{}, Cambridge University Press 1966. L. Bertocchi, S. Fubini and M. Tonin, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**25**]{} (1962) 626;\
D. Amati, A. Stanghellini and S. Fubini, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**26**]{} (1962) 6. A. Schwimmer, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B75**]{} (1974) 446. M. Levy and J. Sucher, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**186**]{} (1969) 1656. C.R. Stephens, A. Weber, J.C. López Vieyra and P.O. Hess, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B414**]{} (1997) 333. A.A. Migdal, A.M. Polyakov and K.A. Ter-Martirosyan, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B48**]{} (1974) 239. C.R. Stephens, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A12**]{} (1997) 2905. D. O’Connor and C.R. Stephens, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B360**]{} (1991) 297; [*Int. J. Mod. Phys.*]{} (1994) 2805; [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{} (1994) 506. D. O’Connor, C.R. Stephens and F. Freire, [*Mod.Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A8**]{} (1993) 1779;\
M.A. van Eijck, C.R. Stephens and C.G. van Weert, [*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**A9**]{} (1994) 309. Yu.V. Novozhilov, [*“Introduction to Elementary Particle Theory”*]{}, Pergamon Press, Oxford 1975;\
R.J. Eden, [*“High Energy Collisions of Elementary Particles”*]{}, Cambridge University Press 1967. M. Froissart, talk at La Jolla Conference 1961 (unpublished);\
V.N. Gribov, [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**15**]{} (1962) 873;\
S.C. Frautschi, M. Gell-Mann and F. Zachariasen, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} (1962) 2204;\
J. Challifour and R.J. Eden, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**129**]{} (1963) 2349. E.C. Titchmarsh, [*“The Theory of Functions”*]{}, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press 1939;\
R.P. Boas, [*“Entire Functions”*]{}, Academic Press, New York 1954. G.N. Watson, [*Proc. Roy. Soc.*]{} [**95**]{} (1918) 83;\
A. Sommerfeld, [*“Partial Differential Equations in Physics”*]{}, Academic Press, New York 1949. T. Regge, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{} [**14**]{} (1959) 951; [*ibid.*]{} (1960) 947. Bateman Manuscript Project, [*“Higher Transcendental Functions”*]{}, Vol. I, ed. A. Erdelyi, McGraw-Hill, New York 1953. C.R. Stephens, [*“Why Two Renormalization Groups are Better than One”*]{}, UNAM preprint ICN-UNAM-96-11, hep/th-9611062;\
C. Ford and C. Weisendanger, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B398**]{} (1997) 342; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D55**]{} (1997) 2202. H.D.I. Abarbanel, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**48**]{} (1976) 435. B.W. Lee and R.F. Sawyer, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**127**]{} (1962) 2266. J.C. Polkinghorne, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**4**]{} (1963) 503;\
P.G. Federbush and M.T. Grisaru, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**22**]{} (1963) 263, 299. J.C. Polkinghorne, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**5**]{} (1964) 431. G. ’t Hooft, in [*“Salamfestschrift”*]{}, eds. A. Ali, J. Ellis and S. Randjbar-Daemi, World Scientific 1993. C.R. Stephens, G. ’t Hooft and B. Whiting, [*Class. Quan. Grav.*]{} [**11**]{} (1994) 621. G. ’t Hooft, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B198**]{} (1987) 61. E. Verlinde and H. Verlinde, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B371**]{} (1992) 246.
[^1]: This work was supported by Conacyt grant 3298P–E9608.
[^2]: e–mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Supported during part of the work by fellowships of the DAAD and the Mexican Government; e–mail: [email protected]
[^4]: e–mail: [email protected]
[^5]: e–mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate finite population games of optimal execution, taking place at a market with friction. The models over which we develop our results are akin to the standard Almgren-Chriss model with linear price impacts. On the one hand, at a temporary level, our perspective is rather similar to that of the aforementioned model. On the other hand, all players in the model will impact the asset’s public price, yielding an aggregate permanent price impact. We propose to analyze two different settings. The first one comprises the case where there is no hierarchy among players, and there is a symmetry of information. In this setting, we obtain closed-form formulas to the Nash equilibrium in the most general setting, i.e., when players’ preferences are completely heterogeneous. Particularizing to the case of homogeneous parameters, we show that the average optimal inventory of the finite population converges to its mean-field counterpart, uniformly over a fixed trading horizon, as the population size grows to infinity. In the second framework, we consider a major player, also called a leader, with the first move advantage, and a population of minor players, also known as followers, thought of as high-frequency traders, which trade on informational advantage against the leader. This leads to a model of McKean-Vlasov type for the dynamics of the asset’s midprice. We prove the existence and uniqueness of the Stackelberg-Nash equilibrium for a reasonable set of model parameters. We also characterize it as the solution of an abstract vector forward-backward stochastic differential equation system.'
address:
- 'Escola de Matemática Aplicada (EMAp), Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV), 22250-900, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil'
- 'Instituto de Matemática e Estatística (IME), Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), 24020-140, Niterói, RJ, Brasil'
author:
- 'D. Evangelista'
- 'Y. Thamsten'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Finite population games of optimal execution
---
Finite Population Games, Optimal Execution, Price Impacts, Hierarchic Games, Asymmetric Information. 91A05, 91A06, 91A15, 91A80, 93E20.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose and implement a novel indoor localization scheme, ****, built upon an accurate acoustic direction finding. leverages sensors of the smartphone without the requirement of any specialized devices. The scheme does not rely on any fingerprints and is very easy to use: a user only needs to shake the phone for a short duration before walking and localization. Our design exploits a key observation: the relative displacement and velocity of the phone-shaking movement corresponds to the subtle phase and frequency shift of the Doppler effects experienced in the received acoustic signal by the phone. A novel method is designed to derive the direction from the phone to the acoustic source by combining the velocity calculated from the subtle Doppler shift with the one from the inertial sensors of the phone. Then a real-time precise localization and tracking is enabled by using a few anchor speakers with known locations. Major challenges in implementing are to measure the frequency shift precisely and to estimate the shaking velocity accurately when the speed of phone-shaking is low and changes arbitrarily. We propose rigorous methods to address these challenges, and then design and deploy in several floors of an indoor building each with area about $2000m^2$. Our extensive experiments show that the mean error of direction finding is around $2.1^o$ when the acoustic source is within the range of $32m$. For indoor localization, the $90$-percentile errors are under $0.92m$, while the maximum error is $1.73m$ and the mean is about $0.5m$. For real-time tracking, the errors are within $0.4m$ for walks of $51m$.'
author:
- 'Wenchao Huang, Yan Xiong [^1] , Xiang-Yang Li [^2] , Hao Lin [^3] , Xufei Mao , Panlong Yang , Yunhao Liu [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'RectangleDirection.bib'
title: Accurate Indoor Localization Using Acoustic Direction Finding via Smart Phones
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Phone-to-phone direction finding is attractive in mobile social networks nowadays for supporting various applications, , friending, and sharing. Recent mobile apps have made similar functions, such as Facebook’s Friendshake [@friendshake] and Google Latitude [@GoogleLatitude]. However, they are based on GPS and cannot be applied to indoor environment. An accurate method of direction finding is by using directional antenna [@4711074; @4509717; @Niculescu:2004:VBS:1023720.1023727], but it requires specialized hardware and clearly limits the availability to regular users. Several approaches of direction finding by smartphones have been proposed [@2011-MOBICOM-Iamantenna; @2012-MobiQuitous2011-ProposalDirectionEstimation; @2011-SenSys-feasibilityrealtime]. However, it remains a challenge to do accurate direction finding by phone under long distance.
Precise indoor localization is also important for location based services. Those methods achieving high accuracy usually require special hardware not readily available on smartphones [@6071927], or infrastructures expensive to deploy [@DBLP:journals/tsmc/LiuDBL07]. Pure WiFi-based localization can achieve reasonable accuracy (, 3$\sim$$4m$), but there always exist large errors (, 6$\sim$8m) unacceptable for many scenarios [@2012-MOBICOM-PushlimitWiFi]. Though there have been many proposals improving the accuracy of WiFi based localization (, with $80$-percentile errors about $1m$ [@2012-MOBICOM-PushlimitWiFi]) by exploiting additional signals, low-cost precise indoor localization is still challenging.
We propose ****, a ***S**hake-and-**W**alk* **A**coustic **D**irection-finding and indoor **LO**calizati**ON** scheme using smartphones. has two key components, precise phone-to-phone (or phone-to-speaker) direction finding and accurate indoor localization, each of which has a wide range of applications. Assume that there is an acoustic signal emitted from a speaker or a phone. exploits the fact that shaking the smartphone or walking with the smartphone will cause Doppler effects on the acoustic signal received by the smartphone. precisely measures the real-time *phase and frequency shift* of the Doppler effect, which corresponds to the *relative displacement and velocity* from the phone to the acoustic source respectively. then obtains the accurate *direction* of the acoustic source by combining the relative velocity calculated from the Doppler shift with the one from the inertial sensors of the smartphone, , the accelerometer and the gyroscope.
The main challenges of implementing are the noisy data collected from inertial sensors, and the measurement of the subtle frequency shift when the motion velocity of phone is slow or fluctuates continuously. We propose several rigorous methods (discussed in detail in Section \[sec:directionfinding\]) in to address these challenges, , we use Phase Locked Loop (PLL) to precisely measure the phase and frequency shift. Note that for phone-to-phone direction finding, the object phone of direction finding serves as an acoustic source, and the finder shakes his/her phone gently to produce the Doppler effect.
Based on this precise direction finding, achieves accurate real-time indoor localization using a few anchoring nodes with known locations. These anchoring speakers will emit acoustic signals using non-audible frequency (typically around 20kHz). The smartphones play the role of receivers. As it is difficult for a smartphone to find an accurate *North* as base for absolute direction, our localization method does not exploit the absolute direction. Instead we use a simple “triangulation” method by exploring the accurate opening angle from phone to two anchoring speakers. let each phone measure the direction to source and its relative displacement for achieving precise localization and real-time tracking respectively. Anchor nodes will not perform any computation or communication. Thus, supports *arbitrary* number of users with extremely low cost. We designed, deployed, and evaluated for both direction finding and real-time indoor localization. Our extensive experimental results show that supports high accuracy for both direction finding and real-time indoor localization. In our testing of , the finder only needs to shake the phone *gently* and in *arbitrary* patterns, which is different from the method in [@2012-MobiQuitous2011-ProposalDirectionEstimation] as it requires the user to stretch the arm and then swing the phone through 180 degrees. For the phone-to-phone direction finding, the mean error of the measured angle is $2.10^o$ within the range of $32m$, and the errors are under $2.06^o$, $4.43^o$, $5.81^o$ at 50%, 90%, 95% respectively, when the acoustic source faces towards to the phone. For indoor localization, we deploy one acoustic source per 6 meters, which broadcasts signals at a predefined frequency. For indoor localization, achieves $90$-percentile accuracy of $0.92m$, maximum error of $1.73m$, and the mean error of $0.5m$. For real-time indoor tracking, the error is always kept within $0.4m$ even when users walk for more than $50$ meters.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We review the related work in Section \[sec:related\] and present technical preliminaries in Section \[sec:pre\]. We present the acoustic direction finding of in Section \[sec:directionfinding\], and indoor localization and tracking in Section \[sec:localization\]. We report our extensive experiment results in Section \[sec:experiment\]. We conclude the paper in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Direction Finding
-----------------
**Specialized Hardware:** One type of approaches is by using directional antenna [@4711074; @4509717; @Niculescu:2004:VBS:1023720.1023727] or antenna array [@DBLP:journals/cee/KulakowskiVELG10] to implement Angle of Arrival (AOA) [@2003-INFOCOM-AdHocPositioning] in localization. For example, by rotating the beam of its antenna, a receiver can pinpoint the direction of the AP as the direction that provides the highest received strength [@4509717].
**Non-specialized hardware:** [@2011-MOBICOM-Iamantenna] effectively emulates the sensitivity and functionality of a directional antenna by rotating the phone around the user’s body, to locate outdoor APs. [@2011-SenSys-feasibilityrealtime] leverages 2 microphones at each phone, , at least 4 microphones, for calculating 3D position of each other by using the distance ranging method [@2007-SenSys-BeepBeephighaccuracy]. As the work is intended for high-speed, locational, phone-to-phone (HLPP) games, it does not show the result when two phones are in long distances. Another method close to direction finding is to identify which target the user is pointing at when s/he moves mobile phone towards the target phone.
To the best of our knowledge, the approach closest to ours in direction finding is [@2012-MobiQuitous2011-ProposalDirectionEstimation]. It estimates the direction by using Doppler effect and achieves the mean angular errors within $18^o$. This approach requires the searching user generates a Doppler Effect to all directions, , the user stretches the arm while holding the searching device, and then swings it through 180 degrees. only requires that the user shakes the phone in an arbitrary path.
Indoor Localization and Tracking
--------------------------------
**Wireless Localization:** A significant advantage of wireless localization is that it only leverages an existing infrastructure instead of special-purpose hardware. Hence it attracts many research efforts, , [@Youssef:2005:HWL:1067170.1067193; @DBLP:conf/infocom/BahlP00; @2010-MOBICOM-Didyousee; @2012-MOBICOM-Locatinginfingerprint; @2012-MOBICOM-PushlimitWiFi; @2012-MOBICOM-Zeezeroeffort]. However, it is found [@2012-MOBICOM-PushlimitWiFi] that the wireless localization, such as the WiFi-based localization, can achieve reasonable accuracy (, $3\sim4m$), but there always exist large errors (, $6\sim8m$) unacceptable for many scenarios. There have been many schemes proposed recently that improve the accuracy, such as using hundreds of APs [@5168931], or adding additional constraints by exploiting the coordination among several phones running this application in a small area [@2012-MOBICOM-PushlimitWiFi].
**Infrastructure-based Localization:** There have been myriad approaches of indoor localization based on special-purpose infrastructure. They are based on alternative signals, , infrared [@Want:1992:ABL:128756.128759], acoustic [@626982], visual [@DBLP:journals/trob/SeLL05]. *These approaches can achieve high accuracy, but the need for special-purpose hardware and infrastructure is a significant challenge* [@2012-MOBICOM-Zeezeroeffort]. Cricket [@Priyantha:2000:CLS:345910.345917] uses concurrent radio and ultrasonic signals to infer distance and obtain the location. ByteLight [@byteLight] claims to be able to provide low-price infrastructure for localization using ceiling-embedded LEDs which send out Morse Code-like signals to be detected by the smartphone’s camera.
Our prototype provides another choice for precise indoor localization, which only needs the off-the-shelf speakers, or even the loudspeakers installed in the mall, which can beep using high frequency channel without affecting normal broadcast.
**Leveraging the acoustic wave by phone:** The methods of leveraging the acoustic wave in smartphone applications have been well addressed. Most of them are leveraging the low speed of the acoustic wave compared to wireless signals, such as the mechanism of TOA [@2007-SenSys-BeepBeephighaccuracy] and TDOA [@DBLP:conf/mobicom/YangSCVLCCGM11]. BeepBeep [@2007-SenSys-BeepBeephighaccuracy] detects the distance between two smartphones with high accuracy. It has been used by many other schemes, such as HLPP games [@2011-SenSys-feasibilityrealtime; @2012-MobiSys-SwordFightenablingnew], device pairing and indoor localization [@2012-MOBICOM-PushlimitWiFi; @2012-MOBICOM-Centaurlocatingdevices].
In this work, we leverage the Doppler effects of the acoustic waves (, measuring the precise relative displacement and velocity of phone) to design for direction finding and indoor localization. is precise enough to be another basic tool of AOA, while it only requires off-the-shelf speakers. Furthermore, supports arbitrary number of users and the phones of users do not need to send any signals to get the location, which avoids the signal interference when the number of users increases.
**Leveraging the Doppler effects:** Doppler effects have been leveraged in wide areas, such as radar, satellite communication, medical imaging and blood flow measurement, etc. There are also localization approaches leveraging the Doppler shift of wireless signals in localization [@2008-SenSys-Spinningbeaconsprecise] and tracking [@2007-SenSys-Trackingmobilenodes] in wireless sensor networks. But it also needs special hardware not available for smartphone users. Meanwhile, by using the phase shift, easily implements precise tracking without complicated algorithms compared with [@2007-SenSys-Trackingmobilenodes] which uses frequency shift.
**Leveraging the inertial sensors:** Inertial sensors have been used for pedestrian dead-reckoning [@citeulike:7912602] in indoor localization. The challenge is that it suffers from large accumulation of errors. The complementary approaches to this problem are proposed in [@Wang:2012:NNW:2307636.2307655; @2012-MOBICOM-Zeezeroeffort]. uses the accelerometer and gyroscope to obtain the direction of the acoustic source.
Preliminary Approaches {#sec:pre}
======================
Mapping from Doppler Effects to Motion
--------------------------------------
Our scheme is based on the relationship between Doppler effects and the relative motion from the phone to the acoustic source, when the phone moves and causes Doppler effects on the received acoustic waves. Suppose the acoustic source is emitting the sinusoidal signal at the frequency of $f_a$, the observed frequency $f_r$ [@rosen2009encyclopedia] is $f_{r}=\frac{v_{a}+v}{v_{a}+v_{s}}f_{a}$. Here $v$ is the velocity of the receiver; positive if the receiver is moving towards the source and negative in the opposite position. $v_s$ is the velocity of the source and $v_a$ is the traveling speed of the acoustic wave.
In this paper, we only consider the circumstance that the acoustic source is motionless or the velocity of the phone is far greater than the source, , $v\gg v_s$. As typically $v_a\gg v_s$, we simplify the computing of the frequency shift $f$ as follows: $$f=f_r-f_a=\frac{v-v_{s}}{v_{a}+v_{s}}f_{a}\approx
\frac{v}{v_{a}+v_{s}}f_{a} \approx
\frac{f_a}{v_a}v\label{eq:doppler}$$ We also assume the acoustic source sends the consecutive sinusoidal acoustic wave at constant frequency $f_a$. To derive the relative displacement from Doppler effect, we assume that the received signal has the form: $$r(t)=A(t)\cos(2\pi f_{a}t+\phi(t))+\sigma(t)
\label{eq:received-signal}$$ where $A(t)$ is the amplitude which changes continuously, $\phi(t)$ is the phase which is affected by the Doppler effect and $\sigma(t)$ is the noise. Assuming $\phi(t)$ is a continuous function, the observed frequency $f_r$ at time $t$ is $ f_r(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d( 2\pi f_{a}t+\phi(t))}{dt}=
f_a+\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d\phi(t)}{dt}.$ From [Eq. (\[eq:doppler\])]{}, the frequency shift $f$ at time $t$ is $$f(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{d\phi(t)}{dt}
\label{eq:f(t)}$$
From [Eq. (\[eq:doppler\])]{}, we get the velocity and displacement relative to the acoustic source: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
v(t)=\frac{v_{a}}{2\pi f_{a}}\frac{d\phi(t)}{dt} \\
s(t)=\frac{v_{a}}{2\pi f_{a}}\phi(t)-\frac{v_{a}}{2\pi f_{a}}\phi(0)
\end{cases}
\label{eq:v-and-phi}
\label{eq:s-and-phi}\end{aligned}$$ where $s(t)$ is the relative displacement from the phone to the acoustic source. Specifically, $s(t)=L(0)-L(t)$, where $L(t)$ is the distance between the phone and the source at time $t$. In Section \[sec:stvt\], we further show how to calculate $\phi(t)$ in order to obtain $v(t)$ and $s(t)$.
Basic Direction-Finding Using Doppler Effect for Simple Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
We make a simple case of phone-to-phone direction finding to illustrate the intuition and challenges in designing .
[0.24]{} {height="1.2in"}
[0.22]{} {height="1.2in"}
[0.2]{} {height="1.2in"}
[0.3]{} {height="1.2in"}
Assume that the phone and the acoustic source are at the same height and the mobile phone starts moving in north and in a path of rectangle with the constant velocity $u_{1}$, $u_{2}$, $u_{3}$, $u_{4}$ in each direction, shown in Figure \[fig:simplemovement\]. So, frequency shifts are generated, where $f_i$ corresponding to $u_i$. If the velocities and the frequency shifts are obtained, from [Eq. (\[eq:doppler\])]{}, we can calculate the direction in the following equations: $$\begin{cases}
u_{1}\sin\alpha =\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}f_{1}; \ \ \
& u_{2}\cos\alpha =\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}f_{2};\\
-u_{3}\sin\alpha =\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}f_{3}; \ \ \
& -u_{4}\cos\alpha =\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}f_{4}
\end{cases}\label{eq:initialequation}$$ Intuitively from [Eq. (\[eq:initialequation\])]{}, if $u_1=u_2=u_3=u_4$, $f_2>f_1>0>f_3>f_4$, which indicates that $0<\alpha<45^o$. Formally, only two equations are needed to calculate $\alpha$ if the velocity in one equation is not parallel to the other. The additional equations can improve the accuracy by using maximum likelihood estimation.
Note that $\alpha$ is changing while the phone is moving, so it will cause errors on calculating $\alpha$. However, it won’t affect much on calculating the direction. In Figure \[fig:directionerror\], if the initial distance from the phone to acoustic source is $L$ and the maximum moving range of the phone is $d$, the maximum angle error is $ \alpha_e=\arcsin \frac{d}{L}.$ As the phone moves gently, we assume that $d$ is $10cm$ at maximum. The maximum errors are $5.7^o$, $1.15^o$, $0.57^o$, $0.19^o$ at $L=1, 5, 10,
30m$ respectively, , the errors get smaller when the distance becomes longer.
Moreover, if the phone calculates the position of acoustic source by not only the direction $\alpha$ according to but also the distance $L$ according to other techniques such as BeepBeep [@2007-SenSys-BeepBeephighaccuracy] while the measured $L$ is accurate, the distance $d_e$ from the calculated position to the actual position is $ d_e=2L\sin\frac{\alpha_e}{2}=2L\sin\frac{\arcsin(d/L) }{2}$. When $d\ll L$, , $10d\leq L$, $\arcsin(d/L)\approx (d/L)$ and $\sin(d/2L)\approx d/2L$. So we simplify $d_e$ as $ d_e\approx d$. Then the maximum error on computed location caused by shaking is close to the shaking distance $d$, which is acceptable in direction finding.
However, there are several problems on applying this simple approach. First, the accurate velocity of the phone is hard to be obtained by using the inertial sensors. Though it can be calculated by the accelerometer and other sensors if given the initial velocity of the phone, the errors of the acceleration will be accumulated on its integration, , the calculated velocity. For instance in Figure \[fig:simplemovement\], the velocity is zero at the end of moving while the calculated one is $-0.77m/s$ in Figure \[fig:accumlateerror\]. Second, the mobile phone and the acoustic source may not be of the same height. In this case, the calculated $f$ is lowered and the equations in [Eq. (\[eq:initialequation\])]{} are not right. Third, it would be hard and exhausting to draw the regular rectangle for the phone users. Fourth, the velocity of the phone $v$ cannot be constant in each direction. So we need a more general solution in cases of different heights and arbitrary motion patterns.
Normally, the velocity increases and then decreases, as shown in Figure \[fig:accumlateerror\]. The rapid changes of $v$ bring the difficulties on calculating the frequency shift $f$. Specifically, spectrum analysis, such as Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), is efficient in calculating $f$, if $v$ is large or close to constant for a while. But FFT cannot measure the precise value of $f$ if $v$ changes quickly due to the time-frequency resolution problem [@claerbout1992earth]. That is, for any signal, the time duration $\Delta T$ and the spectral bandwidth $\Delta F$ are related by $\Delta F \Delta T \geq 1$. For example, in Figure \[fig:fftresolution\], we try to apply FFT on the received signal, where the frequency of the acoustic wave is $f_a=19000$Hz, the sample rate is 44100Hz, and FFT size is 8192. So, the time resolution is $\Delta T=8192/44100$Hz$=0.19s$. Then, the frequency resolution $\Delta F\geq 1/\Delta T=5.38$Hz. However, we assume that the maximum speed of a user’s hand is $2m/s$ [@2012-MobiSys-SwordFightenablingnew]. The maximum frequency shift is $f_{max}=2*19000/340=111.8$Hz. Even if the maximum speed is satisfied, the relative velocity may not reach $2m/s$. For instance, when the maximum speed of phone is about $2m/s$ shown in Figure \[fig:accumlateerror\], for the phone never moves towards directly to the acoustic source, the maximum frequency shift is about $60$Hz in Figure \[fig:fftresolution\], which corresponds to the relative velocity $v=1.1m/s$. Furthermore, in our circumstance, we only require that the user shakes the phone gently, so most of the time the frequency shift is far less than $111.8$Hz. The resolution $\Delta F$, which is more than 5.38Hz, is not precise enough to measure the frequency shift.
Hence, if the relative velocity and corresponding frequency shift are close to constant for a period, designers can increase $\Delta T$ to get better frequency resolution by FFT. However, in our circumstance, the velocity is always changing, which requires that both $\Delta T$ and $\Delta F$ is small enough, to get more precise $f$ at smaller time block. Hence, it is in conflict with the time-frequency resolution problem of FFT for estimating $f$.
Besides the challenge of calculating the frequency shift $f(t)$ for direction finding, the further problem is calculating the phase shift $\phi(t)$, from which $f(t)$ can be obtained by [Eq. (\[eq:f(t)\])]{}. We also show that the real-time indoor tracking can be implemented by using $\phi(t)$ in Section \[sec:realtimetracking\].
Acoustic Direction Finding {#sec:directionfinding}
==========================
In this section, we present the acoustic direction finding component of . We show the design of in Figure \[fig:Calculating-the-direction\]. The phone gathers samples from the microphone, gyroscope and the accelerometer, when the user shakes the phone or walks in an arbitrary path. The data are processed in real time to maximize the utilization of the CPU. The phone dynamically updates the direction of the source according to the previous calculated samples.
In Figure \[fig:Calculating-the-direction\], The noise $\sigma(t)$ and variational amplitude $A(t)$ in [Eq. (\[eq:received-signal\])]{} is eliminated by BPF and AGC respectively. The *phase* $\phi$ and *frequency* $f$ are then obtained by PLL. further combines the velocity from the acoustic and inertial sensor samples to get the *source direction* $\alpha$ in LR. The phone returns the value of $\alpha$ and $\phi$ in real time for *direction finding*, *indoor localization* or *tracking*. We describe each component of the design as follows.
![Implementation of .[]{data-label="fig:Calculating-the-direction"}](multidirectionfindingAllnew-crop.pdf){width="3.3in"}
Band Pass Filter (BPF)
----------------------
To get rid of the interference of other acoustic waves, we assume the phones of different users send acoustic waves in different frequency bands. Hence, in our implementation, the acoustic sample first walks through the Band Pass Filter (BPF) such that only the waves at the specific frequency pass through BPF. The interference by other acoustic sources and the low frequency noises that human can hear are both eliminated.
Note that the type of BPF should be carefully chosen. All frequency components of a signal are delayed when passed through BPF. As the frequency is changing in Doppler effect and we need to get the precise phase, the delay at each frequency components must be constant, such that the different frequency component will not suffer distortion, which is known as the linear phase property. As a result, we choose equiripple FIR filter, which satisfies the linear phase property.
Meanwhile, the bandwidth should be wide enough to get the total signal. Normally, the maximum speed of shaking the phone is less than 2m/s. Thus, if the frequency of acoustic signal is $f_{a}=19000$Hz, the maximum frequency shift $f_{max}=111.8$Hz. So, the minimum pass band of the filter is 223.6Hz. For avoiding the interference by other acoustic sources, there should not be multiple signals that pass through the same BPF. Besides, acoustic bandwidth that the almost all the smartphones support is limited with maximum of 22050Hz (, sample rates of 44100Hz) and we find that the lowest frequency that human can hardly hear is about 17000Hz in our experiment. Thus, the maximum number of acoustic sources that can sound simultaneously in a small area (with radius about $30m$) and be successfully detected is limited to $(22050-17000)/223.6 \approx 23$. However, this is not a challenge for as we show that we only need a small number (less than 10) of acoustic sources in a small area for high accuracy. Though there are possible ways to allow more simultaneous acoustic waves such as dividing the signal into different time slots, like TDMA in shared medium network, it is beyond the scope of this paper.
Automatic Gain Control (AGC)
----------------------------
We adjust the filtered data by Automatic Gain Control (AGC) such that the amplitude of the acoustic signal $A(t)$ in [Eq. (\[eq:received-signal\])]{} is replaced by another one that is close to constant. The purpose is to let the magnitude of $(\theta[k+1]-\theta[k])$ in [Eq. (\[eq:adaptive\])]{} only be determined by $\mu$, rather than $A(t)$, which is discussed in Section \[sec:stvt\]. We adopt the design of AGC from [@rice2008digital]. Suppose $T_{s}$ is the sampling period of the received signal and $k$ is the step count of sampling, then $t=kT_{s}$. The main idea is for the input $r_{b}[k]$ from BPF, we estimate the amplitude $A[k]$ in [Eq. (\[eq:received-signal\])]{} by updating $A_{1}[k]$ with the equation: $$\log(A_{1}[k])=(1-A_\alpha)\log(A_{1}[k-1])-A_\alpha\log(A_{r}[k-1])
$$ Here $A_\alpha$ represents the sensitivity for adjusting $A_{1}[k]$. $A_{r}[k]$ represents the coarse-grained estimation of $A[k]$. In our implementation, $A_{r}[k]={\textstyle \frac{1}{7}\sum_{i=k-10}^{k}|r_{b}[i]|}$ and $A_\alpha=0.9$. Then, for the received filter data $r_b[k]$, the output $$r_{c}[k]=A_{1}[k]r_{b}[k]$$
For the amplitude of $r_{c}[k]$ is close to constant by AGC, if $A_{1}[k]=A_{1}[k-1]$, $A_{1}[k]A_{r}[k-1]=1$. Thus, the amplitude of $r_{c}[k]$ is close to 1. Hence, we get $r_c(t)\approx \cos(2\pi f_a t+\phi(t))$, where $\sigma(t)$ and $A(t)$ in [Eq. (\[eq:received-signal\])]{} is eliminated by BPF and AGC respectively.
Phase Locked Loop (PLL) {#sec:stvt}
-----------------------
According to [Eq. (\[eq:v-and-phi\])]{}, we use Phase Locked Loops (PLL) to calculate the phase $\phi(t)$, in order to get the precise relative displacement $s(t)$ and velocity $v(t)$ of the phone. PLL can be thought as a device that tracks the phase and frequency of a sinusoid [@rice2008digital]. In software implementation, we draw the idea from [@citeulike:5657344]. To get the precise $\phi(t)$, we update an adaptive estimation of $\phi(t)$ in real time, denoted as $\theta(t)$ in order that $\theta(t)\approx \phi(t)$. To make $\theta$ converge to $\phi$ after enough iterations, we define the corresponding function $J_{\textit{PLL}}(\theta)$ such that $J_{\textit{PLL}}$ converges to its maximum at the same time. Specifically, $\theta(t)$ is updated in the iterations as: $$\theta'=\theta+\frac{dJ_{\textit{PLL}}}{d\theta}
\label{initialadapt}$$ As a result, $J_{\textit{PLL}}$ should satisfy that $$\max (J_{\textit{PLL}}(\theta))=J_{\textit{PLL}}(\phi)
\label{JPLLsatis}$$
In , we choose $J_{\textit{PLL}}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\textit{PLL}}(\theta) & = & \textrm{LPF}\{r_c(t)\cos(2\pi f_{a}t+\theta(t))\}\nonumber \\
{{ }} & \approx & \frac{1}{2}\textrm{LPF}\{\cos(\phi(t)-\theta(t))\}\end{aligned}$$ Here, LPF is the Low Pass Filter which excludes the high frequency component in the above approximation. Hence, $J_{\textit{PLL}}$ satisfies [Eq. (\[JPLLsatis\])]{}.
Next, we need to change the continuous estimation process of [Eq. (\[initialadapt\])]{} to the discrete one. Assuming a small step size, the derivation in [Eq. (\[initialadapt\])]{} with respect to $\theta$ at $kT_{s}$ can be approximated[^5]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dJ_{PLL}}{d\theta} & \approx & \left. \textrm{LPF}\{\frac{d[r_c[k]\cos(2\pi f_{a}kT_{s}+\theta))]}{d\theta}\} \right|_{\theta=\theta[k]}\\
& = & -\textrm{LPF}\{r_c[k]\sin(2\pi f_{a}kT_{s}+\theta[k])\}\end{aligned}$$
As a result, the estimating of $\theta(t)$ is shown as follows: $$\theta[k+1]=\theta[k]-\mu \textrm{LPF}\{r_c[k]\sin(2\pi
f_{a}kT_{s}+\theta[k])\}\label{eq:adaptive}$$ where $\theta[k]=\theta(kT_{s})$ and $\mu$ is a small positive value. Hence, $\phi[k]\approx\theta[k]$ after enough iterations. According to [Eq. (\[eq:v-and-phi\])]{}, if the max velocity of the phone is $v_{max}=2m/s$, $f_{s}=$44100Hz and $f_{a}=19000$Hz, the max offset per sample $|\Delta\phi_{max}|=\frac{2\pi f_{a}}{v_{a}f_{s}}v_{max}=0.016$. Besides, $$\begin{array}{l}
r_{c}[k]\sin(2\pi f_{a}kT_{s}+\theta[k]) \approx \frac{1}{2}\sin(4\pi f_{a}kT_{s}+2\theta[k])\leq \frac{1}{2}
\end{array}$$
Thus, $\mu>0.03$ in [Eq. (\[eq:adaptive\])]{}, otherwise, the transition rate of $\theta[k]$ cannot catch up with the real phase. Furthermore, as $\frac{1}{2}\sin(4\pi f_{a}kT_{s}+2\theta[k])$ cannot always be $1/2$, $\mu$ needs to be much more than $0.03$ to let $\theta[k]$ converge to $\phi[k]$. However, when $\mu$ is bigger, the calculated phase is more sensitive to noises, and cannot be precise either. Hence, there is a trade off on choosing the $\mu$. In the implementation, we choose $\mu=0.03$.
Leveraging Sensors
------------------
The acceleration in world coordinate system (WCS) is calculated by using accelerometer and gyroscope of the phone. As compass is not accurate, we make the following implementation to avoid the error of compass. The accelerometer records the 3D acceleration in user’s phone coordinate system (UCS). So, we convert the acceleration in UCS to the one in WCS as follows: 1) On initialization, by leveraging the force of gravity of the earth [@zaxis], the Z axis in WCS is calculated by the accelerometer. Typically Z axis is accurate. The X axis in WCS is computed from the values of compass and gyroscope, which is supposed to point to the east but often has large errors due to noisy data. 2) After initialization, the conversion function is updated by using the gyroscope.
Hence in our WCS, the Z axis is considered to be accurate, but the X axis may not point to east. So, the calculated direction $\alpha$ in WCS may not be the actual direction relative to the east. To evaluate the performance of our direction finding, we will evaluate the direction (denoted as $\alpha_r$) of the acoustic source using the UCS of the phone that is placed horizontally such that its Z axis is same as the Z axis of WCS, as shown in Figure \[fig:duallayout\]a. When phone is static, the value $\alpha_r$ does not change. Thus, in Section \[sec:p2pexp\], we measure $\alpha_r$ to evaluate the precision of direction finding shown in Figure \[fig:duallayout\]b.
Hence, suppose the phone is horizontal, we get value $\alpha$ by using and the opening angle from X axis in UCS to the one in WCS ($\alpha_0$) by using the transform function from UCS to WCS. $\alpha_r$ is calculated by $$\alpha_r=\pi/2-\alpha-\alpha_0
\label{alpha_r}$$
Getting Direction by Linear Regression (LR)
-------------------------------------------
[[ ]{}]{}Assuming the direction vector of the acoustic source relative to the phone is $\overrightarrow{\lambda}=(\lambda_{x}, \lambda_{y}, \lambda_{z})$ and velocity vector of the phone is $\overrightarrow{u}=(v_{x}, v_{y},
v_{z})$, then $\overrightarrow{u}\cdot\overrightarrow{\lambda}=\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}f$ according to [Eq. (\[eq:doppler\])]{}. For the obtained array $\overrightarrow{u}[k]$ and $f[k]$, they satisfy the following equations $$\lambda_xv_x[k]+\lambda_yv_y[k]+\lambda_zv_z[k]=\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}\cdot
f[k], \quad \forall k
\label{eq:linearinitial}$$ Hence, the 3D direction $\overrightarrow\lambda$ can be obtained by solving these equations using linear regression, where $f[k]$ can be calculated by [Eq. (\[eq:f(t)\])]{}, [Eq. (\[eq:adaptive\])]{}. Ideally, if $u[k]$ is obtained from inertial sensors and there are no errors of $u[k]$, there are 3 unknowns $\lambda_x,\lambda_y,\lambda_z$ in the equation set. Moreover, using this we can calculate the direction when the phone moves in arbitrary paths, because different motion patterns of the phone merely causes different array $\overrightarrow{u}[k]$ and $f[k]$.
We can also translate 3D direction $\overrightarrow\lambda$ to 2D direction $\alpha$ as follows: $$\alpha=\begin{cases}
\arcsin\frac{\lambda_{y}}{\sqrt {\lambda_{x}^2+\lambda_y^2}} & \lambda_x \geq 0\\ \pi+\arcsin\frac{\lambda_{y}}{\sqrt {\lambda_{x}^2+\lambda_y^2}} & \lambda_x<0 \end{cases}
\label{eq:arctan}$$
[0.30]{} [{height="1in"}]{}
[0.16]{} [{height="1in"}]{}
[0.16]{} [{height="1in"}]{}
[0.16]{} [{height="1in"}]{}
[0.18]{} [{height="1in"}]{}
We now address non-ideal circumstance with noisy sensor data, , to minimize the error of velocity which is derived from the calculated acceleration in WCS. In phone-to-phone direction finding and indoor localization, we only need the 2D direction $\alpha$ rather than the 3D direction $(\lambda_x,\lambda_y,\lambda_z)$. Thus, $\lambda_z$ is not needed. From [Eq. (\[eq:linearinitial\])]{}, if $\lambda_zv[k]\approx 0$, , the phone moves in a horizontal plane or the two phones are at the same height approximately, we can calculate the direction by the following equation to eliminate the error of $v_z$: $$\lambda_xv_x[k]+\lambda_yv_y[k]=\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}\cdot f[k]
\label{eq:simplydirection}$$
Suppose $\hat{a}_x[i]=a_x[i]+\sigma_x[i]$ where $\hat{a}_x[i]$, $a_x[i]$, $\sigma_x[i]$ is the real acceleration, the calculated acceleration, the error of the calculation on the acceleration of the $i$th sample respectively. We can derive $v_x$ from $$v_x[k]=v_x[0]+\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}T[i]a_x[i]+\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}T[i]\sigma_x[i]$$ where $T[i]$ is the time interval from $a_x[i]$ to $a_x[i+1]$.
The error $\sigma_x$ is related the natural quality of the inertial sensors and challenging to be measured. In this paper, we simply assume $\sigma_x$ equals to a constant $e_x$ at a short period. Suppose $t[k]=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}T[i]$, we get $\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}T[i]\sigma_x[i]=e_xt[k]$. Similarly, we also assume the error of $a_y$ is a constant $e_y$ at a short period.
As a result, from Eq. , we could calculate the 2D direction by linear regression from the following equation set which has 4 unknowns ($\lambda_x$, $\lambda_y$, $\lambda_0$, $\lambda_1$) $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
w_{x}[0] & w_{y}[0] & 1 & t[0] \\
w_{x}[1] & w_{y}[1] & 1 & t[1]\\
\cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots \\
w_{x}[n] & w_{y}[n] & 1 & t[n]
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\lambda_{x}\\
\lambda_{y}\\
\lambda_{0}\\
\lambda_{1}
\end{array}\right)=\frac{v_{a}}{f_{a}}\cdot\left(\begin{array}{c}
f[0]\\
f[1]\\
\cdots\\
f[n]
\end{array}\right)
$$ where $w_x[k]=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}T[i]a_x[i]$, $w_y[k]=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}T[i]a_y[i]$, $\lambda_0=\lambda_xv_x[0]+\lambda_yv_y[0]$ and $\lambda_1=\lambda_xe_x+\lambda_ye_y$. Note that, we allow that $v_x[0]\not=0$ and $v_y[0]\not=0$ in our solution, which means we don’t require the phone to be motionless before shaking the phone and calculating the direction. $v_x[0]$ and $v_y[0]$ are put together as an unknown $\lambda_0$ in the equation.
[0.18]{} ![(a) WCS vs. UCS when the phone is horizontal. (b) Experiment of direction finding.[]{data-label="fig:duallayout"}](nocompass-crop "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
[0.23]{} ![(a) WCS vs. UCS when the phone is horizontal. (b) Experiment of direction finding.[]{data-label="fig:duallayout"}](initialexperiment-crop "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
Indoor Localization & Tracking {#sec:localization}
==============================
We now describe our basic method in for fine-grained indoor localization illustrated in Figure \[fig:Fine-grained-Indoor-Location\], which is based on the direction $\alpha$ and the phase $\phi$ in Section \[sec:directionfinding\]. We require that there are at least three acoustic sources as anchor nodes installed, which send sinusoid signals at the specific different frequencies. Users need to get the position and frequency of each anchor node from network service. includes two phases: finding the initial position and real-time tracking.
Finding the initial position
----------------------------
The user needs to shake the phone first in order to get his/her initial position. The phone calculates the direction of each anchor node in WCS and then gets the position. Note that as the compass is not precise, the calculated directions, such as $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ in Figure \[fig:Fine-grained-Indoor-Location\], are not directly used in calculating the position. However, observe that the opening angle $(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)$ is fixed no matter which WCS is chosen. We calculate the initial position using this opening angle. [[ ]{}]{}Taking the positions $(x_1, y_1)$ and $(x_2, y_2)$ of two anchor nodes $A_1$ and $A_2$ and the relative directions $PA_1$, $PA_2$ from phone (with unknown position $P$) to $A_1$ and $A_2$, we can compute the distance $D=\|A_1 -A_2\|$ and the opening angle $\alpha_d = \angle A_1 P
A_2$, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:Fine-grained-Indoor-Location\]. It can be inferred that the position $P$ is on a fixed circle illustrated in Figure \[fig:solveindoor-a\], \[fig:solveindoor-b\]. If $\alpha_d$ is a cute angle as in Figure \[fig:solveindoor-a\], $\alpha_c=2\alpha_d$. So, the radius of the circle $R=\frac{D}{2\sin \alpha_d}$. Then we get at most two possible solutions of the position of the circumcenter $O$ by using radius $R$ and the given coordinates of two nodes $A_1$ and $A_2$. If $\alpha_d$ is a cute angle, then $O$ and $P$ are on the same side of $A_1A_2$. Similarly, if $\alpha_d$ is an obtuse angle, as in Figure \[fig:solveindoor-b\], $O$ and $P$ are on the opposite side of $A_1A_2$.
For a system of $n$ anchor nodes, there are $\frac {n(n-1)}{2}$ pairs of anchor nodes. As a result, phone $P$ lies on $\frac {n(n-1)}{2}$ circles. Thus, with at least 3 anchor nodes, we can get the position of $P$. It is worth mentioning that for the circle formed by a node pair, the circle is divided into two arcs by the node pair. Node $P$ only lies on one of the arcs, depending on whether $\alpha_d$ is an acute angle or an obtuse angle. Hence, for localization we search for the point $P$ to minimize $ \sum_i d_i$ where $d_i$ is the distance from $P$ to the $i$th arc.
We claim that it will result in better localization accuracy if we place the anchor nodes in a line as in Figure \[fig:layout-g\] compared to the one in Figure \[fig:layout-b\]. In Figure \[fig:layout-b\], the centers of the circles are too close, which causes big potential errors. The root reason is that the 4 points $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$, $P$ are nearly at the same circle, which means the arbitrary point, , $A_1$, is close to the circle which is constructed by the rest of 3 points, , $A_2$, $A_3$, $P$. [[ ]{}]{}
Real-time tracking {#sec:realtimetracking}
------------------
After getting the initial location of phone, the phone then gets the real-time location by calculating the relative displacement to each anchor node without shaking the phone again. In Figure \[fig:Fine-grained-Indoor-Location\], if the location of phone at time $t$ has been calculated, denoted as $(x,y)$, we calculate its location $(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})$ at the latter time $\tilde{t}$ by getting $s(t)$ and $s(\tilde{t})$ using [Eq. (\[eq:s-and-phi\])]{}, [Eq. (\[eq:adaptive\])]{}. Then we calculate next location according to $(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})$ iteratively. Specifically, if the user gets the location $(x,y)$, then the distance from $(x,y)$ to $(x_i,y_i)$ is $ L_{i}=\sqrt{(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}+h_i^2}$, where $h_i$ is the relative height between the phone and the source $(x_i,y_i)$. Thus, s/he gets the distances from all the available acoustic sources at time $t$. According to [Eq. (\[eq:s-and-phi\])]{}, [Eq. (\[eq:adaptive\])]{} and the definition of $s_i$, we have $$\tilde{L_i}=L_i-\frac{v_{a}}{2\pi f_{a}} (\tilde{\phi_i}-\phi_i)
\label{distance_in_specific_moment}$$ where $\tilde{L_i}=L_i(\tilde t)$ and $\tilde \phi_i = \phi_i(\tilde t)$. Then we search for location $(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})$ near $(x,y)$ to minimize $\sum _i M_i$ where $ M_i=\big | \tilde{L_i}-\sqrt{(\tilde{x}-x_i)^2+(\tilde{y}-y_i)^2+h_i^2} \big|$.
Experiment {#sec:experiment}
==========
We implement on Nexus 7, where all the components, including BPF and PLL, are implemented by using Android APIs. The audio sample rate is 44100Hz, and sample rate of the gyroscope and accelerometer is 200Hz.
Phone-to-phone Direction Finding {#sec:p2pexp}
--------------------------------
### Experiment Design
The vertical view of the phone and acoustic source is shown in Figure \[fig:duallayout\]b. The distance between the phone and the acoustic source is $L$. The orientation angle of the phone and acoustic source at the horizontal plane is $\alpha_r$ and $\beta$ respectively. There are reference objects at places A, B, C which are used to align the phones. The place C is used to put new acoustic source for further experiment. Additionally, we assume elevation angle of the acoustic source is $\gamma$ which is not shown in this 2D figure. The acoustic source is on the floor, the height of phone from the floor is about $40cm$.
The main process of evaluating performance of direction finding is as follows: we vary $L$, $\alpha_r$, $\beta$, $\gamma$ by moving the reference objects. We obtain the measured direction $\alpha_r$ by shaking the phone, aligning the phone to the reference object, and reading the direction value from the phone. We measure $\alpha_r$ 50 times for each configuration.
### Empty Room with Single Acoustic Wave
We first conduct the experiment in a large empty room for examining the accuracy of direction finding when there is only single acoustic wave. The sound pressure of the room is $-41$ dBFS (about 30 dB SPL) measured by Nexus 7. The amplitude of the acoustic source at the distance of $1m$ is $-20$ dBFS.
**Effect by $L$ and $\alpha_r$.** The cases we mostly care about is the performance when the distance $L$ and the orientation of the phone $\alpha_r$ is changing. Hence, we set $\beta=0$ and $\gamma=0$, and plot the standard deviations and cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the angular errors when $L$ and $\alpha_r$ are changed in Figure \[fig:initresult\].
[0.235]{} ![The result of direction finding in an empty room when $\beta=0$ and $\gamma=0$.[]{data-label="fig:initresult"}](standarddeviation-crop "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
[0.2]{} ![The result of direction finding in an empty room when $\beta=0$ and $\gamma=0$.[]{data-label="fig:initresult"}](diff_pos_cdf-crop.pdf "fig:"){height="1.5in"}
The key observation is that the measurement is very precise when $L\leq32m$. We examine the reason in Figure \[fig:phasemeter\], which plots the calculated $\phi(t)$ on random samples with different $L$ values. The calculated $\phi(t)$ is always smooth when $L \leq 24m$, while there are small noises when $L=32m$ and much bigger noises if $L=40m$. Hence, the calculated related displacement and velocity become much less precise when $L=40m$, which affects the calculation of direction. It is similar that most of the following cases mainly affect the calculated phase which finally affect the precision of direction finding.
![The calculated phase $\phi(t)$.[]{data-label="fig:phasemeter"}](thetasmall-crop){width="3.35in"}
{width="7in"}
When $L\leq 32m$, the mean error and standard deviation of the measurement is $2.10^o$ and $2.66^o$. The angular errors are within $2.06^o$, $4.43^o$, $5.81^o$ at 50%, 90%, 95% respectively. Though the errors become larger when $L=40m$, it is still acceptable. We also test angle errors when $L>40m$, but it becomes much unstable as the signal is too weak. So we do not show the result of this case.
We also find that $\alpha_r$ has little effect on precision according to Figure \[fig:initresult\]a. As the errors are so close for different $\alpha_r$, we don’t show the CDF of different $\alpha_r$.
**Effect by $\beta$ and $\gamma$.** We test the errors when the orientation of the acoustic source is not directly pointing to the phone. In this case, we set $\alpha_r=45^o$. In Figure \[fig:errorerror\]a, \[fig:errorerror\]b, we show the mean and standard deviation with different choices of $\beta$, $\gamma$, $L$.
It shows an interesting result that when $\beta$ changes, the mean value changes more in $L=8m$ than the one in $L=32m$. The main reason is that the acoustic source we choose is not omnidirectional, and the signal is much stronger right in front of the source. The signal reflected from the wall affects the result, which is so-called the multipath effect. When the phone is further from the source, the signal reflected from the wall becomes much weaker than the one directly from the acoustic source.
Another observation is that if the phone turns up, such as $\gamma=45^o$, $60^o$, $90^o $, the mean value will not change a lot no matter $L=8m$ or $L=32m$. That is, though there is multipath from the ceiling, it has little effect on the mean direction. We find a new phenomenon on multipath effect in latter experiment, which explains these observations here.
**Motion Pattern.** We also analyze the angular errors caused by the inertial sensors. As we claim that supports arbitrary pattern of phone movement, we test errors caused by different motion patterns of the phone. In this case, we set $L=32m$, $\alpha_r=45^o$, $\beta=\gamma=0$.
![Basic phone motion patterns.[]{data-label="fig:motionpattern"}](motionpattern-crop)
We define several motion patterns in Figure \[fig:motionpattern\]. Pattern A is the default basic pattern used in the whole experiment. The pattern A is a mix of rectangle and circle. The pattern B, C, D is the circle, the rectangle, and the arbitrary pattern respectively. We shake the phone with the basic patterns anti-clockwise or clockwise for a few times and get the result in Figure \[fig:errorerror\]c. The first motion pattern of this figure, named *A-caca*, means we shake the phone 4 times in basic pattern A: **c**lockwise, **a**nticlockwise, **c**lockwise, **a**nticlockwise. The rest of the patterns can be explained similarly.
First of all, we found the result of arbitrary pattern D is still acceptable in $L=32m$: the standard deviation of the measurement is $4.96^o$. Another important observation is that, when the phone moves clockwise, there is a positive shift on the mean value. When the phone moves anti-clockwise, there is a negative shift. For the pattern D, there are both positive and negative shifts in the measurement, so the standard deviation becomes a little bigger. We also observed that when the phone was shaken in other regular patterns compared to pattern D, the standard deviation becomes smaller. That is, the error shift is close to constant in these cases. We also find that when we shake the phone in A-caca, C-ca, the means are close to same. We leave it as a future work to understand why the phenomena happen.
**Non-line of sight.** We set $L=8m$, $\alpha_r=45^o$, $\beta=\gamma=0$, and test a simple case on the effect by Non-line of sight (NLOS). In Figure \[fig:errorerror\]d, a person stands between the phone and acoustic source, and we measure the errors related to the distance from the person to the phone. It becomes apparent that when the person stands in either ends, the standard deviation is enlarged, while the person stands in the middle, it is close to the one without obstruction. Hence, the person has little effect on direction finding, as long as s/he is not too close to the acoustic source or the receiver. This is also verified in the experiment of noisy environment.
Another case of NLOS is that the user put his back to the source. The signal turns so weak and the result becomes unstable. In this case, the user can turn around to get the precise direction. The other possible complementory method is to let user rotate the phone around the user’s body, similar to [@2011-MOBICOM-Iamantenna].
**Multipath effect.** As the multipath effect is hard to measure exactly, we first make a man-made multipath to find its impact. Then, we make a simple real case to verify our finding.
We set $L=8m$, $\alpha_r=45^o$, $\beta=\gamma=0$ and add another phone as acoustic source placed at position C in Figure \[fig:duallayout\]b. The new source is also 8 meters from the phone. It beeps at the same frequency with the source at B. The volume of the source at B is constant 60%. We change the volume of the source at C from 0% to 100%, and plot the Figure \[fig:errorerror\]e. When the volume is less than 20%, it has little effect: the standard deviation is low, and the mean value is slightly lowered. There is an interesting phenomenon that when the volume becomes larger, the angle becomes lower which is close to the direction of the new source. However, the standard deviation becomes bigger when both sources have high volume.
We then conduct experiment with both acoustic source and phone near the wall. The wall is on the right hand side of the user while shaking the phone. We set $\alpha_r=\beta=\gamma=0$ and $L=8,16,24,32m$. The result is shown in Figure \[fig:errorerror\]f. $\alpha_r$ becomes bigger for all the distances which can be inferred from the above conclusion. It can also be inferred that the strengths of the reflected signals relative to the respective direct signals are different at each $L$, which causes different mean shifts of $\alpha_r$. The other observation is that the standard deviation is low for each distance. Hence, reflected signal is weak compared to the one directly from the acoustic source.
### Empty Room with Multiple Acoustic Waves
To validate the robustness of , we conduct two types of experiments: (1) an acoustic source broadcasts multiple signals at different frequencies, (2) multiple sources broadcast signals at different frequencies.
[0.235]{} ![(a) Errors on different cases when $L\leq
24m$, $\alpha_r=\beta=\gamma=0$. (b) The opening angle errors when there are multiple signals.[]{data-label="fig:errorandinnererror"}](norm_error_cdf_linestyle-crop.pdf "fig:"){height="1.57in"}
[0.22]{} ![(a) Errors on different cases when $L\leq
24m$, $\alpha_r=\beta=\gamma=0$. (b) The opening angle errors when there are multiple signals.[]{data-label="fig:errorandinnererror"}](inner_error_cdf_linestyle-crop.pdf "fig:"){height="1.57in"}
In experiment (1), we measure the angular errors when the acoustic source sends 6 sinusoidal signals at the frequency from 17000Hz to 19500Hz. The experiment is performed by setting $\alpha_r=\beta=\gamma=0$. We find that the results are similar for different $L$ that $L\leq 24m$, while the ones at $L=32m$ are a little worse. It is because that when the phone sends multiple signals, the signal strength of each component becomes weaker. We plot the CDF at $L\leq24m$ in Figure \[fig:errorandinnererror\]a. The performance is almost the same with the one sending single wave. It can be inferred that we can use loudspeakers in the mall as anchor nodes while they are playing music.
We now analyze the performance of direction finding when there are multiple acoustic sources. The performance in this case will have direct impact on the accuracy of the localization to be studied later in Subsection \[subsubsec:localization\]. Recall that as the computing of the absolute direction requires the accurate compass which is hard to get, in our localization method we use the opening angle $\angle A_i P A_j$ from the phone with location $P$ to two arbitrary anchor nodes $A_i$ and $A_j$ instead of the absolute orientation of any vector $PA_i$ or $PA_j$. Thus, here we measure the accuracy of estimated angle $\angle A_i P
A_j$ by varying the locations of $P$, $A_i$, and $A_j$.
Figure \[fig:errorandinnererror\]b shows the opening angle errors in three cases: (1) single source, multiple waves, super market, (2) single source, multiple waves, empty room, (3) multiple source, multiple waves, empty room. We find that the opening angle errors in cases (1), (2) are less than the direction errors in Figure \[fig:errorandinnererror\]a. Furthermore, we observe that case (3) is much worse than (2). Though it is unfair to compare the two cases that the acoustic sources are different, it shows the possibility of improvement on the precision of indoor localization by using better acoustic sources, as we use the worse case for calculating the latter position.
### Noisy Environment
We conduct this experiment in a super market, where it is noisy ($-21$ dBFS) and there are people walking around and blocking the line from the acoustic source to the phone. We also let the phone send multiple signals. In Figure \[fig:errorandinnererror\], the result becomes a little worse than the one in empty room. Almost all errors are less than 10 degrees, which is acceptable.
### Overhead
As calculates the direction in real time, we only evaluate the CPU usage. When processes one acoustic signal, the CPU usage is 20.5%. When it process 6 signals at the same time, the CPU usage of this application is 95.25% and it takes the phone 3.9 seconds to process 1 second of signal samples on average. The main cost for computation is the Band Pass Filter (BPF). We choose the FIR filter to achieve linear phase property as discussed earlier. However, the computation overhead is much higher than IIR filters. When there are multiple signals, we need to shorten the bandwidth of the filter, which costs more computation overhead. So there is a trade-off between processing speed and accuracy: we can enhance the speed by using IIR filter by sacrificing a little accuracy. In fact, as we only need to shake the phone for a short duration to get the directions, the overhead is not the key problem.
[0.19]{} {height="1.4in"}
[0.19]{} {height="1.4in"}
[0.19]{} {height="1.4in"}
[0.19]{} {height="1.4in"}
[0.19]{} {height="1.4in"}
Real-time Indoor Localization {#sec:indorrexp}
-----------------------------
### Experimental setup
In Figure \[fig:indoorplacement\], we place 6 phones as anchor nodes in the same empty room in the previous subsection. The positions are $(0, -3)$, $(6, 0)$, $(12, 0)$, $(18, 0)$, $(24, 0)$, $(30, -3)$ (meters) respectively. The beep frequencies are from 17000 to 19500Hz. We choose spots at $y\in \{-3, -6\}$ and $x\in
\{6,9,12, 15, 18, 21,24\}$. We conduct the localization when people stay at these spots, and repeat the experiment 30 times for each spot. How to place anchor nodes in optimal way in an area is left for future research.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Indoor localization testing prototype.[]{data-label="fig:indoorplacement"}](indoorreallayout "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="0.8in"} ![Indoor localization testing prototype.[]{data-label="fig:indoorplacement"}](indoorlayout-crop "fig:"){width="1.5in" height="0.8in"}
\(a) Indoor environment \(b) Layout of anchors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Static Position Localization {#subsubsec:localization}
The accuracy of static localization is shown in Figure \[fig:indoorCDF\]. achieves localization errors within $0.42m$, $0.92m$, $1.08m$, $1.73m$ at the percentage of 50%, 90%, 95%, and 100% respectively. The mean error and the standard deviation is $0.50m$ and $0.59m$ respectively. We also find that the localization accuracy at spots with $y=-3m$ is better than the ones on $y=-6m$. Specifically, on $y=-3m$, the localization errors are within $0.28m$, $0.73m$, $0.91m$, $1.73m$ at the percentage of 50%, 90%, 95%, and 100% respectively.
Meanwhile, we find that there are nearly constant error shifts of the calculated position at all locations. Thus, we further adjust the position by linear regression. That is, we build a polynomial function model from the calculated positions to more precise positions by learning the results from half of the samples. We then apply the function to the other half and the result is ploted in Figure \[fig:indoorCDFoffice\]. It shows that the precision is greatly enhanced (, the errors are within $0.67m$, $0.82m$, $1.56m$ at the percentage of 90%, 95%, 100% respectively).
We then measure the errors of static localization in a large office (-34 dBFS), where the environment is much more complicated. The layout of the anchor nodes is nearly the same with the one in Figure \[fig:indoorplacement\], except the anchor nodes are installed on the ceiling. Figure \[fig:indoorCDFoffice\] shows that the error is within $0.94m$, $1.23m$, $2.59m$ at the percentage of 80%, 90%, 100% respectively after linear regression.
We also choose specific number of nodes (, $3\sim 6$) from the 6 nodes to calculate the position. In Figure \[fig:errordeletenode\], it shows that the precision is greatly enhanced when the number of nodes increases. Besides, the precision in case of 3 nodes becomes much worse for it is more sensitive by the layout shown in Figure \[fig:layout-g\], \[fig:layout-b\].
### Real-time Tracking {#real-time-tracking}
We also conduct real time indoor tracking using the same environment as in Figure \[fig:indoorplacement\]. Assume that we get the initial position of the user before s/he walks by shaking the phone. In our experiments reported here, users starts from spot $(6,-6)$ shown in Figure \[fig:realtime\]. Then, the user walks in some specific paths with length more than $50m$ with the phone in his/her hand to the destination at spot $(24,-3)$. The errors are kept within $0.4m$ shown in Figure \[fig:trackingerrordetail\] and Figure \[fig:realtime\].
![Precise real-time indoor tracking.[]{data-label="fig:realtime"}](tracking-crop){width="3.3in"}
We then consider the case that there are errors on the calculated initial position when the user starts walking. For each test, we uniformly choose a spot which is $0.25m$, $0.5m$, $0.75m$, or $1m$ from $(6,-6)$, and measure the localization accuracies at the destination, , distances from $(24,-6)$ to the calculated final positions in Figure \[fig:initialerroreffect\]. We can observe that the errors at initial position do not affect the real time tracking, where the error is still within $2m$ when the user walks for 51 meters and the initial position error is $1m$.
As the phone needs $3.9s$ to process the acoustic samples of 1s, for real-time tracking by , we let the phone process $20\%$ of the samples, instead of full samples. Specifically, it processes consecutive samples of $0.05s$ for each $0.25s$. Hence, the phone can deal with the samples and track the position in real time. The result is close to the one which processes full samples in Figure \[fig:realtime\]. We plot the localization errors in Figure \[fig:trackingerrordetail\]. The mean error and standard deviation in this case is $0.29m$ and $0.34m$ respectively, which is still very precise. The CPU usage can also be lowered down by using $10\%$ of the sample with the mean error of $1.02m$, if the CPU of some other phone is not fast enough.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we propose , a novel acoustic-based method to find the direction of the acoustic source, and a real-time accurate indoor localization scheme based on this precise direction-finding. effectively leverages the Doppler effects of the acoustic waves received by phones by exploiting the sensors in the smartphone and existing speakers to send sinusoidal signals. Our extensive evaluations show that performs extremely well in phone-to-phone direction finding and real-time indoor localization. Note that did not directly use the ranging result as accurate ranging often needs either time-synchronization or communication between two nodes, both of which incur overhead. Some future work are to study the optimal placement of acoustic anchors, and to develop a low overhead distance estimation between phone and source for further improving the performances and reducing the number of anchors of .
[^1]: Wenchao Huang and Yan Xiong are with the School of Computer Science and Technology, University of Science and Technology of China, email:{huangwc, yxiong}@ustc.edu.cn.
[^2]: Xiang-Yang Li is with Department of Computer Science, Illinois Institute of Technology, email: [email protected].
[^3]: Hao Lin is with School of Internet of Things Engineering, Jiangnan University, email: [email protected].
[^4]: Panlong Yang is with Institute of Communication Engineering, PLAUST. Xufei Mao and Yunhao Liu are with Department of Software Engineering, Tsinghua University.
[^5]: The proof of the approximation is in G.13 of [@citeulike:5657344].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The predominant approach to open-domain dialog generation relies on end-to-end training of neural models on chat datasets. However, this approach provides little insight as to what these models learn (or do not learn) about engaging in dialog. In this study, we analyze the internal representations learned by neural open-domain dialog systems and evaluate the quality of these representations for learning basic conversational skills. Our results suggest that standard open-domain dialog systems struggle with answering questions, inferring contradiction, and determining the topic of conversation, among other tasks. We also find that the dyadic, turn-taking nature of dialog is not fully leveraged by these models. By exploring these limitations, we highlight the need for additional research into architectures and training methods that can better capture high-level information about dialog.[^1]'
author:
- |
Abdelrhman Saleh$^{1}$, Tovly Deutsch$^{1,}$[^2], Stephen Casper$^{1,}\footnotemark[1]$,\
**Yonatan Belinkov$^{1,2}$,** and **Stuart Shieber$^{1}$**\
$^1$Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences\
$^2$MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory\
`[email protected]`
bibliography:
- 'acl2020.bib'
title: Probing Neural Dialog Models for Conversational Understanding
---
Introduction
============
Open-domain dialog systems often rely on neural models for language generation that are trained end-to-end on chat datasets. End-to-end training eliminates the need for hand-crafted features and task-specific modules (for example, for question answering or intent detection), while delivering promising results on a variety of language generation tasks including machine translation [@bahdanau2014neural], abstractive summarization [@rush2015neural], and text simplification [@wang2016simplification].
However, current generative models for dialog suffer from several shortcomings that limit their usefulness in the real world. Neural models can be opaque and difficult to interpret, posing barriers to their deployment in safety-critical applications such as mental health or customer service [@belinkov2019analysis]. End-to-end training provides little insight as to what these models learn about engaging in dialog. Open-domain dialog systems also struggle to maintain basic conversations, frequently ignoring user input [@sankar2019neural] while generating irrelevant, repetitive, and contradictory responses [@saleh2019hierarchical; @li2016deep; @li2017adversarial; @welleck2018dnli]. Table \[tab:badsamples\] shows examples from standard dialog models which fail at basic interactions – struggling to answer questions, detect intent, and understand conversational context.
In light of these limitations, we aim to answer the following questions: (*i*) Do neural dialog models effectively encode information about the conversation history? (*ii*) Do neural dialog models learn basic conversational skills through end-to-end training? (*iii*) And to what extent do neural dialog models leverage the dyadic, turn-taking structure of dialog to learn these skills?
To answer these questions, we propose a set of eight *probing tasks* to measure the conversational understanding of neural dialog models. Our tasks include question classification, intent detection, natural language inference, and commonsense reasoning, which all require high-level understanding of language. We also carry out *perturbation experiments* designed to test if these models fully exploit dialog structure during training. These experiments entail breaking the dialog structure by training on shuffled conversations and measuring the effects on probing performance and perplexity.
We experiment with both recurrent [@sutskever2014sequence] and transformer-based [@vaswani2017attention] open-domain dialog models. We also analyze models with different sizes and initialization strategies, training small models from scratch and fine-tuning large pre-trained models on dialog data. Thus, our study covers a variety of standard models and approaches for open-domain dialog generation. Our analysis reveals three main insights:
1. Dialog models trained from scratch on chat datasets perform poorly on the probing tasks, suggesting that they struggle with basic conversational skills. Large, pre-trained models achieve much better probing performance but are still on par with simple baselines.
2. Neural dialog models fail to effectively encode information about the conversation history and the current utterance. In most cases, simply averaging the word embeddings is superior to using the learned encoder representations. This performance gap is smaller for large, pre-trained models.
3. Neural dialog models do not leverage the dyadic, turn-taking nature of conversation. Shuffling conversations in the training data had little impact on perplexity and probing performance. This suggests that breaking the dialog structure did not significantly affect the quality of learned representations.
Our code integrates with and extends ParlAI [@miller2017parlai], a popular open-source platform for building dialog systems. We also publicly release all our code at <https://github.com/AbdulSaleh/dialog-probing>, hoping that probing will become a standard method for interpreting and analyzing open-domain dialog systems.
-- -- -- --
-- -- -- --
Related Work
============
Evaluating and interpreting open-domain dialog models is notoriously challenging. Multiple studies have shown that standard evaluation metrics such as perplexity and BLEU scores [@papineni2002bleu] correlate very weakly with human judgements of conversation quality [@liu2016not; @ghandeharioun2019approximating; @dziri2019evaluating]. This has inspired multiple new approaches for evaluating dialog systems. One popular evaluation metric involves calculating the semantic similarity between the user input and generated response in high-dimensional embedding space [@liu2016not; @ghandeharioun2019approximating; @dziri2019evaluating; @park2018hierarchical; @zhao2017learning; @xu2018towards]. @ghandeharioun2019approximating proposed calculating conversation metrics such as sentiment and coherence on self-play conversations generated by trained models. Similarly, @dziri2019evaluating use neural classifiers to identify whether the model-generated responses entail or contradict user input in a natural language inference setting.
To the best of our knowledge, all existing approaches for evaluating the performance of open-domain dialog systems only consider external model behavior in the sense that they analyze properties of the generated text. In this study, we explore internal representations instead, motivated by the fact that reasonable internal behavior is crucial for interpretability and is often a prerequisite for effective external behavior.
Outside of open-domain dialog, probing has been applied for analyzing natural language processing models in machine translation [@belinkov2017neural] and visual question answering [@subramaniananalyzing]. Probing is also commonly used for evaluating the quality of “universal” sentence representations which are trained once and used for a variety of applications [@conneau2018you; @adi2016fine] (for example, InferSent [@conneau2017supervised], SkipThought [@kiros2015skip], USE [@cer2018universal]). Along the same lines, natural language understanding benchmarks such as GLUE [@wang2018glue] and SuperGLUE [@wang2019superglue] propose a set of diverse tasks for evaluating general linguistic knowledge. Our analysis differs from previous work since it is focused on probing for conversational skills that are particularly relevant to dialog generation.
With regard to perturbation experiments, @sankar2019neural found that standard dialog models are largely insensitive to perturbations of the input text. Here we introduce an alternative set of perturbation experiments to similarly explore the extent to which dialog structure is being leveraged by these models.
Methodology
===========
Models and Data
---------------
In this study, we focus on the three most widespread dialog architectures: recurrent neural networks (RNNs) [@sutskever2014sequence], RNNs with attention [@bahdanau2014neural], and Transformers [@vaswani2017attention]. We use the ParlAI platform [@miller2017parlai] for building and training the models. We train models of two different sizes and initialization strategies. Small models ($\approx 14$M parameters) are initialized randomly and trained from scratch on DailyDialog [@dailydialog]. Large models ($\approx70$M parameters) are pre-trained on WikiText-103 [@merity2016wikitext], and then fine-tuned on DailyDialog.[^3]
DailyDialog [@dailydialog] is a dataset of $14$K train, $1$K validation, and $1$K test multi-turn dialogs collected from an English learning website. The dialogs are of much higher quality than datasets scraped from Twitter or Reddit. WikiText-103 [@merity2016wikitext] is a dataset of $29$K Wikipedia articles. For pre-training the large models, we format WikiText-103 as a dialog dataset by treating each paragraph as a conversation and each sentence as an utterance.
Probing experiments {#sec:probingexps}
-------------------
![Probing setup. Dotted arrows emphasize that probing is applied to frozen models after dialog training. Only the parameters of the classifier module are learned during probing.[]{data-label="fig:probing"}](figures/probing.png){width="\linewidth"}
In open-domain dialog generation, the goal is to generate the next utterance or response, $u_{t+1}$, given the conversation history, $[u_1, \dots, u_t]$. First, we train our models on dialog generation using a maximum-likelihood objective [@sutskever2014sequence]. We then freeze these trained models and use them as feature extractors. We run the dialog models on text from the probing tasks and use the internal representations as features for a two-layer multilayer perceptron (MLP) classifier trained on the probing tasks as in figure \[fig:probing\]. This follows the same methodology outlined in previous probing studies [@belinkov2017neural; @belinkov2017speech; @conneau2018you; @adi2016fine].
The assumption here is that if a model learns certain conversational skills, then knowledge of these skills should be reflected in its internal representations. For example, a model that excels at answering questions would be expected to learn useful internal representations for question answering. Thus, the performance of the probing classifier on question answering can be used as a proxy for learning this skill. We extend this reasoning to eight probing tasks designed to measure a model’s conversational understanding.
The probing tasks require high-level reasoning, sometimes across multiple utterances, therefore we aggregate utterance-level representations for probing. Our probing experiments consider three types of internal representations:
#### Word Embeddings:
To get the word embedding representations, we first averaged word embeddings of all words in the previous utterances, $[u_1, \dots, u_{t-1}]$, then we separately averaged word embeddings of all words in the current utterance, $u_t$, and concatenated the two resulting, equal-length vectors. Encoding the past utterances and the current utterance separately is important since it provides some temporal information about utterance order. We used the dialog model’s encoder word embedding matrix.
#### Encoder State:
For the the encoder state, we extracted the encoder outputs after running it on the entire probing task input (i.e. the full conversation history, $[u_1, \dots, u_t]$). Crucially, encoder states are the representations passed to the decoder for generation and are thus different for each architecture. For RNNs we used the *last* encoder hidden and cell states. For RNNs with attention the decoder has access to all the encoder hidden states (not just the final ones), through the attention mechanism. Thus, for RNNs with attention, we first averaged the encoder hidden states corresponding to the previous utterances, $[u_1, \dots, u_{t-1}]$, and then we separately averaged the encoder hidden states corresponding to the current utterance, $u_t$, and concatenated the two resulting, equal-length vectors. We also concatenated the last cell state. Similarly, for Transformers, we averaged the encoder outputs corresponding to the previous utterances and separately averaged encoder outputs corresponding to the current utterance and concatenated them.
#### Combined:
The combined representations are the concatenation of of the word embeddings and encoder state representations.
####
We also use GloVe [@pennington2014glove] word embeddings as a simple baseline. We encode the probing task inputs using the word embeddings approach described above. We ensure that GloVe and all models of a certain size (small vs large) share the same vocabulary for comparability.
Perturbation Experiments
------------------------
We also propose a set of perturbation experiments designed to measure whether dialog models fully leverage dialog structure for learning conversational skills. We create a new training dataset by shuffling the order of utterances within each conversation in DailyDialog. This completely breaks the dialog structure and utterances no longer naturally follow one another. We train (or fine-tune) separate models on the shuffled dataset and evaluate their probing performance relative to models trained on data as originally ordered.
Probing Tasks {#sec:probingtasks}
=============
The probing tasks selected for this study measure conversational understanding and skills relevant to dialog generation. Some tasks are inspired by previous benchmarks [@wang2018glue], while others have not been explored before for probing. Examples are listed in the supplemental material.
#### TREC:
Question answering is a key skill for effective dialog systems. A system that deflects user questions could seem inattentive or indifferent. In order to correctly respond to questions, a model needs to determine what type of information the question is requesting. We probe for question answering using the TREC question classification dataset [@li2002learning], which consists of questions labeled with their associated answer types.
#### DialogueNLI:
Any two turns in a conversation could entail each other (speakers agreeing, for example), or contradict each other (speakers disagreeing), or be unrelated (speakers changing topic of conversation). A dialog system should be sensitive to contradictions to avoid miscommunication and stay aligned with human preferences. We use the Dialogue NLI dataset [@welleck2018dnli], which consists of pairs of dialog turns with entailment, contradiction, and neutral labels to probe for natural language inference. The original dataset examines two utterances from the same speaker (“I go to college", “I am a student"), so we modify the second utterance to simulate a second speaker (“I go to college", “You are a student").
#### MultiWOZ:
Every utterance in a conversation can be considered as an action or a dialog act performed by the speaker. A speaker could be making a request, providing information, or simply greeting the system. MultiWOZ 2.1 [@eric2019multiwoz] is a dataset of multi-domain, goal-oriented conversations. Human turns are labeled with dialog acts and the associated domains (hotel, restaurant, etc.), which we use to probe for natural language understanding.
#### SGD:
Tracking user intent is also important for generating appropriate responses. The same intent is often active across multiple dialog turns since it takes more than one turn to book a hotel, for example. Determining user intent requires reasoning over multiple turns in contrast to dialog acts which are turn-specific. To probe for this task, we use intent labels from the multi-domain, goal-oriented Schema-Guided Dialog dataset [@rastogi2019schema].
#### WNLI:
Endowing neural models with commonsense reasoning is an ongoing challenge in machine learning [@storks2019commonsense]. We use the Winograd NLI dataset, a variant of the Winograd Schema Challenge [@levesqueWinogradSchemaChallenge2012], provided in the GLUE benchmark [@wang2018glue] to probe for commonsense reasoning. WNLI is a sentence pair classification task where the goal is to identify whether the hypothesis correctly resolves the referent of an ambiguous pronoun in the premise.
#### SNIPS:
The Snips NLU benchmark [@coucke2018snips] is a dataset of crowdsourced, single-turn queries labeled for intent. We use this dataset to probe for intent classification.
#### ScenarioSA:
An understanding of sentiment and emotions is crucial for building social, human-centered conversational agents. We use ScenarioSA [@zhang2019scenariosa] as a sentiment classification probing task. The dataset is composed of natural, multi-turn, open-ended dialogs with turn-level sentiment labels.
#### DailyDialog Topic:
The DailyDialog dataset comes with conversation-level annotations for ten diverse topics, such as ordinary life, school life, relationships, and health. Inferring the topic of conversation is an important skill that could help dialog systems stay consistent and on topic. We use dialogs from the DailyDialog test set to create a probing tasks where the goal is to classify a dialog into the appropriate topic.
Results
=======
![Bar plot showing difference between average scores for word embeddings and encoder states.[]{data-label="fig:wembs_vs_context"}](figures/wembs_vs_context_better.png){width="\linewidth"}
Quality of Encoder Representations {#sec:qualityrepresentations}
----------------------------------
Results from our probing experiments are presented in tables \[tab:dailydialogprobes\] and \[tab:wikiprobes\]. We calculate an average score to summarize the overall accuracy on all tasks. Here we explore whether the encoder learns high quality representations of the conversation history. We focus on *encoder states* because these representations are passed to the decoder and used for generation (figure \[fig:probing\]). Thus, effectively encoding information in the encoder states is crucial for dialog generation.
Figure \[fig:wembs\_vs\_context\] shows the difference in average probing accuracy between the word embeddings and the encoder state for each model. The word embeddings outperform the encoder state for all the small models. This performance gap is most pronounced for the Transformer but is non-existent for the large recurrent models.
One possible explanation is that the encoder highlights information relevant to generating dialog at the cost of obfuscating or losing information relevant to the probing tasks – given that the goals of certain probing tasks do not perfectly align with natural dialog generation. For example, the DailyDialog dataset contains examples where a question is answered with another question (perhaps for clarification). The TREC question classification task does not account for such cases and expects each question to have a specific answer type. This explanation is supported by the observation that the information in the word embeddings and encoder state is not necessarily redundant. The combined representations often outperform using either one separately (albeit by a minute amount).
Regardless of the reason behind this gap in performance, multiple models still fail to effectively encode information about the conversation history that is already present in the word embeddings.
![Bar plot showing difference between average scores for combined representations (word embeddings + encoder state) and GloVe baseline.[]{data-label="fig:combined_vs_glove"}](figures/combined_vs_GloVe.png){width="\linewidth"}
Probing for Conversational Understanding
----------------------------------------
In this section, we compare the probing performance of the ordered dialog models to the simple baseline of averaging GloVe word embeddings. Here we consider the *combined representations* since they achieve the best performance overall and can act as a proxy for all the information captured by the encoder about the conversation history.
Since our probing tasks test for conversational skills important for dialog generation, we would expect the dialog models to outperform GloVe word embeddings. However, this is generally not the case. As figure \[fig:combined\_vs\_glove\] shows, the GloVe baseline outperforms the small recurrent models while being on par with the large pre-trained models in terms of average score. Tables \[tab:dailydialogprobes\] and \[tab:wikiprobes\] show that this pattern also generally applies at the task level, not just in terms of average score.
Closer inspection, however, reveals one exception. Combined representations from both the small and large models consistently outperform GloVe on the DailyDialog Topic task. This is the only task that is derived from the DailyDialog test data, which follows the same distribution as the dialogs used for training the models. This suggests that lack of generalization can partly explain the weak performance on other tasks. It is also worth noting that DailyDialog Topic is labeled at the conversation level rather than the turn level. Thus, identifying the correct label does not necessarily require reasoning about turn-level interactions (unlike DialogueNLI, for example).
The poor performance on the majority of tasks, relative to the simple GloVe baseline, leads us to conclude that standard dialog models trained from scratch struggle to learn the basic conversational skills examined here. Large, pre-trained models do not seem to master these skills either, with performance on par with the baselines.
![Bar plot showing difference between average scores for models trained on ordered and shuffled data.[]{data-label="fig:ordered_vs_shuffled"}](figures/ordered_vs_shuffled.png){width="\linewidth"}
Effect of Dialog Structure
--------------------------
Tables \[tab:dailydialogshuffles\] and \[tab:wikishuffles\] summarize the results of the perturbation experiments. Figure \[fig:ordered\_vs\_shuffled\] shows the difference in average performance between the ordered and shuffled models. We show results for the *encoder states* since these representations are important for encoding the conversation history, as discussed in section \[sec:qualityrepresentations\]. The encoder states are also sensitive to word and utterance order, unlike averaging the word embeddings. So if a model can fully exploit the dyadic, turn-taking, structure of dialog, this is likely to be reflected in the encoder state representations.
In most of our experiments, models trained on ordered data outperformed models trained on shuffled data, as expected. We can see in figure \[fig:ordered\_vs\_shuffled\], that average scores for ordered models were often higher than for shuffled models. However, the absolute gap in performance was at most $2\%$, which is a minute difference in practice. And even though ordered models achieved higher accuracy on average, if we examine individual tasks in tables \[tab:dailydialogshuffles\] and \[tab:wikishuffles\], we can find instances where the shuffled models outperformed the ordered ones for each of the tested architectures, sizes, and initialization strategies.
The average difference in test perplexity between all the ordered and shuffled models was less than $2$ points. This is also a minor difference in practice, suggesting that model fit and predictions are not substantially different when training on shuffled data. We evaluated all the models on the ordered DailyDialog test set to calculate perplexity. The minimal impact of shuffling the training data suggests that dialog models do not adequately leverage dialog structure during training. Our results show that essentially all of the information captured when training on ordered dialogs is also learned when training on shuffled dialogs.
Limitations
===========
Some of our conclusions assume that probing performance is indicative of performance on the end-task of dialog generation. Yet it could be the case that certain models learn high quality representations for probing but cannot effectively use them for generation, due to a weakness in the decoder for example. To address this limitation, future work could examine the relationship between probing performance and human judgements of conversation quality. @belinkov2018internal argues more research on the causal relation between probing and end-task performance is required to address this limitation.
However, it is reasonable to assume that capturing information about a certain probing task is a pre-requisite to utilizing information relevant to that task for generation. For example, a model that cannot identify user sentiment is unlikely to use information about user sentiment for generation. We also find that lower perplexity (better data fit) is correlated with better probing performance (table \[tab:correlations\]), suggesting that probing is a valuable, if imperfect, analysis tool for open-domain dialog systems.
Conclusion
==========
We use probing to shed light on the conversational understanding of neural dialog models. Our findings suggest that standard neural dialog models suffer from many limitations. They do not effectively encode information about the conversation history, struggle to learn basic conversational skills, and fail to leverage the dyadic, turn-taking structure of dialog. These limitations are particularly severe for small models trained from scratch on dialog data but occasionally also affect large pre-trained models. Addressing these limitations is an interesting direction of future work. Models could be augmented with specific components or multi-task loss functions to support learning certain skills. Future work can also explore the relationship between probing performance and human evaluation.
Supplemental Material {#sec:supplemental}
=====================
Training Details
----------------
For the small RNN trained from scratch, we used a 2-layer encoder, 2-layer decoder network with bidirectional LSTM units with a hidden size of 256 and a word embedding size of 128. For the small RNN with attention, we used the same architecture but also added multiplicative attention [@luong2015effective]. We set dropout to 0.3 and used a batch size of 64. We used an Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] with a learning rate of 0.005, inverse square root decay, and 4000 warm-up updates.
For the small Transformer, we used a 2-layer encoder, 2-layer decoder network with an embedding size of 400, 8 attention heads, and a feedforward network size of 300. We set dropout to 0.3 and used a batch size of 64. We used an Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001, inverse square root decay, and 6000 warm-up updates.
For the large RNN pretrained on Wikitext-103 [@merity2016wikitext], we used a 2-layer encoder, 2-layer decoder network with bidirectional LSTM units with a hidden size of 1024 and a word embeddings size of 300. For the large RNN with attention, we used the same architecture but also included multiplicative attention. We set dropout to 0.3 and used a batch size of 40. We used an Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.005, inverse square root decay, and 4000 warm-up updates.
For the large Transformer we used a 2-layer encoder, 2-layer decoder network with an embedding size of 768, 12 attention heads, and a feedforward network size of 2048. We set dropout to 0.1 and used a batch size of 32. We used an Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001, inverse square root decay, and 4000 warm-up updates.
Probing Tasks Examples
----------------------
Table \[tab:probingtasks\] below, lists all the probing tasks and provides examples from each task. We also include the possible classes and training set sizes.
[^1]: Our code is available at <https://github.com/AbdulSaleh/dialog-probing>
[^2]: Second author equal contribution.
[^3]: See the supplemental material for further training details.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The recent detection of significant linear polarization at mm and sub-mm wavelengths in the spectrum of Sgr A\* (if confirmed) will be a useful probe of the conditions within several Schwarzschild radii ($r_S$) of the event horizon at the Galactic Center. Hydrodynamic simulations of gas flowing in the vicinity of this object suggest that the infalling gas circularizes when it approaches within $5-25\;r_S$ of the black hole. We suggest that the sub-mm “excess” of emission seen in the spectrum of Sgr A\* may be associated with radiation produced within the inner Keplerian region and that the observed polarization characteristics provide direct evidence for this phenomenon. The overall spectrum from this region, including the high-energy component due to bremsstrahlung and inverse Compton scattering processes, is at or below the recent [*Chandra*]{} measurement, and may account for the X-ray source if it turns out to be the actual counterpart to Sgr A\*.'
author:
- 'Fulvio Melia$^{\dag}$'
- 'Siming Liu$^*$'
- 'Robert Coker$^\ddag$'
title: 'Polarized mm And sub-mm Emission From Sgr A\* At The Galactic Center'
---
Submitted to the Astrophysical Journal [*Letters*]{}
INTRODUCTION
============
Discovered over 25 years ago (Balick & Brown 1974), Sgr A$^*$ is a bright, compact radio source coincident with the dynamical center of the Galaxy, and now provides possibly the most compelling evidence for the existence of supermassive black holes. The suggested central dark mass concentration within the inner 0.015 pc of the Galactic center is $2.6\pm0.2\times 10^6\;M_\odot$ (Genzel et al. 1996; Eckart & Genzel 1996; Eckart & Genzel 1997; Ghez et al. 1998). (0.1$''$ corresponds to 800 Astronomical Units, or roughly $1.2\times10^{16}$ cm at a distance of 8.5 kpc.) Most of this mass is probably associated with Sgr A\*.
The spectrum of this unusual object is seen to be bumpy, but can be described as a power-law with a spectral index $a$ that varies between roughly $0.19-0.34$ ($S_{\nu}\propto\nu^a$) between GHz and mm wavelengths. However, one of the most interesting features currently under focus is the suggestion of a sub-millimeter (sub-mm) bump in the spectrum (Zylka et al. 1992; Zylka et al. 1995), since in all emission models the highest frequencies correspond to the smallest spatial scales, so that the sub-millimeter emission comes directly from the vicinity of the black hole (Melia 1992, 1994; Melia, Jokipii & Narayanan 1992; Coker and Melia 2000). The existence of this bump (or “excess”) has been uncertain due to the variability of Sgr A\*, but is now well established following a set of simultaneous observations (from $\lambda$20cm to $\lambda$1mm) using the VLA, BIMA, Nobeyama 45 m, & IRAM 30 m telescopes (Falcke, et al. 1998).
More recently, radio observations of Sgr A\* have focused on the detection of polarization from this source. Although the upper limits to the linear polarization in Sgr A\* are found to be quite low (less than $1\%$) below 86 GHz (Bower et al. 1999), this is not the case at 750, 850, 1350, and 2000 $\mu$m, where a surprisingly large intrinsic polarization of over $10\%$ has now been reported (Aitken, et al. 2000). >From the lack of polarization at longer wavelengths, Aitken et al. conclude that their measured values at higher frequencies must arise in the mm/sub-mm “excess”. These observations also point to the tantalizing result that the position angle changes considerably (by about $80^o$) between the mm and the sub-mm portions of the spectrum, which one would think must surely have something to do with the fact that the emitting gas becomes transparent at sub-mm wavelengths (Melia 1992, 1994).
In a companion paper (Melia, Liu & Coker 2001) we suggested that the mm and sub-mm “excess” in the spectrum of Sgr A\* may be the first indirect evidence for the anticipated circularization of the gas falling into the black hole at $5-25\;r_S$, where $r_S\equiv 2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius. The abundance of gas in the environment surrounding Sgr A\* clearly points to accretion as the incipient cause of the ensuing energetic behavior of this source (Melia 1994)—whether or not it eventually leads to expulsion of some plasma at smaller radii (see, e.g., Falcke et al. 1993). In their simulation of the Bondi-Hoyle accretion onto Sgr A\* from the surrounding winds, Coker & Melia (1997) concluded the accreted specific angular momentum $l\equiv \lambda r_S c$ can vary by $50\%$ over ${\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}$ 200 years with an average equilibrium value in $\lambda$ of about $30$ or less. Although this shows that relatively little specific angular momentum is accreted—so that large disks (such as those required in ADAF models; Narayan et al. 1996) probably do not form around Sgr A\*—it does nonetheless lead to the expectation that the plasma must circularize toward smaller radii before flowing through the event horizon. However, given the fluctuations in the accreted value of $\lambda$ (both in magnitude and sign!), this Keplerian flow is variable, and it probably dissolves and reforms (possibly with a different sense of spin) on a time scale of $\sim 100$ years or less.
Melia et al. (2001) demonstrated how this dichotomy comprising a quasi-spherical flow at radii beyond $50\; r_S$ or so, and a Keplerian structure toward smaller radii, may be the explanation for Sgr A\*’s spectrum, including the appearance of the “excess”, which is viewed as arising primarily within the circularized component. It is our intention in this [*Letter*]{} to demonstrate how the linear polarization data may now be taken as direct evidence for the existence of this accretion profile.
METHODOLOGY
===========
The structure of the flow within the circularization radius (at $\sim 5-50\;r_S$) is developed fully in Melia et al. (2001). For the sake of completeness, we highlight the key elements of this calculation below. Central to the modeling of the sub-mm “excess” is the supposition that within the Keplerian flow, a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo produces an enhanced (though still sub-equipartition) magnetic field, dominated by its azimuthal component (Hawley, Gammie & Balbus 1996). Although the process of magnetic field dissipation suppresses the field intensity well below its equipartition value in the quasi-spherical region (Kowalenko & Melia 2000), the magnetic dynamo evidently overwhelms the rate of field destruction in the differentially rotating portion of the inflow, and the field reaches a saturated intensity. The sub-mm “excess” in Sgr A\* may be the thermal synchrotron radiation produced in this inner region.
At a (cylindrical) radius $r$ in the Keplerian flow where the column density is $\Sigma$ and the angular velocity is $\Omega=(GM/r^3)^{1/2}$, the radial velocity is given as (e.g., Stoeger 1980) $$v_r=-{3\over r^{1/2}\Sigma}\,{\partial\over\partial r}\left(\nu\Sigma
r^{1/2}\right)\;,\label{vr}$$ where $\nu=(2/3)W_{r\phi}/\Sigma\;\Omega$ is the kinematic viscosity, and $W_{r\phi}$ is the vertically integrated sum of the Maxwell and Reynolds stresses (Balbus et al. 1994). For the problem at hand, the Maxwell stress dominates, and $$W_{r\phi}\approx\beta_\nu\int dz\;\langle{B^2\over 8\pi}\rangle\label{visc}\;,$$ where $B$ is the turbulent magnetic field (the average inside the integral being taken over time). Numerical simulations (e.g., by Brandenburg et al. 1995) show that $\beta_\nu$ changes very slowly with $r$. In the particular cases considered by these authors, $\beta_\nu$ ranged in value from $\approx 0.1$ to $0.2$, while $r$ decreased by a factor of $5$. For simplicity, we will here adopt a “mean” value of $\sim 0.15$ for this quantity.
For steady conditions, one can obtain the vertical profile by assuming that the gas is in local hydrostatic equilibrium. Balancing gravity and the pressure gradient in the vertical direction, we obtain the scale height $H=\sqrt{2 R_g T r^3/\mu GM}$, where $T$ is the gas temperature at radius r, $R_g$ is the gas constant, and $\mu$ is the molecular weight. For simplicity, we will assume that the Keplerian flow is axisymmetric and is independent of the vertical coordinate. Written another way, we have $(H\Omega)^2=2P/\rho$, where $P$ is the gas pressure and $\rho$ is the mass density of the gas. The numerical simulations of the magnetohydrodynamic dynamo effect indicate that the field intensity is somewhat below its equipartition value, so that $$\int dz\;\langle{B^2\over 8\pi}\rangle\approx
\beta_p\int P\;dz=\beta_p{R_g\Sigma T\over\mu}\;, \label{mag}$$ where $\beta_p$ is roughly constant with a value of $\approx 0.02$. Thus, with $\dot M=-2\pi\,r\,\Sigma\,v_r$, we can integrate Equation (\[vr\]) to obtain $v_r$, and $T$ follows directly from the energy conservation equation (Melia et al 2001).
CALCULATION OF THE SPECTRUM
===========================
The flux density (at earth) produced by the Keplerian portion of the flow is given by $$F_{\nu_0}={1\over D^2}\int I_{\nu^\prime} \sqrt{1-r_S/r}\ dA\, ,$$ where $D=8.5$ kpc is the distance to the Galactic Center, $\nu_0$ is the observed frequency at infinity and $\nu^\prime$ is the frequency measured by a stationary observer in the Schwarzschild frame. (For simplicity, we here assume the metric for a non-spinning black hole. A more thorough exploration of the parameter values, including the black hole spin, will be discussed elsewhere.) The frequency transformations are given by $$\nu_0 = \nu^\prime \sqrt{1-r_S/r}\;,\qquad
\nu^\prime = \nu {\sqrt{1-v_\phi^2/c^2}\over 1-(v_\phi/c)\cos{\theta}}\;,$$ where $\nu$ is the frequency measured in the co-moving frame, and $\theta$ is the angle between the velocity $\vec v_\phi$ and the line of sight. Since the radial velocity is always much smaller than $v_\phi$, we ignore this component in the transformation equations. So $\cos{\theta} = \sin{i}\;\cos{\phi}$, where $i$ is the inclination angle of the axis perpendicular to the Keplerian flow, and $\phi$ is the azimuth of the emitting element. When the Doppler shift is included, the blue shifted region is located primarily near $\phi=0$ while the red shifted region is at $\phi=\pi$. The other quantities that are necessary for an evaluation of the flux density are the area element $dA = {\sqrt{1-r_S/r}}^{-1}\,\cos{i}\ r\ dr\ d\phi$, and the specific intensity $I_{\nu^\prime} =
B^\prime_{\nu^\prime}(1-e^{-\tau})$, where $$B^\prime_{\nu^\prime}= \left({\sqrt{1-v_\phi^2/c^2}\over
1-(v_\phi/c)\cos{\theta}}\right)^3 B_\nu\;,$$ and the optical depth is $$\tau=\int \kappa^\prime_{\nu^\prime}\;ds = \kappa_\nu\;{2H\over
\cos{i}}\;{1-(v_\phi/c)\cos{\theta}\over \sqrt{1-v_\phi^2/c^2}}\;, \label{depth}$$ where $\kappa_\nu$ is the absorption coefficient. When $\tau\ll 1$, Kirchoff’s law allows us to write $$I_{\nu^\prime}\approx B^\prime_{\nu^\prime} \tau=\epsilon_\nu{2H\over
\cos{i}}\left({\sqrt{1-v_\phi^2/c^2}\over
1-(v_\phi/c)\cos{\theta}}\right)^2\;, \label{Intensity2}$$ where $\epsilon_\nu = B_\nu\ \kappa_\nu$ is the emissivity.
The presence of a substantial azimuthal component of the magnetic field makes it convenient to calculate the observed flux directly from the Extraordinary and Ordinary components of the intensity. The most convenient approach is to select the symmetry axis of the Keplerian flow as the reference direction. The observed flux densities in the azimuthal and the reference directions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1\nu_0}&=& {1\over D^2}\int (I^e_{\nu^\prime}\cos^2{\phi^\prime}+
I^o_{\nu^\prime}\sin^2{\phi^\prime})\sqrt{1-r_S/r}\ dA\ ,\\
F_{2\nu_0}&=& {1\over D^2}\int (I^e_{\nu^\prime}\sin^2{\phi^\prime}+
I^o_{\nu^\prime}\cos^2{\phi^\prime})\sqrt{1-r_S/r}\ dA\ , \end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $\phi^\prime+\pi/2$ is the position angle of the magnetic field vector within the emitting element that has an azimuth of $\phi$, so that $\cot{\phi^\prime}=\cot{\phi}\;\cos{i}$. $I^e_{\nu^\prime}$ and $I^o_{\nu^\prime}$ are the specific intensities for the Extraordinary and Ordinary waves, respectively. For thermal synchrotron radiation, the emissivities are $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^e&=& {\sqrt{3} e^3\over 8\pi m_e c^2} B \sin{\theta^\prime} \int_0^\infty
N(E)[F(x)+G(x)]\ dE\ , \label{com1} \\
\epsilon^o&=& {\sqrt{3} e^3\over 8\pi m_e c^2} B \sin{\theta^\prime} \int_0^\infty
N(E)[F(x)-G(x)]\ dE\;, \label{com2}\end{aligned}$$ where $N(E)$ is the electron distribution function at energy $E$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\cos{\theta^\prime}= {\cos{\theta}-v_\phi/c\over 1-(v_\phi/c)\cos{\theta}}\; ,
&\qquad& x={4\pi\nu m_e^3c^5\over 3eB\sin{\theta^\prime}E^2}\; ,\\
F(x)= x\int_x^\infty K_{5/3}(z)\ dz\;,&\qquad&
G(x)= x\ K_{2/3}(x)\;.\end{aligned}$$ $K_{5/3}$ and $K_{2/3}$ are the corresponding modified Bessel functions (Pacholczyk 1970). The total flux density produced by the Keplerian portion of the flow is the sum of these two. The expected fractional polarization is then given by $P_{\nu_0}=(F_{1\nu_0}-F_{2\nu_0})/(F_{1\nu_0}+F_{2\nu_0})$.
The temperature in this region reaches $\sim 10^{11}$ K, for which inverse Compton processes must be taken into account. The self-Comptonization of the sub-mm radiation is calculated according to the prescription in Melia et al. (2001), based on the algorithm described in Melia & Fatuzzo (1989).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
=======================
The best-fit model for the polarized mm and sub-mm emission from Sgr A\* (Aitken et al. 2000) is shown in Figures 1 (the inset) and (the solid curve of) 2. The peak frequency of the flux density is $2.4\times 10^{11}$ Hz, and the flip frequency (at which the position angle changes by $90^o$) is $2.8\times 10^{11}$ Hz. Below this frequency, the first component is smaller than the second, and the corresponding percentage polarization is therefore (by definition) negative. Above the flip frequency, the first component is larger. Although the fit is not optimized, both the spectrum and the percentage polarization appear to be consistent with the data. It is to be noted that the peak frequency is actually [*smaller*]{} than the flip frequency, which is distinct from other models that may also produce a rotation of the position angle (see Aitken et al. 2000).
It is rather straightforward to understand the polarization characteristics in this model. In the optically thick region (below about $1.6\times
10^{11}$ Hz), the specific intensity of the Extraordinary and Ordinary waves is almost isotropic in the co-moving frame because the optical depth $\tau$ is very large. Even with the inclusion of the Doppler effect, the emissivity of the source is relatively independent of position angle. But the optical depths are different for the two waves, as indicated by Equation (\[depth\]), and the specific intensity of the Extraordinary wave is slightly larger than that of the Ordinary wave. From Equations (\[com1\]) and (\[com2\]), we see that the second component is larger than the first, and the percentage polarization is therefore negative according to the definition of $P_{\nu_0}$. With an increase in frequency, the Extraordinary amplitude becomes even larger (relative to that of the Ordinary wave) and so the percentage polarization increases.
However, in the optically thin region, the specific intensity is given by Equation (\[Intensity2\]). The synchrotron emissivity is very sensitive to the angle between the line of sight and the magnetic field vector [**B**]{}; synchrotron radiation is beamed into a plane perpendicular to [**B**]{} in the co-moving frame. With the inclusion of the Doppler effect, the radiation is beamed into a cone, and the dominant contribution comes from the blue shifted region which has an azimuth of about zero. Therefore, since the Extraordinary wave is more intense than the Ordinary wave and the integrals (\[com1\]) and (\[com2\]) are dominated by radiation from the emitting element with an azimuth of about zero, the first component is larger than the second. In this case, the fractional polarization becomes positive.
In other words, the optically thick emission is dominated by emitting elements on the near and far sides of the black hole, for which the Extraordinary wave has a polarization direction parallel to the reference axis. In contrast, the dominant contribution in the thin region comes from the blue shifted emitter to the side of the black hole, where the Extraordinary wave has a polarization direction mostly perpendicular to this axis. The sharp decrease in polarization at still higher frequencies is due to the diluting effects of Comptonization emission which begins to dominate over Synchrotron emission at that point. The inclination angle dependence of the fractional polarization associated with emission by the Keplerian portion of the inflow is shown in Figure 2.
Several issues remain to be investigated. An important result of our analysis is that only modest accretion rates appear to be consistent with the polarization characteristics of Sgr A\* at mm and sub-mm wavelengths. The emitting region is compact—evidently no larger than a handful of Schwarzschild radii. Yet hydrodynamical simulations (Coker & Melia 1997) suggest that the rate at which plasma is captured at larger radii (of order $10^4\;r_S$ or so) is several orders of magnitude higher. If our modeling is correct, this would seem to suggest that $\dot M$ is variable, perhaps due to a gradual loss of mass with decreasing radius (see, e.g., Blandford & Begelman 1999). It is essential to self-consistently match the conditions within the Keplerian region of the flow with the quasi-spherical infall further out. These calculations are currently under way, and the results will be reported elsewhere. In addition, if the [*Chandra*]{} source is indeed the counterpart to Sgr A\* (Baganoff et al 2000), then the spectrum shown in Figure 1 suggests a correlated variability between the sub-mm and X-ray fluxes, which can be tested with the next round of coordinated observations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
===============
We are very grateful to Marco Fatuzzo for helpful discussions. This work was supported by a Sir Thomas Lyle Fellowship and a Miegunyah Fellowship for distinguished overseas visitors at the University of Melbourne, and by NASA grants NAG5-8239 and NAG5-9205.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the local density of states of the one-dimensional half-filled spinless fermion model with nearest-neighbor hopping $t>0$ and interaction $V$ in its Luttinger liquid phase $-2t < V \leq 2t$. The bulk density of states and the local density of states in open chains are calculated over the full band width $\sim 4t$ with an energy resolution $\leq 0.08t$ using the dynamical density-matrix renormalization group (DDMRG) method. We also perform DDMRG simulations with a resolution of $0.01t$ around the Fermi energy to reveal the power-law behaviour $D(\epsilon) \sim \vert \epsilon -\epsilon_{\rm F}\vert^{\alpha}$ predicted by the Luttinger liquid theory for bulk and boundary density of states. The exponents $\alpha$ are determined using a finite-size scaling analysis of DDMRG data for lattices with up to 3200 sites. The results agree with the exact exponents given by the Luttinger liquid theory combined with the Bethe Ansatz solution. The crossover from boundary to bulk density of states is analyzed. We have found that boundary effects can be seen in the local density of states at all energies even far away from the chain edges.'
address: 'Institut für Theoretische Physik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Appelstraße 2, D-30167 Hannover, Germany'
author:
- E Jeckelmann
title: 'Local density of states of the one-dimensional spinless fermion model'
---
Introduction
============
One-dimensional conductors have fascinated physicists for more than 50 years [@Baeriswyl; @Giamarchi] because they feature unusual properties which set them apart from ordinary metals. Our understanding of ordinary metals is based on the Fermi liquid paradigm [@Giuliani]. In one dimension, however, this theory fails. Instead, the low-energy physics of one-dimensional conductors is described by the Luttinger liquid paradigm [@Giamarchi; @Schoenhammer02; @Schoenhammer04]. The predictions of the Luttinger liquid theory differ fundamentally from those of the Fermi liquid theory. For instance, Fermi liquids have a finite density of states $D(\epsilon)$ at the Fermi energy $\epsilon_{\rm F}$. In contrast the bulk density of states of Luttinger liquids vanishes as a power law at the Fermi energy $$\label{eq:LLdos}
D(\epsilon) \sim \vert\epsilon-\epsilon_{\rm F} \vert^{\alpha}$$ where the exponent $\alpha > 0$ depends on the system. This feature is regarded as one hallmark of a Luttinger liquid.
The density of states $D(\epsilon)$ can be measured experimentally in photoemission spectroscopy and in scanning tunnelling spectroscopy (STS). The STS method yields a spatially-resolved local density of states (LDOS) with a resolution of a few Å. The experimental observation of vanishing densities of states has been reported in the photoemission or STS spectrum of various quasi-one-dimensional conductors such as Bechgaard salts [@Vescoli2000], the organic charge transfer salt TTF-TCNQ [@Sing2003], large samples of single-walled carbon nanotubes [@Ishii2003], and the purple bronze Li$_{0.9}$Mo$_6$O$_{17}$ [@Hager2005; @Wang2006]. Consequently, these materials are believed to be realizations of Luttinger liquids although this interpretation remains often controversial. Only very recently, the power-law behaviour has been observed unambiguously in the STS and photoemission spectra of gold wires deposited on semiconducting Ge(001) surfaces [@Blumenstein2011].
From a field-theoretical point of view, the low-energy properties of Luttinger liquids are very well understood thanks to powerful methods such as bosonization and renormalization group [@Giamarchi; @Schoenhammer02; @Schoenhammer04]. However, field theory only describes the low-energy scaling $\vert \epsilon - \epsilon_{\rm F} \vert \rightarrow 0$ of various physical quantities such as the density of states. Experimentally, this asymptotic behaviour could only be observed in a more or less broad window of excitation energies. Indeed, as real materials are three-dimensional, there is always a dimensional crossover [@Baeriswyl; @Giamarchi] at low excitation energy below which one-dimensional physics can no longer be observed. Moreover, as field-theoretical investigations are based on the linear dispersion of excitations close to the Fermi energy, there is always a high-energy limit above which the density of states should deviate from the power-law because of the band curvature in real materials [@Imambekov2009]. Therefore, the theory must be extended to finite-energy scales beyond the asymptotic behaviour covered by the Luttinger liquid theory to facilitate the interpretation of experiments in one-dimensional conductors.
We know that the Luttinger liquid paradigm describes the low-energy properties of various one-dimensional quantum lattice models for interacting electrons in their metallic phases, such as the Hubbard model [@Essler05] away from half filling and the spinless fermion model [@Giamarchi; @Schoenhammer04]. Lattice models enable us to study the influence of finite energy scales such as the curvature and finite width of excitation bands in one-dimensional conductors. Some of these models are exactly solvable by the Bethe Ansatz method. However, it is very difficult to obtain dynamical correlation functions related to spectroscopic experiments from a Bethe Ansatz solution. (The spectral functions of the spinless fermion models have been investigated only very recently using the Bethe Ansatz [@Kohno2010] but the issue of the density of states has not been discussed in that work.) Therefore, the spectral properties of these models at finite excitation energy have mostly been determined using numerical methods for the quantum-many body problem [@Fehske] such as exact diagonalizations, quantum Monte Carlo simulations and the density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method. Several power-law divergences ($\sim \vert\epsilon\vert^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha < 0$) predicted by field theory have been confirmed with these numerical methods. Yet the power-law singularity with an exponent $\alpha > 0$ has not been observed univocally at finite-energy scale in quantum lattice models so far.
The DMRG method is one of the most powerful numerical method for computing the properties of one-dimensional quantum lattice models [@Fehske; @Schollwoeck2005]. The density of states of some lattice models have been investigated using the original DMRG method [@Schoenhammer2000; @Meden2000; @Schneider2008]. In these studies DMRG was used to compute the spectral weight of the lowest few eigenstates in order to verify the prediction of the bosonization approach in the asymptotic low-energy limit. The dynamical DMRG (DDMRG) is an extension of DMRG which makes possible the calculation of dynamical correlation functions over their full band width [@Jeckelmann2002; @Jeckelmann2008b]. It yields spectra which are broadened by a Lorentzian of width $\eta$ which sets the actual energy resolution. Over the last decade DDMRG has been used successfully in many studies of spectral properties in quantum lattice models with energy resolution down to a few hundredths of the bare band width [@Jeckelmann2008]. Nevertheless, this accuracy has not allowed for a direct observation of the power-law behaviour at finite excitation energy until now. For instance, DDMRG has been used to calculate the complete single-particle spectral functions of the Hubbard model away from half filling with a resolution of $\eta=0.1t$ [@Jeckelmann2008]. The dispersion of holon and spinon branches in the DDMRG spectral functions agree perfectly with the exact Bethe Ansatz dispersions. Yet at the Fermi energy, where the power law should be seen, the momentum-integrated spectral weight barely shows a shallow dip.
In this paper we investigate the density of states of the half-filled spinless fermion model in its Luttinger liquid phase. In this model we can study significantly larger systems and thus reach a much better resolution than in the Hubbard model. Moreover, in the half-filled spinless model any exponent $\alpha \geq 0$ can be achieved while in the Hubbard model only $0 \leq \alpha \leq 1/8$ is possible.
Both the bulk density of states and the local density of states close to a chain edge are calculated numerically using the DDMRG method. They are determined over the full band width $\sim 4t$ with a resolution of $\eta=0.04t$ or $0.08t$. Using lattices with up to 1600 sites we have also performed DDMRG simulations with a resolution of $\eta=0.01t$ around the Fermi energy to reveal the power-law behaviour predicted by the Luttinger liquid theory for bulk and boundary density of states. The exponents $\alpha$ are determined using a finite-size scaling analysis of DDMRG data for lattices with up to 3200 sites and compared to the predictions of the Luttinger liquid theory combined with the exact Bethe Ansatz solution. Finally, we discuss the crossover from boundary to bulk density of states as one moves away from the chain edges.
Our paper is organized as follows: In the next section we introduce the model and method used in this work. In the third section we discuss our results for the bulk density of states while the LDOS close to a chain edge is analyzed in the fourth section. Finally, our findings are summarized in the last section.
Models and method
=================
The one-dimensional spinless fermion model is one of the simplest realizations of a one-component Luttinger liquid in a lattice model. It can be interpreted as a system of spin-polarized electrons. The model is defined by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:hamiltonian}
H = - t \sum_{j=1}^{N-1} \left (c_{j}^{\dag}c^{\phantom{\dag}}_{j+1} +
c_{j+1}^{\dagger}c_{j}^{\phantom{\dag}} \right )
+ V \sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\left (n_{j}-\frac{1}{2} \right ) \left (n_{j+1} - \frac{1}{2} \right )$$ where $c_{j}^{\dag}$ and $c^{\phantom{\dag}}_{j}$ are the creation and annihilation operators for a spinless fermion on site $j$, and the density operator is $n_{j} = c_{j}^{\dag}c_{j}^{\phantom{\dag}}$. The model parameters are the hopping amplitude $t > 0$ between nearest-neighbor sites and the Coulomb interaction $V$ between particles on nearest-neighbor sites. The half-filled system corresponds to $N/2$ fermions on the $N$-site lattice.
The one-dimensional spinless fermion model is exactly solvable by the Bethe Ansatz method [@Giamarchi; @Schoenhammer04]. For $-2t<V\leq2t$ its excitation spectrum is gapless and its low-energy properties are described by the Luttinger liquid theory. At half filling the dispersion of elementary excitations [@Caux2011] is given by $$\epsilon(k) = 2t^{*} \vert \sin(ka)\vert
\label{eq:dispersion}$$ with the renormalized “hopping term” $$\label{eq:hopping}
t^{*} = \frac{\pi t}{2} \frac{\sqrt{1-\left (\frac{V}{2t} \right )^2}}{\arccos
\left (\frac{V}{2t} \right )} .$$ The universal properties of a one-component Luttinger liquid are determined by two parameters: The velocity of elementary excitations (renormalized Fermi velocity) $v$ and a dimensionless Luttinger parameter $K$. From the Bethe Ansatz solution we know the relation between these Luttinger liquid parameters and the lattice model parameters at half filling, $$\label{eq:velocity}
v = \frac{2a t^{*}}{\hbar}$$ with $t^{*}$ given by and $$\label{eq:Kparameter}
K = \frac{\pi}{2} \frac{1}{\pi - \arccos \left ( \frac{V}{2t} \right ) }$$ where $a$ is the lattice constant. In the non-interacting chain $V=0$ this yields $K=1$ and the usual Fermi velocity $v=v_{\rm F} = 2ta/\hbar$ of the one-dimensional tight-binding model.
The local density of states (LDOS) is defined by $$D(j,\epsilon) = \cases{
\sum_n \left \vert \left \langle n \left \vert c^{\dag}_j \right \vert 0 \right \rangle \right \vert^2
\delta(\epsilon-E_n+E_0) & for $\epsilon > \epsilon_{\rm F}$ \\
\sum_n \left \vert \left \langle n \left \vert c^{\phantom{\dag}}_j \right \vert 0 \right \rangle \right \vert^2
\delta(\epsilon+E_n-E_0) & for $\epsilon < \epsilon_{\rm F}$}
\label{eq:dos}$$ where $\vert n \rangle$ denotes the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $H$ and $E_n$ their eigenenergies in the Fock space. The ground state for the chosen number of particles correspond to $n=0$. The total spectral weight is $$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \epsilon \ D(j,\epsilon) = 1 .
\label{eq:sum}$$ As the Hamiltonian is invariant under the particle-hole transformation $c^{\dag}_j \leftrightarrow c^{\phantom{\dag}}_j (-1)^j$, its density of states is symmetric at half filling: $D(j,\epsilon) = D(j,-\epsilon)$ with $\epsilon_{\rm F} = 0$.
We use the DDMRG method [@Jeckelmann2002; @Jeckelmann2008b] to compute the density of states . DDMRG simulations yield the convolution of a Lorentzian of width $\eta > 0$ with the local density of states on a $N$-site lattice $$D_{\rm DMRG}(j,\epsilon) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \epsilon'
\frac{\eta}{( \epsilon-\epsilon')^2 + \eta^2} \ D(j,\epsilon') .
\label{eq:convolution}$$ As we are interested in the density of states in the thermodynamic limit, we should, in principle, extrapolate our numerical data to an infinite lattice size $N \rightarrow \infty$ and then to a vanishing broadening $\eta \rightarrow 0$. However, the spectrum of a $N$-site chain is indistinguishable from the same spectrum in the thermodynamic limit if they are compared on an energy scale (resolution) $\Delta \epsilon > W/N$. The parameter $W$ has to be determined empirically but it is typically of the order of the effective band width of the spectrum considered (here $W \sim 4t^{*}$). Thus if we choose a broadening $\eta > W/N$, DDMRG spectra can be regarded as the spectra of infinite systems with the same broadening $\eta$, which sets the actual resolution. In this work we have systematically used $$\eta = \frac{16t}{N} > \frac{4t^{*}}{N} .
\label{eq:eta}$$
The DMRG algorithm truncates the Hilbert space in an optimal way to represent some chosen target states such as the ground state. Thus DMRG data are affected by truncation errors which depend on the number of density-matrix eigenstates kept in the calculation [@Fehske; @Schollwoeck2005]. In the DDMRG method the truncated Hilbert space is optimized to represent the ground state and eigenstates with a given excitation energy $\epsilon$ or lying in a given excitation energy range $[\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2]$ with $\epsilon_2 - \epsilon_1 \lesssim \eta$. The calculations are carried out independently for each excitation energy. We have kept up to 400 density-matrix eigenstates in our simulations. Numerical errors are always very small in absolute values or when they are compared to the total spectral weight . Thus the DDMRG results presented here can be regarded as numerically exact. This is illustrated in the following sections by comparison with exact spectra for non-interacting fermions. However, as the spectral weight approaches zero at the Fermi energy, relative errors become unavoidably larger and can be seen as a scattering of DDMRG data close to the Fermi energy. In our numerical calculations we use the energy scale $t=1$, the time scale $\hbar/t=1$ and the length scale $a=1$.
Bulk density of states
======================
![\[fig:bulkdos\] Bulk density of states for $V=-1.9t$ (), $V=0$ (), and $V=2t$ () calculated in the middle of a 400-site chain ($\eta=0.04t$).](figure1.eps){width="8cm"}
In principle, the bulk density of states $D(\epsilon)$ should be calculated as the average of the LDOS over the full lattice in the thermodynamic limit. Here we identify the bulk density of states with the LDOS in the middle of a $N$-site chain, $D(j=N/2,\epsilon)$. While this seems intuitively correct for insulators, in a Luttinger liquid boundary effects could a priori be felt as far as the chain center. First, we have verified the validity of this approach for several exactly solvable non-interacting models. For instance, the bulk density of states in a non-interacting chain ($V=0$) can be calculated analytically, $$D(\epsilon) = \frac{1}{\pi} \frac{1}{\sqrt{4t^2-\epsilon^2}}
\label{eq:bulkdos0}$$ for $\vert \epsilon \vert < 2t$ and $D(\epsilon) = 0$ for $\vert \epsilon \vert > 2t$. shows the LDOS calculated with DDMRG in the middle of a 400-site non-interacting chain with $\eta=0.04t$. On the scale of this figure the DDMRG spectrum is indistinguishable from the exact result convolved with a Lorentzian of the same width $\eta$. This demonstrates the accuracy of the DDMRG method and also confirms that the scaling of the broadening is appropriate for the density of states of the spinless fermion model.
Additionally, we have checked in interacting systems with DDMRG that $D(j,\epsilon)$ depends negligibly on the site position $j$ close to the chain center and that $D(j=N/2,\epsilon)$ is indistinguishable from the momentum-integrated spectral functions [@Jeckelmann2008b]. Finally, we will examine the crossover from boundary LDOS to bulk LDOS in more detail in the next section. All our results confirm that the DDMRG spectra calculated in the middle of a spinless fermion chain with a broadening can be regarded as its bulk density of states in the Luttinger liquid phase.
![\[fig:bandwidth\] Position $\epsilon_{\rm p}/2t$ of the peaks in the bulk density of states calculated with DDMRG in 200-site chains () and renormalized “hopping term” $t^{*}/t$ from () as a function of the interaction parameter $V$.](figure2.eps){width="8cm"}
shows the bulk density of states over the full band width for three different values of the interaction $V$. The band edge singularities of the non-interacting density of states are seen as two peaks at $\epsilon = \pm 2t$ because of the broadening $\eta$. Similar peaks are visible at positions $\epsilon = \pm \epsilon_{\rm p}$ for $V \neq 0$. The energy $\epsilon_{\rm p}$ increases monotonically with $V$ starting from 0 for $V =-2t$. Actually, shows that $\epsilon_{\rm p}/2t$ varies exactly as the effective “hopping term” $t^{*}$ as a function of $V$. Thus $\epsilon_{\rm p} = 2t^{*}$ and the peak positions correspond to the edges of the elementary excitation bands \[i.e., the maximum of the dispersion \] for all values of $V$.
In we see some spectral weight beyond $\epsilon_{\rm p}$ which is clearly due to the broadening $\eta$ for $V=0$ but cannot be explained by this broadening for $V=-1.9t$ and $V=2t$. Therefore, excitations which are made up from more than one elementary excitations contribute to the density of states at energy $\vert \epsilon\vert > \epsilon_{\rm p}$.
According to the Luttinger liquid paradigm the bulk DOS should vanish as the power law at the Fermi energy. The Luttinger liquid theory also predicts that the exponent is $$\alpha= \frac{(K-1)^2}{2K}
\label{eq:exponent1}$$ for a one-component Luttinger liquid. Thus for the spinless fermion model this exponent can be calculated exactly as a function of the interaction parameter $V$ using the Bethe Ansatz relation for the Luttinger parameter . In the non-interacting chain $(V=0)$ this yields $\alpha=0$, which implies that the bulk DOS does not vanish but approaches a constant value at the Fermi energy, while one gets $\alpha > 0$ for interacting chains $(V\neq 0)$.
The power-law behaviour is not visible on the scale of . The vanishing of the density of states is just suggested by narrow minima which are seen at $\epsilon=0$ for interacting fermion systems. shows the bulk density of states around the Fermi energy at a higher resolution ($\eta=0.01t$) for $V=2t$. The power law is also shown with the exact exponent $\alpha=\frac{1}{4}$ for $V=2t$. Clearly, the DDMRG data agree with the power law over the energy range shown in this figure.
![\[fig:expbulkdos\] Bulk density of states around the Fermi energy for $V=2t$ calculated with DDMRG in a 1600-site chain ($\eta=0.01t$). The solid line is the power law with the exact exponent $\alpha=\frac{1}{4}$.](figure3.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[fig:logbulkdos\] Bulk density of states for $V=-\sqrt{2}t$ () and $V=2t$ () calculated with DDMRG in a 1600-site chain ($\eta=0.01t$). The solid lines show the power law with the exact exponent $\alpha=\frac{1}{4}$ for both cases.](figure4.eps){width="8cm"}
Actually, we have often found an approximate power-law behaviour over a rather broad energy range of the order of $t^{*}$ when the exponent $\alpha$ is not too large. This is illustrated in which shows the bulk density of states for two values of $V$ on a double logarithmic scale. In both cases the DDMRG data clearly deviate from the power law at high energy $\epsilon \gtrsim t^{*}$. This is not surprising as the curvature of the dispersion becomes relevant above this energy scale. The DDMRG data can also deviate from the power law at low energy $\epsilon \lesssim \eta =0.01t$, where the spectrum is dominated by the Lorentzian broadening , although this is not apparent in both examples in . For $V=2t$ the DDMRG spectrum agree particularly well with the power law. For most values of $V$, however, there is only a rather rough agreement as shown by the second example, $V=-\sqrt{2}t$.
For large exponents $\alpha \gtrsim 1$ discrepancies become apparently significant. This is illustrated in which shows the density of states for $V=-1.9t$ corresponding to $\alpha \approx 1.574$. Clearly, a simple power law can not describe the DDMRG data because they converge to a finite value for $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. This is due to the convolution which transfers a spectral weight $D_{\rm DDMRG}(\epsilon_{\rm F}=0) \sim \eta \sim 1/N$ where the original spectrum has none. While this finite-size effect occurs for all values of $V$, it becomes relevant for large exponents $\alpha$ only. Nevertheless, a simple shift is enough to offset the finite density of states at the Fermi energy and to recover an excellent agreement with the low-energy power-law behaviour as shown in .
We note that a similar effect is seen in the STS spectra of atomic chains [@Blumenstein2011] and the purple bronze [@Hager2005]. Clearly, the experimental densities of states shown in these publications are well fitted by power laws around the Fermi energy but they remain finite at the Fermi energy. There, interchain couplings, finite temperature or disorder may be responsible for this deviation from a pure power-law behaviour.
![\[fig:expbulkdos2\] Bulk density of states around the Fermi energy for $V=-1.9t$ calculated with DDMRG in a 1600-site chain ($\eta=0.01t$). The solid line is the power law with the exact exponent $\alpha\approx 1.574$ but shifted vertically by 0.0145.](figure5.eps){width="8cm"}
suggests that the bulk density of states decreases approximately as a power law over a rather broad energy range. Yet we have rarely succeeded in extracting accurate values for the exponent $\alpha$ from fits to such spectra. The exponent $\alpha$ can be determined more accurately and with less computational effort using a finite-size scaling analysis [@Jeckelmann2002]. For this purpose we calculate the density of states $D(\epsilon)$ for several system sizes $N$ at an energy $\epsilon$ which scales as $1/N$. We know that $D(\epsilon~\sim 1/N)$ scales as $N^{-\alpha}$ in the thermodynamic limit and thus we can determine $\alpha$ using a power-law fit. In this work we have used $\epsilon = \eta = 16t/N$ and up to $N=3200$ sites for this scaling analysis. The exponents that we have obtained in the range $0.08 < \alpha < 1.6$ agree within 10% with the predictions of the Luttinger liquid theory combined with the Bethe Ansatz solution . Larger exponents than $\alpha \approx 1.6$ can be achieved in the half-filled spinless fermion chain for $-1.9t > V > -2t$. We have not explore this regime because the effective energy scale becomes rapidly very small and thus numerical simulations become increasingly difficult. A reliable determination of smaller exponents than $\alpha \approx 0.08$ would require DDMRG computations for a larger range of system sizes than in this work (i.e., $N \gg 10^3$). In principle, a similar approach could be used to determine whether the peaks found at $\epsilon = \pm 2t^{*}$ are band edge singularities like in the non-interacting system or smoother structures but we have not carried out this analysis yet.
Local density of states
=======================
We now examine the LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ close to a chain end (hard wall boundary). This configuration can also be realized experimentally, for instance in gold chains on Ge surfaces [@Blumenstein2011]. Previous theoretical works [@Giamarchi; @Schoenhammer2000; @Meden2000; @Eggert1996; @Schneider2010] have shown that in a Luttinger liquid the LDOS at chain edges differs significantly from the bulk density of states. In particular, the low-energy behaviour is very different for spinless fermions with attractive ($V < 0$) or repulsive ($V > 0$) interactions. Additionally, the LDOS of the spinless fermion model next to a site impurity has been investigated using the functional renormalization group (fRG) method [@Andergassen2004]. (In a Luttinger liquid the LDOS next to an impurity, however weak, is similar to the LDOS close to a chain end in the asymptotic low-energy limit [@Giamarchi; @Schoenhammer04].)
![\[fig:edgedosrepulsive\] Boundary LDOS $D(j=1,\epsilon)$ calculated with DDMRG on the first site of a 400-site chain ($\eta=0.04t$) for $V=0$ (), $V=1t$ (), and $V=2t$ ().](figure6.eps){width="8cm"}
We first explore the boundary LDOS, i.e $D(j=1,\epsilon)$ on the first lattice site. In a semi-infinite non-interacting chain ($V=0$) this LDOS is given by $$D(j=1,\epsilon) = \frac{1}{2\pi t^2} \sqrt{4t^2-\epsilon^2} .
\label{eq:boundarydos0}$$ The DDMRG spectrum for $V=0$ is shown in with a broadening $\eta=0.04t$. On the scale of this figure there is no visible difference between these DDMRG data and the exact result with the same broadening. This confirms that the scaling of the broadening is appropriate for the LDOS close to chain edges too and demonstrates again the accuracy of the DDMRG method.
also shows the boundary LDOS calculated with DDMRG for two repulsive interactions $V$. The semi-elliptic spectrum of the non-interacting chain seems to split into two smaller semi-elliptic bands which move apart as $V$ increases. A narrow minimum (but no gap up to $V=2t$) appears at the Fermi energy $\epsilon=0$. The onsets of the upper and lower bands correspond to the peak positions $\epsilon = \pm 2t^{*}$ in the bulk density of states discussed in the previous section and thus to the edges of the elementary excitation bands . As in the bulk density of states we observe some spectral weight beyond $2t^{*}$ which can be explained by the convolution for $V=0$ but not for interacting fermions ($V \neq 0$).
In contrast for attractive interactions $V < 0$ the boundary LDOS develops an increasingly sharp peak at the Fermi energy as $V$ decreases. shows the DDMRG spectra for two values of $V <0$ as well as $V=0$ for comparison. For $V = -t$ we can still see that the spectrum has apparent onsets at energies $\epsilon \approx \pm 2t^{*}$ corresponding to the band edges of elementary excitations . For larger $V$ we can no longer distinguish the spectrum onsets but most of the spectral weight is still concentrated within the band of elementary excitations $-2t^{*} \leq \epsilon \leq 2t^{*}$.
![\[fig:edgedosattractive\] Boundary LDOS $D(j=1,\epsilon)$ calculated with DDMRG on the first site of a 200-site chain ($\eta=0.08t$) for $V=0$ (), $V=-1t$ (), and $V=-1.9t$ ().](figure7.eps){width="8cm"}
The Luttinger liquid theory predicts that the boundary density of states also follows a power law but the boundary exponent is $$\alpha_{\rm B}= \frac{1}{K} - 1
\label{eq:exponent2}$$ for a one-component Luttinger liquid [@Giamarchi; @Schoenhammer2000]. Previous DMRG investigations have confirmed this expression for the boundary exponent in terms of the Luttinger parameter obtained from the Bethe Ansatz solution [@Schoenhammer2000; @Meden2000].
For repulsive interactions $V > 0$ the Luttinger parameter is $K < 1$ according to and thus $\alpha_{\rm B} > \alpha > 0$. This increase of the exponent at a chain boundary has been observed experimentally in gold chains on semiconducting Ge surfaces [@Blumenstein2011]. The power-law behaviour is not visible on the scale of and the narrow minima at the Fermi energy just hints at the presence of a pseudogap. As for the bulk density of states we have examined the low-energy LDOS with resolution of $\eta = 0.01t$ and obtained similar results. The boundary LDOS follows an approximate power law over an energy range $\sim t^{*}$ for small exponents $\alpha$. For $\alpha \approx 1$ ($\Leftrightarrow V \approx 2t$) we have to offset some finite spectral weight at $\epsilon_{\rm F} = 0$ to recover the correct low-energy behaviour. Finally, using a finite-size scaling analysis of our DDMRG data we obtain exponents $\alpha$ which agree within 10% with the exact results of the Luttinger liquid theory combined with the Bethe Ansatz solution .
In contrast for attractive interactions $V < 0$ the Luttinger parameter is $K > 1$ and thus $\alpha_{\rm B} < 0$. Therefore, the Luttinger liquid theory predicts a power-law divergence in the boundary LDOS at the Fermi energy. As the effective band width $\sim 4t^{*}$ and the exponent $\alpha_{\rm B}$ decrease rapidly with decreasing $V$, this singularity should become stronger and sharper. When $V$ approaches $-2t$, the peak width must vanish according to while the exponent $\alpha_{\rm B}$ converges to -1 according to and . Thus the power-law singularity turns into a Dirac $\delta$-peak at the Fermi energy in that limit. The predictions of the Luttinger liquid theory agree with the boundary LDOS calculated with DDMRG which are shown in . In the DDMRG spectra the Fermi-energy singularity has been smoothed into a peak by the broadening . Again we can perform a finite-size scaling analysis to confirm that the peak is a singularity and to determine the precise values of the exponent $\alpha_{\rm B}$. This analysis is much easier for power-law singularities with negative exponents (i.e., divergences) than with positive ones (pseudogaps). Thus we find exponents which agree very well (within 2%) with the exact values given by the Luttinger liquid exponent combined with the Bethe Ansatz solution .
We now turn to the crossover from the boundary LDOS to the bulk density of states. First, it is helpful to discuss the LDOS close to the chain edge in a semi-infinite non-interacting chain ($V=0$). Numbering the sites $j=1,2, \dots$ from the chain edge we obtain for small $j\ll N$ and $\vert \epsilon \vert < 2t$ $$D(j,\epsilon) = \frac{2}{\pi} \frac{1}{\sqrt{4t^2-\epsilon^2}} \left [
1 - T^2_j \left ( \frac{\epsilon}{2t} \right ) \right ]
\label{eq:edgeldos0}$$ where $T_j(x) = \cos(\arccos(x) j)$ are the Chebyshev polynomials. As for the bulk density of states $D(j,\epsilon) = 0$ for $\vert \epsilon \vert > 2t$. The boundary LDOS is recovered for $j=1$. The LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ oscillates between 0 and twice its bulk value . There are exactly $j$ peaks in $D(j,\epsilon)$ considered as a function of $\epsilon$. In particular, there is a peak at the Fermi energy for odd $j$ but $D(j,\epsilon)$ vanishes as $\epsilon^2$ for even $j$. At low energy these oscillations correspond to two modes $(-1)^j$ and $\cos(\epsilon j/t) = \cos[2\epsilon j a/(\hbar v_F)]$. Field theoretical studies have shown that these same two oscillation modes also dominate the low-energy LDOS of Luttinger liquids with the renormalized velocity $v$ substituted for $v_F$ [@Eggert1996].
As has been derived for $j \ll N$, it is not surprising that it does not converge toward the bulk density of states for large $j$. Nevertheless, if we broaden each LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ with a Lorentzian (or a Gaussian, …) of width $ \sim 4t/j$, we find that the result converges toward the bulk density of states for $j\rightarrow \infty$. As in the middle of a $N$-site chain this broadening $\sim 4t/j$ is smaller than the one used in DDMRG calculations , this property explains why the LDOS calculated in the middle of a chain with DDMRG agrees so well with the (broadened) bulk density of states .
![\[fig:localdosrepulsive\] LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ calculated on a 200-site chain ($\eta=0.08t$) for $V=2t$. (a) From one edge to the middle of the chain: $j=1,10,20,\dots,100$ from top to bottom. (b) Close to the chain edge: $j=1,2,\dots,10$ from top to bottom.](figure8a.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![\[fig:localdosrepulsive\] LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ calculated on a 200-site chain ($\eta=0.08t$) for $V=2t$. (a) From one edge to the middle of the chain: $j=1,10,20,\dots,100$ from top to bottom. (b) Close to the chain edge: $j=1,2,\dots,10$ from top to bottom.](figure8b.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"}
The crossover from boundary to bulk density of states is shown in for a repulsive interaction $V=2t$ and in for an attractive interaction $V=-1t$. First, the right panels of both figures reveal that the characteristic shapes of the boundary LDOS $D(j=1,\epsilon)$ in figures \[fig:edgedosrepulsive\] and \[fig:edgedosattractive\] are purely local features. The LDOS $D(j > 2,\epsilon)$ on other sites look completely different, even on the closest sites. Therefore, it is unlikely that the boundary exponent can be determine precisely in STS experiments which average over several Å [@Blumenstein2011]. Second, we note that the LDOS for $j>1$ are quite similar for attractive and repulsive interactions besides the different band width $\approx 4t^{*}$. The main reason for this likeness is that the spectra $D(j,\epsilon)$ are clearly dominate by $j$ peaks up to (at least) $j =10$ for all interactions $V$. These oscillations are similar to those found in the LDOS for non-interacting spinless fermions . Finally, in the left panels of figures \[fig:localdosrepulsive\] and \[fig:localdosattractive\] we see that the amplitude of these oscillations decrease rapidly with increasing distance $j$ from the boundary. Already for $j \gtrsim 50 = N/4$ both LDOS do not appear to change on the scale of the broadening $\eta=0.08t$. This confirms that DDMRG calculations of the LDOS in the middle of a chain yield a (broadened) bulk density of states.
The above discussion is based on our DDMRG data in chains with up to 200 sites and $\eta \geq 0.08t$. As seen in the study of bulk and boundary density of states, this resolution is not good enough to analyze the asymptotic behaviour close to the Fermi energy. Moreover, the multiple oscillations observed in the LDOS in the crossover regime $1 < j \ll N$ imply that a power-law behaviour could only be observed in a significantly smaller energy range than for the bulk and boundary density of states. We estimate that carrying out such a study would require a computational effort which is one order of magnitude higher than for the present work (which amounts to $2 \cdot 10^{4}$ CPU hours).
![\[fig:localdosattractive\] LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ calculated on a 200-site chain ($\eta=0.08t$) for $V=-t$. (a) From one edge to the middle of the chain: $j=1,10,20,\dots,100$ from top to bottom. (b) Close to the chain edge: $j=1,2,\dots,10$ from top to bottom.](figure9a.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"} ![\[fig:localdosattractive\] LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ calculated on a 200-site chain ($\eta=0.08t$) for $V=-t$. (a) From one edge to the middle of the chain: $j=1,10,20,\dots,100$ from top to bottom. (b) Close to the chain edge: $j=1,2,\dots,10$ from top to bottom.](figure9b.eps "fig:"){width="4cm"}
The crossover from boundary to bulk density of states in Luttinger liquids has already been studied with field theory [@Eggert1996; @Schneider2010]. We have not performed any quantitative comparison between DDMRG spectra and the field-theoretical results or the fRG results [@Andergassen2004] because of the limited resolution of our data. Nevertheless, there is a clear discrepancy between our results and one of the main predictions of bosonization. In an extension of the Tomonaga-Luttinger model with hard wall boundaries it has been shown that boundaries affect the LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ only below a crossover energy [@Eggert1996]. Above this energy bulk behaviour is observed. This crossover energy is given by $v\hbar/(ja)=2t^{*}/j$. However, in DDMRG spectra (see figures \[fig:localdosrepulsive\] and \[fig:localdosattractive\]) boundary effects are clearly seen as rapid oscillations over the full band width, even for $j=20$. Thus our results indicate that there is no crossover energy above which only bulk behaviour is observed in the spinless fermion model. This is also demonstrated by the exact LDOS of noninteracting fermions which can be regarded as a Luttinger liquid with $K=1$. A correct statement for the spinless fermion model is that boundary effects are only visible in the LDOS $D(j,\epsilon)$ at a resolution $\lesssim 4t^{*}/j$. If the LDOS is examined at a resolution larger than this value (for instance, if it has been convolved with a Lorentzian or Gaussian distribution of width $\gtrsim 4t^{*}/j$), then boundary effects are not visible. Thus in the DDMRG spectra boundary effects disappear when the broadening exceeds a value $\approx 4t^{*}/j$.
Conclusion
==========
We have investigated the local density of states (LDOS) $D(j,\epsilon)$ of the one-dimensional half-filled spinless fermion model in its Luttinger liquid phase. Using the DDMRG method we have determined the LDOS over its full energy range with a resolution of $\eta=0.08t$ or better. In all cases most of the spectral weight is concentrated in the band $\vert \epsilon \vert < 2t^{*}$ of elementary excitations from the Bethe Ansatz solution. We have found that the bulk density of states can be identified with the LDOS computed in the middle of a chain if we use a large enough broadening $\eta$. It is dominated by sharp peaks at the band edges $\epsilon = \pm 2t^{*}$ for all interactions $V$. For repulsive interactions ($V > 0$) the boundary LDOS (on the first lattice site) consists in two symmetric joined bands which are reminiscent of Hubbard bands. For attractive interactions ($V < 0$) the boundary LDOS is dominated by a peak at the Fermi energy, which becomes increasingly sharp as $V$ decreases and turns into a Dirac $\delta$-peak for $V\rightarrow -2t$.
We have also examined the bulk and boundary density of states close to the Fermi energy with a resolution $\eta=0.01t$ on lattices with 1600 sites. In the bulk density of states for $V\neq 0$ and in the boundary LDOS for $V>0$ we can observe the power-law pseudogap $D(j,\epsilon) \sim \vert \epsilon\vert^{\alpha}$ predicted by the Luttinger liquid theory over an energy range $\sim t^{*}$ although we have to compensate explicitly for finite-size effects when the exponent $\alpha$ is large. In the boundary LDOS for $V<0$ we see the power-law divergence predicted by the Luttinger liquid theory. Using a finite-size scaling analysis of DDMRG data on lattices with up to 3200 sites we obtain exponents $\alpha$ which agree quantitatively with the exact results given by the Luttinger liquid theory combined with the Bethe Ansatz solution.
Finally, we have explored the crossover from the boundary LDOS $D(j=1,\epsilon)$ to the bulk density of states $D(j=N/2,\epsilon)$ as one moves away from the chain edge. The characteristic features of the boundary LDOS $D(j=1,\epsilon)$ in Luttinger liquids appear to be a purely local effect as all $D(j>2,\epsilon)$ look completely different. They are dominated by oscillations which are similar to those observed in the non-interacting chain. The crossover is smooth and boundary effects can be visible far away from the chain edge ($j \gg 1$) at all energies $\epsilon$ but vanish beyond a point set by the DDMRG resolution, i.e. when $4t^{*}/j \lesssim \eta$.
The LDOS of the spinless fermion model cannot be used directly to interpret photoemission or STS experiments. For this purpose we have to consider electronic models such as the Hubbard model. The present work has been motivated in part by the failure to observe a power law in the density of states of the Hubbard model using DDMRG with an energy resolution $\eta=0.1t$. For spinless fermion models the DDMRG method allows us to study larger system sizes $N$ and thus to reach a better resolution $\sim 1/N$ than for electronic models. Our work confirms that the power-law features of Luttinger liquid LDOS can be studied with DDMRG. However, the resolution required for the Hubbard model is certainly much smaller than $0.1t$. In the spinless fermion model we have to use a resolution of about $10^{-1} t^{*}$ for $\alpha \approx 1$ and $10^{-2} t^{*}$ for $\alpha \approx \frac{1}{4}$ to observe a power law. In the Hubbard model $\alpha < 1/8$ and the energy scale of the power-law behaviour is much lower than the bare band width $4t$. This scale is exponentially small $\sim \exp(-t/U)$ for small $U/t$ [@Meden2000] and it is probably set by the effective exchange coupling $J \sim t^2/U$ for large $U/t$. Thus a resolution even smaller than $0.01t$ is required which implies system sizes well in excess of $10^3$ sites.
The recent experimental observation of Luttinger liquid LDOS in atomic wires certainly calls for a renewed effort in the study of the LDOS in Hubbard-type models for interacting electrons in one dimension. Fortunately, larger exponents $\alpha$ are achieved in extended Hubbard models with a non-local Coulomb interaction [@Ejima2005; @Ejima2006], which are anyway more realistic than the original Hubbard model. We think that in these electronic models the LDOS and the power-law pseudogap could be investigated with a sufficient accuracy and a reasonable computational effort using the DDMRG method.
I thank Volker Meden for helpful comments. The GotoBLAS library developed by Kazushige Goto was used to perform the DDMRG calculations. Some of these calculations were carried out on the RRZN cluster system of the Leibniz Universität Hannover.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Baeriswyl D and Degiorgi (eds) 2004 [*Strong Interactions in Low Dimensions*]{} (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers) Giamarchi T 2003 [*Quantum Physics in One Dimension*]{} (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Giuliani G F and Vignale G 2005 [*Quantum Theory of the Electron Liquid*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Schönhammer K 2002 **14** 12783 Schönhammer K 2004 Luttinger liquids: the basic concepts [*Strong Interactions in Low Dimensions*]{} ed. D Baeriswyl and L Degiorgi (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers) Vescoli V 2000 *Eur. Phys. J.* B **13** 503 Sing M 2003 B **68** 125111 Ishii H 2003 *Nature* **426** 540 Hager J 2005 **95** 186402 Wang F 2006 B **74** 113107 Blumenstein C 2011 *Nature Physics* **7** 776 Imambekov A and Glazman L I 2009 *Science* **323** 228 Essler F H L, Frahm H, Göhmann F, Klümper A and Korepin V E 2005 [*The One-Dimensional Hubbard Model*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Kohno M, Arikawa M, Sato J and Sakai K 2010 *J. Phys. Soc. Jap.* **79** 043707 Fehske H, Schneider R and Weiße A (eds) 2008 [*Computational Many-Particle Physics*]{} (Berlin: Springer) Schollwöck U 2005 **77** 259 Shönhammer K, Meden V, Metzner W, Schollwöck U and Gunnarsson O 2000 B **61** 4393 Meden V, Metzner W, Schollwöck U, Schneider O, Stauber T and Schönhammer K 2000 *Eur. Phys. J.* B **16** 631 Schneider I, Struck A, Bortz M and Eggert S 2008 **101** 206401 Jeckelmann E 2002 B **66** 045114 Jeckelmann E and Benthien H 2008 Dynamical Density-Matrix Renormalization Group [*Computational Many-Particle Physics*]{} ed. H Fehske, R Schneider and A Weiße (Berlin: Springer) Jeckelmann E 2008 *Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement* **176** 143 Caux J-S, Konno H, Sorrell M and Weston R 2011 **106** 217203 Eggert S, Johannesson H and Mattsson A 1996 **76** 1505 Schneider I and Eggert S 2010 **104** 036402 Andergassen S, Enss T, Meden V, Metzner W, Schollwöck U and Schönhammer K 2004 B **70** 075102 Ejima S, Gebhard F and Nishimoto S 2005 *Europhysics Letters* **70** 492 Ejima S, Gebhard F and Nishimoto S 2006 B **74** 245110
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Strong isospin-breaking (IB) contributions to both the octet and $27$-plet weak $K\rightarrow \pi\pi$ transitions are evaluated at next-to-leading order (NLO) in the chiral expansion. NLO contributions are shown to significantly reduce the leading order result for the potentially large contribution to the $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitude resulting from strong isospin-breaking modifications to the weak $\Delta I=1/2$ amplitude. The ratio of strong IB $27$-plet to strong IB octet contributions is found to be small for all decay amplitudes. Combined with recent results on the corresponding electromagnetic contributions, we find that the ratio of the intrinsic strengths of octet and $27$-plet effective weak operators can be taken to be that obtained from experimental data, analyzed ignoring isospin breaking, to an accuracy better than of order $\sim 10\%$.'
address:
- 'Nuclear Theory Center, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47408'
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University,\
4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3\
and
- |
Special Research Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter,\
University of Adelaide, Australia 5005.
author:
- 'Carl E. Wolfe[^1]'
- 'Kim Maltman[^2]'
title: 'Strong Isospin-Breaking Effects in $K\to 2\pi$ at Next-to-Leading Order in the Chiral Expansion'
---
Introduction
============
It appears likely that the large ratio ($\sim 20$) between octet $\Delta I=1/2$ and $27$-plet $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitudes in hyperon and non-leptonic $K$ decay (the so-called $\Delta I=1/2$ Rule) results from a compounding of long-distance and short-distance effects, and that the sources of both effects are now reasonably well understood. QCD dressing, in the regime of scales $>1$ GeV$^2$, for which perturbative QCD can be sensibly employed, contribute a factor of $3-4$ to the enhancement[@pqcd1loop; @pqcd2loop], while, in the case of non-leptonic $K$ decay, long-distance effects, including those of final state interactions (FSI)[@buras87; @isgur90; @kmw91] also contribute significantly. Attempts to provide a sensible matching of short and long distance effects in a single theoretical framework now appear likely to account for the full observed enhancement[@buras87; @bertolini98; @bijnens99; @hambye99]. The neglect of isospin breaking (IB), however, represents a potential problem for this putative understanding [@cheng]. Indeed, since the ratio of magnitudes of the $\Delta I=1/2$ and $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitudes is $\sim 20$, IB at the typical few percent scale could lead to a “leakage” of the large weak $\Delta I=1/2$ transition strength into the $\Delta I=3/2$ channel with a strength $\sim 20\times$ a few $\%$. Were the experimental $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitude to include such a large contribution, an isospin-conserving (IC) calculation which reproduced the [*experimental*]{} ratio of amplitudes could, in fact, be in error by as much as a factor of $\sim 2$.
At leading order in the chiral expansion, and for conventional field choices, strong IB in $K\rightarrow \pi\pi$ has only two sources: $\pi^0-\eta$ mixing on the external $\pi^0$ legs, and IB in the squared $K$ masses (which produces “kinematic” contributions as a result of the momentum dependence of the weak transition amplitudes). At this order, the resulting $\Delta I=1/2$ leakage contribution represents $\sim 15\%$ of the observed $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitude[@cheng; @dgh]. Next-to-leading order (NLO) IC corrections are known to be important for the $I=0$ final state (the $\Delta I=1/2$ transition)[@kmw91] and hence are unlikely to be negligible for the IB corrections. Some phenomenological estimates [@etap], in fact, suggest that they are rather large: Ref. [@dgh], for example, estimates that including the effect of mixing with the $\eta^\prime$ (a pure NLO effect) raises the $\Delta I=1/2$ leakage contribution to the $\Delta I=3/2$ amplitude to $35\%$ of the total. (In contrast, recent evaluations of electromagnetic (EM) contributions to the $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ amplitudes [@cdg] find them to represent few to several percent effects in all three channels, i.e., strongly suppressed relative to the naive estimate given above.) There are, however, other strong-IB-induced NLO contributions not included in the estimate based only on the effect of $\eta^\prime$ mixing. Since the method of effective chiral Lagrangians [@glchpt] (Chiral Perturbation Theory, or ChPT) provides a straightforward method of evaluating the sum of all such NLO contributions, we will, in this work, determine the strong IB contributions to the $K\rightarrow \pi\pi$ amplitudes, including the leakage contribution of the weak $\Delta I=1/2$ transition, to NLO in ChPT.
The Strong Isospin-Breaking Contributions to $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$
=================================================================
IB has two sources in the Standard Model, electromagnetic (EM) and strong (due to $m_d\not= m_u$). EM IB has $I=0,1,2$ components, and hence, in combination with the dominant $\Delta I=1/2$ octet weak transition operator, produces contributions to $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ with $\Delta I=1/2, 3/2$ and $5/2$. These contributions have been recently studied in Refs. [@cdg]. Strong IB, to ${\cal O}(m_d-m_u)$, is, in contrast, pure $I=1$. The strong modifications of the basic $\Delta I=1/2, 3/2$ transitions thus again produce $\Delta I=1/2, 3/2$ and $5/2$ contributions. Due to the factor of $\sim 20$ difference in the octet $\Delta I=1/2$ and $27$-plet $\Delta I=3/2$ weak operator strengths, one would expect strong IB octet contributions to dominate those associated with the weak $27$-plet.
In the presence of IB (including the $\Delta I=2$ component of EM, which couples the $I=0$ and $I=2$ $\pi\pi$ channels) the analogue of the standard isospin decomposition of the $K^+\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^0$, $K_S\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-,\pi^0\pi^0$ decay amplitudes, $A_{+0}$, $A_{+-}$ and $A_{00}$, is [@cdg] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{isodecomp}
A_{00} &=& \sqrt{2\over 3} A_0-{2\over\sqrt{3}} A_2
= \sqrt{2\over 3}\vert A_0\vert
{\rm e}^{i(\Phi_0+\gamma_0)}-{2\over\sqrt{3}}\vert A_2 \vert {\rm e}^
{i(\Phi_2+\gamma_2)}, \cr
A_{+-} &=& \sqrt{2\over 3} A_0 +{1\over\sqrt{3}} A_2=
\sqrt{2\over 3}\vert A_0\vert
{\rm e}^{i(\Phi_0+\gamma_0)}+{1\over\sqrt{3}}\vert A_2\vert {\rm e}^
{i(\Phi_2+\gamma_2)}, \cr
A_{+0} &=& {\sqrt{3}\over 2} A_2^\prime =
{\sqrt{3}\over 2}\vert A_2^\prime\vert {\rm e}^{i(\Phi_2
+\gamma_2^\prime
)},\end{aligned}$$ where the $\Phi_I$ are the [*strong*]{} $\pi\pi$ (rescattering) phases. In the absence of $\Delta I=2$ FSI, $\gamma_2^\prime =\gamma_2$, and $\Phi_I+\gamma_I\equiv \phi_I$ should be the physical isospin $I$ $\pi\pi$ scattering phase, $\delta_I$. In general, $\vert A_2^\prime\vert \not= \vert A_2\vert$ as a consequence of EM- and strong-IB-induced $\Delta I=5/2$ contributions. If one ignores IB, $A_2^\prime
= A_2$ and $\phi_I=\delta_I$.
The conventional IC analysis of $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ involves first determining $\vert A_2^\prime\vert$ (assumed equal to $\vert A_2\vert$) from the $K^+\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^0$ decay rate, and then extracting $\vert A_0\vert$ using the IC relation $$2\vert A_{+-}\vert^2 +\vert A_{00}\vert^2 = 2\vert A_0\vert^2
+2\vert A_2\vert^2 \ .
\label{A0extraction}$$ If IB is indeed negligible, then the relative phase, $\phi =\phi_0 -\phi_2$, of the $I=0$/$I=2$ interference terms in the two $K_S$ decay rates should equal $\delta_0-\delta_2$. Fitting to the experimental decay rates [@pdg98; @devdick] assuming IC, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expfit}
\vert A_0\vert &=& (4.70\pm 0.01)\times 10^{-4}\;{\rm MeV}\cr
\vert A_2\vert &=& (2.11\pm 0.04)\times 10^{-5}\;{\rm MeV}\cr
\phi &=& 0.98 \pm 0.06\;{\rm rad}.\end{aligned}$$ The large value of the ratio $\vert A_0/A_2\vert = 22.3$ reflects the well-known $\Delta I=1/2$ Rule, while the deviation of the nominal value of $\phi$, $\phi_{exp}\simeq 56^o$, from $\delta_0-\delta_2=(42\pm 4)^o$ presumably reflects the presence of neglected IB contributions.
In general, the two $K_S$ decay rates depend on [*three*]{} parameters, $\vert A_0\vert$, $\vert A_2\vert$, and $\phi$. Since, in the presence of $\Delta I=5/2$ IB contributions, $\vert A_2\vert$ can no longer be determined in $K^+\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^0$, $\phi$ is not, in fact, experimentally measurable. The (assumed) IC analysis produces a nominal value, $\phi_{exp}$, related to the actual value, $\phi$, by $$\cos\left( \phi_{exp}\right) = {\frac {\vert A_2\vert}
{\vert A_2^\prime\vert}}\cos\left(\phi \right)
+{\frac{\left[
\vert A_2^\prime\vert^2 - \vert A_2\vert^2\right]}
{2\sqrt{2}\, \vert A_0\vert\,
\vert A_2^\prime\vert}}\ .
\label{phaserelation}$$ In the presence of $\Delta I=5/2$ transitions, the coefficient of the first term on the RHS is $\not= 1$, and the second (small) term is non-zero. $\phi_{exp}$ can thus differ from $\delta_0-\delta_2$ , even if $\Delta I=2$ EM FSI effects are negligible.
We now outline the ingredients needed to compute the strong IB contributions to the CP-even $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ amplitudes in ChPT.
The low-energy representation of the strong interactions, sufficient to determine effects at NLO, is given by the 1-loop effective Lagrangian of Ref. [@glchpt]. Writing ${\cal L}_S = {\cal L}_S^{(2)}+{\cal L}_S^{(4)}$, where the superscripts denote chiral order, and setting the external vector and axial vector fields (not required for our purposes) to zero, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_S^{(2)} &=& {F^2\over 4}{\rm Tr}[\partial_{\mu}U
\partial^{\mu}U^{\dagger}] +
{F^2\over 4}{\rm Tr}[\chi U^{\dagger}+U\chi^{\dagger}]\label{Ltwo} \\
{\cal L}_S^{(4)} &=&L_1({\rm Tr}[\partial_{\mu}U
\partial^{\mu}U^{\dagger}])^2
+L_2{\rm Tr}[\partial_{\mu}U\partial_{\nu}U^{\dagger}]
\, {\rm Tr}[\partial^{\mu}U\partial^{\nu}U^{\dagger}]
+L_3{\rm Tr}[\partial_{\mu}U\partial^{\mu}U^{\dagger}
\partial_{\nu}U\partial^{\nu}U^{\dagger}]
\nonumber \\
&&\ \
+L_4{\rm Tr}[\partial_{\mu}U\partial^{\mu}U^{\dagger}]
\, {\rm Tr}[\chi U^{\dagger}+U\chi^{\dagger}]
+L_5{\rm Tr}[\partial_{\mu}U\partial^{\mu}U^{\dagger}
(\chi U^{\dagger}+U\chi^{\dagger})] +
L_6({\rm Tr}[\chi U^{\dagger}+U\chi^{\dagger}])^2 \nonumber \\
&&\ \
+L_7({\rm Tr}[\chi U^{\dagger}-U\chi^{\dagger}])^2
+L_8{\rm Tr}[\chi U^{\dagger}\chi U^{\dagger} +
U\chi^{\dagger}U\chi^{\dagger}]
+H_2{\rm Tr}[\chi\chi^{\dagger}]\label{Lfour}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi = 2B_0 M_q$ (with $M_q$ the quark mass matrix), $U = exp(i\lambda\cdot\pi/F)$ and $\{ L_i\}$, $F$ and $B_0$ are the usual strong low-energy constants (LEC’s), in the notation of Ref. [@glchpt], for which we employ the values found in Ref. [@ecker95].
The low-energy representation of the CP-even part of the non-leptonic weak interactions is given by the Lagrangian, ${\cal L}_W$, of Ref. [@kambor; @kmw90] (or the equivalent reduced forms of Refs. [@ekw93; @bpp], which take into account constraints associated with the Cayley-Hamilton theorem and the leading order equation of motion). We work with the version in which the weak mass term present in the most general form of the leading (second) order part of ${\cal L}_W$, ${\cal L}_W^{(2)}$, has been removed by a field redefinition, and the NLO part of ${\cal L}_W$, ${\cal L}_W^{(4)}$, correspondingly modified (see Ref. [@kmw90] for details). With ${\cal L}_W^{(2)}=
{\cal L}_{W(8)}^{(2)} + {\cal L}_{W(27)}^{(2)}$, where the subscripts label the flavor octet and $27$-plet components, respectively, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{W(8)}^{(2)}&=&c_2{\rm Tr}\left[\lambda_6D_{\mu}U^\dagger
D^{\mu}U\right]
\label{LWoctlead} \\
{\cal L}_{W(27)}^{(2)} &=& c_3 t\, \left({\rm Tr}[\tilde{Q}L_{\mu}]
{\rm Tr}[\tilde{Q}L^{\mu}]\right)\ ,
\label{LW27lead}\end{aligned}$$ where $L_\mu =iU^\dagger D_\mu U$, $c_2$ and $c_3$ are leading order weak LEC’s of order $G_F$, $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative (which, for our purposes, reduces to the ordinary partial derivative), the matrix $\tilde{Q}$ projects out the flavor octet components of any trace in which it occurs, and the tensor, $t$, combines two octets into a $27$-plet. The explicit forms of $\tilde{Q}$ and $t$, including those required to separate the $\Delta I=1/2$ and $3/2$ components of the $27$-plet, may be found in Ref. [@thesis].
[ Our definition of the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ weak octet operator, and hence our normalization convention for $c_2$, agrees with that of Refs. [@kmw91; @kambor; @kmw90]. The choice $c_2>0$ conforms to that of Ref. [@kmw91], but differs by a sign from that used in Ref. [@thesis]. Our convention for the tensor $t$ is such that data then requires $c_3>0$, which differs by a sign from the convention of Ref. [@kmw90], and by both a sign and a factor of $2$ from that of Refs. [@kmw91; @kambor]. With $c_2>0$, $c_3>0$, our tree-level amplitudes $A_0$ and $A_2$ are negative. Our invariant amplitudes $A_0$, $A_2$ and $A_2^\prime$ differ by a factor of $-\sqrt{3}$ from those of Ref. [@cdg]. This can be understood from a comparison of the expressions for the amplitudes, provided one takes into account the fact that the neutral $K$ decay amplitudes of Refs. [@cdg] refer to $K^0$ decays, whereas ours, following the notation of Ref. [@kmw91], refer to $K_S$ decays. ]{}
For the NLO weak contributions one has [@kmw90], $$\label{LWnlo}
{\cal L}^{(4)}_W = \sum_{i=1}^{48}E_i{\cal O}^{(8)}_i +
\sum_{i=i}^{34}D_i{\cal O}^{(27)}_i$$ where the $E_i$ and $D_i$ are the weak NLO octet and $27$-plet LEC’s (which have an implicit proportionality to $c_2,c_3$, respectively). The corresponding renormalized LEC’s are denoted $E_i^r$ and $D_i^r$. Their relations to the $E_i$ and $D_i$ are given in Ref. [@kmw90]
[We concur with Ref. [@bpp] in requiring an overall difference in the sign of the divergent parts of all $27$-plet LEC’s, as compared to the results of Ref. [@kmw90].]{}
. Explicit expressions for the operators ${\cal O}^{(n)}_i$ may be found in Ref. [@kmw90]. Use of the Cayley-Hamilton theorem and the equation of motion allows one to remove certain of the terms in Eq. (\[LWnlo\]), as explained in Section 3 of Ref. [@kmw90]. We work with a form in which the former constraint has been used to eliminate $E_{14}^r$, and the LEC’s $E_{10}^r$ through $E_{13}^r$ modified accordingly. (The constraint also allows elimination of $E_{44}^r$, $E_{45}^r$, and $D_{32}^r$, but this is irrelevant for our purposes since the corresponding operators do not contribute to $K\to\pi\pi$ at NLO.) The reader should bear in mind that, in employing the GNC model[@holdom92; @cameron] below to make estimates for the weak LEC’s, one must also impose this constraint, which has not been implemented in Ref. [@cameron].
[Ref. [@cameron] also employs a form of the strong NLO Lagrangian in which, in contrast to the conventional form given above, operators which could be omitted as a consequence of the leading order equation of motion have not been removed. In order to employ the results of Ref. [@cameron] one must, therefore, first remove those operators, and then make the corresponding changes to the weak LEC’s. These modifications affect only the values of $E_{15}$, $E_{32}$, $E_{33}$, $D_5$, and $D_{19}$ of Ref. [@cameron]. ]{}
An alternate choice of operator basis for the NLO weak octet Lagrangian is that given in Ref. [@ekw93]. When we employ the weak deformation/factorization model (FM) estimates of Ref. [@ekw93] for the weak LEC’s, we will work with the reduced set of octet operators, $W^{(8)}_i$, and corresponding LEC’s, $N_i$, defined in that reference. For the corresponding weak $27$-plet operators we follow Ref. [@bpp], denoting the operators by $\tilde{O}_i^{(27)}$ and the LEC’s by $\tilde{D}_i$. The renormalized LEC’s are written, in obvious notation, $N_i^r$ and $\tilde{D}_i^r$, respectively.
Certain combinations of the weak LEC’s were determined in Ref. [@kmw91] by neglecting IB and fitting the calculated ${\cal O}(p^4)$ amplitudes for $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ and $K\rightarrow\pi\pi\pi$ to experimental data. (Sufficient data exists to allow such an IC fit, provided one neglects contributions suppressed by a relative factor of $m_{\pi}^2/m_K^2$[@kmw91].) Since all IC octet (respectively, $27$-plet) contributions are proportional to $c_2$ (respectively, $c_3$), the presence of IB contributions can be accommodated in the fit by rescalings of $c_2$ and $c_3$. One, of course, expects a small rescaling for $c_2$, but potentially significant rescaling for $c_3$. As can be seen from the results below, the LEC combinations entering the IB contributions to $A_0$, $A_2$ and $A_2^\prime$ are such that the total number of linearly independent IC and IB LEC combinations exceeds the existing number of $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ and $K\rightarrow\pi\pi\pi$ observables, making an experimental determination of the new IB LEC values impossible. It is, therefore, necessary to estimate their values using models. We employ two models for this purpose, each representing the extension of a model successful in reproducing the empirical values of the strong LEC’s.
In the first of these models, the FM [@ekw93], a rescaled version of the factorization of the four-quark currents into products of two-quark currents is employed, the LEC contributions to the latter being given by resonance saturation (see Ref. [@egpdr89] for the modelling of the strong LEC’s, and Refs. [@ekw93; @bpp] for an explicit discussion of the relation to the weak LEC’s). In the second model, the gauged non-local constituent quark (GNC) model (a chiral quark model with a self-energy, $\Sigma_A (q^2)$, modelled using a parameter, $A$, describing the rapidity of onset of the constituent mass with $q^2$), the effective Lagrangians for the pseudoscalars are generated by integrating out the quark fields [@holdom92; @cameron]. Values of $A$ between $1$ and $3$ give good fits to the strong LEC’s. We will employ the FM and the GNC (with both $A=1$ and $A=3$), using the difference in the estimates so obtained to provide a measure of the uncertainty associated with the model dependence of the weak LEC values.
Using the expressions above for the weak and strong effective Lagrangians, it is straightforward to compute the desired strong IB contributions to $A_0$, $A_2$ and $A_2^\prime$. The leading (${\cal O}(p^2)$) contributions are given in Table \[table1\].
[The IB $\pi$-$\eta$ mixing and kinematic contributions turn out to exactly cancel for $K\rightarrow\pi^0\pi^0$, in both the octet and $27$-plet cases. The mixing contribution is, of course, absent for the $K\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ amplitude.]{}
The NLO contributions are obtained by evaluating the graphs of Figs. 1(b)-(h). The notation for the Figures is as follows: internal lines represent any of the members of the pseudoscalar octet, solid circles the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ strong vertices, open circles the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ strong vertices, solid squares the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ weak vertices, and the open square of Fig. 1(h), any of the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ weak vertices. Expressions relating the isospin-pure, non-diagonally-propagating $\pi^3$ and $\pi^8$ fields to the renormalized, mixed-isospin, diagonally-propagating $\pi^0$ and $\eta$ fields at NLO, which are required to handle the effects of $\pi$-$\eta$ mixing at this order, are taken from Ref. [@kmmix], while expressions for the ${\cal O}(m_d-m_u)$ contributions to the wavefunction renormalization factors may be found in Ref. [@thesis].
Since the expressions for the IB parts of the one-loop graphs (Figures 1(b)-(g)) are rather lengthy and unilluminating, we record here only their numerical values.
[Expressions for the octet one-loop IB contributions may be found in Appendix B of Ref. [@thesis]; those for the $27$-plet will be reported elsewhere [@promisespromises]]{}.
The results (including the strong LEC contributions to the NLO mixing and wavefunction renormalizations (Fig. 1(c)), of which the $L_7$ term, which reflects the $\eta^\prime$ mixing contribution at this order, is a part) are given in Table \[table2\]. These results correspond, for definiteness, to the scale $\mu^2=m_\eta^2$, and are given in the form $\delta^{(f)}A_i/c^{(f)}$, where $(f)=(8)$ or $(27)$ labels the flavor of the weak transition operator, $c^{(8)}\equiv c_2$, $c^{(27)}\equiv c_3$, and $A_i=A_0$, $A_2$ or $A_2^\prime$ (these combinations are independent of the specific values of the weak LEC’s $c_2$ and $c_3$). The scale dependence of each such sum must, of course, cancel that of the corresponding weak LEC combination. Collectively, the finiteness and scale independence of each of the three $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ decay amplitudes provides a powerful cross-check on the calculations.
The weak LEC (counterterm) contributions, corresponding to Fig. 1(h), are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weakct}
\left[ \delta^{(8)} A_0\right]_{LEC} &=& - \left({\frac{\sqrt{6}B_0(m_d-m_u)}
{9F^3}}\right)\left(m_K^2J_1-m_{\pi}^2J_2 \right)
\nonumber \\
\left[ \delta^{(8)} A_2\right]_{LEC} &=&
\left[ \delta^{(8)} A_2^\prime \right]_{LEC} =
%\left({\frac{2B_0(m_d-m_u)}{\sqrt{3}F^3}}\right) J_{IB}=
\left({\frac{2B_0(m_d-m_u)}{\sqrt{3}F^3}}\right)\left( m_K^2J_3-m_{\pi}^2J_4
\right) \nonumber \\
\left[ \delta^{(27)}A_0\right]_{LEC} &=& -\left({\frac{\sqrt{2}B_0(m_d-m_u)}
{4\sqrt{3}F^3}}\right)\left( m_K^2 K_1+m_{\pi}^2 K_2\right) \nonumber \\
\left[\delta^{(27)}A_2\right]_{LEC} &=& \left(
{\frac{B_0(m_d-m_u)}{4\sqrt{3}F^3}}
\right)\left( m_K^2 K_3+m_{\pi}^2 K_4\right) \nonumber \\
\left[\delta^{(27)}A_2^{\prime}\right]_{LEC} &=& \left({\frac{B_0(m_d-m_u)}
{2\sqrt{3}F^3}}\right)\left( m_K^2 K_5+m_{\pi}^2 K_6\right) \end{aligned}$$ where, in the basis of Ref. [@kmw90], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{iblec}
J_1 &=&-12E_1^r+24E_3^r+36E_4^r-12E_5^r+21E_{10}^r+9E_{11}^r+36E_{12}^r
+15E_{15}^r-72E_{32}^r-48E_{33}^r-24E_{34}^r
\nonumber \\
&& \quad +30E_{37}^r +30E_{38}^r \nonumber \\
J_2 &=& -60E_1^r-36E_2^r+12E_3^r+36E_4^r+48E_5^r+33E_{10}^r-12E_{11}^r
+36E_{12}^r
+18E_{13}^r+9E_{15}^r-72E_{32}^r
\nonumber \\
&& \quad +96E_{34}^r +24E_{35}^r+24E_{36}^r+18E_{37}^r+18E_{38}^r-48E_{39}^r
-48E_{40}^r \nonumber \\
J_3 &=&-4E_1^r+8E_3^r+12E_{4}^r-4E_5^r+E_{10}^r+3E_{11}^r+12E_{12}^r
-E_{15}^r-24E_{32}^r-16E_{33}^r-8E_{34}^r-2E_{37}^r-2E_{38}^r \nonumber \\
J_4 &=& -2E_1^r+10E_3^r+12E_4^r-8E_5^r+2E_{10}^r+5E_{11}^r+12E_{12}^r
-24E_{32}^r-24E_{33}^r-16E_{34}^r-4E_{35}^r-4E_{36}^r \nonumber \\
&&\quad +8E_{39}^r+8E_{40}^r \nonumber \\
K_1 &=& 208D_1^r+10D_4^r-10D_5^r-66D_6^r+32D_7^r+20D_{22}^r+20D_{23}^r
\nonumber \\
K_2 &=& -144D_1^r+32D_2^r+30D_4^r+2D_5^r+50D_6^r+16D_7^r-64D_{19}^r
-32D_{20}^r -32D_{21}^r-4D_{22}^r-4D_{23}^r \nonumber \\
&&\quad +128D_{24}^r+128D_{25}^r \nonumber \\
K_3 &=& -64D_1^r-28D_4^r+28D_5^r+12D_6^r-32D_7^r-56D_{22}^r-56D_{23}^r
\nonumber \\
K_4 &=& -48D_1^r-32D_2^r-12D_4^r-20D_5^r+16D_6^r-16D_7^r
+64D_{19}^r+32D_{20}^r+32D_{21}^r+40D_{22}^r+40D_{23}^r \nonumber \\
&&\quad -128D_{24}^r-128D_{25}^r \nonumber \\
K_5 &=& -32D_1^r+11D_4^r-11D_5^r+16D_6^r+4D_7^r+22D_{22}^r+22D_{23}^r
\nonumber \\
K_6 &=& 16D_1^r+4D_2^r-6D_4^r+10D_5^r-12D_6^r+2D_7^r
-8D_{19}^r-4D_{20}^r-4D_{21}^r-20D_{22}^r-20D_{23}^r+16D_{24}^r+16D_{25}^r\end{aligned}$$ while in that of Ref. [@ekw93; @bpp], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{iblececker}
J_1 &=& {c_2}\left[ 7N_5^r+6N_6^r+4N_8^r+5N_9^r-4N_{10}^r-8N_{12}^r-12N_{13}^r
\right ] /F^2 \nonumber \\
J_2 &=& {c_2}\left[ 11N_5^r+6N_6^r+6N_7^r-2N_8^r+3N_9^r-20N_{10}^r-12N_{11}^r
-4N_{12}^r-12N_{13}^r \right ] /F^2 \nonumber \\
J_3 &=& {c_2}\left[ N^r_5+6N^r_6
-2N^r_8-N^r_9-4N^r_{10}-8N^r_{12}-12N^r_{13}\right] /F^2 \nonumber\\
J_4 &=& {c_2}\left[ 2N^r_5+6N^r_6+N^r_8
-2N^r_{10}-10N^r_{12}-12N^r_{13}\right] /F^2 \nonumber \\
K_1 &=& {-2c_3}\left[-104\tilde{D}_1^r-5\tilde{D}_4^r
+5\tilde{D}_5^r+33\tilde{D}_6^r-16\tilde{D}_7^r\right] /F^2 \nonumber \\
K_2 &=& {-2c_3}\left[ 72\tilde{D}_1^r+16\tilde{D}_2^r
-15\tilde{D}_4^r-\tilde{D}_5^r-25\tilde{D}_6^r-8\tilde{D}_7^r\right]
/F^2 \nonumber \\
K_3 &=& {4c_3}\left[ -16\tilde{D}_1^r-7\tilde{D}_4^r
+7\tilde{D}_5^r+3\tilde{D}_6^r-8\tilde{D}_7^r\right] /F^2 \nonumber \\
K_4 &=& {4c_3}\left[ -12\tilde{D}_1^r+8\tilde{D}_2^r
-3\tilde{D}_4^r-5\tilde{D}_5^r+4\tilde{D}_6^r-4\tilde{D}_7^r\right]
/F^2 \nonumber \\
K_5 &=& {c_3}\left[
-32\tilde{D}_1^r+11\tilde{D}_4^r
-11\tilde{D}_5^r+16\tilde{D}_6^r+4\tilde{D}_7^r\right] /F^2 \nonumber \\
K_6 &=& {c_3}\left[ 16\tilde{D}_1^r-4\tilde{D}_2^r
-6\tilde{D}_4^r+10\tilde{D}_5^r-12\tilde{D}_6^r+2\tilde{D}_7^r\right]
/F^2\, .\end{aligned}$$ It is worth commenting that, although the $J_4$ contribution to $\left[ \delta^{(8)} A_2\right]_{LEC}$ is suppressed by a factor of $m_\pi^2/m_K^2$ relative to that involving $J_3$, the ratio of the two contributions in fact ranges between $0.3$ and $0.6$ for the models discussed. One should, therefore, reserve some caution for the procedure of neglecting LEC contributions to the $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ and $K\rightarrow\pi\pi\pi$ amplitudes which are suppressed by $m_\pi^2/m_K^2$.
Numerical Results and Conclusions
=================================
Our numerical results are based on the following input: $\pi$ and $K$ masses and decay constants from Ref. [@pdg98]; strong NLO LEC’s from Ref. [@ecker95]; weak LEC values from the models noted above; and $$B_0(m_d-m_u) = \left({\frac{m_d-m_u}
{m_d+m_u}}\right) m_{\pi}^2 =
5248\pm 674\;{\rm MeV}^2,
\label{ibvalues}$$ which follows from Leutwyler’s determination of the light quark mass ratios [@leut96].
In determining the rescaling of the weak LEC’s, $c_2$ and $c_3$, from their IC values, we include not only our strong octet and $27$-plet IB contributions, but also the EM IB contributions, as determined in the most constraining (dispersive) version of the analysis of Refs. [@cdg]. The difference in the magnitudes of these rescalings determines the error in the extracted value of the ratio, $c_3/c_2$, of weak $27$-plet to weak octet operator strengths made by neglecting IB effects in the analysis of experimental data. The fitted values of $c_2$ and $c_3$, together with the ratio $$R_{IB}\equiv {\frac{c_3/c_2}{c_3^{IC}/c_2^{IC}}}\ ,
\label{IBeffect}$$ which quantifies this error, are given in Table \[table3\], where the IC fit values of $c_2$ and $c_3$ have also been included for comparison. Note that a value of $R_{IB}<1$ implies that the ratio of $\Delta I=1/2$ to $\Delta I=3/2$ operator strengths is [*larger*]{} than would be obtained in an IC analysis. After including the quoted errors on the EM contributions from Ref. [@cdg], we find $$R_{IB}=0.963\pm 0.029\pm 0.010 \pm 0.034\ ,
\label{c2c3effect}$$ where the first error reflects the model dependence associated with the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ weak LEC values, the second the uncertainty in $B_0(m_d-m_u)$, and the third the uncertainty in the EM contributions. The ratio $c_2/c_3$ can thus be taken to be that obtained in an IC analysis to an accuracy of better than $\sim 10\%$.
To understand the reason for this rather small IB shift, it is useful to examine separately the octet, $27$-plet and EM IB contributions to the $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ amplitudes. We denote by $\delta^{(s)}A_k$ the IB contribution to $A_k$, where $A_k$ is any of $A_0$, $A_2$, and $A_2^\prime$, and $(s)=(8)$, $(27)$ or $(EM)$ labels the source of IB. The results for the $\delta^{(s)}A_k$, are given in Table \[table4\]. The EM results and errors are those of Refs. [@cdg], adapted to our conventions. The errors on the real parts of the strong IB contributions correspond to the range of values of the weak LEC contributions obtained from the different models above combined in quadrature with the error associated with the uncertainty in $B_0(m_d-m_u)$; the former turns out to be the dominant source of error.
A number of features of the results are worth further comment. First, in all cases the IB $27$-plet contributions are a factor of $\sim 20$ smaller than than the IB octet, compatible with naive estimates based on the relative size of the $\Delta I=1/2$ and $\Delta I=3/2$ weak operator strengths. Second, the EM contributions are of order $\sim 50\%$ of the octet IB contributions for $A_0$ and $A_2^\prime$, and of order $\sim 80\%$ for $A_2$, the two contributions adding constructively for $A_0$ and $A_2$, but destructively for $A_2^\prime$. Third, while in all cases the strong IB contributions add constructively to the IC contributions, the EM contributions add constructively for $A_0$ and $A_2$, but destructively for $A_2^\prime$. These features ensure that $\vert A_2\vert /\vert A_2^\prime\vert >1$, an effect which tends to make the nominal phase, $\phi_{exp}$, [*smaller*]{} than the actual phase difference, $\phi$. Because the IB $27$-plet contributions are, as expected, small, this effect (associated with the presence of a $\Delta I=5/2$ contribution in the $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ amplitudes) is almost totally dominated by the EM component. In fact, as one can see from the near equality of $\delta^{(27)}A_2$ and $\delta^{(27)}A_2^\prime$, the $27$-plet-induced $\Delta I=5/2$ component is strongly suppressed, in contrast to the situation for the EM contributions. As a result, though the $27$-plet IB contribution to each of $A_2$ and $A_2^\prime$ is at the $\sim 10\%$ level of the corresponding EM contribution, it has been reduced to the $1/2\%$ level when one considers $\vert A_2\vert -\vert A_2^\prime\vert$.
Let us return to the question of the IB modification of $c_3/c_2$, the ratio which parametrizes the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule enhancement in the low energy effective theory. We have seen above that the IB effect is, in fact, quite modest. It is now possible to see why it is that this is the case. The results of Table \[table3\] show that, as expected, $c_2$ is only slightly modified (at the $\sim 1\%$ level) by IB effects. The ratio $c_3/c_3^{IC}$ is, however, much closer to $1$ than the $15\%$ deviation produced by including only the leading order strong IB octet contributions. This decrease in the IB effect on $c_3$ has two sources. First, as can be seen from Table \[table4\], there is a significant cancellation between the octet and EM IB contributions to $A_2^\prime$, which quantity dominates the determination of $c_3$. Second, this cancellation is facilitated by the fact that the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ and ${\cal O}(p^4)$ octet leakage contributions add destructively. This latter feature might seem unnatural given the observation that $\eta^\prime$ mixing is expected to [*increase*]{} the leading order octet IB effect, but there is, in fact, a natural reason why this is not the case. In the strong interaction part of the low energy effective theory, the effects of the $\eta^\prime$ are encoded entirely in the LEC $L_7^r$. A contribution proportional to $L_7^r$, associated with the effects of mixing on the external $\pi^0$ legs, is, of course, present in the results above, and indeed, on its own, would serve to significantly increase the leading order result. However, as can be seen from Eqs. (15)-(17) of Ref. [@kmmix], the LEC contributions to the relevant mixing angles occur in the combination $3L_7^r+L_8^r$, for which, empirically, there is an almost complete cancellation between the $L_7^r$ and $L_8^r$ terms.
[This observation has also been made in the context of an estimate of NLO mixing contributions to the IB correction, $\Omega_{IB}$, in $\epsilon^\prime /\epsilon$[@emnp99]. A useful discussion of the resonance interpretation of the $L_8^r$ contribution can be found in that reference.]{}
The cumulative effect of [*all*]{} NLO corrections, including the strong LEC corrections just discussed, is, in fact, to lower the magnitude of the leading order results; the estimate based only on the inclusion of $\eta^\prime$ mixing effects thus turns out to be misleading. One of the great advantages of the ChPT approach is that it allows one, in a straightforward manner, to include all contributions of a given chiral order which occur in the Standard Model.
We conclude with a brief comment about the relation of the nominal phase, $\phi_{exp}$, and the actual relative phase, $\phi$, between the $I=0$ and $I=2$ components of the two $K_S$ amplitudes. In order to fully explicate the phase question, one would require both a determination of the IB contributions to the (in the presence of EM, coupled channel) $\pi\pi$ scattering phases, and a determination, and subtraction, of non-$\pi\pi$-scattering IB effects in the processes in which the $\pi\pi$ phases are nominally measured. Such expressions are not currently available, and a determination of them is beyond the scope of this paper. Without such expressions, however, the relation between $\phi$ and the nominally determined experimental $I=0$ and $I=2$ $\pi\pi$ phases is subject to IB corrections whose size is not, at present, known. In addition, one should bear in mind that the experimental data has yet to have applied to it the detector-dependent IR correction factor present in the expression for the $K_S\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-$ cross-section (see Ref. [@cdg] for a discussion of this point). Since the difference $\vert A_{+-}\vert^2 -\vert A_{00}\vert^2$, from which the interference term which determines $\phi_{exp}$ is obtained, is $\sim 10\%$ of the individual terms, even a $1\%$ IR correction can have a sizeable numerical impact. While the problems just discussed mean that uncertainties exist, both in our knowledge of the relation of $\phi$ to the measured $\pi\pi$ scattering phase difference, and in the experimental determination of $\phi_{exp}$, our results, combined with those of Ref. [@cdg], allow us to quantify the deviation of $\phi_{exp}$ from $\phi$ resulting from the presence of $\Delta I=5/2$ strong and EM IB effects. We find, for the coefficient of $\cos (\phi )$ in Eq. (\[phaserelation\]), $${\frac{\vert A_2\vert}{\vert A_2^\prime \vert}}=1.094\pm 0.039\ .
\label{ratioa2}$$ The second term in Eq. (\[phaserelation\]) is then $-0.0015\pm 0.0006$; its effect is thus tiny, and in any case, swamped by the error on $\vert A_2\vert /\vert A_2^\prime \vert$. As an example of the magnitude of the resulting effect, note that, were $\phi$ to be $42^o$, one would then obtain $\phi_{exp}=35.8\pm 2.9^o$. Recall that this effect is almost entirely EM in origin. The sign of the EM contributions is thus such as to significantly exacerbate the existing phase discrepancy. CEW would like to thank J. Kambor for making a copy of his Ph.D. thesis available and acknowledges both the support and hospitality of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University, during the course of his thesis work there, and the partial support of the United States Department of Energy (contract DE-FG0287ER-40365). KM acknowledges the ongoing support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the hospitality and support of the Special Research Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter at the University of Adelaide.
-------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
$(f)$ $\delta^{(f)}A_0$ $\delta^{(f)}A_2$ $\delta^{(f)}A_2^\prime$
$(8)$ $-\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\, c_2$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\, c_2$ $-\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\, c_2$
$(27)$ $-2\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\, c_3$ $-2\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\, c_3$ ${\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\, c_3$
-------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -----------------------------------------
: The ${\cal O}(p^2)$ contributions to $A_0$, $A_2$ and $A_2^\prime$, in units of $B_0(m_d-m_u)/F^3$. The label $(f)$ denotes the flavor of the basic weak transition ($(8)$ for octet, $(27)$ for $27$-plet).[]{data-label="table1"}
-------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------------
$(f)$ $\delta^{(f)}A_0/c^{(f)}$ $\delta^{(f)}A_2/c^{(f)}$ $\delta^{(f)}A_2^\prime /c^{(f)}$
$(8)$ $0.00185-0.00538\, {\rm i}$ $0.00091+0.00078{\rm i}\, $ $0.00091+0.00078\, {\rm i}$
$(27)$ $-0.00803-0.0119\, {\rm i}$ $0.0181+0.0110\, {\rm i}$ $-0.0239-0.00775\, {\rm i}$
-------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------------
: Octet and $27$-plet contributions to $A_0$, $A_2$ and $A_2^\prime$ corresponding to the graphs of Figures 1(b)-(g). The quantities $c^{(8)}\equiv c_2$ (for the octet case) and $c^{(27)}\equiv c_3$ (for the $27$-plet case) have been factored out, for the reasons described in the text. The entries correspond to the renormalization scale $\mu^2=m_\eta^2$, and are in units of MeV$^{-1}$. As in Table 1, $(f)$ represents the flavor of the weak transition operator. The fitted $c_2$ and $c_3$ values, needed in order to determine the actual numerical values of the corresponding contributions to the $K\rightarrow\pi\pi$ amplitudes, are given in Table \[table3\].[]{data-label="table2"}
--------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------
Fit type $c_2$ $c_3$ $R_{IB}$
IC $5.43\times 10^{-4}$ $7.23\times 10^{-6}$ $1.000$
IB, GNC $A=1$ $5.38\times 10^{-4}$ $6.91\times 10^{-6}$ $0.965$
IB, GNC $A=3$ $5.37\times 10^{-4}$ $7.09\times 10^{-6}$ $0.992$
IB, FM $5.40\times 10^{-4}$ $6.71\times 10^{-6}$ $0.934$
--------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------
: Fitted values of $c_2$ and $c_3$ in units of MeV$^2$, and the corresponding values of $R_{IB}$. IC labels the IC fit, while the three IB cases correspond to the three models for the weak LEC’s described in the text. The results quoted here correspond to central values of both $B_0(m_d-m_u)$, as given in Eq. (\[ibvalues\]), and the EM contributions, as given in Ref. \[12\]. []{data-label="table3"}
-------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
Source $\delta^{(s)}A_0$ $\delta^{(s)}A_2$ $\delta^{(s)}A_2^\prime$
$(8)$ $(-4.11\pm 1.22)-(2.89\pm 0.37){\rm i}$ $(-1.56\pm 0.63) $(-1.56\pm 0.63)+(0.42\pm 0.05){\rm i}$
+(0.42\pm 0.05){\rm i}$
$(27)$ $(-0.28\pm 0.07)-(0.08\pm 0.01){\rm i}$ $(-0.08\pm 0.05) $(-0.07\pm 0.02)-(0.05\pm 0.01){\rm i}$
+(0.07\pm 0.01){\rm i}$
$(EM)$ $(-2.17\pm 0.50)+(0.61\pm 0.02){\rm i}$ $(-1.27\pm 0.40) $(0.70\pm 0.73)-(0.07\pm 0.04){\rm i}$
-(1.28\pm 0.02){\rm i}$
Total $(-6.56\pm 1.32)-(2.36\pm 0.37){\rm i}$ $(-2.91\pm 0.75)-(0.79\pm 0.05){\rm i}$ $(-0.93\pm 0.96)+(0.30\pm 0.06){\rm i}$
-------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
: The strong IB octet, strong IB $27$-plet, and EM IB contributions to $A_0$, $A_2$ and $A_2^\prime$. The notation is as described in the text. Entries are in units of $10^{-6}\ {\rm MeV}$. To understand the scale of the effects, recall that the IC fit yields $\vert A_0\vert =4.7\times 10^{-4}\ {\rm MeV}$ and $\vert A_2\vert = \vert A_2^\prime\vert =
2.1\times 10^{-5}\ {\rm MeV}$, and note that the ${\cal O}(p^2)$ octet IB contributions to $A_0$ and $A_2 = A_2^\prime$ are $-3.4\times 10^{-6}$ MeV and $-2.4\times 10^{-6}$ MeV, respectively. []{data-label="table4"}
0.5in
M.K. Gaillard and B.W. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**D10**]{} (1974) 897; G. Altarelli and L. Maiani, Phys. Lett. [**B52**]{} (1974) 351; M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. [**B120**]{} (1977) 316; F.J. Gilman and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. [**D20**]{} (1979) 2392; [**D27**]{} (1983) 1128; E.A. Paschos, T. Schneider and Y.L. Wu, Nucl. Phys. [**B332**]{} (1990) 285 A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, and M.E. Lautenbacher, Nucl. Phys. [**B400**]{} (1993) 75; M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Reina, Nucl. Phys. [**B415**]{} (1994) 403 W.A. Bardeen, A.J. Buras and J.-M. Gerard, Phys. Lett. [**B192**]{} (1987) 138 A.A. Bel’kov, G. Bohm, D. Ebert and A.V. Lanyov, Phys. Lett. [**B220**]{} (1989) 459; N. Isgur, K. Maltman, J. Weinstein and T. Barnes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{} (1990) 161 J. Kambor, J. Missimer, D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. [**B261**]{} (1991) 496 S. Bertolini, J.O. Eeg, M. Fabbrichesi and E.I. Lashin, Nucl. Phys. [**B514**]{} (1998) 63 J. Bijnens and J. Prades, JHEP [**9901**]{}: 023 (1999) and references therein T. Hambye, G.O. Köhler and P.H. Soldan, Eur. Phys. J. [**C10**]{} (1999) 271 and references therein H. Cheng, Phys. Lett. [**B201**]{} (1988) 155 J. Donoghue, E. Golowich, and B. Holstein, [*Dynamics of the Standard Model*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1992. J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B.R. Holstein and J. Trampetic, Phys. Lett. [**179B**]{} (1986) 361; A.J. Buras and J.-M. Gerard, Phys. Lett. [**192B**]{} (1987) 156; M. Lusignoli, Nucl. Phys. [**B325**]{} (1989) 33 J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Ann. Phys. [**158**]{} (1984) 142; Nucl. Phys. [**B250**]{} (1985) 465 V. Cirigliano, J.F. Donoghue and E. Golowich, Phys. Lett. [**B450**]{} (1999) 241; hep-ph/9907341; and hep-ph/9909473 Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. J. [**C3**]{} (1998) 1 T.J. Devlin and J.O. Dickey, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**51**]{} (1979)237 G. Ecker, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys [**35**]{} (1995) 1 J. Kambor, Ph.D. thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 1990 J. Kambor, J. Missimer, and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. [**B346**]{} (1990) 17 G. Ecker, J. Kambor and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. [**B394**]{} (1993) 101 J. Bijnens, E. Pallante and J. Prades, Nucl. Phys. [**B521**]{} (1998) 305 C.E. Wolfe, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), York University (Toronto), 1999 B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{} (1992) 2534, and earlier references cited therein C. Wicentowich, Ph.D. thesis (unpublished), University of Toronto, 1996 G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich, and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. [**B321**]{} (1989) 311 C.E. Wolfe and K. Maltman, in preparation K. Maltman, Phys. Lett. [**B351**]{} (1995) 56 H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. [**B374**]{} (1996) 163; Phys. Lett. [**B378**]{} (1996) 313 G. Ecker, G. Muller, H. Neufeld and A. Pich, hep-ph/9912264
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We address the problem of obtaining the exact reduced dynamics of the spin-half (qubit) immersed within the bosonic bath (enviroment). An exact solution of the Schrödinger equation with the paradigmatic spin-boson Hamiltonian is obtained. We believe that this result is a major step ahead and may ultimately contribute to the complete resolution of the problem in question. We also construct the constant of motion for the spin-boson system. In contrast to the standard techniques available within the framework of the open quantum systems theory, our analysis is based on the theory of block operator matrices.'
address: 'Institute of Physics, University of Silesia, PL-40-007 Katowice, Poland'
author:
- 'Bart[ł]{}omiej Gardas'
title: 'Exact solution of the Schrödinger equation with the spin-boson Hamiltonian'
---
Introduction
============
The Hamiltonian of the paradigmatic spin-boson (SB) model is specified as [@SB_Fannes; @SB_Fannes2; @SB_Spohn; @SB_Honegger]
$$\label{eq:SB}
{\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}} = {\text{H}}_{\text{S}}{\otimes}{{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}} + {{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{S}}}{\otimes}{\text{H}}_{\text{B}} + {\mathbf}{H}_{\text{int}},$$
where
$$\label{eq:S}
\text{H}_{\text{S}} = (\beta\sigma_z+\alpha\sigma_x)
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\text{H}}_{\text{B}} = \int_{0}^{\infty}d\omega\, h(\omega)\,{a^{{\dagger}}(\omega)}{a(\omega)},$$
are the Hamiltonian of the spin-half (qubit) and the bosonic field (environment), respectively. The interaction between the systems has the following form
$$\label{eq:CSB}
{\mathbf}{H}_{\text{int}} = \sigma_z{\otimes}\int_{0}^{\infty}d\omega \left(g(\omega)^{*}{a(\omega)}+g(\omega){a^{{\dagger}}(\omega)}\right)
\equiv\sigma_z{\otimes}{\text{V}}.$$
${{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{S}}}$ and ${{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}$ are the identity operators in corresponding Hilbert spaces of the qubit and the environment, respectively.
In the above description, $\sigma_z$ and $\sigma_x$ are the standard Pauli matrices. The bosonic creation ${a^{{\dagger}}(\omega)}$ and annihilation ${a(\omega)}$ operators obey the canonical commutation relation: $[{a(\omega)},{a^{{\dagger}}(\eta)}]=\delta(\omega-\eta){{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}$, for $\omega,
\eta\in[0,\infty)$. The functions $h$, $g\in L^{2}[0,\infty]$ model the energy of the free bosons and the coupling the bosons with the qubit, respectively. The constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are assumed to be real and non negative numbers. Furthermore, $\beta$ represents the energy gap between the eigenstates ${\ensuremath{|0\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$ of $\sigma_z$, while $\alpha$ is responsible for the tunneling between these states. The Hamiltonian acts on the total Hilbert space ${\mathcal}{H}_{\text{tot}}={\mathbb}{C}^{2}{\otimes}{\mathcal}{F}_{\text{B}}$, where ${\mathcal}{F}_{\text{B}}:={\mathcal}{F}(L^{2}[0,\infty])$ is the bosonic Fock space [@SB_Alicki].
It is worth mentioning that more often we encounter situations in which there is a countable number (finite, in particular) of bosons (see [*e.g.*]{} [@Leggett; @SB_work; @SB_paradigm; @SB_parity]). In such cases we define the SB model via the following Hamiltonian
$$\label{eq:DSB}
{\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}} = (\beta\sigma_z+\alpha\sigma_x){\otimes}{{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}} +
{{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{S}}}{\otimes}\sum_{k}h_ka_k^{{\dagger}}a_k
+
\sigma_z{\otimes}\sum_{k}\left(g_k^{*}a_k+g_ka^{{\dagger}}\right),$$
where the creation and annihilation operators $a_k^{{\dagger}}$, $a_k$ satisfy $[a_k,a_{l}^{{\dagger}}]=\delta_{kl}$. Formally, it is possible to obtain from by setting
$$x(\omega) = \sum_{k}x_k\delta(\omega-\omega_k),\quad{\text{where}}\quad x=h,g.$$
Therefore, we can treat both cases simultaneously. Although generalizations of the SB model ([*e.g.*]{} asymmetric coupling [@dajka]) are also under intensive investigation, we will not focus on them in this paper.
The problem of a small quantum system coupled to the external degrees of freedom plays an important role in various fields of modern quantum physics. The SB model provides a simple mathematical description of such coupling in the case of two-level quantum systems. For instance, an interaction between two-level atoms and the electromagnetic radiation can be modeled via the SB Hamiltonian [@puri]. For this reason the SB model is of great importance to the modern quantum optics. There are various physical problems ([*e.g.*]{}, decoherence [@zurek; @dajka_cat; @dajka1; @dajka2], geometric phase [@dajka_phase]) related to the properties of the model in question, which has already been addressed and intensively discussed. Nonetheless, an exact solution of the Schrödinger equation:
$$\label{eq:Sch}
\rmi\partial_t{\ensuremath{|\Psi_t\rangle}} = {\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}}{\ensuremath{|\Psi_t\rangle}}
\quad\text{with}\quad {\ensuremath{|\Psi_0\rangle}}\equiv{\ensuremath{|\Psi\rangle}},$$
is still missing for both $\alpha\not=0$ and $\beta\not=0$. Several approximation methods [@davies] have been developed in past fifty years to manage this problem. Models obtained from the SB Hamiltonian under mentioned approximations are well-established and in most cases they are exactly solvable. The famous Jaynes-Cummings model [@GJC] can serve as an example. Formally, one can always express the solution of (\[eq:Sch\]) as ${\ensuremath{|\Psi_t\rangle}}={\mathbf}{U}_t{\ensuremath{|\Psi\rangle}}$, where ${\mathbf}{U}_t:=\exp(-\rmi{\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}}t)$ is the time evolution operator (Stone theorem [@simon]). Needless to say, such a form of the solution is useless for practical purposes.
There is at least one important reason for which a manageable form of the time evolution operator ${\mathbf}{U}_t$ is worth seeking for. Namely, it allows to construct the exact reduced time evolution of the spin immersed within the bosonic bath, the so-called reduced dynamics [@Alicki]:
$$\label{reduced}
\rho_t = \text{Tr}_{\text{B}}({\mathbf}{U}_t\rho_0\otimes\omega_{{\text{B}}}{\mathbf}{U}_t^{\dagger}).$$
Above, the state $\omega_{{\text{B}}}$ is an initial state of the bosonic bath. ${\text{Tr}}_{{\text{B}}}$ denotes the partial trace, [*i.e.*]{}, ${\text{Tr}}_{{\text{B}}}({\text{M}}\otimes X)={\text{M}}{\text{Tr}}X$, where $\mbox{Tr}$ refers to the usual trace on ${\mathcal}{F}_{B}$. For the sake of simplicity we have assumed that the initial state of the composite system $\rho_{{\text{int}}}$ is the tensor product of the states $\rho_0$ and $\omega_{{\text{B}}}$. In other words, no initial correlations between the systems are present [@korelacje; @erratum; @KrausRep; @dajka3].
In general, the formula (\[reduced\]) is far less useful, than its theoretical simplicity might indicate. Indeed, to trace out the state ${\mathbf}{U}_t\rho_{{\text{int}}}{\mathbf}{U}_t^{\dagger}$ over the bosonic degrees of freedom, one needs to i) calculate ${\mathbf}{U}_t$ and ii) apply the result to the initial state $\rho_{\text{int}}$. Herein we will cover the first step and we will investigate the ability to accomplish the second one.
In order to write the time evolution operator ${\mathbf}{U}_t$ in a computationally accessible form, the diagonalization of its generator ${\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}}$ or an appropriate factorization [@faktoryzacja] is required. It can be found (see [*e.g.*]{}, [@mgr; @RiccEq; @gardas2]) that the problem of diagonalization on the Hilbert space ${\mathbb}{C}^{2}{\otimes}{\mathcal}{F}_{\text{B}}$ can be mapped to the problem of resolving the Riccati equation [@Vadim]. This new approach was recently successfully applied to the time-dependent spin-spins model [@gardas3]. As a result, the exact reduced dynamics of the qubit in contact with a spin environment and in the presence of a precessing magnetic field has been obtained. It is interesting, therefore, to apply this approach to the SB model as well. This paper has been devoted to accomplish this purpose. Although, an explicit form of the Riccati equation has already been derived [@gardas], the solution has not been provided yet. In this paper we derive an exact solution of this equation assuming $\beta=0$.
The block operator matrix representation and the Riccati equation
=================================================================
We begin by reviewing some basic facts concerning a connection between the theory of block operator matrices [@spectral] and the SB model. First, the Hamiltonian (\[eq:SB\]) admits the block operator matrix representation [@gardas; @bom]:
$$\label{eq:bomSB}
{\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}} =
\begin{bmatrix}
{\text{H}}_{\text{B}}+{\text{V}}+\beta & \alpha \\
\alpha & {\text{H}}_{\text{B}}-{\text{V}}-\beta
\end{bmatrix}
\equiv
\begin{bmatrix}
{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}} & \alpha \\
\alpha & {\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}}
\end{bmatrix},
$$
with respect to the direct sum decomposition ${\mathcal}{H}_{\text{tot}}={\mathcal}{F}_{\text{B}}\oplus{\mathcal}{F}_{\text{B}}$ of ${\mathcal}{H}_{\text{tot}}$. The entries $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of the operator matrix (\[eq:bomSB\]) are understood as $\alpha{{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}$ and $\beta{{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}$, respectively. Henceforward, we use the same abbreviation for any complex number.
The Riccati operator equation associated with the matrix reads [@gardas]
$$\label{eq:riccatiSB}
\alpha X^{2} + X{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}}-{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}}X-\alpha = 0,$$
where $X$ is an unknown operator, acting on ${\mathcal}{F}_{{\text{B}}}$, which needs to be determined. The solution of this equation, if it exists, can be used to diagonalize the Hamiltonian . To be more specific, if $X$ solves (\[eq:riccatiSB\]) the following equality holds true
$$\label{eq:diag}
{\mathbf}{S}^{-1}{\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}}{\mathbf}{S} =
\begin{bmatrix}
{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}}+\alpha X & 0 \\
0 & {\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}}-\alpha X^{{\dagger}}
\end{bmatrix},
\quad\text{where}\quad
{\mathbf}{S} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & -X^{{\dagger}} \\
X & 1
\end{bmatrix}.$$
By means of this decomposition we can write ${\mathbf}{U}_t$ in an explicit matrix form:
$$\label{eq:evolve}
{\mathbf}{U}_t = {\mathbf}{S}\mbox{diag}[e^{-\rmi\left({\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}}+\alpha X\right)t}, e^{-\rmi\left({\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}}-\alpha
X^{\dagger}\right)t}]{\mathbf}{S}^{-1}.$$
Note, the last formula reduces the problem of finding the solution of the Schrödinger equation to the problem of resolving the Riccati equation . It is well-established that the reduced dynamics can easily be obtained when $\alpha=0$ [@SB_Alicki]. In this case no additional assumptions on $\beta$ are needed, which should not be surprised since the matrix is already in a diagonal form ($X=0$). Moreover, if $\alpha=0$ the qubit does not exchange the energy with the bosonic field because $[{\text{H}}_{\text{S}}{\otimes}{{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}, {\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}}]=0$. Therefore, the only exactly solvable case, which is known at the present time, represents rather extreme physical situation.
In the next section we will derive an exact solution of the RE assuming $\beta=0$; nevertheless, we not impose any restrictions on $\alpha$. This is exactly the opposite situation to the one we have discussed above. At this point, the natural question can be addressed: what about the case, when both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are not equal to zero? Unfortunately, the answer is still to be found. In fact, usually the SB model is defined only for $\beta=0$. At first, it might seem that the complexity of the problem is the same both for $\beta=0$ and $\beta\not=0$. Although, this is indeed true when $\alpha= 0$, no argument proving this conjecture for $\alpha\not=0$ has been given so far. We will return to this matter at the end of the next section.
Solution of the Riccati equation
================================
Single boson case
-----------------
To understand the idea of our approach better let us first consider the case where there is only one boson in the bath [@CJC; @JC]. Then, the Hamiltonian of the SB model can be written by using the block operator matrix nomenclature as ($\beta=0$)
$$\label{eq:singleBOM}
{\mathbf}{H}_{{\text{SB}}} =
\begin{bmatrix}
{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}} & \alpha \\
\alpha & {\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}}
\end{bmatrix}
\quad\text{with}\quad
{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}} = \omega a^{\dagger}a\pm(g^{\ast}a+ga^{\dagger}).$$
The operators ${\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}$ can be expressed in a more compact form, that is
$$\label{eq:rules}
{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}} = \omega{\text{D}}_fa^{\dagger}a{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}- E
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}} = \omega{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}a^{\dagger}a{\text{D}}_f- E,$$
where $f=g/\omega$ and $E=|g|^2/\omega$. The displacement operator ${\text{D}}_f := \exp(f^*a-fa^{{\dagger}})$ has the following, easy to prove, properties
$$\label{eq: weyl}
{\text{i)}}\quad{\text{D}}_{-f}={\text{D}}_f^{{\dagger}},\quad\text{ii)}\quad {\text{D}}_f{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}={{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}
\quad{\text{and}}\quad\text{iii)}\quad
{\text{D}}_{f}{\text{D}}_{g} = e^{\rmi\Im (fg^*)}{\text{D}}_{f+g}.$$
$\Im$ stands for the imaginary part of the complex number $fg^*$. The relations can be proven by using equality ${\text{D}}_fa{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f} = a-f$, which follows from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula [@galindo1; @BCH2]. For the sake of simplicity and without essential loss of generality we rescale the Hamiltonian so that ${\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}}\to{\mathbf}{H}_{\text{SB}}+E$. This is nothing but a rescaling of the reference point of the total.
After this procedure the Hamiltonian takes the form
$$\label{eq:rescal}
{\mathbf}{H}_{{\text{SB}}} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\omega{\text{D}}_fa^{\dagger}a{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f} & \alpha \\
\alpha & \omega{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}a^{\dagger}a{\text{D}}_f
\end{bmatrix},$$
while the corresponding Riccati equation reads
$$\label{eq:riccatiSB2}
\alpha X^{2} + X\left(\omega{\text{D}}_fa^{\dagger}a{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}\right)-
\left(\omega{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}a^{\dagger}a{\text{D}}_f\right)X-\alpha = 0.$$
To solve this equation, let us first define an operator ${\text{P}}_{\varphi}$ in a way that
$$\label{eq:Pdef}
{\text{P}}_{\varphi} := \exp (\rmi\varphi a^{{\dagger}}a), \quad \varphi\in[0,2\pi).$$
It is not difficult to see that
$$\label{eq:prop}
{\text{i)}}\quad{\text{P}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}\varphi}={\text{P}}_{\varphi}^{{\dagger}},
\quad{\text{ii)}}\quad
{\text{P}}_{\varphi}{\text{P}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}\varphi}={{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}
\quad\text{and}\quad{\text{iii)}}\quad
{\text{P}}_{\varphi}{\text{P}}_{\psi} = {\text{P}}_{\varphi{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}\psi}.$$
Moreover, from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula we also have ${\text{P}}_{\varphi}a{\text{P}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}\varphi} = e^{-\rmi\varphi}a$, which ultimately leads to
$$\label{eq:trans}
{\text{P}}_{\varphi}{\text{D}}_f{\text{P}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}\varphi} = {\text{D}}_{e^{\rmi\varphi}f}.$$
In what follows, we will prove that ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ solves the Riccati equation (\[eq:riccatiSB2\]). First, let us note that ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ is a function of the number operator $a^{\dagger}a$, thus $[{\text{P}}_{\pi},a^{\dagger}a]=0$. In view of we obtain ${\text{P}}_{\pi}{\text{D}}_f{\text{P}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}\pi} = {\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}$, hence
$$\label{eq:unit}
{\text{P}}_{\pi}\left({\text{D}}_fa^{{\dagger}}a{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}\right) =
\left({\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}a^{{\dagger}}a{\text{D}}_f\right){\text{P}}_{\pi}.$$
By writing ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ in terms of the eigenstates ${\ensuremath{|n\rangle}}$ of $a^{{\dagger}}a$ we obtain $$\label{eq:parity}
{\text{P}}_{\pi} = \sum_{n\in{\mathbb}{N}}e^{i\pi n}{\ensuremath{|n\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langlen|}}
= \sum_{n\in{\mathbb}{N}}(-1)^n{\ensuremath{|n\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langlen|}},$$ where we used the well-known mathematical fact that $a^{{\dagger}}a{\ensuremath{|n\rangle}}=n{\ensuremath{|n\rangle}}$, for $n\in{\mathbb}{N}$. Finally, from (\[eq:parity\]) we conclude that ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ is an involution, [*i.e.*]{}, ${\text{P}}_{\pi}^{2}={{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}$, which together with leads to
$$\label{eq:sol}
\alpha{\text{P}}_{\pi}^{2}+ {\text{P}}_{\pi}\left(\omega{\text{D}}_fa^{{\dagger}}a{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}\right)-
\left(\omega{\text{D}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}f}a^{{\dagger}}a{\text{D}}_f\right){\text{P}}_{\pi}-\alpha = 0.$$
Note, ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ transforms the creation $a^{{\dagger}}$ and annihilation $a$ operators into $-a^{{\dagger}}$ and $-a$, respectively. In other words, ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ can be interpreted as the bosonic parity operator [@Bender]. Moreover, ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ does not depend on the parameter $\alpha$; in particular, ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ remains a nontrivial ($X\not=0$) solution of the Riccati equation even when $\alpha=0$ (Sylvester equation).
Now, by means of the parity operator $\text{P}_{\pi}$, we can derive an accessible form of the time evolution operator ${\mathbf}{U}_t$. According to and we have
$$\label{eq:esolve}
{\mathbf}{U}_{t} =\frac{1}{2}
\begin{bmatrix}
\text{U}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}}(t) & {\text{V}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{+}}}}(t){\text{P}}_{\pi} \\
{\text{V}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}}(t){\text{P}}_{\pi} & {\text{U}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{-}}}}(t)
\end{bmatrix},$$
where the quantities ${\text{U}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}(t)$ and ${\text{V}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}(t)$ read as follows
$${\text{U}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}(t) = e^{-\rmi({\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}+\alpha{{\text{P}}_{\pi}})t} + e^{-\rmi({\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}-\alpha{{\text{P}}_{\pi}})t},
\quad
{\text{V}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}(t) = e^{-\rmi({\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}+\alpha{{\text{P}}_{\pi}})t} - e^{-\rmi({\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}-\alpha{{\text{P}}_{\pi}})t}.$$
For $\alpha=0$ the formula simplifies to the well-known result [@SB_Alicki], which can be obtained independently, without solving the Riccati equation.
It is instructive to see how the bosonic parity operator ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ can also be used to construct the constant of motion for the SB model. For this purpose let us take ${\mathbf}{J}_{\pi}:=\sigma_x\otimes{\text{P}}_{\pi}$; then $[{\mathbf}{J}_{\pi},{\mathbf}{H}_{{\text{SB}}}]=0$, thus from the Heisenberg equations of motion follows $\dot{{\mathbf}{J}}_{\pi}=0$, which means that ${\mathbf}{J}_{\pi}$ does not vary with time. Since ${\text{P}}_{\pi}$ is an involution, [*i.e.*]{}, ${\text{P}}_{\pi}^2={{\mathbb}{I}_{\text{B}}}$ thus ${\mathbf}{J}_{\pi}$ is an involution as well. Therefore, ${\mathbf}{J}_{\pi}$ can be seen as the parity operator of the total system. In conclusion, the total parity is conserved when $\beta=0$.
For $\beta\not=0$ the parity symmetry of the total system is broken and the Riccati equation (\[eq:riccatiSB2\]) cannot be solved by applying a similar method to the one we have used above in the case of $\beta=0$. From mathematical point of view, the problem arises because the diagonal entries ${\text{H}}_{{\text{B}}}\pm V\pm\beta$ are no longer related by an unitary transformation. Indeed, if the converse would be true, there would then exist an unitary operator ${\text{W}}$ such that ${\text{W}}^{{\dagger}}\left({\text{H}}_{{\text{B}}}+
V+\beta\right){\text{W}} ={\text{H}}_{{\text{B}}}-V-\beta$. Thereby the spectra $\sigma\left({\text{H}}_{{\text{B}}}\pm V\pm\beta\right)=
\sigma({\text{H}}_{{\text{B}}}\pm V)\cup\{\pm\beta\}$ would be the same, which clearly is impossible unless $\beta=0$. As a result, for $\alpha\not=0$ one can expect that the mathematical complexity of the SB model is different within the regimes $\beta=0$ and $\beta\not=0$.
Generalization
--------------
The results of the preceding subsection can be generalized to the case where there is more that one boson in the bath. In order to achieve this objective one needs to redefine the displacement operator ${\text{D}}_f$ in the following way
$$\label{eq:Rweyl}
{\text{D}}_f\rightarrow\exp\left(A-A^{{\dagger}}\right),
\quad\text{where}\quad
A = \sum_{k} \frac{g_k^*}{\omega_k}a_k.$$
Then, the solution of the Riccati equation reads
$$\label{eq:Rparity}
{\text{P}} = \exp(\rmi\pi\sum_ka_k^{{\dagger}}a_k)
=\bigotimes_{k}{\text{P}}_{\pi,k},
\quad\text{where}\quad {\text{P}}_{\pi,k} = \exp(i\pi a_k^{\dagger}a_k).$$
Remarks and Summary
===================
In this article, we have solved the Riccati operator equation associated with the Hamiltonian of the paradigmatic spin-boson model. Next, in terms of the solution we have derived an explicit matrix form of the time evolution operator of the total system. This, in particular, allows us to solve the Schrödinger equation (\[eq:Sch\]). We wish to emphasize that in order to obtain the reduced dynamics (\[reduced\]) one more step is required. Namely, the terms like
$$\label{trace}
\mbox{Tr}(e^{-i[{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}\pm\alpha{\text{P}}_{\pi}]t}\omega_{{\text{B}}}e^{i[{\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}\pm\alpha{\text{P}}_{\pi}]t})$$
need to be determined. Of course, one can always evaluate the quantities given above by using [*e.g.*]{}, perturbation theory. However, the true challenge is to establish this goal without approximations. It seems that the simplest way to do so is to solve the eigenvalue problem $({\text{H}}_{{{\scriptscriptstyle{\pm}}}}\pm\alpha{\text{P}}_{\pi}){\ensuremath{|\psi\rangle}}=\lambda{\ensuremath{|\psi\rangle}}$. The ability to solve this eigenproblem separates us from deriving the exact reduced dynamics of the qubit immersed within the bosonic bath. We stress that for $\alpha\not=0$ the problem is nontrivial since the qubit exchange the energy with its environment. Moreover, an impact on the mathematical complexity of the model, has not only a transfer of the energy between the systems but also the energy split between the states ${\ensuremath{|0\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{|1\rangle}}$.
Interestingly, the Riccati equation is a second order operator equation, thus one can expect that its solution involves a square root. In particular, nothing indicates that the solution should be linear as it is in our case. Therefore, we not only solved the Riccati equation (\[eq:riccatiSB\]) but also linearized the solution. At this point, a worthwhile question can be posed: is it a coincidence that the linear operator happens to solve a nonlinear equation? Perhaps, it is a manifestation of some additional structure in the model. Historically, a similar situation took place when Dirac solved the problem with a negative probability by introducing His famous equation [@dirac]. By linearizing the Hamiltonian of the relativistic electron, Dirac not only predicted an existence of the antiparticles but also explained the origin of the additional degree of freedom of the electron. The author would like to thank Jerzy Dajka for helpful comments and suggestions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
M Fannes B Nachtergaele and A Verbeure 1988 [ The equilibrium states of the spin-boson model]{} [ [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [[**114**]{} 537 – 548](10.1007/BF01229453) ]{}
M Fannes B Nachtergaele and A Verbeure 1988 Tunneling in the equilibrium state of a spin-boson model [[**21**]{} 1759](10.1088/0305-4470/21/8/012)
H Spohn 1989 Ground state(s) of the spin-boson hamiltonian [[**123**]{} 277 – 304](10.1007/BF01238859)
R Honegger 1991 On the dynamics and the temperature states of the spin-boson model [[**21**]{} 351 – 359](10.1007/BF00398333)
R Alicki 2004 Pure decoherence in quantum system & [*Information Dyn.*]{} [[**11**]{} 53–61](10.1023/B:OPSY.0000024755.58888.ac)
Dynamics of the dissipative two-state system [[**59**]{} 1–85](10.1103/RevModPhys.59.1)
A E Allahverdyan R Serral Gracià and Th M Nieuwenhuizen 2005 Work extraction in the spin-boson model [[**71**]{} 046106](10.1103/PhysRevE.71.046106)
S K Kehrein and A Mielke 1996 On the spin-boson model with a sub-ohmic bath [[**219**]{} 313 – 318](10.1016/0375-9601(96)00475-6)
Coupled spin-boson systems far from equilibrium 1996 [[**54**]{} R12645–R12648](10.1103/PhysRevB.54.R12645)
J Dajka M Mierzejewski and J Łuczka 2009 Fidelity of asymmetric dephasing channels [[**79**]{} 012104](10.1103/PhysRevA.79.012104)
R Puri 2001 (Springer-Verlag Berlin)
W H Żurek 2003 Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical [[**75**]{} 715–775](10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715)
Dephasing of qubits by the [S]{}chrödinger cat [[**42**]{} 374 – 377](DOI: 10.1016/j.physe.2009.06.080)
J Dajka and J Łuczka 2008 Origination and survival of qudit-qudit entanglement in open systems [[**77**]{} 062303](10.1103/PhysRevA.77.062303)
J Dajka, M Mierzejewski and J Łuczka 2008 Non-markovian entanglement evolution of two uncoupled qubits [[**77**]{} 042316](10.1103/PhysRevA.77.042316)
J Dajka J Łuczka and P Hänggi 2011 Geometric phase as a determinant of a qubit-environment coupling [[**10**]{} 85-96](DOI: 10.1007/s11128-010-0178-x)
E B Davies 1976 (Academic Press London UK)
A Romanelli 2009 Generalized [J]{}aynes-[C]{}ummings model as a quantum search algorithm [[**80**]{} 014302](10.1103/PhysRevA.80.014302)
M Reed and B Simon 1980 (Academic Press London)
R Alicki and K Lendi 2007 (Springer Lecture Notes in Physics 717 Springer Berlin)
P Štelmachovi č and V Bu žek 2001 Dynamics of open quantum systems initially entangled with environment: Beyond the kraus representation [[**64**]{} 062106](10.1103/PhysRevA.64.062106)
P Štelmachovi č and V Bu žek 2003 Erratum: Dynamics of open quantum systems initially entangled with environment: Beyond the kraus representation \[[P]{}hys. [R]{}ev. [A]{} 64, 062106 (2001)\] [[**67**]{} 029902](10.1103/PhysRevA.67.029902)
H Hayashi G Kimura and Y Ota 2003 Kraus representation in the presence of initial correlations [[**67**]{} 062109](10.1103/PhysRevA.67.062109)
J Dajka and J Łuczka 2010 Distance growth of quantum states due to initial system-environment correlations [[**82**]{} 012341](10.1103/PhysRevA.82.012341)
P C García Quijas and L M Arévalo Aguilar 2007 Factorizing the time evolution operator [[**75**]{} 185–194](10.1088/0031-8949/75/2/012)
B Gardas 2009 Master’s thesis ([I]{}nstitute of [P]{}hysics [U]{}niversity of [S]{}ilesia [P]{}oland)
V Adamjan H Langer and C Tretter 2001 Existence and uniqueness of contractive solutions of some [R]{}iccati equations [[**179**]{} 448 – 473](DOI: 10.1006/jfan.2000.3680)
B Gardas 2010 Preprint [arXiv:1006.1931v1](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1931v1) (to appear in [*J. Math. Phys.*]{})
V Kostrykin K Makarov and A Motovilov 2003 Existence and uniqueness of solutions to the operator [R]{}iccati equation. [A]{} geometric approach 181 – 198
B Gardas 2010 Exact reduced dynamics for a qubit in a precessing magnetic field and in contact with a heat bath [[**82**]{} 042115](10.1063/1.3442364)
B Gardas 2010 Riccati equation and the problem of decoherence [[**51**]{} 062103](10.1063/1.3442364)
C Tretter 2008 Imperial College Press London
H Langer and C Tretter 1998 Spectral decomposition of some non-selfadjoint block operator matrix 339–359
E T Jaynes and F W Cummings 1963 Generalized [J]{}aynes-[C]{}ummings model as a quantum search algorithm [[**51**]{} 89–109](doi:10.1109/PROC.1963.1664)
F W Cummings 1965 Stimulated emission of radiation in a single mode [[**140**]{} A1051–A1056](10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1051)
A Galindo and P Pascual 1990 (Springer-Verlag Berlin)
K Ebrahimi-Fard Li Guo and D Manchon 2006 Birkhoff type decompositions and the [B]{}aker–-[C]{}ampbell–-[H]{}ausdorff recursion [[**267**]{} 821–845](10.1007/s00220-006-0080-7)
C M Bender P N Meisinger and Q Wang 2003 All Hermitian Hamiltonians have parity [[36]{} 1029](10.1088/0305-4470/36/4/312)
B Thaller 1992 (Springer-Verlag New York)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present measurements of the neutron-capture elements Rb and Pb in five giant stars of the globular cluster NGC 6752 and Pb measurements in four giants of the globular cluster M 13. The abundances were derived by comparing synthetic spectra with high resolution, high signal-to-noise ratio spectra obtained using HDS on the Subaru telescope and MIKE on the Magellan telescope. The program stars span the range of the O-Al abundance variation. In NGC 6752, the mean abundances are \[Rb/Fe\] = $-$0.17 $\pm$ 0.06 ($\sigma$ = 0.14), \[Rb/Zr\] = $-$0.12 $\pm$ 0.06 ($\sigma$ = 0.13), and \[Pb/Fe\] = $-$0.17 $\pm$ 0.04 ($\sigma$ = 0.08). In M 13 the mean abundance is \[Pb/Fe\] = $-$0.28 $\pm$ 0.03 ($\sigma$ = 0.06). Within the measurement uncertainties, we find no evidence for a star-to-star variation for either Rb or Pb within these clusters. None of the abundance ratios \[Rb/Fe\], \[Rb/Zr\], or \[Pb/Fe\] are correlated with the Al abundance. NGC 6752 may have slightly lower abundances of \[Rb/Fe\] and \[Rb/Zr\] compared to the small sample of field stars at the same metallicity. For M 13 and NGC 6752 the Pb abundances are in accord with predictions from a Galactic chemical evolution model. If metal-poor intermediate-mass asymptotic giant branch stars did produce the globular cluster abundance anomalies, then such stars do not synthesize significant quantities of Rb or Pb. Alternatively, if such stars do synthesize large amounts of Rb or Pb, then they are not responsible for the abundance anomalies seen in globular clusters.'
author:
- David Yong
- Wako Aoki
- 'David L. Lambert'
- 'Diane B. Paulson'
title: 'Rubidium and lead abundances in giant stars of the globular clusters M 13 and NGC 6752[^1]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Globular clusters are ideal laboratories for testing the predictions of stellar evolution theory (e.g., @renzini88) since the individual stars are believed to be monometallic, coeval, and at the same distance. In a given globular cluster (excluding $\omega$ Cen), spectroscopic observations of individual stars have confirmed that members have uniform compositions, at least for the Fe-peak elements (e.g., see review by @gratton04 and references therein). However, it has been known for many years now that globular clusters exhibit star-to-star abundance variations for the light elements C, N, O, Na, Mg, and Al (e.g., see review by @kraft94). Specifically, the abundances of C and O are low when N is high and anticorrelations are found between O and Na as well as Mg and Al. Recently, variations in the abundance of fluorine have been discovered in giants in M 4 where the amplitude of the dispersion exceeds that of O [@smith05].
It is generally assumed that the light element variations arise from proton-capture reactions (CNO-cycle, Ne-Na chain, and Mg-Al chain), though the specific nucleosynthetic site(s) remain elusive. One possibility for the origin of the star-to-star abundance variations is deep-mixing and internal nucleosynthesis within the observed stars. Evidence for this “evolutionary scenario” include C and N abundances [@ss91] that vary with location on the red giant branch (RGB). Extensive mixing down to very hot layers is necessary to change the surface composition of Na, Mg, and Al. Such mixing is not predicted by standard models and the proposed mechanisms include meridional circulation [@sm79], turbulent diffusion [@charbonnel95], and hydrogen-burning shell flashes [@fujimoto99; @aikawa01; @aikawa04]. An alternative possibility is pollution from intermediate-mass asymptotic giant branch stars (IM-AGBs), first suggested by @cottrell81 to explain the Na and Al enhancements observed in CN strong stars in NGC 6752. In IM-AGBs, hydrogen-burning at the base of the convective envelope, so-called hot bottom burning (HBB), can produce the observed C to Al abundance patterns. Either the ejecta from IM-AGBs pollute the proto-cluster gas from which the present cluster members form or the ejecta are accreted by present cluster members. The strongest evidence for this “primordial scenario” has come from observations of main-sequence stars in which abundance variations of O, Na, Mg, and Al have been found [@gratton01; @ramirez03; @cohen05]. In these unevolved stars, the internal temperatures are too low to run the Ne-Na or Mg-Al chains which therefore precludes internal mixing as a viable explanation for the star-to-star composition differences.
In M 4, @smith05 found that F varied from star-to-star and that the F abundance was correlated with O and anticorrelated with Na and Al. Since destruction of F is expected to take place during HBB in IM-AGBs [@lattanzio04], the observed dispersion of F is in qualitative agreement with IM-AGBs being responsible for the globular cluster abundance anomalies. However, a quantitative test involving recent yields for AGB stars combined with a standard initial mass function showed that the observed abundance variations cannot be reproduced via pollution from AGB stars [@fenner04]. @denissenkov03 and @denissenkov04 also find flaws in the AGB pollution scenario based on calculated yields from AGB models. @ventura05 caution that theoretical yields from AGB models are critically dependent upon the assumed mass-loss rates and treatment of convection such that the predictive power of the current AGB models is diminished. That there is still no satisfactory explanation for the star-to-star abundance variations seen in every well studied Galactic globular cluster would suggest that our understanding of globular cluster chemical evolution and stellar nucleosynthesis is incomplete.
Two neutron-capture elements, rubidium and lead, may offer further clues regarding the processes that gave rise to the star-to-star abundance variations and possibly the formation of globular clusters. Rb has two stable isotopes, $^{85}$Rb and $^{87}$Rb. While the solar abundance of Rb is due to 50% $s$-process and 50% $r$-process [@burris00], the abundance of Rb relative to nearby elements such as Sr, Y, and Zr offers an insight into the neutron density at the site of the $s$-process and therefore the mass of the AGB star due to the 10.7 yr half-life of $^{85}$Kr (e.g., @tomkin83 [@tomkin99; @lambert95; @busso99; @abia01]). Along the $s$-process path, Rb is preceded by Kr. The path enters at $^{80}$Kr and exits at either $^{85}$Kr or $^{87}$Kr with $^{85}$Kr providing the branching point. At low neutron densities ($N_n~\le~1 \times 10^8$ cm$^{-3}$), $^{85}$Kr $\beta$-decays to the stable isotope $^{85}$Rb. At high neutron densities, $^{85}$Kr will capture neutrons to form $^{86}$Kr and then $^{87}$Kr which $\beta$-decays to $^{87}$Rb (effectively stable with a half-life of $4.7\times10^{10}$ yr). Clearly the isotopic mix of Rb depends upon the neutron density. Unfortunately, stellar Rb isotope ratios cannot be measured [@lambert76]. In the presence of a steady flow along the $s$-process path, the density of a nuclide satisfies the condition $\sigma_iN_i \simeq$ constant, where $\sigma_i$ and $N_i$ are the cross-section and abundance of nuclide $i$ respectively. The neutron-capture cross-sections differ by a factor of 10 between the two Rb isotopes ($\sigma_{87}~=~\sigma_{85}/10$). The $^{85}$Kr branch does not affect the Zr abundances since the low and high neutron density $s$-process paths converge at Sr. Therefore, in a high neutron density environment such as the helium intershell during a thermal pulse in IM-AGBs, the Rb abundance may increase by a factor of 10 relative to nearby $s$-process elements such as Sr, Y, and Zr. In reality, the situation is slightly more complex since neutron capture on $^{84}$Kr leads to the ground state of $^{85}$Kr as well as a short lived isomeric state that decays to either the $^{85}$Kr ground state or $^{85}$Rb (see @beer89 for more details). IM-AGBs of solar metallicity are expected to have a high neutron density with $^{22}$Ne($\alpha$,n)$^{25}$Mg providing the neutron source. (Low-mass AGBs, whose neutron source is $^{13}$C($\alpha$,n)$^{16}$O, provide a lower neutron density.) For metal-poor or zero metallicity IM-AGBs, @busso01 suggest that such stars do run the $s$-process though the details are model dependent. Nevertheless, the Rb abundance relative to Sr, Y, and Zr (which are not affected by the $^{85}$Kr branch) is a potential diagnostic of the s-process site and may offer an additional insight into the role of IM-AGBs in the chemical evolution of globular clusters.
The isotopes of Pb, along with bismuth, comprise the last stable nuclei along the $s$-process path. In low-mass AGB stars, the neutron source is provided by $^{13}$C whereas in IM-AGBs, $^{22}$Ne provides the neutron source with the division occurring at roughly 4 M$_\odot$. In low-mass AGBs and IM-AGBs of low metallicity, overabundances of Pb and Bi may be expected if the neutron supply per seed exceeds a certain value (e.g., @goriely00 [@travaglio01; @busso01]). @goriely01 suggest that for AGB stars with $Z < 0.001$, the available neutrons per seed nuclei is greater than the number required to produce Pb and Bi. @travaglio01 suggest that metal-poor IM-AGBs play only a minor role in the production of Pb though for their 5 M$_\odot$ model, the Pb yields do not change between \[Fe/H\] = $-$1.3 and solar. @herwig04 suggest that metal-poor IM-AGBs efficiently activate the $^{22}$Ne neutron source though quantitative $s$-process yields are not presented. @busso01 predict high yields of Pb from metal-poor IM-AGBs. The ratio of Pb/La and Pb/Ba can be used to probe the nature of the $s$-process in metal-poor AGB stars [@gallino98; @goriely00]. Numerous observational studies have found considerable overabundances of Pb in stars that exhibit large $s$- and/or $r$-process enhancements (e.g., @cowan96 [@sneden00c; @aoki00; @aoki01; @aoki02; @vaneck01; @vaneck03; @johnson02a; @lucatello03; @sivarani04; @ivans05] and references therein). If the globular cluster star-to-star abundance variations are due to pollution from metal-poor IM-AGBs, we may expect large overabundances of Pb and a dispersion in Pb abundances despite the absence of variations and excesses in other $s$-process elements.
In this paper, we present measurements of Rb and Pb in the globular cluster NGC 6752 as well as measurements of Pb in the globular cluster M 13. While Rb has been measured in two globular clusters, $\omega$ Cen [@smith00] and NGC 3201 [@gonzalez98], as far as we are aware these are the first measurements of Pb in a globular cluster. We chose the globular clusters M 13 and NGC 6752 because they exhibit the largest amplitude for the Al variation of all the well studied Galactic globular clusters and therefore offer the best opportunity to find abundance variations for Rb and Pb. Previous studies of M 13 include @cohen78 and @peterson80 who found large Na variations, @shetrone96a [@shetrone96b] who showed that the Mg isotope ratios were not constant, @cohen05 who discovered abundance variations in unevolved stars, as well as analyses by @kraft92 [@kraft97], @pila96, and @sneden04a. Previous studies of NGC 6752 include @cottrell81 who discovered the Na and Al enhancements, @ss91 who found C and N to systematically vary according to evolutionary status, @gratton01 and @grundahl02 who discovered O-Al variations in unevolved stars, @6752 (hereafter Y03) who found variations in Mg isotope ratios, @67522 (hereafter Y05) who presented evidence for slight abundance variations of Si, Y, Zr, and Ba, and @pasquini05 who measured Li in main sequence stars.
Observations and data reduction {#sec:data}
===============================
The list of candidates included 5 giants in NGC 6752 previously studied in Y03 and Y05, 4 giants in M 13 previously studied by @shetrone96a [@shetrone96b], and the comparison star HD 141531, a giant whose evolutionary status and stellar parameters are comparable to the cluster giants. Though we were restricted to the brightest giants, the globular cluster stars were deliberately selected to span a large range of the star-to-star abundance variations. Table \[tab:param\] contains the list of targets observed using either the Subaru or Magellan telescopes.
Observations of the M 13 giants and the comparison field star HD 141531 were obtained with the Subaru Telescope using the High Dispersion Spectrograph (HDS; @hds) on 2004 June 1. A 0.4 slit was used providing a resolving power of 90,000 per 4 pixel resolution element with wavelength coverage from 4000 Å to 6700 Å. For the Subaru data, one-dimensional wavelength calibrated normalized spectra were produced in the standard way using the IRAF[^2] package of programs.
Observations of the NGC 6752 giants were obtained with the Magellan Telescope using the Magellan Inamori Kyocera Echelle spectrograph (MIKE; @mike) on 2004 April 3-5. A 0.35 slit was used providing a resolving power of 55,000 in the red and 65,000 in the blue per 4 pixel resolution element with wavelength coverage from 3800 Å to 8500 Å. While IRAF was used for most of the data reduction, extraction of the Magellan data must account for the “tilted” slits, i.e., the lines are tilted with respect to the orders and the tilt varies across the CCD. While this is a feature of all cross-dispersed echelle spectrographs, for MIKE data the tilt is severe. We used the [mtools]{}[^3] set of tasks written by Jack Baldwin to correct for the tilt. Failure to make this correction would result in degradation of the spectral resolution as shown in Figure \[fig:tilt\]. (The magnitude of this effect depends upon the aperture size applied to the order being extracted. For the stellar spectra, the decrease in spectral resolution would be smaller than for the Th-Ar comparison spectra by roughly a factor of 2.)
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
Stellar parameters and the iron abundance {#sec:param}
-----------------------------------------
The first step in the analysis was to determine the stellar parameters: the effective temperature ([$T_{\rm eff}$]{}), the surface gravity (log $g$), and the microturbulent velocity ($\xi_t$). Equivalent widths (EWs) were measured for a set of Fe[i]{} and Fe[ii]{} lines using routines in IRAF. We used the same set of Fe lines presented in Y03. In Figure \[fig:ew\_compm\], we compare the measured EWs for Fe[i]{} and Fe[ii]{} lines for the five NGC 6752 giants analyzed in Y03. The EWs measured in the Magellan data are in very good agreement with those measured in the VLT data. Therefore, for the five NGC 6752 giants, we adopt the same stellar parameters used in Y03. In Figure \[fig:ew\_comps\], we compare the EWs of Fe[i]{} and Fe[ii]{} lines for the comparison star HD 141531. The EWs measured in the Subaru data are in very good agreement with those measured in the VLT data. For HD 141531, we adopt the stellar parameters used in Y03. For the four M 13 giants, we determined the stellar parameters using spectroscopic criteria. As in Y03 and Y05, the model atmospheres were taken from the @kurucz93 local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) stellar atmosphere grid and we used the LTE stellar line analysis program [Moog]{} [@moog]. For the effective temperature ([$T_{\rm eff}$]{}), we forced the Fe[i]{} lines to show no trend between abundance and lower excitation potential, i.e., excitation equilibrium. To set the surface gravity ($\log g$), we forced the abundances from Fe[i]{} and Fe[ii]{} to be equal, i.e., ionization equilibrium. We adjusted the microturbulent velocity ($\xi_t$) until there was no trend between abundance and EW. The final \[Fe/H\] was taken to be the mean of all Fe lines. Our stellar parameters for the M 13 giants compare very well with those derived by @shetrone96a [@shetrone96b], @sneden04a, and @cohen05.
Rubidium abundances
-------------------
For the M 13 giants, the HDS spectra did not incorporate the Rb line so we were only able to measure Rb in the NGC 6752 giants. The abundances were determined via spectrum synthesis of the Rb[i]{} line near 7800 Å (see Figures \[fig:b702\_rb\] and \[fig:mg1\_rb\]). Spectrum synthesis was essential for determining accurate abundances due to hyperfine splitting and isotopic shifts as well as blending from a stronger Si[i]{} line. While the 7800 Å Rb[i]{} line is only 3-4% deep relative to the continuum, the high quality spectra allow us to measure an abundance from this line. Following @tomkin99, the wavelengths and relative strengths for the isotopic and hyperfine structure components were taken from @lambert76 and we assumed a solar isotope ratio of $^{85}$Rb/$^{87}$Rb = 3. The macroturbulent broadening was assumed to have a Gaussian form and was estimated by fitting the profile of the nearby Ni[i]{} line at 7798 Å. We then generated synthetic spectra and varied the Si and Rb abundances to obtain the best match to the observed spectrum. Ideally we would like to measure the Rb isotope ratio, $^{85}$Rb/$^{87}$Rb, but @lambert76 were unable to measure accurate ratios in Arcturus even when using data with superior spectral resolution and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) due to the presence of hyperfine structure and the small isotopic shift. While our tests confirmed that we could not measure accurate Rb isotope ratios, we verify the finding by @tomkin99 that the derived Rb abundances are not sensitive to the assumed isotope ratio. Using the @kurucz84 solar atlas, we measured an abundance log $\epsilon$(Rb) = 2.58 using a model atmosphere with [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}/$\log g$/$\xi_t$ = 5770/4.44/0.85. Our derived solar Rb abundance is in very good agreement with the @grevesse98 value, log $\epsilon$(Rb) = 2.60.
The subordinate Rb[i]{} line near 7947 Å is weaker by a factor of 2 and is roughly 2% deep relative to the continuum. We detect this line in all our spectra and preliminary analyses suggest that the abundances derived from this line agree with those from the 7800 Å line (see Figure \[fig:7947a\]). However, we prefer to restrict our results to the 7800 Å line since the 7947 Å region is more crowded, i.e., the continuum placement strongly affects the derived Rb abundances from the 7947 Å line. Furthermore, unidentified blends, atmospheric absorption, and fringing are more prevalent in this spectral region. (CN lines lie in this region may be absent in these metal-poor globular cluster stars.)
In the subsequent sections, we compare our globular cluster Rb abundances with field and cluster stars with \[Fe/H\] $> -2.0$ analyzed by other investigators. We now attempt to place the various Rb abundance measurements onto a common scale. While the isotope ratio of Rb cannot be measured in Arcturus, the elemental abundance ratio is well known. Using the @arcturus Arcturus atlas, we measured an abundance \[Rb/H\] = $-$0.55 using a model atmosphere with [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}/$\log g$/$\xi_t$ = 4300/1.5/1.55 obtained using the spectroscopic criteria described in Section \[sec:param\]. The adopted Rb $gf$ value was identical to that used by @tomkin99 and our derived Rb abundance is in very good agreement with their measured value, \[Rb/H\] = $-$0.58. Since Arcturus is common to both studies and our derived abundances are essentially identical, we therefore make no adjustment to the @tomkin99 Rb abundances. @gratton94 use the same $gf$ value, though the relative strengths of the hyperfine components differ slightly. We do not adjust their Rb abundances. @abia01 adopt a Rb $gf$ value that differs from ours, so we adjust their Rb abundances by +0.08 dex. It is not clear what Rb $gf$ was used by @gonzalez98. Fortunately, Arcturus was also part of their sample. They derived an abundance \[Rb/H\] = $-$0.45 and so we adjust their Rb abundances by $-$0.1 dex. @smith00 find \[Rb/H\] = $-$0.52 and so we do not adjust their Rb abundances.
Lead abundances
---------------
The Pb abundances were determined via spectrum synthesis of the Pb[i]{} line near 4058 Å (see Figures \[fig:b708\_pb\] and \[fig:m13\_l973\_pb\]). Abundances from the Pb line near 3683 Å could not be determined due to the lack of flux in the blue for these cool giants. While the region centered near 4058 Å is crowded with molecular lines of CH as well as atomic lines from Mg, Ti, Mn, Fe, and Co, our syntheses provide a very good fit to the region demonstrating that reliable Pb abundances can be extracted. The macroturbulent broadening was estimated by fitting the profiles of the nearby lines. We adopted the same $gf$ value used by @aoki00 [@aoki01; @aoki02]. Following @aoki02, our synthesis accounted for the hyperfine and isotopic splitting as well as the isotopic shifts. (The stable isotopes are $^{204}$Pb, $^{206}$Pb, $^{207}$Pb, and $^{208}$Pb.) We again assumed a solar isotope ratio for Pb though as with Rb, our tests confirmed that the derived elemental Pb abundance was not sensitive to this choice. For the solar Pb abundance, we adopted log $\epsilon$(Pb) = 1.95 from @grevesse98.
In the subsequent sections, we compare the globular cluster Pb abundances with those obtained in field stars with \[Fe/H\] $>-2.0$ by other investigators. However, we further restrict the comparison by avoiding stars with known $s$-process enhancements leaving only a handful of stars from two studies, @sneden98 and @travaglio01. Again we attempt to put the Pb abundance measurements onto a common scale. Our $gf$ value is identical to that used by @sneden98 so we do not adjust their Pb abundances. @travaglio01 used a different Pb line (3683 Å) and they did not list the adopted $gf$ value. Since there are no stars common to both analyses, we do not make an adjustment to their Pb abundances and caution that there may be a systematic offset.
Additional elements
-------------------
We also measured abundances for Al, Si, Y, Zr, La, and Eu in the M 13 giants and the comparison star HD 141531 using the same lines presented in Y05. These measurements were performed to ensure that the abundances would be on the same scale as the NGC 6752 giants studied in Y05. Zr was chosen because we compare the Rb and Zr abundances to look for a large ratio \[Rb/Zr\] as well as a detectable dispersion, i.e., the hallmark of a high neutron-density environment and the possible signature of pollution from IM-AGBs. Al, Si, and Y were also chosen because Y05 found evidence for correlations between Al and Si, Al and Y, and Al and Zr in NGC 6752. While our sample size in M 13 is small, it would be interesting to see if similar correlations are present. La and Eu were measured since these neutron-capture elements offer an insight into the ratio of $s$-process to $r$-process material. Furthermore, the ratio \[Pb/La\] has been used to test predictions from AGB models. In Table \[tab:abund\] we present our measured elemental abundances for Al, Si, Rb, Y, Zr, La, Eu, and Pb in the program stars. The adopted solar abundances for Al, Si, Y, Zr, La, and Eu were 6.47, 7.55, 2.24, 2.60, 1.13, and 0.52 respectively.
We attempt once more to put the abundance measurements onto a common scale by considering the $gf$ values used by the various studies to which we compare our abundances. The element we focus upon is Zr (in order to compare \[Rb/Zr\] between the samples). We shift all the Zr abundances onto the @smith00 scale in order to compare with their theoretical predictions for \[Rb/Zr\] from low and intermediate-mass AGBs (their Figure 14). (Our Rb abundances were already on the Smith scale.) Abundance measurements for Zr are complicated by the fact that the laboratory Zr $gf$ values from @zr are smaller than the solar $gf$-values by 0.41 dex [@tomkin99]. We must therefore take care and account for both the adopted solar abundance and the $gf$ value. @smith00 adopt the @zr $gf$-values and a solar abundance log $\epsilon_\odot$(Zr) = 2.90. We used the @zr $gf$-values and a solar abundance log $\epsilon_\odot$(Zr) = 2.60 [@grevesse98]. Therefore we adjust our Zr abundances by $-$0.30 dex to ensure that we are on the same scale as @smith00. Similarly, we adjust the Zr abundances of @gratton94 and @abia01 by $-$0.30 dex since they adopt the same $gf$ values and a very similar solar abundance used in our analysis. @gonzalez98 adopt the @grevesse98 solar abundance and a different $gf$ value so we adjust their Zr abundances by +0.06 dex. @tomkin99 adopt the @grevesse98 solar abundance and a different $gf$ value so we adjust their Zr abundances by +0.11 dex. These adjustments are substantial. When we compare the ratio \[Rb/Zr\], we also consider how the comparison would fare had we not made these abundance corrections. To assess the validity of these adjustments, we measured the Zr abundance for Arcturus and found \[Zr/H\] = $-$0.66. @smith00 measured \[Zr/H\] = $-$0.96, @gonzalez98 found $-$1.18, and @tomkin99 found $-$1.00. Therefore, applying the abundance corrections based on the $gf$ values and solar abundances ensures that the Zr abundances are on the @smith00 scale, e.g., for Arcturus we find $-$0.96 (this study), $-$1.12 (@gonzalez98), $-$0.89 (@tomkin99), and $-$0.96 (@smith00). Interestingly, if we had used the same solar abundance as @smith00, our \[Zr/Fe\] abundances in Y05 would have been closer to the \[Y/Fe\] values and for M 13 we would have found \[Y/Fe\] $\simeq$ \[Zr/Fe\]. In Figure \[fig:zr\], we plot \[Zr/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] with the abundances shifted to the @smith00 scale. At the metallicity of NGC 6752 and M 13, the field and cluster stars have similar ratios of \[Zr/Fe\]. The comparison field star HD 141531 has \[Zr/Fe\] almost identical to the globular clusters.
As in Y03, we estimate the internal errors in the stellar parameters to be [$T_{\rm eff}$]{} $\pm $ 50K, $\log g~\pm$ 0.2, and $\xi_t~\pm$ 0.2. In Table \[tab:parvar\], we show the abundance dependences upon the model parameters.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Rubidium
--------
While our mean Rb abundance for NGC 6752 is \[Rb/Fe\] = $-$0.17 $\pm$ 0.06 ($\sigma$ = 0.14), the abundances appear to concentrate around two distinct values. There are two stars with \[Rb/Fe\] $\simeq$ $-$0.02 and three stars with \[Rb/Fe\] $\simeq$ $-$0.25. The two stars with the higher Rb abundances do not have the highest Al abundances and the three stars with the lower Rb abundances are not exclusively the stars with the lowest Al abundances. Given the weakness of the Rb line, the uncertainties in the derived Rb abundances (see Table \[tab:parvar\]), and the small sample size, it is unlikely that the Rb abundances show a dispersion in NGC 6752. Nor do we find evidence for a correlation between \[Al/Fe\] and \[Rb/Fe\], though we recognize that our sample size (5 stars) is much more limited than in Y03 and Y05 (38 stars). Unfortunately, observations of M 13 and the comparison field star HD 141531 did not incorporate the Rb line.
In Figure \[fig:rb\], we compare our Rb abundances with those measured in dwarfs and giants in the disk and halo (@gratton94 and @tomkin99), globular cluster giants (@gonzalez98 and @smith00), and carbon-rich AGB stars [@abia01]. (While we retain their stars in the plots, we note that the Abia sample contains very different objects that are difficult to analyze compared to the dwarfs and giants considered in the other studies.) Recall that we have made small adjustments to the Rb abundances in an attempt to place them onto a common scale. At the metallicity of NGC 6752 (\[Fe/H\] = $-$1.6), our two stars in NGC 6752 with the highest \[Rb/Fe\] ratios have abundances compatible with the lower envelope of the @tomkin99 sample. The two NGC 6752 stars also exhibit very similar abundances \[Rb/Fe\] to the @gonzalez98 and @smith00 globular cluster giants. Our three stars with the lower \[Rb/Fe\] ratios appear unusual compared to the @tomkin99 sample. Only 1 star in the @abia01 sample has \[Fe/H\] $< -1.0$ and it is interesting that it has an abundance ratio \[Rb/Fe\] similar to those measured in NGC 6752. In general, Rb is not a well studied element and the comparison data are limited.
For NGC 6752, we find a mean abundance \[Rb/Zr\] = $-$0.12 $\pm$ 0.06 ($\sigma$ = 0.13). (This abundance ratio has been shifted to the @smith00 scale.) For the five NGC 6752 giants, the ratio \[Rb/Zr\] appears to show a dispersion. We suspect that this is attributable to measurement uncertainties (primarily for Rb) rather than reflecting a real star-to-star scatter. We do not find a correlation between \[Al/Fe\] and \[Rb/Zr\]. In Figure \[fig:rbzr\], we compare the abundance ratio \[Rb/Zr\] between NGC 6752 and various field and cluster stars. Note that in this Figure we have shifted all abundances onto the @smith00 scale since we will utilize their theoretical predictions from low and intermediate-mass AGBs. At the metallicity of NGC 6752, we find that the two stars in NGC 6752 with the highest values of \[Rb/Fe\] also have the highest values of \[Rb/Zr\]. These two stars have similar \[Rb/Zr\] ratios to the @gratton94 and @tomkin99 samples at the same metallicity. While the $\omega$ Cen giants have abundance ratios \[Rb/Zr\] slightly lower than NGC 6752, this time the NGC 3201 giants appear to have much higher ratios of \[Rb/Zr\]. Note that the \[Rb/Zr\] ratios in NGC 3201 appear similar to the highest values seen in the @tomkin99 sample. Unfortunately, the only star in the @abia01 sample with \[Fe/H\] $< -1.0$ does not have a Zr measurement. However, it does have \[Rb/Sr\] = $-$0.5 and \[Rb/Y\] = $-$0.6. If we assume for this star \[Rb/Zr\] = $<$\[Rb/Sr\],\[Rb/Y\]$>$ = $-$0.55, then the abundance is much lower than NGC 6752.
For elements heavier than Si, globular clusters and field stars tend to have very similar abundance ratios \[X/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\] [@gratton04; @sneden04]. Although the scatter is large and the sample sizes are limited, it would appear that cluster stars probably have similar, or perhaps slightly lower abundance ratios of \[Rb/Fe\] and \[Rb/Zr\] compared to field stars at a given \[Fe/H\].
Recall that we made substantial adjustments to the Zr abundance. While consideration of the Arcturus Zr abundances would appear to validate this adjustment, we briefly consider how the comparison of \[Rb/Zr\] would have fared if these corrections were not applied. In this case, the ratio \[Rb/Zr\] would decrease by roughly 0.3 dex for NGC 6752 as well as for the @gratton94 and @abia01 samples. The @tomkin99 and @gonzalez98 samples would increase by roughly 0.15 dex. NGC 6752 would therefore have unusually low ratios \[Rb/Zr\] compared to field stars at the same metallicity. Similarly, the $\omega$ Cen compositions would be unusually low though comparable to NGC 6752. The NGC 3201 giants would then have very high \[Rb/Zr\] ratios compared to other globular clusters and field stars at the same metallicity. NGC 3201 is peculiar since it has a retrograde orbit and may have been a captured cluster [@vandenbergh93]. The capture hypothesis could not be demonstrated by @gonzalez98 who found no unusual abundance ratios.
@smith00 compare \[Rb/Zr\] in $\omega$ Cen with predictions from AGB models with various initial masses and initial metallicities (their Figure 14). Their Figure clearly shows how the ratio \[Rb/Zr\] can vary by nearly a factor of 10 depending on whether a low-mass (1.5M$_\odot$) or high-mass (5M$_\odot$) AGB model is synthesizing the $s$-process elements. As anticipated from the arguments given in Section \[sec:intro\], high-mass AGB models produce high \[Rb/Zr\] while low-mass AGB models produce low \[Rb/Zr\]. The magnitude of the difference in the predicted \[Rb/Zr\] between low- and high-mass AGB models does not significantly change as the metallicity decreases from \[Fe/H\] = $-$0.5 to \[Fe/H\] = $-$2.0. Comparing the observed abundances with the model predictions in @smith00 reveals that low-mass AGB stars (1-3 M$_\odot$) are responsible for the synthesis of the $s$-process elements in $\omega$ Cen. Inspection of Figure 14 in @smith00 shows that at the metallicity of NGC 6752, \[Fe/H\] = $-$1.6, our measured ratio \[Rb/Zr\] = $-$0.12 is compatible with the $s$-process elements being synthesized in low-mass AGB stars though the assumed mass of the $^{13}$C pocket is critical. Predictions assuming a standard treatment for the $^{13}$C pocket or the $^{13}$C pocket increased by a factor of 2 both suggest AGB stars with $<$ 3 M$_\odot$ are responsible for the \[Rb/Zr\] ratios seen in NGC 6752. When the $^{13}$C pocket is diminished by a factor of 3, the AGB stars with masses $>$ 3 M$_\odot$ may explain the observed \[Rb/Zr\]. When we return our Zr abundances to the original scale, \[Rb/Zr\] = $-$0.42, the ratio in NGC 6752 is only compatible with low-mass AGB stars. We note that the highest values of \[Rb/Zr\] seen in the @gratton94, @gonzalez98, and @tomkin99 samples all greatly exceed the 5 M$_\odot$ AGB model predictions. Such a discrepancy serves as a useful reminder of the unfortunate reality that the detailed yields of $s$-process elements from AGB stars may be very model dependent [@busso01; @ventura05].
Lead
----
In NGC 6752, the mean Pb abundance is \[Pb/Fe\] = $-$0.17 $\pm$ 0.04 ($\sigma$ = 0.08) and in M 13 the mean abundance is \[Pb/Fe\] = $-$0.28 $\pm$ 0.03 ($\sigma$ = 0.06). Given the fairly large measurement uncertainty for Pb (see Table \[tab:parvar\]), neither NGC 6752 nor M 13 show any evidence for a dispersion in Pb abundances, though our sample sizes for both clusters are small. Furthermore, the \[Pb/Fe\] ratios are very similar for these two clusters. As with Rb, there is no evidence that the ratio \[Pb/Fe\] is correlated with \[Al/Fe\]. We note that one star, NGC 6752 PD1, has lower ratios of both \[Rb/Fe\] and \[Pb/Fe\] relative to other giants in this cluster. This subtle composition difference probably arises from uncertainties in the stellar parameters rather than representing a genuine difference. The comparison field giant HD 141531 has a ratio \[Pb/Fe\] essentially identical to the globular cluster giants.
In Figure \[fig:pb\], we compare our Pb abundances with values measured by @sneden98 and @travaglio01. While Pb has been measured in numerous stars with large $s$-process enhancements, it has been largely neglected in normal field stars presumably due to the difficulty of the measurement. For HD 126238, the Pb abundance measured by @sneden98 is very similar to the globular cluster giants and HD 141531. The Pb abundances measured by @travaglio01 in field stars are larger than those measured in the globular clusters. The star with \[Pb/Fe\] = 0.6 is a CH star with excess C and Ba and should not be considered a normal field star. Aside from the CH star, there are three stars with upper limits and another three Pb detections. Recall that there are no stars common to both studies and that the Pb $gf$ value was not published. @travaglio01 suggest that some of the Pb detections may be uncertain and therefore, the offset between the Pb abundances may be due to measurement errors and/or the adopted $gf$ value.
@travaglio01 not only measured Pb abundances in a handful of stars, but they calculated the Galactic chemical evolution of Pb from a detailed model. In their Figure 4, they plot the expected run of \[Pb/Fe\] versus \[Fe/H\] for the halo, thick disk, and thin disk. Since their prediction integrates over all AGB masses, it would be useful to learn how the predicted curve would differ (if at all) if the calculation was performed using low-mass or high-mass AGB models exclusively as @smith00 have done. At \[Fe/H\] = $-$1.6, the @travaglio01 model predicts an abundance ratio \[Pb/Fe\] $\simeq$ $-$0.1. This prediction is in very good agreement with the values measured in M 13, NGC 6752, HD 126238, and HD 141531. This agreement may be regarded as evidence that globular cluster stars have virtually identical Pb abundances as normal field stars.
In normal field stars, Pb has been less studied than Rb. Clearly, it would be of great interest to have additional Pb measurements in field and cluster stars. In Figures \[fig:b708\_pb\] and \[fig:m13\_l973\_pb\], our syntheses indicate that for cool giants in the metallicity regime $-$2.0 $<$ \[Fe/H\] $<$ $-$1.0, reliable Pb abundances can be measured even in stars that do not have large Pb or $s$-process enhancements.
The ratio \[Pb/La\] may offer further clues regarding the nature of the $s$-process in the AGB stars. @vaneck03 found some stars with ratios of \[Pb/La\] $>$ +1.5, in agreement with predictions from metal-poor AGB models [@gallino98; @goriely00]. However, @aoki02 and @vaneck03 also found a large spread in the ratio \[Pb/Ba\]. In some stars, the ratio \[Pb/Ba\] was sub-solar. Our mean ratio \[Pb/La\] for M 13 is $-$0.36 $\pm$ 0.05 ($\sigma$ = 0.10). For NGC 6572, our mean ratio \[Pb/La\] = $-$0.23 $\pm$ 0.04 ($\sigma$ = 0.09). In both clusters, the mean ratios are similar and we note that they are both sub-solar and comparable to the lowest ratios seen in the @vaneck03 sample. Curiously the subsample in @vaneck03 with \[Pb/La\] $<$ 0 had extreme enhancements for \[Pb/Fe\] and \[La/Fe\]. The comparison field star HD 141531, has \[Pb/La\] = $-$0.20 which is similar to the value seen in the globular clusters.
Additional elements
-------------------
While our sample in M 13 consists of only 4 stars, they span the extremities of the Al variation. As in Y05, we again find that the most Al-rich stars may also exhibit slightly higher Si abundances than the most Al-poor stars. Further measurements of Al and Si in a large sample of stars in M 13 would be of great interest to verify whether the correlation between Al and Si seen in NGC 6752 (Y05) is also present in M 13. The correlations between Al and Y as well as Al and Zr found in NGC 6752 do not appear to be present in the small M 13 sample. @cohen05 measured abundances in 25 stars in M 13 from the main sequence turn-off to the tip of the RGB. They were unable to measure Al in most stars. When we consider their derived abundances, there appears to be an anticorrelation between O and Si as well as O and Y. Though the anticorrelation is driven primarily by the one star with unusually low \[O/Fe\], such trends are intriguing and warrant further investigation.
As noted in previous investigations of these clusters, the ratio of $s$-process to $r$-process material, \[La/Eu\], is sub-solar but greater than the scaled solar pure $r$-process value. For NGC 6752 and M 13, the observed ratios of \[La/Eu\] show that AGBs have contributed to their chemical evolution. The ratio of La/Eu in HD 141531 again confirms that it is a normal field star.
Consequences for the IM-AGB pollution scenario
----------------------------------------------
In Y03, we measured Mg isotope ratios in bright giants in NGC 6752. We found that the ratio varied from star-to-star. Specifically, $^{24}$Mg was anticorrelated with Al, $^{26}$Mg was correlated with Al, and $^{25}$Mg was not correlated with Al. As previously seen by @shetrone96b in M 13, these isotope ratios reveal that the Al enhancements result from proton capture on the abundant $^{24}$Mg. Proton capture on $^{24}$Mg within the Mg-Al chain is predicted to only occur in AGB stars of the highest mass at their maximum luminosity [@karakas03]. So we suggested that the abundance variations were due to differing degrees of pollution by IM-AGBs, an idea originally proposed by @cottrell81. These IM-AGBs must have the same iron abundance as the present generation of cluster stars otherwise there would also be a star-to-star abundance variation of Fe. (The same argument applies to whatever stars are believed to be the source of the pollutants.)
The Mg isotope ratios presented in Y03 offered further clues to globular cluster chemical evolution. At one extreme of the abundance variation are cluster stars with O, Na, Mg, and Al compositions in accord with field stars at the same metallicity. We called such stars “normal” in anticipation that proton capture nucleosynthesis can produce O-poor, Na-rich, Mg-poor, and Al-rich material. At the other extreme of the abundance variations are the stars with high Na, high Al, low O, and low Mg. We referred to these stars as “polluted”. The pollution may have occurred via either the evolutionary or primordial scenario. In “normal” stars, we found ratios $^{25}$Mg/$^{24}$Mg and $^{26}$Mg/$^{24}$Mg that exceeded field stars at the same metallicity [@mghdwarf]. Of equal importance was the fact that these isotope ratios greatly exceeded predictions from metal-poor supernovae. We therefore suggested that these unusually high isotope ratios could be explained if a previous generation of IM-AGBs of the highest mass polluted the natal cloud from which the cluster formed. The ejecta from this previous generation must have been thoroughly mixed before the present generation of stars began to form. This previous generation of IM-AGBs are probably responsible for much of the Na, Al, and N as well as $^{25}$Mg and $^{26}$Mg.
Our working hypothesis is that IM-AGBs played two crucial roles in globular cluster chemical evolution. Firstly, a prior generation of very metal-poor IM-AGBs are required to produce the high $^{25}$Mg/$^{24}$Mg and $^{26}$Mg/$^{24}$Mg seen in “normal” stars. Secondly, a generation of IM-AGBs with the same Fe abundance as the present cluster members pollutes the cluster environment. Differing degrees of pollution of natal clouds then produce the star-to-star abundance variations. The dispersion in the F abundances and the correlation between F and O in M 4 [@smith05] appear to confirm the role of IM-AGBs in producing the abundance variations. However, not all the abundance patterns observed in globular clusters can be matched by the current theoretical yields from IM-AGBs [@denissenkov03; @denissenkov04] nor can the abundance patterns be reproduced by chemical evolution models [@fenner04].
From a qualitative viewpoint, metal-poor IM-AGBs may produce $s$-process elements via the $^{22}$Ne neutron source. If activated, the $^{22}$Ne neutron source produces large amounts of Rb/Zr due to a critical branching point at $^{85}$Kr as described earlier. Theoretical models by @busso01 suggest that metal-poor IM-AGBs do run the $s$-process though the specific yields depend on the details.
Similarly, a qualitative assessment suggests that metal-poor IM-AGBs will produce Bi and Pb if the neutrons per seed nuclei exceed a certain value. In this case, Bi and Pb may show large enhancements with other $s$-process elements showing only modest overabundances. Again, theoretical models can be found in which metal-poor IM-AGBs do produce lead (e.g., @goriely01 and @busso01).
In M 13 and NGC 6752, we did not find high ratios of \[Rb/Fe\], \[Rb/Zr\], or \[Pb/Fe\] compared with field stars at the same metallicity. If metal-poor IM-AGBs are responsible for the globular cluster star-to-star abundance variations, then our measurements strongly suggest that such stars do not synthesize significant quantities of Rb or Pb. Also, if metal-poor IM-AGBs are responsible for the large abundances of $^{25}$Mg and $^{26}$Mg in “normal” cluster stars, then they do not synthesize Rb or Pb. Alternatively, if metal-poor IM-AGBs do synthesize significant quantities of Rb and Pb, then they cannot be responsible for the abundance anomalies seen in globular clusters.
Of course the possibility remains that the predicted yields of Rb and Pb from IM-AGBs are unreliable and/or model dependent (e.g., @ventura05). It has been suggested that metal-poor IM-AGBs will not produce any $s$-process elements. As the mass of the AGB star increases, the size of the He intershell region decreases as does the duration of the thermal pulse [@lattanzio04]. Detailed predictions of the yields from metal-poor IM-AGBs by independent groups are required. Our observed Rb and Pb abundances may serve to constrain these models.
Finally, we note that Rb and Zr are synthesized in IM-AGBs as well as via the weak $s$-process, i.e., He core burning in massive stars. However, @travaglio04 suggest that the weak $s$-process does not contribute to Zr but a lighter element primary process in massive stars may be responsible for up to 18% of the solar abundance of Zr. @chieffi04 present detailed yields from massive stars for a range of metallicities and masses. At $Z$ = 0, massive stars are predicted to produce low ratios, \[Rb/Zr\] = $-$0.5 to $-$2.4. If IM-AGBs have contributed to the chemical evolution of NGC 6752, they would increase the ratios of \[Rb/Zr\] above those produced by the supernovae. If IM-AGBs have not played a role in the chemical evolution, perhaps we can use \[Rb/Zr\] to probe the mass and metallicity range of the previous generation of massive stars. For $Z$ = 10$^{-4}$, the predicted yields are independent of mass with \[Rb/Zr\] = $-$0.23. However, we note that for other metallicities, there is a mass-metallicity degeneracy for the \[Rb/Zr\] yields that limits their use in probing the previous generation of supernovae.
Concluding remarks {#sec:summary}
==================
We show for the first time the uniformity of the neutron-capture elements Rb and Pb in NGC 6752 and M13, the two globular clusters that exhibit the largest dispersion for Al. We also find the ratio \[Rb/Zr\] to be constant. None of the abundance ratios \[Rb/Fe\], \[Rb/Zr\], or \[Pb/Fe\] are correlated with \[Al/Fe\] and the Rb and Pb abundances show sub-solar ratios \[X/Fe\]. If metal-poor IM-AGBs produce large amounts of Pb and Rb as well as high ratios of \[Rb/Zr\], then such stars are not responsible for the abundance variations, a conclusion already suggested by @denissenkov03, @denissenkov04, and @fenner04. If metal-poor IM-AGBs are responsible for the abundance variations, then they cannot produce overabundances of Rb or Pb.
For elements heavier than Al, previous studies have shown that field and cluster stars generally have the same abundance ratios \[X/Fe\] at a given \[Fe/H\]. While our sample size is small and the data for comparison field stars are limited, the two clusters we have studied have Rb abundance ratios \[Rb/Fe\] and \[Rb/Zr\] in reasonable agreement with the general field population (the clusters may have slightly lower ratios). The Pb abundance ratio \[Pb/Fe\] in globular clusters is in very good agreement with the limited sample of field stars. At the metallicity of M 13 and NGC 6752, their Pb abundances are well matched by the predictions from the chemical evolution model by @travaglio01. In order to further our understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis and the chemical evolution of field and cluster stars, additional measurements of Rb and Pb in normal stars and globular clusters are welcomed as are further theoretical efforts to calculate the yields from metal-poor IM-AGBs.
This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France and NASA’s Astrophysics Data System. DY thanks John Lattanzio and Roberto Gallino for helpful discussions, Chris Sneden for providing a linelist for the Pb region, and Bruce Carney for a thorough review of a draft of this paper. This research was performed while DBP held a National Research Council Research Associateship Award at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. DLL acknowledges support from the Robert A. Welch Foundation of Houston, Texas. This research was supported in part by NASA through the American Astronomical Society’s Small Research Grant Program.
[74]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, C., [Busso]{}, M., [Gallino]{}, R., [Dom[í]{}nguez]{}, I., [Straniero]{}, O., & [Isern]{}, J. 2001, , 559, 1117
, M., [Fujimoto]{}, M. Y., & [Kato]{}, K. 2001, , 560, 937
—. 2004, , 608, 983
, W., [Norris]{}, J. E., [Ryan]{}, S. G., [Beers]{}, T. C., & [Ando]{}, H. 2000, , 536, L97
, W., [Ryan]{}, S. G., [Norris]{}, J. E., [Beers]{}, T. C., [Ando]{}, H., [Iwamoto]{}, N., [Kajino]{}, T., [Mathews]{}, G. J., & [Fujimoto]{}, M. Y. 2001, , 561, 346
, W., [Ryan]{}, S. G., [Norris]{}, J. E., [Beers]{}, T. C., [Ando]{}, H., & [Tsangarides]{}, S. 2002, , 580, 1149
, H. & [Macklin]{}, R. L. 1989, , 339, 962
, R., [Shectman]{}, S. A., [Gunnels]{}, S. M., [Mochnacki]{}, S., & [Athey]{}, A. E. 2003, in Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes. Edited by Iye, Masanori; Moorwood, Alan F. M. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 4841, pp. 1694-1704 (2003)., 1694–1704
, E., [Grevesse]{}, N., [Hannaford]{}, P., & [Lowe]{}, R. M. 1981, , 248, 867
, D. L., [Pilachowski]{}, C. A., [Armandroff]{}, T. E., [Sneden]{}, C., [Cowan]{}, J. J., & [Roe]{}, H. 2000, , 544, 302
, M., [Gallino]{}, R., [Lambert]{}, D. L., [Travaglio]{}, C., & [Smith]{}, V. V. 2001, , 557, 802
, M., [Gallino]{}, R., & [Wasserburg]{}, G. J. 1999, , 37, 239
, C. 1995, , 453, L41
, A. & [Limongi]{}, M. 2004, , 608, 405
, J. G. 1978, , 223, 487
, J. G. & [Mel[' e]{}ndez]{}, J. 2005, , 129, 303
, P. L. & [Da Costa]{}, G. S. 1981, , 245, L79
, J. J., [Sneden]{}, C., [Truran]{}, J. W., & [Burris]{}, D. L. 1996, , 460, L115+
, P. A. & [Herwig]{}, F. 2003, , 590, L99
, P. A. & [Weiss]{}, A. 2004, , 603, 119
, Y., [Campbell]{}, S., [Karakas]{}, A. I., [Lattanzio]{}, J. C., & [Gibson]{}, B. K. 2004, , 353, 789
, M. Y., [Aikawa]{}, M., & [Kato]{}, K. 1999, , 519, 733
, R., [Arlandini]{}, C., [Busso]{}, M., [Lugaro]{}, M., [Travaglio]{}, C., [Straniero]{}, O., [Chieffi]{}, A., & [Limongi]{}, M. 1998, , 497, 388
, G. & [Wallerstein]{}, G. 1998, , 116, 765
, S. & [Mowlavi]{}, N. 2000, , 362, 599
, S. & [Siess]{}, L. 2001, , 378, L25
, R., [Sneden]{}, C., & [Carretta]{}, E. 2004, , 42, 385
, R. G., [Bonifacio]{}, P., [Bragaglia]{}, A., [Carretta]{}, E., [Castellani]{}, V., [Centurion]{}, M., [Chieffi]{}, A., [Claudi]{}, R., [Clementini]{}, G., [D’Antona]{}, F., [Desidera]{}, S., [Fran[ç]{}ois]{}, P., [Grundahl]{}, F., [Lucatello]{}, S., [Molaro]{}, P., [Pasquini]{}, L., [Sneden]{}, C., [Spite]{}, F., & [Straniero]{}, O. 2001, , 369, 87
, R. G. & [Sneden]{}, C. 1994, , 287, 927
, N. & [Sauval]{}, A. J. 1998, Space Science Reviews, 85, 161
, F., [Briley]{}, M., [Nissen]{}, P. E., & [Feltzing]{}, S. 2002, , 385, L14
, F. 2004, , 605, 425
, K., [Wallace]{}, L., [Valenti]{}, J., & [Harmer]{}, D. 2000, [Visible and Near Infrared Atlas of the Arcturus Spectrum 3727-9300 A]{} (Visible and Near Infrared Atlas of the Arcturus Spectrum 3727-9300 A ed. Kenneth Hinkle, Lloyd Wallace, Jeff Valenti, and Dianne Harmer. (San Francisco: ASP) ISBN: 1-58381-037-4, 2000.)
, I. I., [Sneden]{}, C., [Gallino]{}, R., [Cowan]{}, J. J., & [Preston]{}, G. W. 2005, , 627, L145
, J. A. & [Bolte]{}, M. 2002, , 579, L87
, A. I. & [Lattanzio]{}, J. C. 2003, Publ. Astron. Soc. Australia, 20, 279
, R. P. 1994, , 106, 553
, R. P., [Sneden]{}, C., [Langer]{}, G. E., & [Prosser]{}, C. F. 1992, , 104, 645
, R. P., [Sneden]{}, C., [Smith]{}, G. H., [Shetrone]{}, M. D., [Langer]{}, G. E., & [Pilachowski]{}, C. A. 1997, , 113, 279
, R. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993., 13
, R. L., [Furenlid]{}, I., & [Brault]{}, J. 1984, [Solar flux atlas from 296 to 1300 NM]{} (National Solar Observatory Atlas, Sunspot, New Mexico: National Solar Observatory, 1984)
, D. L. & [Luck]{}, R. E. 1976, The Observatory, 96, 100
, D. L., [Smith]{}, V. V., [Busso]{}, M., [Gallino]{}, R., & [Straniero]{}, O. 1995, , 450, 302
, J., [Karakas]{}, A., [Campbell]{}, S., [Elliott]{}, L., & [Chieffi]{}, A. 2004, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 75, 322
, S., [Gratton]{}, R., [Cohen]{}, J. G., [Beers]{}, T. C., [Christlieb]{}, N., [Carretta]{}, E., & [Ram[í]{}rez]{}, S. 2003, , 125, 875
, K., [Aoki]{}, W., [Kawanomoto]{}, S., [Ando]{}, H., [Honda]{}, S., [Izumiura]{}, H., [Kambe]{}, E., [Okita]{}, K., [Sadakane]{}, K., [Sato]{}, B., [Tajitsu]{}, A., [Takada-Hidai]{}, T., [Tanaka]{}, W., [Watanabe]{}, E., & [Yoshida]{}, M. 2002, , 54, 855
, L., [Bonifacio]{}, P., [Molaro]{}, P., [Francois]{}, P., [Spite]{}, F., [Gratton]{}, R. G., [Carretta]{}, E., & [Wolff]{}, B. 2005, in press (astro-ph/0506651)
, R. C. 1980, , 237, L87
, C. A., [Sneden]{}, C., [Kraft]{}, R. P., & [Langer]{}, G. E. 1996, , 112, 545
, S. V. & [Cohen]{}, J. G. 2003, , 125, 224
, A. & [Fusi Pecci]{}, F. 1988, , 26, 199
, M. D. 1996, , 112, 1517
—. 1996, , 112, 2639
, T., [Bonifacio]{}, P., [Molaro]{}, P., [Cayrel]{}, R., [Spite]{}, M., [Spite]{}, F., [Plez]{}, B., [Andersen]{}, J., [Barbuy]{}, B., [Beers]{}, T. C., [Depagne]{}, E., [Hill]{}, V., [Fran[ç]{}ois]{}, P., [Nordstr[" o]{}m]{}, B., & [Primas]{}, F. 2004, , 413, 1073
, V. V., [Cunha]{}, K., [Ivans]{}, I. I., [Lattanzio]{}, J. C., & [Hinkle]{}, K. H. 2005, in press (astro-ph/0506763)
, V. V., [Suntzeff]{}, N. B., [Cunha]{}, K., [Gallino]{}, R., [Busso]{}, M., [Lambert]{}, D. L., & [Straniero]{}, O. 2000, , 119, 1239
, C. 1973, , 184, 839
, C., [Cowan]{}, J. J., [Burris]{}, D. L., & [Truran]{}, J. W. 1998, , 496, 235
, C., [Cowan]{}, J. J., [Ivans]{}, I. I., [Fuller]{}, G. M., [Burles]{}, S., [Beers]{}, T. C., & [Lawler]{}, J. E. 2000, , 533, L139
, C., [Ivans]{}, I. I., & [Fulbright]{}, J. P. 2004, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, 172
, C., [Kraft]{}, R. P., [Guhathakurta]{}, P., [Peterson]{}, R. C., & [Fulbright]{}, J. P. 2004, , 127, 2162
, N. B. & [Smith]{}, V. V. 1991, , 381, 160
, A. V. & [Mengel]{}, J. G. 1979, , 229, 624
, J. & [Lambert]{}, D. L. 1983, , 273, 722
—. 1999, , 523, 234
, C., [Gallino]{}, R., [Arnone]{}, E., [Cowan]{}, J., [Jordan]{}, F., & [Sneden]{}, C. 2004, , 601, 864
, C., [Gallino]{}, R., [Busso]{}, M., & [Gratton]{}, R. 2001, , 549, 346
, S. 1993, , 411, 178
, S., [Goriely]{}, S., [Jorissen]{}, A., & [Plez]{}, B. 2001, , 412, 793
—. 2003, , 404, 291
, P. & [D’Antona]{}, F. 2005, in press (astro-ph/0505221)
, D., [Grundahl]{}, F., [Lambert]{}, D. L., [Nissen]{}, P. E., & [Shetrone]{}, M. D. 2003, , 402, 985
, D., [Grundahl]{}, F., [Nissen]{}, P. E., [Jensen]{}, H. R., & [Lambert]{}, D. L. 2005, , 438, 875
, D., [Lambert]{}, D. L., & [Ivans]{}, I. I. 2003, , 599, 1357
[^1]: Based in part on data collected at the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and on observations made with the Magellan Clay Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory.
[^2]: IRAF (Image Reduction and Analysis Facility) is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.
[^3]: http://www.lco.cl/lco/magellan/instruments/MIKE/reductions/mtools.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the first simulations of tidal stirring of dwarf galaxies in the Local Group carried out in a fully cosmological context. We use the ErisDARK cosmological simulation of a MW-sized galaxy to identify some of the most massive subhalos ($M_{vir} > 10^8 M_{\odot}$) that fall into the main host before $z=2$. Subhalos are replaced before infall with high-resolution models of dwarf galaxies comprising a faint stellar disk embedded in a dark matter halo. The set of models contains cuspy halos as well as halos with “cored” profiles (with asymptotic inner slope $\gamma = 0.6$) consistent with recent results of hydrodynamical simulations of dwarf galaxy formation. The simulations are then run to $z=0$ with as many as 54 million particles and resolution as small as $\sim 4$ pc using the new parallel N-Body code ChaNGa. The stellar components of all satellites are significantly affected by tidal stirring, losing stellar mass and undergoing a morphological transformation towards a pressure supported spheroidal system. However, while some remnants with cuspy halos maintain significant rotational flattening and disk-like features, all the shallow halo models achieve $v/\sigma < 0.5$ and round shapes typical of dSph satellites of the MW and M31. Mass loss is also enhanced in the latter, and remnants can reach luminosities and velocity dispersions as low as those of Ultra Faint Dwarfs (UFDs) In two cases a merger transforms the objects quickly into a spheroidal system already before infall. We argue that cuspy progenitors must be the exception rather than the rule among satellites of the MW since all the MW and M31 satellites in the luminosity range of our remnants are dSphs, a result matched only in the simulation with “cored” models. This suggests an early and efficient transformation of cusps into cores for Local Group satellites.'
author:
- 'Mihai Tomozeiu, Lucio Mayer'
- Thomas Quinn
bibliography:
- 'ads.bib'
title: ' The evolution of dwarf galaxy satellites with different dark matter density profiles in the ErisMod simulations. I. The early infalls'
---
Introduction
============
Dwarf galaxy satellites of the Milky Way (MW) and M31 are the main focus of “near-field cosmology”, providing a plethora of useful constraints and tests for galaxy formation theories as well as for the nature of dark matter in the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm. Yet their origin is still not completely understood. Nearly all the known satellites, located within the expected virial radius of the bright spirals, i.e at $R < 300$ kpc, are classified as dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSphs). They have fairly round stellar components with low or negligible rotation but relatively high velocity dispersions (; [@2012AJ....144....4M]). At the same time, nearly all of the dwarf galaxies located outside such radius and far from M31 are gas-rich dwarf irregular galaxies (dIrrs), which have ongoing or recent star formation, flattened disky shapes, and exhibit substantial rotational support ($v_{rot}/\sigma > 1$). The different spatial distribution of dwarf galaxy types is known as the morphology-density relation, and reflects an analogous effect seen in galaxy clusters and rich groups on larger mass scales ([@1980ApJ...236..351D]).
Environmental mechanisms have been often invoked to transform dIrrs into dSphs (; [@2012AJ....144....4M]). One of the mechanisms proposed to achieve such transformation is tidal stirring, namely the cumulative effect of repeated tidal shocks occurring near the pericenter of the eccentric orbits of satellites ([@2010HiA....15..193M]).
The process has been investigated thoroughly with collisionless N-Body simulations adopting high resolution models of dwarf galaxies interacting with rigid or symmetric models of hosts on orbits with high eccentricities as those of cosmological subhalos ([@2001ApJ...559..754M]; [@2001ApJ...547L.123M] ;[@2007MNRAS.378..353K]; [@2011ApJ...726...98K]). It has also been investigated in combination with ram pressure mass removal using hydrodynamical simulations of dwarf-main host interaction in which a diffuse gaseous halo consistent with observational constraints is added to the dark halo of the main host ([@2006MNRAS.369.1021M]; [@2010HiA....15..193M]).
These studies established tidal stirring as a major mode of morphological evolution of dwarf galaxies, turning them from faint rotationally supported disks into even fainter pressure supported spheroidals, thus providing a natural explanation for the morphology-density relation ubiquitously observed in galaxy groups, including our own Local Group ([@1999AAS...195.0803G]).
Direct tidal heating as well as indirect heating stemming from bar and buckling instabilities triggered by tidal shocks have been both shown to play a role in tidal stirring, although the latter requires initial disks with mass-to-light ratios at the upper end of those observed in dwarf galaxies ([@2001ApJ...547L.123M]; [@2011ApJ...726...98K]). These works also determined that ram pressure mass removal aided by tidal shocks can rapidly remove the gas content of satellites explaining why dSphs are devoid of gas and why they can have very high mass-to-light ratios.
Recently the effect of the dark matter density profile of dwarf galaxies on tidal stirring has been studied, motivated by the new findings of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of field dwarf galaxy formation which have shown that feedback from supernovae and massive stars can turn the cuspy halos predicted by $\Lambda$CDM into halos with shallower inner density slopes ($\gamma$ in \[0.3, 0.7\] range), depending on the star formation rate achieved in the galaxy ([@2010Natur.463..203G]; [@2012MNRAS.421.3464P]; [@2014ApJ...792...99S]; [@2012MNRAS.422.1231G]; [@2013MNRAS.431.1220D]; [@2015MNRAS.446.1140T]). There have also been attempts to show the existence of this effect specifically for dwarf galaxy satellites, albeit in this case resolution is a potential issue ([@2013ApJ...765...22B]). [@2012ApJ...751L..15L] and [@2013ApJ...764L..29K] have thus updated the previous tidal stirring simulations by carrying out N-Body simulations in which disky dwarf galaxies have shallower dark matter profiles as those arising in the cosmological hydro simulations, and have checked results against varying resolution. They have found that the transformation by tidal stirring is enhanced significantly when a shallower density profile is adopted ($\gamma =0.2$ or $0.6$). They have also found that, since mass loss is also enhanced, remnants of dwarfs with shallow dark matter profiles can evolve into very faint objects such as Ultra Faint Dwarfs ([@2012ApJ...751L..15L]). The enhanced mass loss and transformation follow from the lower binding energy and more impulsive dynamical response of the system in the case of objects with a shallower halo profile.
However, these recent simulations, exactly like those of the last decade, are fairly idealized since they completely lack the cosmological context. Hence orbits are also idealized, being disconnected with the epoch of fall inside the host and with the shape of its gravitational potential, which is just assumed to be spherically symmetric. Instead, cosmological simulations show that the host is triaxial and grows substantially in mass and radius over the last ten billion years ([@2007ApJ...667..859D]), which implies satellites can be accreted on increasingly wider orbits over time. Furthermore, in the idealized simulations subhalos can only interact with the main host, and not between them. Also, for simplicity these simulations have always explored a fixed or limited mass range for the satellites, rather than considering the wide range of masses from those of actual subhalos. It is expected that, the initial mass, and also the stellar mass relative to that of the halo, ought to have an important effect on the response of the system to tidal shocks. Furthermore, other studies have shown that mergers or strong interactions, while rare, can occur among dwarf galaxies just before infall, turning them into dwarf spheroidals very quickly ([@2011ApJ...740L..24K]), but leaving it completely open to identify the distinct signature of a remnant of one of such mergers as opposed to one from tidal stirring. Ideally, all these difficulties should be overcome in a fully cosmological hydro simulation of a MW sized galaxy, but with current resolutions around 100 pc and $\sim 10^4 M_{\odot}$ in the baryons numerical results cannot be put on firm grounds for objects that should be only a few hundreds parsecs in size.
Therefore, in order to make progress beyond the idealized simulation we devise a numerical strategy that in the past has only been attempted for simulations of galaxies in clusters ( [@1999ASPC..182..491D]; [@2005MNRAS.364..607M]). In this approach, known as the “replacement technique”, cosmological subhalos are replaced with high resolution models of dwarf galaxies within the original cosmological volume. Models are constructed based on observational and theoretical constraints, and matched as closely as possible to the total virial mass of the parent subhalo. After the replacement the simulation is rerun to the present epoch. In this way galaxy satellites are automatically placed on realistic orbits and are subject to the full tidal interaction history of the parent subhalos. Due to the computational facilities and improved speed and parallelism of the codes, the simulations can span the equivalent of more than 10 Gyr of evolution with this technique, while in previous cluster simulations only a small time span, from $z=0.5$ onwards, could be covered ([@2005MNRAS.364..607M]). In this paper we present the first replacement simulation carried out for a MW sized halo, using the ErisDARK cosmological simulation carried out in the concordance $\Lambda$CDM model ([@2013ApJ...765...10K]; [@2014ApJ...784..161P]). The simulations are carried out with state-of-the-art massively parallel N-Body codes, PKDGRAV2 ([@2001PhDT........21S]) and ChaNGa ([@changa2008]; [@changa2010]; [@2015ComAC...2....1M]; http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/tools/changa.html) on the CRAYXE6 “Monte Rosa” of the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre.
The paper continues with Section 2 where the replacement technique and numerical simulations are presented in details. Next the analysis methods and results are enumerated in Section 3. Section 4 contains an extensive discussion regarding the implications of the results for the origin of dSphs, including their relation to observational data. Finally Section 5 includes the conclusion and outlook of the presented work.
Numerical simulations and replacement technique {#sec2}
===============================================
Initial conditions and selection procedure
------------------------------------------
The initial conditions of the simulations of this paper are based on the ErisDark run ([@2014ApJ...784..161P]), which is a dark matter only cosmological gravity run of 40 million particles using the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model ($H_0$ = 73 km $s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}$, $n_s = 0.96$,$ \sigma_8 = 0.76$, $\Omega_m = 0.268$ and $ \Omega_{\lambda} = 0.732$). The cosmological volume contains a 1 Mpc scale zoom-in region with three levels of refinement that lead to a minimum mass of the dark matter particle of 1.2 $\cdot$ $10^5 M_{\odot}$ and a minimum softening length of 124 pc ([@2014ApJ...784..161P]). In the zoom-in region an isolated MW-sized halo assembles, with mass consistent with the lower limit for the estimated halo mass of the Milky Way, which provides a good fit with current kinematical data on the Milky Way stellar halo ([@2013ApJ...773L..32R]). The companion hydrodynamical simulations, Eris and ErisLE, have shown to produce realistic spiral galaxies by $z=0$, which reproduce nearly all the main properties of the disk and bulge of the Milky Way ([@2011ApJ...742...76G]; [@2012ASPC..453..289M]; [@2013ApJ...772...36G]; [@2013ApJ...773...43B]).
Satellite galaxies falling into the main host after the last major merger, which takes place at $z \sim 3$, are considered for replacement with hi-resolution dwarf galaxy models including stars. We analize the entire available set of outputs of the original simulation with the use of the Amiga Halo Finder (AHF) ([@2004MNRAS.351..410G];[@2009ApJS..182..608K]) with a virial overdensity criterion that varies with redshift according to the cosmology ([@1998ApJ...495...80B]). In this paper, in particular, we analyze the earliest infalling population of satellites among which there are survivors at $z=0$. In the next paper we will present larger populations of dwarf galaxies which are accreted at later epochs.
We thus proceed in the following way. First of all, among subhaloes with bound masses greater than $10^8 M_{sol}$ at z = 0, the satellite with the earliest infall is identified. The adopted threshold mass ensures that we are considering well resolved objects, with at least $10^3$ particles (presumably their progenitors are even better resolved at higher redshift, before tidal mass loss begins), to minimize numerical effects on their internal dynamical evolution ([@1996ApJ...457..455M]). The object enters the host’s virial radius just before $z = 2$, when it is still unrelaxed, being the result of a merger between two subhalos. We trace the satellite back to $z = 2.87$ when the two progenitor merging subhalos are still well separated, namely their virial volumes do not overlap. Therefore the epoch corresponding to z = $2.87$ is set as the epoch of replacement of the original ErisDark’s infalling subhalos with their high resolution versions.\
Next we identify other subhalos that at this epoch are located between 1 and 4 $R_{vir}$ of the host. We restrict the sample to the most massive ones, having pre-infall masses around $10^9 M_{\odot}$ and above. Among these we reject 60% that cannot be properly identified and replaced because they are either too elongated (axis ratio less than 0.65, possibly tidally disturbed by companions) or have a substantial fraction of their mass in subhalos. Four objects remain after this rejection procedure, with masses in the range $0.99-4 \times 10^9 M_{\odot}$. Note that at $z \sim 2$ this translates into satellites having masses in the range 80-300 times smaller than the host, which has a virial mass of $3.00 \times 10^{11} M_{\odot}$ and a virial radius of 55.6 kpc at the corresponding epoch (both relatively high since ErisDARK has a fast assembly history with no more major mergers after $z=3$, [@2014ApJ...784..161P]). We remark that the lower end of the satellite-to-host mass ratio is still in a regime in which dynamical friction is effective in eroding the orbital energy over many Gyrs ([@1999ApJ...525..720C]), while this is a negligible effect in published idealized simulations that assume satellites of similar mass but within a host having a fixed mass $\sim 10^{12} M_{\odot}$ ([@2013ApJ...764L..29K]). Finally, we observe that none of the four objects has a mass above $10^8 M_{sol}$ at z = 0 in the original ErisDark run. Therefore they are not part of the largest subhaloes at the final epoch, which can well exceed this mass at low z (Paper II, [@2014ApJ...784..161P]). In total we thus replace 6 subhalos (figure \[fig:figure1\]), of which 2 are merging during infall and the other four are accreted individually. The halo properties are listed in table \[table:table1\].
Model galaxy generation
-----------------------
The replacement models are generated using the GalactICS code ([@1995MNRAS.277.1341K], [@2005ApJ...631..838W], [@2008ApJ...679.1239W]), which generates multi-component equilibrium models of galaxies. Each model galaxy is comprised of two components: the dark matter halo and the stellar disk. It is assumed by construction that the initial model has a stellar disk since this stems from the assumption that disky dwarfs are the progenitors of dSphs, the core idea of tidal stirring. The code creates halos with negligible angular momentum and a spherically symmetric density profile as described by the relation:
$$\rho_{halo}(r) = \frac{2^{2-\gamma} \sigma_s^2}{4 \pi G r_s^2} \frac{1}{\left(\frac{r}{r_s}\right)^\gamma \left(1+\frac{r}{r_s}\right)^{3-\gamma}} \frac{1}{2} erfc \left( \frac{r - r_c}{\sqrt{2} r_w}\right).$$
In the previous equation the scale radius and velocity scale are denoted with $r_s$ and $\sigma_s$, and $\gamma$ stands for the cusp coefficient. In order to restrain the model to finite dimensions a complementary error function with cut-off radius $r_c$ and width $r_w$ is used. The velocity distribution is computed by solving the Eddington equation for the prescribed density profile.\
For each removed halo two replacements are created: one with $\gamma = 1.0$ and another with $\gamma = 0.6$. The cut-off radius and width are set to be linear functions of the virial radius of the original object:
$$r_c = r_{vir} - r_w$$
$$r_w = \frac {\sqrt{2} r_{vir}}{10}.$$
The scale radius is determined indirectly by assuming that the concentration of an average halo of mass $M_{vir}$ at redshift $z$ are given by the empirical relations found by [@2011ApJ...740..102K]:
$$c(M_{vir}, z) = c_0(z) \left(\frac{M_{vir}}{10^{12} h^{-1} M_\Sun} \right)^{-0.075} \left( 1 + \left( \frac{M_{vir}}{M_0(z)}\right)^{0.26}\right).$$
With the concentration and virial radius set, the scale length can be determined.
$$r_s = \frac{r_{vir}}{c}$$
The two variants corresponding to shallow and steep dark matter density profile have by construct the same scale radius. In order to have the same mass enclosed in the same virial volumes with different cusp coefficients the scale velocity is adjust accordingly. The values of the characteristic quantities associated to dark matter halos with the virial quantities presented in table \[table:table1\] are listed in table \[table:table2\].
The previously mentioned code can generate a disk component of a galaxy according to the cylindrical spatial distribution: $$\rho_{stars}\left(r,z\right) = \rho_{0} \exp \left( -\frac{r}{R_d} \right) \left[ sech \left( \frac{z}{z_c} \right) \right] ^2,$$ and cylindrical distribution of the radial dispersion:
$$\sigma_r(r) = \sigma_{r0} \left( \exp \left( - \frac{r}{R_d} \right) \right)^{1/2}.$$
The reader who is interested in more details on how the code constructs the galactic model is referred to the publication [@2008ApJ...679.1239W].
There are free parameters that have to be set using educated guesses based on available constraints on galactic structure at low mass scales. Most importantly, the mass of the stellar disk $M_d$ for each object is $1.2 \times 10^{-3}$ of its virial mass Such ratio is chosen to reflect the stellar-to-halo mass ratio, $M_{\star}/M_{vir}$, inferred from the abundance matching analysis extrapolated to lower masses ([@2013ApJ...770...57B]). Past simulations of disk galaxy formation presented in the [@2007MNRAS.382.1187K] paper associate to objects with maximum circular velocities in the 24-53 km $s^{-1}$range, scale height values in the 0.08-0.18 kpc range. Considering the previously mentioned results the values of the scale heights of all the objects is set to the minimum of 0.08 kpc. The choice of constant scale height is motivated by the expectation that at the masses of interest the disk thickness acquires minimum threshold value. The value is dictated by the balance between the thermodynamics of disk formation, such as the effect of the cosmic ionizing flux providing a minimum temperature floor of $\sim 10^4$ K, corresponding to a bulk velocity dispersion $\sim 8-10$ km/s, and the gravitational potential of the halo. For all the stellar disks introduced in the simulation the scale height was set to 0.08 kpc.
With the scale height and stellar mass to total mass ratio assigned, the scale length remains to be determined. The square of the scale length is naturally constrained to be proportional to the virial mass of the respective object. An observational study provided by finds several dwarf galaxies with disk scale lengths as low as 0.33 kpc. Considering the inferred galaxy masses for the latter sample and the values assumed in previous work on tidal stirring based on various constraints ([@2011ApJ...726...98K]), the reference value of $R_d = 0.4 kpc$ was set for an object with a virial mass of $10^9 M_{sol}$. Using such reference value as a normalization the following relation is used for the calculation of the scale length as a function of galaxy mass:
$$R_d = 0.4 \left( \frac{M_{vir}}{10^9 M_{sol}}\right)^{0.5} kpc.$$
For each pair of objects the parameters of the stellar component are listed in table \[table:table2\].
From the original cosmological simulation, quantities such as the virial mass and virial radius are measured (table \[table:table1\]). The virial quantities are used for determining all the parameters required for the generation of the pairs of high resolution galaxies that will be used as replacements. Namely the following quantities are determined: ($\sigma_s,r_s, r_c, r_w$) the dark matter halo quantities and ($M_{stars}, R_d$) the stellar disk quantities. The remaining free parameters are the number of dark matter particles and star particles. For all the models created both numbers were set to one million.
Stability of the galaxies
-------------------------
Each of the twelve high resolution generated objects evolve in isolation for 1 Gyr prior to their introduction in the cosmological environment. The state of the objects at the end of the isolation run can be seen in figure \[fig:figure2\] and \[fig:figure3\]. The purpose of these simulations is to verify the stability of the models and allow the system to remove instabilities prior to replacement. Initial discreteness noise is unavoidable, and it is known to seed waves in cold disk-like systems which could lead to mass redistribution (eg [@2011EAS....48..369M]). These often manifest themselves as transient spiral waves, although the method adopted by our initial condition generator combined with the low self-gravity of the light disks embedded in a massive halo should minimize amplification of the waves. Furthermore, two-body relaxation between more massive dark matter particles and lighter stellar particles may also lead to some spurious evolution (Mayer et al. 2001). All isolation runs were performed using the pkdgrav2 code ([@2001PhDT........21S]). The softening lengths of the particles were set according to the equation: $$\epsilon_{dark} = 0.06 \left( \frac{M_{vir}}{10^9 M_{sol}} \right)^{1/3} kpc,$$ $$\epsilon_{star} = 0.02 \left( \frac{M_{stars}}{4 \cdot 10^7 M_{sol}} \right)^{1/3} kpc,$$ And are listed in table \[table:table3\].
The baryonic distributions of the constructed galaxy models with a cusp coefficient equal to unity are presented in figures \[fig:figure2\] and \[fig:figure3\]. The previously mentioned images correspond to the objects at the end of the isolation run and at the moment of replacement. Figure \[fig:figure4\] shows the cylindrically averaged surface density at the beginning of the isolation run and at the end. Small fluctuations are visible as small amplitude waves, which cause departure from perfect axisymmetry. Despite the existence of the local density fluctuations for both versions there are no significant changes happening on scales comparable to the scale length during the isolation run. Moreover, the analysis of the global mass distribution including the dominant dark matter component as shown by the circular velocity curves in figure \[fig:figure5\] along with the radial distribution of the cumulative mass present in figure \[fig:figure6\], do not show any appreciable changes. We conclude that the stability of the models is satisfactory.
Replacement method and numerical simulations
--------------------------------------------
At the end of their evolution in isolation the galactic models replace the original objects in four steps. All bound particles of the original objects are removed after measuring their centre of mass (COM) velocity and position from the cosmological box at redshift 2.87. The particles of the newly created pairs of galaxies have their residual COM velocities and positions removed. Afterwards their individual positions and velocities are rotated with random matrices generated with the [@arvo1991]. Finally the COM phase space coordinates are translated to match the COM phase space coordinates of the original objects that they replace. The resulting modified versions of the cosmological volume containing ErisDark are used as initial conditions for the gravity calculation runs down to redshift 0. ChaNGa was used to carry out these new cosmological runs. The code ChaNGa uses a fast hierachical oct-tree gravity solver, and is based on the Charm++ parallel programming infrastructure ([@CharmppPPWCPP96]). It leverages the object-based virtualization and data-driven style of computation inherent in Charm++ to adaptively overlap communication and computation and achieve high levels of resource utilization on large systems ([@changa2008], [@changa2010]). The Charm++ load balancing infrastructure is used to distribute pieces of this tree across processors. The leaf nodes are buckets that contain several particles (usually 8 to 32) whose force calculations are collectively optimized. At each level of the tree, multipoles are calculated to speed distant force evaluations. Time adaptivity is achieved by assigning individual timesteps to particles. A special load balancer was developed by the UIUC Charm++ team to efficiently handle the resulting processor load imbalance ([@2015ComAC...2....1M]).
Results and data analysis {#sec3}
=========================
The resulting raw simulation data is analized using the AHF in the same manner as performed with the original ErisDark simulation data. From the set of halos generated by the AHF code, the six pairs of satellites are identified through the indices of bound star particles. As output of the AHF code, we use in our satellite analysis only the list of bound dark matter and star particles. There are cases when the halo finder does not detect one of the objects at a particular epoch either due to the pericenter shock or temporary interference with other large subhalos. Such events will appear as unavoidable interruption of the flow of data points on the analysis plots. As soon as the object is identified again by the AHF code, the flow of data points in the analysis plots resumes.\
The center of the satellite is defined as being the position of the stellar density peak of the respective object. From this point a 3D half light/mass radius can be defined as the radius of the sphere centered on the previously mentioned density peak which includes and excludes half of the mass amount of bound stellar particles. All the values of the half light radius associated with each object at the available evaluation epochs are presented in figure \[fig:figure7\]. The next step in the preparation of the satellite data for analysis is the alignment of the object. This is performed by defining a set of particles that include both dark matter and stars inside a sphere centered on the stellar density peak and with a radius equal to two half light radii. All the bound particles of the object including the ones exterior to the two half light radii sphere are rotated such that the moment of inertia tensor, corresponding to the set of stellar particles interior to the previously mentioned sphere, is diagonalized. This process is repeated for each individual object at each epoch of measurement.
Once the satellite is identified and analysed there are a number of diagnostics that are routinely measured, as described in the following subsections. In addition to dynamical masses, dark matter masses and stellar masses (see tables \[table:table4\] and \[table:table5\] for the results at the starting and final time), the key diagnostics used to quantify the morphology of the model galaxies are the shape as measured by the axis ratios, the ratio between 1D velocity dispersion $\sigma_*$ and rotational velocity $v_{rot}$ of the stars (note that we refer here to the actual stellar rotational velocity rather than to the circular velocity), and the surface density profiles of the stars. The characteristic velocities are measured inside ($\sigma_*$) and around ($v_{rot}$) the half-mass radius, which is defined for the whole 3D mass distribution.
Our classification scheme to decide whether or not the final remnant is a dSph is more stringent than the one used in ([@2011ApJ...726...98K];[@2013ApJ...764L..29K]). There two criteria were used simultaneously, namely that the object had to have $c/a > 0.5$ and $v_{rot} / \sigma_* < 1$. With the latter criterion outliers from the typical structural properties of dSphs, such as the Tucana dSph, which has $v_{rot}/\sigma_* \sim 1$, would be included. Here instead we use only the criterion $v_{rot}/\sigma_* < 0.5$, which is indeed the case for nearly all observed dSphs and that, as we will see, automatically guarantees also that $c/a < 0.5$ in our simulated remnants at $z=0$. Finally, for brevity we will refer to “cored models” when we talk about the models with inner slope of the dark halo $\gamma=0.6$, and to “cuspy models” when we discuss models with an NFW profile.
Dimensions along the principal axes
-----------------------------------
With the object aligned and principal axes identified three maps of the projected stellar mass corresponding to the three pairs of principal axes can be generated. Perpendicular to each of the vectors defining the axes directions a square grid with size $4 R_{1/2} \cdot 4 R_{1/2}$ and a million square cells is defined. For each cell a projected mass is defined that equals the mass of all bound star particles whose projection on the grid is included in the respective cell.\
Using the information in the projected mass maps, the dimensions of the object along the principal axes can be determined. In the process of dimensions calculations ellipses containing cells with different levels of mass density are being fitted. The distribution of these ellipses around the center of the image allows for the calculation of the ratio of the dimensions. For each of the three planes ${(x,y), (y,z), (z,x)}$ the ratio between the shortest and longest dimensions $c$ and $a$ is measured: ${ \frac{c}{a}_{x,y}, \frac{c}{a}_{y,z}, \frac{c}{a}_{z,x} }$.\
After the previously presented analysis is performed the first available scalar indicator of the transformation of the object can be determined: $$\frac{c}{a} = min \left( \left( \frac{c}{a}\right)_{x,y}, \left( \frac{c}{a}\right)_{y,z}, \left( \frac{c}{a}\right)_{z,x} \right).$$ The time evolution of the previously defined quantity is presented in figure \[fig:figure8\].
Velocity dispersion and tangential velocity
-------------------------------------------
With the directions of the principal axes determined, the velocity dispersion is computed in the direction of each axis. For the previously mentioned quantities the stars considered for the calculations reside in a spherical volume of a radius $r_c$ of interest, centered on the satellite. The velocity dispersion of the system associated with radius $r_c$ is: $$\sigma_{\star}^{r_c} = \left( \frac{ \sigma_x^2 + \sigma_y^2 + \sigma_z^2 }{3} \right)^{1/2}$$ In order to compute the rotational velocity associated to the system, three cylindrical shell volumes are defined. Each of the volumes is defined with a central axis constrained to pass through the maximum density region of the object and to be parallel to a principal axis dimension. The inner and the outer radii of the volumes are 0.95 $r_c$ and 1.05 $r_c$.
For all the stars bound to the object and included in the previously defined volume, the component of their velocity tangential to any concentric circle centered on the axis of the cylinder is considered for the average. The resulting average is the velocity $v_{i,j}^{r_c}$, where $(i,j) \in {(x,y), (y,z), (z_x)}$.\
With the dispersion and rotation quantities determined, the ratio: $$\frac{v_{rot}^{r_{c}}}{\sigma_{\star}^{r_{c}}} = \frac{max \left( v_{x,y}^{r_c},v_{y,z}^{r_c},v_{z,x}^{r_c} \right)} { \sigma_{\star}^{r_c}}$$ can be used as another indicator of the degree of transformation from rotationally supported satellite to a dispersion supported galaxy (\[table:table6\]). In figure \[fig:figure9\] the decrease of the ratio due to the effect of the tides can be observed.
Projected mass surface densities and cylindrically averaged surface mass densities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the quantities determined based on the bound amount of particles for the respective dwarf galaxies, the projected surface mass densities (PSMD) and cylindrically averaged surface mass densities (CASMD) have been determined. Unlike with the previous quantities where the nearby unbound particles are excluded from the calculations, in the PSMD and CASMD case they are included. The plots present in figures \[fig:figure2\], \[fig:figure3\], \[fig:figure10\], \[fig:figure11\], \[fig:figure12\] and \[fig:figure13\], are generated by projecting along the principal axes of the bound satellite all stellar particles inside a spherical volume of 10 kpc radius centered on the stellar density maximum of the galaxy. In the case of the CASMD calculations, the depth of the projection was reduced in order to include the stars with distances from the plane of projection smaller than 2.5 kpc. The resulting plots are available in figures \[fig:figure4\], \[fig:figure14\].
Evolution of satellites
-----------------------
### Galaxy A
Originally the most massive of the studied objects, satellite A enters the host halo on an orbit which brings it very close to the ErisDark’s center. Soon after the first pericenter passage, owing to the effect of dynamical friction the dwarf galaxy settles on an eccentric orbit with pericenter distances smaller than 5 kpc and apocenter distances less than 50 kpc. Before the end of the simulation the cuspy version of the object completes 15 orbits, while the cored version completes 14 orbits, as it can be seen from the top left panel of figure \[fig:figure15\]. In both cases the satellite is found at z = 0 close to its maximum distance from the host. The three dimensional half mass radius decreases from the original 1300 pc values to 220 pc and 110 pc for the NFW version and nonNFW version respectively. The time evolution of the half-mass radius can be inspected in figure \[fig:figure7\].\
The tides reach the stellar disc and unbinds 10$\%$ of the stellar mass before the second pericenter is reached. 90$\%$ of the stellar mass of the cored dwarf is lost prior to completion of the fourth orbit (figure \[fig:figure16\]). In the case of the counterpart with steep density profile, seven orbits have to be completed before loosing the same amount of stars.\
Based on the projected mass distribution of the satellite, it can be observed that the difference in the halo profile has no clear impact on the evolution of the shape of the satellite (figures \[fig:figure10\] and \[fig:figure11\]). The ratios between the shortest and longest dimension corresponding to both versions reaches the value 0.5 during the third pericenter passage and remains above this value throughout the simulation (figure \[fig:figure8\]).
From a kinematic perspective, the ratios between the rotational velocity and the dispersion associated with the respective half-light radius decrease to the 0.5 level differently for the two versions (figure \[fig:figure9\]). Before the first orbit is completed the cored satellite is described by a $c/a$ of 0.5. At the same time the ratio of the NFW variant decreases to values in the 1.0 - 1.7 range. Later during the third orbit, the value 0.5 is reached as well. It should be noted that the final size of the object with $\gamma$ = 0.6 is comparable to the softening length of its dark matter particles. Therefore the very final stages in the evolution of the object should be regarded with caution as the response of the object to tides is affected by the limited resolution ([@1996ApJ...457..455M]).
The evolutionary tracks of the descriptive parameters $c/a$, $v_{rot}/\sigma_{\star}$, and $M_{\star}$ are available in figures \[fig:figure8\], \[fig:figure9\], and \[fig:figure16\] respectively.
### Galaxy B
Unlike the previous dwarf galaxy, the second object has a significantly wider orbit. The apocenter distance varies around the 100 kpc value with a pericenter distance less than 10 kpc. During the 11 Gyr timespan of the simulation the satellite completes six orbits, and at the epoch corresponding to z = 0 it is aproaching its 7th apocenter (figure \[fig:figure16\]). The value of half mass radius shows large fluctuations in the case of the variant with shallow dark matter density profile, with large variations when the object is in the proximity of the periapsis. The half light radius of the alternative presents smaller fluctuations. Each of the versions of dwarf galaxies start with a half light radius of 1160 pc and end with a value of 1010 pc in the case of the cored dwarf and 900 pc in the case of the cuspy dwarf (figure \[fig:figure7\]).\
The stellar discs of the two versions start to lose significant amounts of stars during the second pericenter passage. By the end of the simulations the version with the higher central density has lost half of the initial stellar mass. In the case of the other variant this level of loss is reached before the 4th apocenter epoch. Moreover at z=0 90$\%$ of the original stellar mass is lost (figure \[fig:figure16\]).\
The velocity ratio corresponding to the NFW profile reaches the level of 1.5 at redshift 0. At the same epoch the cored dwarf reaches a value of 0.5 (figure \[fig:figure8\]).\
Spatially, the two versions of the object, maintain similar ratios of the minor and major dimensions until epoch 8 Gyr. Afterwards in the case of the variant with a cusp coefficient of 0.6, the ratio grows faster. The divergence in the velocity ratio appears at the same time; namely after the epoch corresponding to the 4th pericenter. Finally at z =0 , c/a fluctuates around 0.8 for the non-NFW variant and around 0.5 for the NFW variant (figure \[fig:figure9\]). When studying the projected density maps it is evident that the cupsy object maintains a two-armed spiral pattern while the cored dwarf approaches spherical symmetry (figures \[fig:figure10\] and \[fig:figure12\]).
### Galaxy C
The third most massive object is originally on a trajectory with a pericenter distance of 40 kpc and an apocenter distance of 110 kpc. Soon after one orbit is completed it decays to a trajectory closer to the host. The following orbits are characterised by pericenter distances in the range 10-20 kpc and apocenter distances in the 90-100 kpc range. As the previous satellite before the last epoch it completes six orbits (figure \[fig:figure15\]).\
Kinematically, the characteristics of the two versions diverge after epoch 7.5 Gyr which roughly corresponds to the third apocenter passage (figure \[fig:figure8\]). The indicator of the spheroidal transformation c/a clearly reflects the large difference in the transformation level (figure \[fig:figure9\]). While the cuspy object maintains a ratio around 1.5, the cored object reaches values below 0.2. The shape indicators of the two variants diverge earlier during the third pericenter passage and eventually converge to 0.7 values at z=0, roughly the time of the last apocenter passage.\
A visual inspection of the density map discloses a more complex case (figures \[fig:figure10\] and \[fig:figure12\]). The shape of the stellar distribution in the inner regions resemble case by case, the distribution of the satellite B pair. At the same time the outer, low density and spatially more extended regions are very different. Particularly they are more isotropically distributed in the case of object C than in the case of object B for both versions of the respective object.
The stellar masses of the two versions of satellite C remain approximately constant until the 7 Gyr epoch. From this moment on the stellar mass decreases from 1.7 $10^6 M_{\odot}$ to 1.0 $10^6 M_{\odot}$ in the case of the cuspy dwarf, and to 4 $10^5 M_{\odot}$ in its cored counterpart. The original value of the half light radius for both versions was 810 pc, while the final values are 680 pc and 650 pc in the cuspy and cored dwarf, respectively (figure \[fig:figure8\]). Fluctuations similar to ones observed with object B are present, although with smaller amplitudes. Moreover they start to be visible at later epochs than in the case of object B.
### Galaxy D
The object D is bound to ErisDark on an orbit with a pericenter distance of about 20 kpc and an apocenter distance in the 70-80 kpc range. During the simulation time frame the dwarf galaxy passes through 7 pericenters, and at z = 0 it is approaching the 8th (figure \[fig:figure15\]). The tides of the host galaxy start to significantly affect the stellar component just before 7 Gyr ago. From this epoch onwards the cuspy object loses $3 \times 10^5 M_{\odot}$ mass. During the same period its cored counterpart loses 8 $10^5 M_{\odot}$ (figure \[fig:figure16\]). Similarly to the previous cases the stellar component in the cored model begins to lose substantial mass when the onset of large fluctuations in the values of the $c/a$ ratio is also observed, reflecting the more impulsive response to tidal shocks relative to the cuspy case (figure \[fig:figure9\]). The fluctuations are particularly enhanced for the cored version. Close to the present epoch $c/a$ reaches $\sim 0.7$ for both variants of the model.\
Similarly, the velocity ratio starts to diverge at the 7 Gyr epoch and converge to similar values of 0.5 at z = 0 (figure \[fig:figure8\]). Shapewise the final state of the two versions appear to be similar (figures \[fig:figure11\] and \[fig:figure13\]). Moreover the evolution of the half light radius is similar for both cases, showing small fluctuations and a small decrease of the value from the original 640 pc values to 570 pc and 580 pc for the cuspy and cored object, respectively (figure \[fig:figure7\]).
### Galaxy EF
The Dwarf galaxy EF, which is the result of a merger between two objects comparable in size, evolves on a wide orbit with the pericenter distance varying from 30 to 50 kpc and apocenter distances with values as high as 160 kpc (figure \[fig:figure15\]). Since infall the satellite completes three orbits. After the merger, the stellar mass of the object remains virtually constant for both variants (figure \[fig:figure16\]). The ratio $v_{rot}$/$\sigma_{\star}$ stabilizes around $0.8$ for the object resulting from the merging of two cuspy dwarfs. For the other variant, $v_{rot}$/$\sigma_{\star}$ continues to decrease until it reaches values close to 0.1 at 13 Gyr epoch (figure \[fig:figure9\]). In the case of the shape ratio c/a the object resulting from the merger of the cuspy subhalos has on average a higher value; after 12 Gyr the average c/a is around 0.8 for the cuspy pair and 0.7 for the cored pair (figure \[fig:figure8\]).
The original values of the half mass radius prior to the merging of the two objects were 420 pc for object E and 390 pc for object F. Immediately after the merger the radius of the resulting objects is 550 pc and during the remaining simulation time it increases to 610 pc, with no significant differences between the cuspy and core variants (figure \[fig:figure7\]). This highlights a clear difference with tidally stirred dwarfs, in which the half-light radius always decreases.
Discussion
==========
In the current work the evolution of five pairs of satellites entering a MW-sized halo has been presented. Each pair consisted of two objects differentiated by a single parameter, namely the cusp coefficient of the dark matter halo. In each pair, each of the objects was composed of a stellar disk component and a dark matter halo. The virial mass of the objects spanned one order of magnitude from 3.3 $10^8 M_{\odot}$ to 3.83 $10^9 M_{\odot}$. The simulation commences at z =2.87 when all dwarf galaxies are in the proximity of their future host halo, yet outside its virial volume. The original distances to the host center ranged from 75 to 165 kpc. Since the last major merger experienced by the host halo takes place before z = 3 the described population of objects is representative of the earliest infall objects and thus the most tidally affected population. Galaxies with later infall epochs will be affected by the tides on average to a lesser extent.\
All of the objects with cored density profiles match our definition of dSphs before z=0. At the same time only two out of four objects with cuspy density profiles satisfy the criterion. The more efficient transformation of cored models is expected as their response to tides is more impulsive owing to their lower gravitational binding profile for comparable mass ([@2013ApJ...764L..29K]). In particular the binding energy decreases much faster towards the center allowing the tides to disturb the stars found closer to the center of the satellite ([@2012ApJ...751L..15L]).
Figures \[fig:figure17\], \[fig:figure18\], \[fig:figure19\] and \[fig:figure20\] show the time evolution of various structural properties of all models, highlighting how the cored models in general fit better the range of values that classical dSphs and UFDs span for such properties ([@2012AJ....144....4M]). We caution, though, that there is a lack of objects with small half light radii, which may reflect the relatively small sample of initial conditions adopted here (see next section).
The half mass radius, velocity and shape ratios have significant fluctuations on orbital timescales. Their fluctuations appear to be in phase with orbital position and grow in amplitude as more stellar mass is unbound from the respective satellite. In general the objects with an original $\gamma = 0.6$ show significantly greater amplitudes in the fluctuations than the ones with $\gamma = 1.0$, again reflecting the different binding energy profiles which place cored models in the more impulsive regime for the response to tides (which will be maximal near pericenter). The minimum of the fluctuations in half mass radius is reached when the object is near its periapsis, while the maxima is reached a few hundred million years afterwards.
In general the satellites with $\gamma=0.6$ are also transformed faster into dwarf spheroidals than their counterparts. The final dark matter to stellar mass ratio are significantly higher in the cuspy remnants (see table \[table:table5\]), yet the final values in cored remnants are still high enough to match those of classical dSphs and UFDs. Assuming a stellar mass-to-light ratio $(M/L)_* \sim 3-4$, appropriate for an old stellar population, (table \[table:table5\]) would yield values in the range $M/L = 90-1000$ for the cored remnants. Instead velocity dispersions and dynamical masses of cuspy remnants indeed appear to exceed observed values in model B and D, because of the very high central dark matter density. Note this result is not coincidental rather it reflects the fact that, while the core remnants have radii of less than 1 kpc, the initial dark matter-to-stellar mass ratio was very high even inside the central kpc in order to match the constraints from abundance matching with the chosen density profiles of dark matter.
All the tidally stirred remnants are found at $R < 100$ kpc from the host at $z=0$. Within such a distance from the MW and M31 all the galaxies in the mass range of the remnants (stellar masses $10^4 - 10^6 M_{\odot}$) are dSphs (or UFDs, which structurally appear similar to classical dSphs, see [@2012AJ....144....4M]). One is thus tempted to conclude that this is evidence of the fact that the most massive satellites falling early inside the host, which is the type of objects we are studying here, have predominantly shallow dark matter profiles. In other words, dwarf galaxies with the properties of the cuspy remnants that did not transform fully into dSphs are not observed in the inner halo of the MW and M31, which means cuspy progenitors must be rare (the only irregular galaxies in the inner halo, the LMC and SMC, are a few magnitudes more luminous than any of our remnants). Note that the latter inference is well grounded even with the small sample in this paper since specifically this sample contains the objects that have experienced the longest tidal evolution possible inside the main host (early infall population). We thus expect a larger number of such incompletely transformed objects with disk-like features in the much larger sample with varying infall time that will be presented in Paper II.
Note that idealized simulations already hinted at such a more efficient transformation of the cored models, still they never found such a strong effect because the mass ratio adopted between the satellite and the main host was at least an order of magnitude higher than in this work. The reason is that here the host halo is relatively low in mass (closer to $\sim 10^{11} M_{\odot}$ than to $10^{12} M_{\odot}$ when the most massive satellites fall in at $z \sim 2$, an effect that only a fully cosmological simulation can account for. The case for cored progenitors is suggested by the notion that dwarf galaxy satellites which had the highest star formation rates, as required to reach a stellar mass in the range of $10^6-10^7 M_{\odot}$ already at $z > 2$, are those in which feedback was most effective to turn cusps into cores ([@2010Natur.463..203G]; [@2012MNRAS.422.1231G]; [@2014ApJ...792...99S]; [@2015arXiv150202036O]). These are the objects in which the star formation (SF) efficiency, defined as ratio between stellar mass assembled and dark halo mass, was particularly high ([@2014ApJ...790L..17M]). A high star formation efficiency in classical dSphs versus similarly low mass field dIrrs is indeed seen in SF histories based on hi-res color magnitude diagrams (eg [@2014ApJ...786...44S]; Aparicio et al. in preparation).
Interestingly, gas-poor dwarfs with disk features have been detected in clusters ([@2006AJ....132..497L]) and have been explained as harassed galaxies that have accreted onto the cluster core only recently, thus have not been able to transform fully into dwarf spheroidals. It is tempting to speculate that such a population would be present in clusters even if the progenitors have dark matter cores before infall since a much larger fraction of galaxies accrete at $z < 1$ in clusters as opposed to $z > 1$ for satellites into galaxy-sized halos. This is strongly suggested by the evolution of some of our models, which also in the cored variant transform fully into dSphs only after nearly 10 billion years (eg see models B and D in figure \[fig:figure9\]).
Moreover in order for the velocity ratio of a tidally affected object to reach the $0.5$ threshold for a spheroidal it must lose more than 25$\%$ of its original stellar mass (figure \[fig:figure17\]). The total fractional mass loss was 1/3 at a minimum (in the cuspy version of model satellite D). This occurs for both cuspy and core variants, and implies a prominent tidal stream has to form if the object is transformed into a dSph. Detecting tidal features or tails might be difficult though because, as our simulations show, tails and streams show up at a surface density that is between $10^3$ and $10^4$ times lower than the central surface density of the object (\[fig:figure14\], \[fig:figure21\]), which corresponds to 7-10 magnitudes lower relative to the central surface brightness. The lowest values apply to cuspy models in which stellar removal is less efficient (figure \[fig:figure14\] and \[fig:figure21\]). This confirms earlier results of [@2002MNRAS.336..119M]. The transition to a marginally bound tidal tail and fully unbound stream following the orbital path is marked by the flattening of the profile at large radii, typically occurring at 3-6 kpc, or 3-6 times the half-light radius (figures \[fig:figure14\] and \[fig:figure21\]), confirming past work with a variety of simulation techniques and models (eg [@1999MNRAS.302..771J]; [@2002MNRAS.336..119M]). This means a very wide field of view would be needed to unequivocally detect the tidal debris surrounding the dwarf in addition to very deep photometry. The actual shape of the stellar profile varies also with projection and over time (figure \[fig:figure14\] ), but the basic facts just highlighted hold. We also notice that in some cases the change of slope of the surface density profile between the inner bound and outer unbound stellar component is more evident in the cuspy variant, probably because in the cored models tidal mass loss occurs all the way to the very center, leading to more continuous removal of stars as a function of radius.
The evolution of the observable structural parameters for the simulated objects shown in figures \[fig:figure18\], \[fig:figure19\] and figure \[fig:figure20\] also highlights that cored models can evolve enough in stellar mass and radius to end up in the region populated by Ultra Faint Dwarfs (UFDs), confirming a previous claim of [@2012ApJ...751L..15L] obtained with idealized simulations. In general the objects evolve from the proximity of the locus populated by dwarf irregulars towards the locus of ultra-faint dwarf spheroidals by passing through the classical dwarf spheroidal locus. Except for the satellite A pair all galaxies can be found in the locus of classical dwarf spheroidals and the transition region between the faintest irregular dwarf galaxies and spheroidals. Rather than being necessarily reionization fossils, as it has been claimed in the literature ([@2010AdAst2010E..33R]), some UFDs might be thus just more extreme outcomes of tidal stirring. This scenario has the attractive aspect of allowing to explain naturally why there is a substantial continuum between the properties of classical dSphs and those of UFDs. Such a population of UFDs would have cored profiles, while on the contrary a population of pristine UFDs formed by gas collapse in mini-halos would likely maintain its original cuspy profile as feedback from star formation would have a negligible effect ([@2012ApJ...759L..42P]).
Despite the low final stellar mass such a population would yield no tension with the proposed core formation mechanism via feedback ([@2012ApJ...759L..42P]) because it would be the remains of a population of much more massive dwarf galaxies that were severely affected by the tides of the host. Indeed among our remnants the UFD-like object originates from one of the most massive infalling dwarfs, whose initial luminosity would be comparable to Fornax, exactly the mass scale at which the effect of feedback should be important ([@2012MNRAS.422.1231G]; [@2014ApJ...792...99S]). Finding UFDs with cored profiles is thus a potential test of our scenario. UFDs forming from an early infall population of satellites would also be consistent with the notion that these galaxies typically lack an intermediate or young population ([@2012ApJ...753L..21B]) as star formation would be truncated soon after infall as gas is rapidly removed by tides and ram pressure when the cosmic ionizing background is still at its peak amplitude ([@2007Natur.445..738M]).
The smallest two objects replaced merge while orbiting the host galaxy at significantly larger pericenter and apocenter distances in comparison to the other satellites. The effect of the tides is minimal with insignificant stellar mass loss and small effects in the shape and velocity ratios for the merged objects with $\gamma$ = 1.0. In the case of the $\gamma$ = 0.6 mergers the velocity ratio further decreases due to the gravitational interaction with the host. If one considers the condition $v_{rot}$/$\sigma_{\star} < 0.5$ as the definition of a dwarf spheroidal, then the merging pair with $\gamma$ = 0.6 clearly reaches this state at the end. At the same time the merger remnant of galaxies with $\gamma$ = 1.0 fails the velocity criterion, although the later appears shapewise to be closer to a spheroid than the former. The formation of a significantly round object albeit with rotation still dynamically important cannot be caused by tidal stirring only since in that case the transformation of the initial disky shape is correlated with the redistribution of angular momentum due to tidally induced instabilities and tidal heating.
Hence finding a dwarf with photometric properties analogous to those of classical dSphs but with a significant rotational velocity might be the signature of dwarf-dwarf mergers. Indeed low luminosity ellipticals, whose kinematics is reproduced well by mergers of disks with intermediate masses, do retain significant rotation ([@2011MNRAS.416.1680C]). One of such rare objects might indeed be the Tucana dSph, which is on a very wide trajectory around the primary and exhibits appreciable rotation ().
Figure \[fig:figure14\] also shows that the change of slope in the case of the merger remnant occurs much more gradually, with a clear flattening not appearing before 6-7 kpc from the center. This is not surprising as in in this case the morphological evolution is not accompanied by significant tidal mass removal. The different shape of the profile relative to tidally stirred remnants is very interesting because it hints at a further possible way to distinguish between a dSph formed by tidal stirring and one formed via dwarf galaxies mergers. The presence of a swift change from one exponential to another should be the signature of a tidally affected stellar system.
Conclusion and Caveats
======================
To the authors’ knowledge the current work addresses for the first time the importance of the dark matter density profile for the dynamical evolution and morphological transformation of disky satellites into spheroidals in a cosmological context. Therefore the work bridges the gap between detailed simulations of dwarf-host interaction and fully cosmological hydrodynamical simulations of MW-sized galaxies which do not have at the moment the resolution to reliably address this subject. This is an important step forward since the assembly history of the host, the infall orbits of the satellites and the structure of the potential well of the host, which all concur to determine the effect of tidal shocks, are all self-consistently taken into account. As a by product, dwarf-dwarf interactions are also take into account, and we witnessed a particular example of an interaction which gave rise to a merger.
An important overall conclusion of this work is that tidal stirring is confirmed to be an effective mechanism for transforming disky field dwarfs into objects with properties resembling dwarf spheroidals and even Ultra Faint Dwarfs (UFDs). Most importantly, it now appears clear that the morphological transformation induced by tidal stirring is a natural and inevitable consequence of hierarchical structure formation. The transformation is enhanced when the satellites have shallow dark matter density profiles, as in our cored models, confirming previous results based on idealized simulations of individual dwarf-host interaction ([@2013ApJ...764L..29K]). In the latter case, both tidal mass loss of the stellar component as well as tidal heating and internal redistribution are augmented as the response of the galaxy is impulsive down to its central regions. As a consequence remnants can become as faint and puny as UFDs, which does not happen among the set of cuspy models.
We also found that major mergers of satellite galaxies with shallow density profiles can effectively evolve into spheroidals on wide orbits. Since the merger happens before the satellites are accreted by the host, when they have lower velocities,it naturally leads to a dwarf spheroidal orbiting far from the center of the host. Especially in the cuspy case the remnant retains significant rotation despite achieving a spheroidal shape, which would not happen in tidally stirred remnants This is a plausible scenario for the origin of distant dSphs such as Tucana and Cetus, and confirms a previous claim based on idealized simulations ([@2011ApJ...726...98K]).
Another important conclusion of this work is the identification of two signatures that could separate dwarf spheroidals formed due to a merger on large orbits from the ones formed due to the strong tides generated by the host galaxy. The first signature is the presence of a tidal stellar stream with a total mass comparable to the associated satellite. The second signature can be found in the stellar density/surface brightness profile of the object. It should appear as a fast transition on lengths of a few hundreds parsecs from the steep central exponential to a significantly shallower one. The objects that are not the source of such a stream or do not have a fast departure from the central brightness exponential decay most probably did not become spheroidal due to the gravity of their current host. They were probably formed through the merger of comparable galaxies.
There are of course important caveats in the simulations, which primarily stem from the fact that they are carried out in the dissipationless approximation, namely without treating hydrodynamics, star formation and feedback. One caveat is the inexistence of the baryonic disk of the primary. This would increase significantly the central density of the host, within 10-20 kpc, enhancing tidal mass loss and tidal stirring for satellites with orbits having pericenters smaller than $\sim 10-20$ kpc [@2010ApJ...709.1138D]. Given the orbits of the satellites analysed in this paper, this effect would play a role at least for some of them (eg model A and model B, which have the smallest pericenters). The neglected effect should enhance the tidal transformation, but may lead to complete tidal disruption of objects that would have otherwise ended up as UFDs, or produce UFDs out of cuspy progenitors ([@2010MNRAS.406.1290P]). Another caveat is the lack of a a gaseous component in the disky dwarf progenitors, but previous work has shown that this would be readily removed by ram pressure in the galactic diffuse corona over 1-3 Gyr for the mass range considered here ($V_{max} < 45$ km/s), especially at $z >1$ , when the cosmic photoionizing background maintains the ISM warm and loosely bound, thus suppressing further star formation even for the gas that has not been removed yet ([@2010HiA....15..193M]).
Furthermore, our modelling approach relies on the assumption that the progenitors of dwarf spheroidal satellites started out their life as disky dwarf galaxies. Cosmological hydrodynamical simulations show that this is a well justified assumption for dwarf galaxies forming in halos in the range $10^9-10^{10} M_{\odot}$ ([@2010Natur.463..203G]; [@2014ApJ...792...99S]), while at lower masses field dwarfs can have a rather thick and turbulent disk, with a ratio $v_{rot}/\sigma_{*} \sim 1$ (Shen et al., in preparation), which appears consistent with the kinematics of the faintest dIrrs in the Local Group (; [@2012AJ....144....4M]). A thicker, kinematically hotter disk could have a different response to tidal shocks. On the one hand the triggering of non-axisymmetric instabilities, such as bars and spiral arms, would be weaker due to the reduced self-gravity, on the other hand the disk binding energy will be lower, so that the direct effect of tidal heating could be stronger. [@2011ApJ...726...98K] have considered thicker disks in the wide range of initial conditions they explored in their tidal stirring simulations, finding small differences in the transformation as the initial disk thickness was varied by a factor 3, with only a slight tendency of thicker disks to transition faster to a nearly isotropic configuration. However, future cosmological hydrodynamical simulations with enough resolution to study the morphological evolution of satellites with the same level of detail as done here will be required to assess the impact of disk thickness and kinematics, of both gas and stars, on the efficiency of the transformation.
Finally, here we have considered a relatively small sample of satellites as we focused on the earliest infalling objects with a sizable mass, large enough to host luminous dwarfs and be sufficiently well resolved. The advantage of the small sample is that we could study in detail the different dynamical evolution between cuspy and cored variants of the same object. In addition, since these early infallers are exposed for the maximum amount of time possible to the tides of the primary we can safely assume that the results provide an upper limit on how deeply the structure of the dwarfs can be modified by tidal shocks in cored versus cuspy variants. As a result, we inferred that the population of satellites of the Milky Way should be dominated by remnants of cored objects otherwise we would see a population of dwarfs with intermediate properties between dwarf irregulars and dwarf spheroidals at $\sim 100-200$ kpc galactocentric distances, which is not seen neither in the MW or the M31 halo. In a forthcoming paper we will study a much larger sample of satellites which includes objects that are accreted at low redshifts. The size of the sample that we will present will be of the same order of the number of luminous satellites known so far to lie within the putative virial radius of the Milky Way, thus allowing to make statistically meaningful statements on the evolution of the entire population of satellites.
The first author is grateful to Annalisa Pillepich, Davide Fiacconi, Michela Mapelli, Doug Potter, Stelios Kazantzidis and Rok Ro$\check{s}$kar for their help. Funding for the work was provided by the Institutes for Theoretical Physics and Computational Science at the University of Zurich.
[l c c c]{} A & 3.83 & 13.0 & 140\
B & 3.04 & 12.0 & 75\
C & 1.51 & 9.5 & 82\
D & 0.94 & 8.1 & 157\
E & 0.40 & 6.1 & 165\
F & 0.33 & 5.7 & 159
[l c c c c c c ]{}
c & 6.0 & 6.1 & 6.3 & 6.4 & 6.8 & 6.8\
$r_s$ \[kpc\] & 2.18 & 2.00 & 1.53 & 1.27 & 0.91 & 0.85\
$\sigma_s^{\gamma = 1.0} [km s^{-1}]$ & 88.4 & 82.0 & 65.2 & 55.9 & 42.4 & 40.0\
$\sigma_s^{\gamma = 0.6} [km s^{-1}]$ & 84.7 & 78.6 & 62.4 & 53.4 & 40.4 & 38.0\
$M_{stars}$ \[$10^6 M_{\odot}$\] & 4.50 & 3.57 & 1.75 & 1.08 & 0.44 & 0.37\
$R_{d} [pc]$ & 80 & 80 & 80 & 80 & 80 & 80\
$h_{d} [pc]$ & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10 & 10
[l c c c c]{} A & 4.50 & 3830 & 9.6 & 93.8\
B & 3.57 & 3040 & 8.9 & 86.9\
C & 1.75 & 1510 & 7.1 &68.8\
D & 1.08 & 940 & 6.0 & 58.8\
E & 0.44 & 400 & 4.5 & 44.2\
F & 0.37 & 330 & 4.2 & 41.6
[ l c c c c]{}
A & 8.75 & 6.26 & 4.32 & 6.09\
B & 7.98 & 5.91 & 3.99 & 5.82\
C & 6.08 & 4.88 & 3.37 & 4.80\
D & 4.96 & 4.06 & 2.91 & 4.09\
E & 3.44 & 2.67 & 2.21 & 2.69\
F & 3.17 & 2.40 & 2.06 & 2.40
[l c c c c c]{}
$M_{500} [10^7 M_{\odot}]$ & 0.64 & 3.62 & 3.21 & 3.07 & 4.44\
$M_{500}^{\star} [10^5 M_{\odot}]$ & 0.25 & 3.49 & 3.23 & 3.37 & 3.50\
$M_{500}^{total}/M_{500}^{\star} $ & 256 & 104 & 99 & 91 & 127\
$M_{bound}^{total}/M_{bound}^{\star}$& 238 & 102 & 112 & 128 & 370\
\
$M_{500} [10^7 M_{\odot}]$ & 0.14 & 0.39 & 0.60 & 0.71 & 2.61\
$M_{500}^{\star} [10^5 M_{\odot}]$ & 0.06 & 0.72 & 1.42 & 1.75 & 3.42\
$M_{500}^{total}/M_{500}^{\star} $ & 234 & 54 & 42 & 41 & 76\
$M_{bound}^{total}/M_{bound}^{\star}$& 234 & 39 & 42 & 47 & 312
[ lccccc]{} $\sigma_{\star} [km/s]$ & 6.20 & 11.04 & 9.88 & 10.01 & 11.46\
$v_{circ} [km/s]$ & 9.90 & 18.85 & 17.33& 16.99 & 20.96\
$\sigma_{\star} $ / $v_{circ}$ & 0.63 & 0.59 & 0.57 & 0.59 & 0.55\
\
$\sigma_{\star} [km/s]$ & - & 3.52 & 4.54 & 4.92 & 8.95\
$v_{circ} [km/s]$ & - & 6.0 & 8.0 & 8.1 & 17.8\
$\sigma_{\star} $ / $v_{circ}$ & - & 0.59 & 0.57 & 0.61 & 0.50
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'High-quality (001)-oriented (pseudo-cubic notation) ferromagnetic YTiO$_{3}$ thin films were epitaxially synthesized in a layer-by-layer way by pulsed laser deposition. Structural, magnetic and electronic properties were characterized by reflection-high-energy-electron-diffraction, X-ray diffraction, vibrating sample magnetometry, and element-resolved resonant soft X-ray absorption spectroscopy. To reveal ferromagnetism of the constituent titanium ions, X-ray magnetic circular dichroism spectroscopy was carried out using four detection modes probing complimentary spatial scale, which overcomes a challenge of probing ferromagnetic titanium with pure Ti$^{3+}$(3$d^1$). Our work provides a pathway to distinguish between the roles of titanium and A-site magnetic rare-earth cations in determining the magnetism in rare-earth titanates thin films and heterostructures.'
author:
- Yanwei Cao
- 'P. Shafer'
- Xiaoran Liu
- 'D. Meyers'
- 'M. Kareev'
- 'S. Middey'
- 'J. W. Freeland'
- 'E. Arenholz'
- 'J. Chakhalian'
title: 'Magnetism and electronic structure of YTiO$_3$ thin films'
---
Recently the study of magnetism in titanates has attracted tremendous interest due to the variety of remarkable quantum many-body phenomena, i.e., spin ice states in magnetically frustrated pyrochlore titanates Ho$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ and Dy$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ with Ti 3$d^0$ electronic configuration, [@Science-2001-Steven] antiferromagnetism (AFM)-ferromagnetism (FM) crossover behavior of the ground states in the bulk perovskite rare-earth titanates $R$TiO$_3$ ($R$ = La ... Eu etc.) with Ti 3$d^1$ electronic configuration, [@RMP-1998-Imada; @JPCM-2005-Zhou; @NJP-2004-Moch; @PRB-2007-Komarek; @PRB-2010-Tak] strain-induced ferroelectric ferromagnet in EuTiO$_3$ films, [@nature-2010-Lee] and emerging interfacial ferromagnetism in the LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ and GdTiO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ heterostructures with a mixture of Ti 3$d^1$/3$d^0$ electronic configurations. [@NM-2012-Hwang; @Nphy-2011-Millis; @Nphy-2013-Gabay; @PRB-2014-Ruh; @MRS-2013-Coey; @NCom-2010-GB; @APL-2011-Moe; @PRX-2012-Moe; @PRB-2013-Jac] Particularly, the unexpected coexistence of ferromagnetism and superconductivity at the LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ interface makes it intriguing and challenging to understand the interfacial magnetism of titanates. [@Nphy-2013-Gabay; @PRB-2014-Ruh; @MRS-2013-Coey] On the other hand, in $R$TiO$_3$ most rare-earth elements have a partially filled 4$f$-shell with large total spin angular momentum (e.g., $S$ = 7/2 for Gd$^{3+}$), which are usually involved in magnetic interactions with the Ti$^{3+}$ sites. [@JPCM-2005-Zhou] The magnetism in titanates, in the bulk or at interfaces, can arise from either the rare-earth elements, oxygen vacancies, magnetic Ti$^{3+}$, or the combination of these. Therefore, element-resolved and valence-state specific investigations are fundamentally important and imperative not only for greater understanding the role of Ti$^{3+}$ in the emergence of magnetism but also for applications to spintronics based on titanate heterostructures.
Experimentally, however, there are several obstacles on the way to investigating magnetic order of Ti$^{3+}$. First, only very few techniques are capable of probing the element-resolved magnetism on nanoscale. To this end, circularly polarized resonant soft X-ray absorption spectroscopy, used in this work, is one of the most powerful available probes, with the total electron yield (TEY, surface or interface sensitive) mode having been proven to be suitable to investigate the interfacial magnetism. [@RMP-2014-JC; @NP-2006-JC; @Science-2007-JC; @NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee] At the same time, surprisingly, it was found that in the LaMnO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ and LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ heterostructures, the circular dichroism signal of interfacial Ti$^{3+}$/Ti$^{4+}$ with TEY detection mode at Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge is very weak ($\sim$ 1% of absorption spectra signal). [@NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee] Additionally, synthesis of high-quality samples with pure Ti$^{3+}$ (3$d^1$) is challenging due to the rapid conversion of magnetic Ti$^{3+}$ to non-magnetic Ti$^{4+}$ in low vacuum. [@APL-2002-Ohto; @APL-2006-Chae; @APL-2013-Misha] To fully understand the intriguing quantum many-body phenomena in magnetic Ti$^{3+}$ systems, synthesis and experimental investigation of the magnetism of pure Ti$^{3+}$ is essential and yet thus far lacking. [@NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee]
In this Letter, we study ferromagnetic Mott insulator YTiO$_3$ films (YTO) as a prototypical rare-earth titanate system. The structural and electronic quality of YTO films were confirmed by reflection-high-energy-electron-diffraction (RHEED), X-ray diffraction (XRD), vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) in Physical Properties Measurement System (PPMS), and resonant soft X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS). We thoroughly investigated the circular magnetic dichroism (XMCD) of titanium ferromagnetism in luminescence yield, reflection, fluorescence yield, and electron yield detection modes. Our work directly demonstrated the presence of long range ferromagnetic order of the constituent titanium ions.
{width="60.00000%"}
High-quality (001)-oriented (pseudo-cubic notation) YTO films were grown in a layer-by-layer fashion on DyScO$_3$ (001)-oriented (pseudo-cubic notation, corresponding to (110)-orientation in orthorhombic notation) single crystal substrates by pulsed laser deposition (PLD) under the same growth conditions reported elsewhere. [@APL-2013-Misha] For this work, YTO was carefully selected as a prototype for three reasons: (1) in contrast to other rare-earth elements, the total spin angular momentum of Y$^{3+}$ with 4$d^0$ electronic configuration is almost zero thus ruling out the contribution of the magnetic rare-earth element, (2) the ferromagnetic transition temperature of bulk YTO is comparatively high (27 - 30 K), [@APL-2006-Chae; @PRB-2009-Knafo; @PB-2003-Suzuki] and (3) bulk YTO has a large Mott gap ($\sim$1.2 eV) compared for example to easily oxidized and metallic LaTiO$_3$ ($\sim$ 0.2 eV).[@PRB-1995-Oki]
Due to the small ionic radius of Y$^{3+}$, bulk YTO has a highly distorted GdFeO$_3$-type orthorhombic structure ($Pbnm$ space group) \[see Fig. 1(a)\] with lattice constants of $a$ = 5.679Å, $b$ = 5.316Å, and $c$ = 7.611Å, [@PRB-2002-Nakao; @JPCM-2007-Loa] and shows intriguing orbital ordering [@PRB-1998-Sawada; @PRB-2002-Nakao; @EPL-2005-Okatov] with magnetic and orbital excitations. [@NJP-2004-Tanaka; @PRL-2006-Ulrich; @PRB-2008-Ulrich] In this work, to monitor the quality of YTO films, during growth RHEED patterns were recorded, as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). As seen, the sharp RHEED patterns with expected orthorhombic half-order reflections \[yellow arrows in Fig. 1(b)\] indicate a two-dimensional growth mode of YTO films. Structural quality of the thick ($\sim$ 98.6 nm) and ultra-thin ($\sim$ 5.8 nm) films were further confirmed by XRD using Cu K$_{\alpha1}$ radiation shown in Fig. 1 (c). To characterize the magnetic properties of thick YTO films, the magnetization versus temperature curve was measured with VSM in a PPMS. As shown in Fig. 1(d), as anticipated there is a clear ferromagnetic transition around 25 K for YTO film, showing excellent agreement with the bulk value of 27-30 K in single crystals [@PRB-2009-Knafo; @PRB-2002-Nakao; @PB-2003-Suzuki].
![\[\] (a) Schematic of XAS/XMCD signal detection using four different modes. During measurements, the grazing angles $\theta$ were kept at 20$^{\circ}$ and 10$^{\circ}$ for the beamlines 4.0.2 (ALS) and 4-ID-C (APS), respectively. Here, the arrow \[001\] (pseudo-cubic notation) indicates the growth direction of YTO films. (b) Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge XAS on YTO film using four modes-luminescence yield (Lum, 11K), total fluorescence yield (TFY, 15 K), reflectivity (Refl, 15K), and total yield electron (TEY, temperature 11K). The reference sample SrTiO$_3$ single crystal (5 $\times$ 5 $\times$ 0.5 mm$^3$) was measured at room temperature. XAS spectra of perovskite titanates is almost independent of temperature. [@PRL-2005-Hav; @JPSJ-2007-Ari] The dashed lines indicate the energy positions of t$_{2g}$ state of Ti$^{3+}$ 3$d$ band. The two small pre-edge peaks of STO spectra (bottom, orange curve) at $\sim$457 eV were attributed to the multiplet core hole-$d$ electron interactions. [@PCM-2002-Hen]](Fig2){width="40.00000%"}
![\[\] O $K$-edge XAS on YTO film at 15 K. The triangle suggests the second peak of O $K$-edge spectra on YTO film. The spectra of SrTiO$_3$ single crystal as a reference was measured at room temperature. ](Fig3){width="45.00000%"}
![\[\] Circular dichroism of YTO film under four detection modes - luminescence (Lum, 11K), total fluorescence yield (TFY, 15 K), reflectivity (XRMS, 15K), and total yield electron (TEY, temperature 11K). The dashed lines near 456 and 461 eV indicate the features derived from the t$_{2g}$ state of Ti$^{3+}$ 3$d$ band. The degree of circular polarization is near 100%. The direction of the applied magnetic field is parallel to the sample surface. Comparing with the magnetization versus magnetic field of bulk YTO,[@JPCM-2005-Zhou] the magnetic field-dependent XRMS intensity indicates the magnetization of the YTO film under 0.4 T magnetic field is near saturation.](Fig4){width="45.00000%"}
To further investigate the electronic and magnetic structures of YTO film, XAS measurements using four detection modes were carried out at two synchrotron facilities, beamline 4.0.2 (using the vector magnet) of the Advanced Light Source (ALS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) and beamline 4-ID-C of the Advanced Photon Source (APS, Argonne National Laboratory). As schematically illustrated in Fig. 2(a), these four detection modes are total electron yield (TEY, surface sensitive with 2-10 nm probing depth, measured at ALS with a 20$^{\circ}$ incident angle), [@PRB-2000-Gota; @PRB-1997-Pompa] total fluorescence yield (TFY, bulk probing depth $\sim$ 20 nm, measured at APS with a 10$^{\circ}$ incident angle), [@PRB-1997-Pompa] reflectivity (surface sensitive, measured at APS with a 10$^{\circ}$ incident angle), [@JPCM-2007-Freeland] and new luminescence yield mode (Lum, bulk probing depth $\sim$ 50 nm, measured at ALS with a 20$^{\circ}$ incident angle). [@PRL-1995-Chen; @JESRP-2004-Huang; @PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach; @JPD-2007-Kal] Since pure Ti$^{3+}$ is challenging to stabilize and it easily converts to non-magnetic Ti$^{4+}$ on the YTO film surface, only bulk-sensitive TFY and luminescence detection modes are able to probe the properties of the Ti$^{3+}$. In the past , however, TFY signal has been known to distort the line-shape due to the saturation and self-absorption effects, [@PRB-1993-Eis] generally produces a very small absorption signal and even smaller magnetic dichroism at X-ray energies around Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge ($\sim$460 eV) due to the low number of fluorescence transitions. On the other hand, in a *luminescence yield* measurement [@PRL-1995-Chen; @JESRP-2004-Huang; @PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach; @JPD-2007-Kal] the X-ray beam transmitted through the YTO thin film is converted to visible light in the substrate. This luminescence signal can be detected with a diode behind the sample as a function of X-ray photon energy and is free of saturation and self-absorption effects. As the result, it is a direct and primarily bulk sensitive probe.
With the confirmed structural quality, we investigated the electronic structures of YTO films by XAS at the Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge. As seen in Fig. 2(b), in contrast with the reference Ti$^{4+}$ spectra of bulk SrTiO$_3$ (STO) with four characteristic peaks,[@Nmat-2013-Lee] the spectra of Ti$^{3+}$ in YTO film shows a distinct lineshape (i.e. two main peaks) with a $\sim$ 2 eV chemical shift to lower energy [@PRL-2005-Hav] - the difference is mainly connected to the crystal field splitting and the Ti 3$d^{1}$ electronic configuration of YTO. In addition, due to the oxidation of Ti$^{3+}$ to Ti$^{4+}$ on the YTO film surface causing a mixture of Ti$^{3+}$/Ti$^{4+}$ after being taken out of the vacuum chamber and exposed to the atmosphere during the delivery process, a significant Ti$^{4+}$ contribution is observed by *surface-sensitive* TEY and reflectivity modes. For the interior unit cells, the recently developed bulk sensitive luminescence mode [@PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach] shows much clearer signal than that of the TFY mode characteristic of pure Ti$^{3+}$.
To further investigate the difference in electronic structure caused by covalency between Ti$^{3+}$-O and Ti$^{4+}$-O bonds, O $K$-edge spectra were measured. To get a fingerprint of Ti$^{4+}$ we acquired O $K$-edge spectra on a STO single crystal. As seen in Fig. 3, due to the hybridization between Ti and O ions, the near-edge two main peaks ($\sim$ 530.5 and 533 eV, marked by the dashed lines) derived from Ti t$_{2g}$ and Ti e$_{g}$ bands are present. [@JPSJ-2007-Ari; @PRB-1989-Groot] In contrast to STO, the O $K$-edge spectra of the YTO film shows that the first peak ($\sim$ 530.5 eV) is strongly suppressed whereas the second peak ($\sim$ 532 eV, marked by the triangle in Fig. 3) is shifted to lower energy and is enhanced; this result agrees well with the previously reported spectra of bulk YTO. [@JPSJ-2007-Ari] To identify these features, we recap that compared to the Ti t$_{2g}$ and e$_{g}$ band splitting on STO driven by the large cubic crystal field, the recent YTO band structure calculation predicts the presence of an occupied lower Hubbard band (LHB) and empty upper Hubbard band (UHB) with partial mixing of Ti t$_{2g}$ and e$_{g}$ bands.[@PRB-2014-Him] Experimentally, previous resonant X-ray *inverse* photoemission data attributed the second peak ($\sim$ 532 eV) seen in our O $K$-edge spectra to the UHB of YTO. [@JPSJ-2007-Ari] On the other hand, for the two peaks with higher energy ($\sim$ 536 eV), they are mainly derived from the hybridizations between the $d$ bands of A-site ions (Y and Sr) and the O 2$p$ bands (see Fig. 3). [@JPSJ-2007-Ari]
To probe magnetism, we carried out XMCD measurements at the Ti *L*$_{2,3}$-edge \[see Fig. 2(a)\] to reveal the magnetic properties of the YTO film, as shown in Fig. 4. Left and right circularly polarized soft X-rays were tuned to the Ti $L_{2,3}$-edge and recorded in TEY, [@PRB-2000-Gota; @PRB-1997-Pompa] TFY, [@PRB-1997-Pompa] reflectivity (X-ray resonant magnetic scattering, XRMS) [@JPCM-2007-Freeland] and Luminescence [@PRL-1995-Chen; @JESRP-2004-Huang; @PRB-2012-Meinert; @SP-2012-Kach; @JPD-2007-Kal] detection modes below 15 K and in an applied magnetic field. First, we point out that despite the surface sensitivity of TEY mode, the non-magnetic T$^{4+}$ (3$d^{0}$) ions present on the surface of YTO film do not contribute to the magnetism in YTO film and as such the XMCD signal is naturally absent in the TEY mode. For another surface-sensitive mode, XRMS, the XMCD signal near the Ti absorption edge represents the convoluted contribution from both chemical and magnetic scattering, and requires extensive modeling to identify the relevant Ti$^{3+/4+}$ states involved. [@JPCM-2007-Freeland; @PRL-1990-Kao] For the bulk-sensitive TFY mode, on the other hand, a small XMCD signal is visible but its spectral features are difficult to differentiate due to the low fluorescence yield intensity in this energy range. Finally, by using the luminescence detection method we were able to obtain a strong ferromagnetic signal on Ti. As seen in Fig. 4, the circular dichroism signal is strong ($\sim$10%), and its sign (negative or positive) can be flipped by reversing the orientation of the external magnetic field. To emphasize, the circular dichroism detected in the bulk sensitive luminescence mode under small magnetic field of $\pm 0.4$ T lends strong support to the ferromagnetic Ti$^{3+}$ state, whose spectral features are consistent with the suggested ferromagnetic titanium in LaMnO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ and LaAlO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ interfaces and the theoretically predicted Ti 3$d^{1}$ electronic configuration. [@NCom-2010-GB; @Nmat-2013-Lee; @PRB-1991-Laan] However, due to the insufficiently separated Ti $L_{2}$- and $L_{3}$-edge peaks, the pronounced shoulders, and the considerable contribution of the magnetic dipole term for solids lacking cubic symmetry, [@JAP-1994-OB; @PRB-1994-OB] the application of the XMCD sum rules for magnetic $R$TiO$_3$ is very difficult.
In summary, we developed layer-by-layer growth of high-quality Mott insulator YTiO$_3$ films and investigated their electronic structure and ferromagnetism of the Ti and O ions. A combination of RHEED, XRD, VSM and XAS confirmed the proper structural, chemical, magnetic and electronic quality. The ferromagnetism of the constituent Ti ions was directly observed with X-ray circular dichroism measurements in the luminescence detection mode. Our work provides a pathway to disentangle the independent roles of Ti and the A-site magnetic rare-earth ions in the perovskite titanates, and is important for studies of interfacial magnetism in $R$TiO$_{3}$-based heterostructures.
The authors deeply acknowledge the discussions with Se Young Park. Research at the University of Arkansas is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation EPiQS Initiative through Grant GBMF4534 and synchrotron work was supported by the DOD-ARO under Grant No. 0402-17291. The Advanced Light Source is supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. This research used resources of the Advanced Photon Source, a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility operated for the DOE Office of Science by Argonne National Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.
[999]{}
S. T. Bramwell and M. J. P. Gingras, Science **294**, 1495 (2001).
M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. **70**, 1039 (1998).
H. D. Zhou and J. B. Goodenough, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **17**, 7395 (2005).
M. Mochizuki and M. Imada, New J. Phys. **6**, 154 (2004).
A. C. Komarek, H. Roth, M. Cwik, W.-D. Stein, J. Baier, M. Kriener, F. Bour$\acute{e}$e, T. Lorenz, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 224402 (2007).
K. Takubo, M. Shimuta, J. E. Kim, K. Kato, M. Takata, and T. Katsufuji, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 020401(R) (2010).
J. Lee, L. Fang, E. Vlahos, X. Ke, Y. Jung, L. Kourkoutis, J. Kim, P. Ryan, T. Heeg, M. Roeckerath, V. Goian, M. Bernhagen, R. Uecker, P. Hammel, K. Rabe, S. Kamba, J. Schubert, J. Freeland, D. Muller, C. Fennie, P. Schiffer, V. Gopalan, E. Johnston-Halperin, D. Schlom, Nature **466**, 954 (2010).
A. Millis, Nature Phys. **7**, 749 (2011).
H. Y. Hwang, Y. Iwasa, M. Kawasaki, B. Keimer, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Nature Mater. **11**, 103 (2012).
M. Gabay and J. Triscone, Nature Phys. **9**, 610 (2013).
J. Coey, Ariando, and W. Pickett, MRS Bull. **38**, 1040 (2013).
J. Ruhman, A. Joshua, S. Ilani, and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 125123 (2014).
J. Garcia-Barriocanal, J. C. Cezar, F. Y. Bruno, P. Thakur, N. B. Brookes, C. Utfeld, A. Rivera-Calzada, S. R. Giblin, J. W. Taylor, J. A. Duffy, S. B. Dugdale, T. Nakamura, K. Kodama, C. Leon, S. Okamoto, and J. Santamaria, Nature Commun. **1**, 82 (2010).
P. Moetakef, J. Zhang, A. Kozhanov, B. Jalan, R. Seshadri, S. Allen, and S. Stemmer, Appl. Phys. Lett. **98**, 112110 (2011).
P. Moetakef, J. R. Williams, D. G. Ouellette, A. P. Kajdos, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, S. J. Allen, and S. Stemmer, Phys. Rev. X **2**, 021014 (2012).
C. A. Jackson and S. Stemmer, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 180403(R) (2013).
J. Chakhalian, J. W. Freeland, A. J. Millis, C. Panagopoulos, and J. M. Rondinelli, Rev. Mod. Phys. **86**, 1189 (2014).
J. Chakhalian, J. W. Freeland, G. Srajer, J. Strempfer, G. Khaliullin, J. C. Cezar, T. Charlton, R. Dalgliesh, C. Bernhard, G. Cristiani, H.-U. Habermeier, and B. Keimer, Nature Phys. **2**, 244 (2006).
J. Chakhalian, J. W. Freeland, H.-U. Habermeier, G. Cristiani, G. Khaliullin, M. van Veenendaal, and B. Keimer, Science **318**, 1114 (2007).
J.-S. Lee, Y. W. Xie, H. K. Sato, C. Bell, Y. Hikita, H. Y. Hwang, and C.-C. Kao, Nature Mater. **12**, 703 (2013).
A. Ohtomo, D. A. Muller, J. L. Grazul, and H. Y. Hwang, Appl. Phys. Lett. **80**, 3922 (2002).
S. C. Chae, Y. J. Chang, S. S. A. Seo, T. W. Noh, D.-W. Kim, and C. U. Jung, Appl. Phys. Lett. **89**, 182512 (2006).
M. Kareev, Yanwei Cao, Xiaoran Liu, S. Middey, D. Meyers, and J. Chakhalian, Appl. Phys. Lett. **103**, 231605 (2013).
W. Knafo, C. Meingast, A. V. Boris, P. Popovich, N. N. Kovaleva, P. Yordanov, A. Maljuk, R. K. Kremer, H. v. L$\ddot{o}$hneysen, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. B **79**, 054431 (2009).
T. Suzuki, H. Higaki, I. Ishii, M. Tsubota, and F. Iga, Phys. B **329-333**, 868 (2003).
Y. Okimoto, T. Katsufuji, Y. Okada, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 9581 (1995).
H. Nakao, Y. Wakabayashi, T. Kiyama, Y. Murakami, M. v. Zimmermann, J. P. Hill, D. Gibbs, S. Ishihara, Y. Taguchi, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 184419 (2002).
I. Loa, X. Wang, K. Syassen, H. Roth, T. Lorenz, M. Hanfland, and Y.-L. Mathis, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **19**, 406223 (2007).
H. Sawada and K. Terakura, Phys. Rev. B **58**, 6831 (1998).
S. Okatov, A. Poteryaev, and A. Lichtenstein, Europhys. Lett. **70**, 499 (2005).
Y. Tanaka, A. Q. R. Baron, Y.-J. Kim, K. J. Thomas, J. P. Hill, Z. Honda, F. Iga, S. Tsutsui, D. Ishikawa, and C. S. Nelson, New J. Phys. **6**, 161 (2004).
C. Ulrich, A. Gössling, M. Grüninger, M. Guennou, H. Roth, M. Cwik, T. Lorenz, G. Khaliullin, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. Lett. **97**, 157401 (2006).
C. Ulrich, G. Ghiringhelli, A. Piazzalunga, L. Braicovich, N. B. Brookes, H. Roth, T. Lorenz, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 113102 (2008).
S. Gota, M. Gautier-Soyer, and M. Sacchi, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 4187 (2000).
M. Pompa, A. M. Flank, P. Lagarde, J. C. Rife, I. Stekhin, M. Nakazawa, H. Ogasawara, and A. Kotani, Phys. Rev. B **56**, 2267 (1997).
J. W. Freeland, J. J. Kavich, K. E. Gray, L. Ozyuzer, H. Zheng, J. F. Mitchell, M. P. Warusawithana, P. Ryan, X. Zhai, R. H. Kodama, and J. N. Eckstein, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **19**, 315210 (2007).
C. T. Chen, Y. U. Idzerda, H.-J. Lin, N. V. Smith, G. Meigs, E. Chaban, G. H. Ho, E. Pellegrin, and F. Sette, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 152 (1995).
D. J. Huang, C. F. Chang, J. Chen, H.-J. Lin, S. C. Chung, H.-T. Jeng, G. Y. Guo, W. B. Wu, S. G. Shyu, and C. T. Chen, J. Electron. Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. **137-140**, 633 (2004).
M. Kallmayer, H. Schneider, G. Jakob, H. J. Elmers, B. Balke, and S. Cramm, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. **40**, 1552 (2007).
M. Meinert, J. Schmalhorst, M. Glas, G. Reiss, E. Arenholz, T. B$\ddot{o}$hnert, and K. Nielsch, Phys. Rev. B **86**, 054420 (2012).
V. Kachkanov, M. J. Wallace, G. van der Laan, S. S. Dhesi, S. A. Cavill, Y. Fujiwara, and K. P. O$^\prime$Donnell, Sci. Rep. **2**, 969 (2012).
S. Eisebitt, T. B$\ddot{o}$ske, J.-E. Rubensson, and W. Eberhardt, Phys. Rev. B **47**, 14103 (1993).
M. W. Haverkort, Z. Hu, A. Tanaka, G. Ghiringhelli, H. Roth, M. Cwik, T. Lorenz, C. Sch$\ddot{u}$$\beta$ler-Langeheine, S. V. Streltsov, A. S. Mylnikova, V. I. Anisimov, C. de Nadai, N. B. Brookes, H. H. Hsieh, H.-J. Lin, C. T. Chen, T. Mizokawa, Y. Taguchi, Y. Tokura, D. I. Khomskii, and L. H. Tjeng, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 056401 (2005).
M. Arita, H. Sato, M. Higashi, K. Yoshikawa, K. Shimada, M. Sawada, Y. Ueda, H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, S. Fujiomori, Y. Saitoh, M. Tsubota, F. Iga, and T. Takabatake, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **76**, 074720 (2007).
G. S. Henderson, X. Liu, and M. E. Fleet, Phys. Chem. Minerals **29**, 32 (2002).
F. M. F. de Groot, M. Grioni, J. C. Fuggle, J. Ghijsen, G. A. Sawatzky, and H. Petersen, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 5715 (1989).
B. Himmetoglu, A. Janotti, L. Bjaalie, and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 161102(R) (2014).
C. Kao, J. B. Hastings, E. D. Johnson, D. P. Siddons, G. C. Smith, and G. A. Prinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 373 (1990).
G. van der Laan and B. T. Thole, Phys. Rev. B **43**, 13401 (1991).
W. L. O$^{\prime}$Brien, B. P. Tonner, G. R. Harp, and S. S. P. Parkin, J. Appl. Phys. **76**, 6462 (1994).
W. L. O$^{\prime}$Brien and B. P. Tonner, Phys. Rev. B **50**, 12672 (1994).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the magnetic field dependence of the ground state of the $S=1/2$ $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model on the square lattice by the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method. With the use of the sine-square deformation, we obtain eight different ground states including plaquette valence-bond crystal with a finite spin gap, transverse N$\acute{\rm e}$el, transverse stripe, 1/2 magnetization plateau with up-up-up-down (uuud), and three new states we named the Y-like, V-like, and $\Psi$ states around $J_2/J_1$ =0.55–0.6. The phase transitions from the transverse N$\acute{\rm e}$el (at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.55) and stripe (at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.6) states to the uuud and Y-like states, respectively, are discontinuous, as in the case of a spin flop.'
author:
- Katsuhiro Morita
- Naokazu Shibata
title: 'Field Induced Quantum Phase Transitions in $S=1/2$ $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg Model on the Square Lattice'
---
Introduction
============
Frustrated quantum spin systems exhibit exotic ground states such as valence bond solid (VBS), spin-nematic, and quantum spin liquid (QSL) states with the effects of quantum fluctuations and frustration [@Mila; @Balents]. Even in classical systems, frustration generally leads to a large number of degenerate low-energy states, and thermal fluctuation sometimes brings about qualitatively new states [@classical1; @classical2; @classical3]. The $J_1$-$J_2$ square lattice is such a two-dimensional frustrated system [@exp1; @exp2; @exp3]. Its classical ground state for $J_2/J_1$ $<$ 0.5 is a simple N$\acute{\rm e}$el state, whereas it is reconstructed to form two $\sqrt{2}$ $\times\!\sqrt{2}$ sublattice N$\acute{\rm e}$el states for $J_2/J_1$ $>$ 0.5. The degeneracy originating from the relative direction of the two sublattice N$\acute{\rm e}$el states is solved at a finite temperature by thermal fluctuations with a collinear stripe order [@sqclass1; @sqclass2]. At $J_2/J_1$ $=$ 0.5, the classical ground state has macroscopic degeneracy and the thermodynamic properties are highly non-trivial. In the $S$ = 1/2 quantum spin system, several novel ground states such as plaquette valence-bond crystal (PVBC), columnar valence-bond crystal (VBC), and spin liquids with or without a spin gap have been predicted by numerical studies such as density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) calculations [@DMRG1; @DMRG2], exact diagonalizations [@ED1; @ED2], and other numerical simulations [@FM; @other1; @other2; @other3; @other4; @other5; @other6], but the true nature of the ground state has not been determined, and no consensus exists yet.
In a magnetic field, the presence of a 1/2 magnetization plateau of full magnetization with a up-up-up-down (uuud) structure has been predicted in addition to the transverse N$\acute{\rm e}$el and stripe phases by analysis involving exact diagonalizations [@uuud1; @uuud2] and linear spin wave theory [@uuud3]. However, the exact diagonalization studies were limited to small systems of up to about 36 spins, and the spin wave analysis assumed only three magnetic structures. Since the correct low-energy quantum fluctuations are reproduced only in sufficiently large systems and the possible magnetic structures are not limited to the three states, the possibility of finding new quantum states in magnetic fields still exists.
Model and Method
================
In this paper, we examine the $S$=1/2 $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model on the square lattice in a magnetic field by performing large-scale DMRG calculations. The Hamiltonian of this model is defined as
![(Color online) $J_1$-$J_2$ square lattice. $J_1$ and $J_2$ represent nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor exchange interactions, respectively. \[J1-J2-lattice\]](Fig1.eps){width="30mm"}
$$\begin{aligned}
H &=& J_1\sum_{nn} \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \mathbf{S}_j
+ J_2\sum_{nnn} \mathbf{S}_i\cdot \mathbf{S}_j - h\sum_i S^{z}_i,\end{aligned}$$
where $nn$ and $nnn$ represent nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor pairs, respectively (see Fig. \[J1-J2-lattice\]). In the present study, we focus on the strongly frustrated states of the model and calculate the ground state at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.45, 0.55, 0.6, and 0.675. Before we analyze the ground state of this model, we first show the magnetization processes of finite cylinders of length $L_x = 16$ with open-boundary conditions (OBC) and $L_y = 6$ and 8 with periodic-boundary conditions (PBC). The results obtained by the DMRG method are shown in Fig. \[simpleM-H\], where the position of the magnetization plateaus strongly depends on the circumference of the cylinder, $L_y$.
![(Color online) $M/M_{\rm sat}$ vs $h/J_1$ in cylindrical systems of $L_x$ = 16 at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.55. The red solid and black dashed lines correspond to $L_y$ = 8 and 6, respectively. \[simpleM-H\]](Fig2.eps){width="64mm"}
![(Color online) Four octagonal clusters used in the present calculation by the grand canonical SSD method. The position vector from the center and the radius of the system boundary are represented by $\mathbf{r}$ and $R$, respectively. \[ssdcp\]](Fig3.eps){width="60mm"}
This size dependence is mainly caused by the periodic boundary conditions on $L_y$, and we need to perform systematic calculations for large $L_y$ beyond the correlation length of the ground state to confirm the presence of the plateaus. We also need to remove the effect of open-boundary conditions on $L_x$, where edge spins contribute to an artifactual shift of the plateaus. For these reasons, it is not easy to obtain true bulk properties from finite systems of available sizes under usual boundary conditions. To overcome this difficulty, we carry out ground canonical analysis with the recently developed sine-square deformation (SSD) method [@ssd1; @ssd2; @ssd3; @ssd4]. The SSD deforms the original Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) to that locally rescaled by the function $f(\mathbf{r})$ as $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& J_1\sum_{nn}f\left(\frac{\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_j}{2}\right) \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \mathbf{S}_j \nonumber \\
&+& J_2\sum_{nnn}f\left(\frac{\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_j}{2}\right) \mathbf{S}_i\cdot \mathbf{S}_j
- h\sum_i f(\mathbf{r}_i)S^{z}_i,\end{aligned}$$ where $f(\mathbf{r})$ is a decreasing function of $|\mathbf{r}|$ from the center of the system defined by $f\left(\mathbf{r}\right) = \frac{1}{2}\left[1+\rm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi |\mathbf{r}|}{\it{R}}\right)\right]$, which vanishes at the boundary of the system at radius $R$ as shown in Fig. \[ssdcp\].
![(Color online) $M/M_{\rm sat}$ vs $h/J_1$ at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.55 (a) and 0.6 (b) obtained by the grand canonical SSD method. Arrows show the positions of anomalies in the magnetization process, indicating the presence of field-induced phase transitions. The inset shows the size dependence of the magnetization $M/M_{\rm sat}$ around the 1/2 plateau. Notice the change in the size dependence and the slope at the transitions. \[ssdM-H\]](Fig4.eps){width="64mm"}
The interactions of the spins near the boundaries with the main part of the system with a small energy scale efficiently suppress the artifactual oscillations of physical quantities induced at the edge of the system and act as a buffer of magnetic moments to maintain the optimal magnetization of the main system. This technique is known to reduce finite-size effects and reasonably reproduce correct bulk properties [@ssd4]. In the present study, we use the four octagon clusters p-$n$ shown in Fig. \[ssdcp\], where $n$ is the largest number of spins aligned in one direction. The small clusters (p-10 and p-12) are used in low magnetic fields, where large quantum entanglement entropy appears in the ground state. Since the accuracy of the DMRG calculations is improved in a higher magnetic field with weak entanglement entropy, the large clusters (p-14 and p-16) are used in this case. In the present DMRG calculations, the number of states, $m$, maintained in each block is 500 – 10000. The truncation error is around $2.0\times 10^{-5}$ at low fields and less than $5.0\times 10^{-6}$ in other cases. The magnetizations and energies of the systems are evaluated using the central 6 $\times$ 6 sites in the original octagonal clusters.
Results
=======
Magnetization process
---------------------
Figure \[ssdM-H\] presents the magnetization $M/M_{\rm sat}$ ($M_{\rm sat}$ is the saturated magnetization) at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.55 and 0.6. We find several anomalies in the magnetization curves that indicate field-induced magnetic phase transitions. The magnetization plateau at $M/M_{\rm sat}$ = 1/2 shown in Fig. \[ssdM-H\] has a shallow slope that is characteristic of finite-size systems in the present calculation [@ssd4]. With increasing system size, the slope in the plateau decreases, as shown in the insets of Fig. \[ssdM-H\], and the slope seems to vanish in large systems. As shown in Fig. \[ssdM-H\] by arrows, clear anomalies, such as a sudden change in the slope and a jump in the magnetization curve, are found. The detailed changes in the magnetic structure of the phases across these anomalies are analyzed from the real-space structures of the local magnetization $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ and the nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor correlation functions $\langle\mathbf{S}_i\cdot\mathbf{S}_j\rangle$ or $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$.
![(Color online) Nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor correlations $\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle$ of central 6 $\times$ 6 sites in the p-12 cluster at $h$ = 0. The thickness and color of the lines represent the magnitude and sign of the spin correlation $\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle$, respectively. \[pvbssou\]](Fig5.eps){width="64mm"}
![(Color online) Ground-state energy per site, $E/N$, as a function of the truncation error, $\epsilon$, obtained by the DMRG method with the SSD in the p-12 (a) and p-10 (b) clusters at zero magnetic field. The number of kept states in the DMRG is $m$. The black and red solid lines show linear extrapolations for $J_2/J_1$ = 0.6 and $J_2/J_1$ = 0.55, respectively. \[eps\]](Fig6.eps){width="86mm"}
PVBC in zero magnetic field
---------------------------
Figure \[pvbssou\] shows the nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor correlation functions $\langle\mathbf{S}_i\cdot\mathbf{S}_j\rangle$ of 6 $\times$ 6 sites in the p-12 cluster at $h$ = 0, where the spin correlations of the 4-spin plaquette state can be clearly seen. This is a characteristic feature of the PVBC. For comparison, we show the results at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.45 and 0.675 in Figs. \[NS\](a) and \[NS\](b), in which the N$\acute{\rm e}$el and stripe correlations are obtained, respectively. These results show that the PVBC is realized only in a highly frustrated region around $J_2/J_1 \approx$ 0.55. The singlet-triplet spin gap $\Delta_{\rm st}$ is estimated to be 0.5$J_1$ from the magnetization curves in Fig. \[ssdM-H\]. This value is larger than that reported in other papers [@DMRG1; @DMRG2; @other6]. The PVBC ground state is also obtained in the p-10 cluster in zero magnetic field. Thus, we conclude that the PVBC is the ground state at around $J_2/J_1 \approx$ 0.55. The reliability of the present results is shown in Fig. \[eps\], which shows the ground-state energy per site $E/N$ as a function of the truncation error $\epsilon$ of the DMRG. In both cases of $J_2/J_1$ = 0.55 and 0.6, the difference in energy relative to the extrapolated value in the limit of $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ is less than 0.4% for $m$ $>$ 5000 states. This shows that the accuracy of the ground-state energy is controlled by the truncation error $\epsilon$. However, $E/N$ still have a difference of more than 0.7% between the p-10 and p-12 clusters. This is also the case for the order parameter of the PVBC defined as ${\cal O}_{\rm PVBC}$= $\overline{\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle}_{\rm w} - \overline{\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle}_{\rm s}$, where $\overline{\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle}_{\rm w}$ and $\overline{\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle}_{\rm s}$ are the averages of the weaker and stronger nearest-neighbor correlations, respectively. ${\cal O}_{\rm PVBC}$ at $J_2/J_1$=0.55 is 0.0308 and 0.0179 for the p-10 and p-12 clusters, respectively, while it is 0.0287 and 0.0990 at $J_2/J_1$=0.6. We must therefore perform a careful analysis of larger systems to determine the precise value of the order parameter.
![(Color online) (a) and (b) $\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle$ of p-12 cluster and (c) – (f) $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$ and $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ of p-12 or p-14 clusters. Only 6 $\times$ 6 sites in the center area are shown. The thickness and color of the lines represent the magnitude and sign of the spin correlations $\langle\mathbf{S}_i\!\cdot\!\mathbf{S}_j\rangle$ or $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$, respectively. The diameter of the circles on the lattice represents the magnitude of $\langle S^z_i\rangle$. The schematic figures on the right side with four arrows show the corresponding classical spin structure of each quantum spin state. \[NS\]](Fig7.eps){width="86mm"}
![(Color online) Distributions of $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$ and $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ of p-14 cluster in 1/2 plateau phase and the neighboring phases. The thickness and color of the lines represent the magnitude and sign of the spin correlations $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$, respectively. The diameter and the color of the circles on the lattice represent the magnitude of $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ and the sign (blue and red are positive and negative), respectively. The figures with four arrows show the schematic classical spin structures. \[uuud\]](Fig8.eps){width="72mm"}
N$\acute{\mathbf{e}}$el and stripe phases in a magnetic field
-------------------------------------------------------------
The correlation functions of the nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor spins $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$ and the local magnetization $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ at finite magnetic fields are shown in Figs. \[NS\](c) - \[NS\](f). In Fig. \[NS\](c) we find strong antiferromagnetic correlation for nearest-neighbor spins and ferromagnetic correlation for next-nearest-neighbor spins. These correlations are consistent with the N$\acute{\rm e}$el state shown in Fig. \[NS\](a). In Figs. \[NS\](d), \[NS\](e) and \[NS\](f), the nearest-neighbor spin correlations are antiferromagnetic in horizontal directions but ferromagnetic in vertical directions, which is a feature of the stripe phase shown in Fig. \[NS\](b). The schematic classical analogues of these magnetic structures are represented in the right part of Fig. \[NS\]. At $J_2/J_1$=0.55, we expect that the transverse N$\acute{\rm e}$el phase in a low magnetic field ($h/J_1<2.1$) will be stabilized by quantum fluctuations because the transverse N$\acute{\rm e}$el phase is not the ground state in the classical limit in this region. At a high magnetic field ($h/J_1 >$ 3.88), however, the quantum fluctuations are suppressed by the magnetic field and a stripe phase is realized with large uniform magnetization, as in the classical system.
1/2 plateau phase and related states
------------------------------------
We next discuss the results around the 1/2 plateau phase. As shown in Fig. \[ssdM-H\](b), the magnetization at $J_2/J_1$=0.6 is continuous at the transition to the plateau phase. This result suggests a continuous change in the spin structure. To understand how the spin structure is modified across the transition to the 1/2 plateau state, we show the correlation functions $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$ and the local magnetizations $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.6 in Figs. \[uuud\](a), \[uuud\](c) and \[uuud\](e). Focusing on $\langle S^z_i\rangle$, we find four sublattice orders having an up-up-up-down structure with no distinct difference among these three phases. This kind of smooth change is also observed in the correlation functions $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$, which confirms a continuous transition. In these phases, one of the four spins is almost fully polarized (more than 95% of full polarization) and the correlations with the nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor spins are negligibly small with absolute values of less than 0.05. Hence, the nearly fully polarized spins are almost independent of the other spins. The other three spins in the unit cell interact with each other through the antiferromagnetic interactions and they are in a similar situation to frustrated spins on a triangular lattice. We therefore expect that the spin structures of these phases will be composed of one up-spin and the spin structure of the triangular lattice. We thus understand that the uuud state of the 1/2 plateau is the uud state of the 1/3 plateau of the triangular lattice [@tri1; @tri2; @tri3] with one additional up-spin. Indeed, at $J_2/J_1$=0.5 the ground state of the Hamiltonian for the three spins is shown to be the exact ground state of the triangular Heisenberg model in the classical limit. From the correspondence between the Hamiltonian for the three spins and the triangular Heisenberg model, the phases around the uuud phase should correspond to the Y phase and V phase of the triangular lattice [@tri1; @tri2; @tri3]. We thus name the phases around $h/J_1 \sim$ 2.1 and 3.0 as the Y-like phase and V-like phase, respectively. Although we have not yet confirmed the presence of an off-diagonal long-range order in the Y-like and V-like phases, the clear periodic structure of $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ and the stable transverse correlation $\langle S^+_i S^-_j\rangle$ with gapless spin excitations suggest that these phases have the characteristics of a supersolid [@sps]. The transition from the Y-like or V-like phase to the uuud phase is then expected to be a supersolid-solid transition. The corresponding classical spin structures of the Y-like and V-like phases are represented in Fig. \[uuud\] with four arrows in the unit cell. We note that such Y-like, V-like, and uuud states do not appear at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.45 and 0.675.
![(Color online) Nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor correlation functions $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$ and local magnetization $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ of p-14 cluster in $\Psi$ phase. The thickness and color of the lines represent the magnitude and sign of the correlations $\langle S^+_iS^-_j\rangle$, respectively. The diameter of the circles on the lattice represents the magnitude of $\langle S^z_i\rangle$. The bottom figure shows the schematic magnetic structure of the $\Psi$ phase. \[PH\]](Fig9.eps){width="66mm"}
$\Psi$ phase
-------------
In a high magnetic field of $h/J_1 \sim$ 3.6, close to the phase transition to the transverse stripe phase at $h/J_1 \sim$ 4, the one-dimensionally ordered state shown in Fig. \[PH\] is realized. The distribution of the local magnetization $\langle S^z_i\rangle$ has a stripe structure mainly consisting of almost fully polarized spins. The schematic classical spin structure is represented in the lower part of Fig. \[PH\], and we name this phase the $\Psi$ phase. We consider that with the reduction of the dimensionality, the quantum fluctuations are enhanced under competition with the Zeeman energy that stabilizes fully polarized spins. Similarly to the one up-spin in the magnetic unit cell of the Y-like, uuud, and V-like phases, almost fully polarized spins are nearly independent of the other spins. In the Y-like, uuud, and V-like phases, each of the almost fully polarized spins is surrounded by eight quantum mechanically correlated spins. Since the magnetic unit cell includes 4-spins, one out of four spins is ejected from the quantum mechanically correlated spins. In the $\Psi$ phase, two out of four spins are ejected and one-dimensionally correlated spin chains are formed. These states have a common feature of forming domains of nearly independent fully polarized spins, which are expected to be realized in the highly frustrated region where the Zeeman energy competes with the quantum fluctuations. In the periodic-boundary conditions (torus) at $J_2/J_1$=0.5, the stripe structure of the local magnetization has been rigorously proved to be an eigenstate [@uuud2; @psi]. We therefore expect that the $\Psi$ phase in a high magnetic field will be stable even at $J_2/J_1 \ne$ 0.5, although the phase boundary between the V-like phase and the $\Psi$ phase is still to be resolved. This transition is expected to be second- or higher order since we have no signal of a first-order level crossing. Even if we use the SSD, critical long-range correlations are affected by the presence of a boundary, which will smear the critical behavior around the transition. We therefore require finite-size scaling analysis to clarify the nature of the transition.
![(Color online) Ground-state phase diagram of $S=1/2$ $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model on the square lattice at $J_2/J_1$ = 0.55 (above) and 0.6 (bottom) in magnetic fields. The red lines show first-order transitions. Letters at the phase boundaries correspond to those in Fig. \[ssdM-H\] at the anomalies in the magnetization curve. \[phase\]](Fig10.eps){width="86mm"}
First-order transition
-----------------------
Normally the spin-flop transition is a phenomenon involving the reorientation transition of spins from the easy axis of anisotropic systems. This kind of discontinuous change in the magnetic structure is a first-order transition. A similar transition may occur under the effect of frustration and quantum or thermal fluctuations even in the isotropic Heisenberg model without an easy axis, although it is not trivial to assign the classical spin orientation in quantum systems [@spinflop1; @spinflop2]. In the present study, we find a jump in magnetization at the phase transition from the transverse N$\acute{\rm e}$el- and stripe-ordered phases to the uuud and Y-like phases, respectively, labeled by B in Fig. \[ssdM-H\]. Across the transition, the spin correlation functions entirely change, and we consider that this transition is a kind of first-order spin-flop transition from a transverse N$\acute{\rm e}$el- or stripe-ordered state to a uuud or Y-like ordered state occurring in the isotropic Heisenberg model. In contrast to the normal spin flop from the parallel direction to the perpendicular direction to the magnetic field, this transition is a spin flop from the perpendicular direction to the parallel direction to the magnetic field.
Summary
=========
We have investigated the magnetization process of the $S=1/2$ $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model on the square lattice at zero temperature by the DMRG + SSD method. The obtained ground-state phase diagram consists of eight different phases, as shown in Fig. \[phase\], including a $\Psi$ phase characterized by a stripe structure in a high magnetic field, and Y-like and V-like phases around the uuud 1/2 plateau phase, whose spin structures are continuously connected with each other. The $\Psi$, V-like, uuud, Y-like, and PVBC states are found only near the highly frustrated region around $J_2/J_1 \sim$ 0.55. Since these phases are not realized in the ground state in the classical limit, the appearance of such phases is a result of the strong frustration and quantum fluctuation of the $S=1/2$ $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The present work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (No. 26400344) from JSPS.
[99]{} , ed. C. Lacroix, P. Mendels, and F. Mila (Springer, Berlin, 2011). L. Balents, Nature [**464**]{}, 199 (2010). H. Kawamura and S. Miyashita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**53**]{}, 9 (1984). J. N. Reimers and A. J. Berlinsky, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 9539 (1993). R. Moessner and J. T. Chalker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2929 (1998). R. Melzi, P. Carretta, A. Lascialfari, M. Mambrini, M. Troyer, P. Millet, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1318 (2000). A. A. Tsirlin, A. A. Belik, R. V. Shpanchenko, E. V. Antipov, E. Takayama-Muromachi, and H. Rosner, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 092402 (2008). T. Koga, N. Kurita, M. Avdeev, S. Danilkin, T. J. Sato, and H, Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B [**93**]{}, 054426 (2016). C. Weber, L. Capriotti, G. Misguich, F. Becca, M. Elhajal, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 177202 (2003). C. L. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2056 (1989). H.-C. Jiang, H. Yao, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 024424 (2012). S.-S. Gong, W. Zhu, D. N. Sheng, O. I. Motrunich, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 027201 (2014). F. Figueirido, A. Karlhede, S. Kivelson, S. Sondhi, M. Rocek, and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 4619 (1990). J. Richter and J. Schulenburg, Eur. Phys. J. B [**73**]{}, 117 (2010). F. Mezzacapo, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 045115 (2012). J.-F. Yu and Y.-J. Kao, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 094407 (2012). T. Li, F. Becca, W. Hu, and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 075111 (2012). J. Richter, R. Zinke, and D. J. J. Farnell, Eur. Phys. J. B [**88**]{}, 2 (2015). Z. Fan and Q.-L. Jie, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 195118 (2015). W.-J. Hu, F. Becca, A. Parola, and S. Sorella, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 060402 (2013). S. Morita, R. Kaneko, and M. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**84**]{}, 024720 (2015). M. E. Zhitomirsky, A. Honecker, and O. A. Petrenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3269 (2000). A. Honecker, Can. J. Phys. [**79**]{}, 1557 (2001). T. Coletta, M. E. Zhitomirsky, and F. Mila, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 060407 (2013). A. Gendiar, R. Krcmar, and T. Nishino, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**122**]{}, 953 (2009). T. Hikihara and T. Nishino, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 060414 (2011). I. Maruyama, H. Katsura, and T. Hikihara, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 165132 (2011). C. Hotta, S. Nishimoto, and N. Shibata, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 115128 (2013). A. V. Chubokov and D. I. Golosov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**3**]{}, 69 (1991). D. J. J. Farnell, R. Zinke, J. Schulenburg, and J. Richter, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**21**]{}, 406002 (2009). D. Yamamoto, G. Marmorini, and I. Danshita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**85**]{}, 024706 (2016). H. Matsuda and T. Tsuneto, Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys. [**46**]{}, 411 (1970). J. Schulenburg, A. Honecker, J. Schnack, J. Richter, and H.-J. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 167207 (2002). H. Nakano and T. Sakai, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**82**]{}, 083709 (2013). H. Nakano, T. Sakai, and Y. Hasegawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**83**]{}, 084709 (2014).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Results of a detailed abundance analysis of the solar twins [16CygA]{} and [16CygB]{} based on high-resolution, high signal-to-noise ratio echelle spectroscopy are presented. [16CygB]{} is known to host a giant planet while no planets have yet been detected around [16CygA]{}. Stellar parameters are derived directly from our high-quality spectra, and the stars are found to be physically similar, with $\Delta$[$T_{\rm eff}$]{} $=+43$ K, $\Delta \log g=-0.02$ dex, and $\Delta \xi=+0.10$ km s$^{-1}$ (in the sense of A $-$ B), consistent with previous findings. Abundances of 15 elements are derived and are found to be indistinguishable between the two stars. The abundances of each element differ by $\leq 0.026$ dex, and the mean difference is $+0.003 \pm 0.015$ ($\sigma$) dex. Aside from Li, which has been previously shown to be depleted by a factor of at least 4.5 in [16CygB]{} relative to [16CygA]{}, the two stars appear to be chemically identical. The abundances of each star demonstrate a positive correlation with the condensation temperature of the elements ([$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}); the slopes of the trends are also indistinguishable. In accordance with recent suggestions, the positive slopes of the \[m/H\]-[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} relations may imply that terrestrial planets have not formed around either [16CygA]{} or [16CygB]{}. The physical characteristics of the 16 Cyg system are discussed in terms of planet formation models, and plausible mechanisms that can account for the lack of detected planets around [16CygA]{}, the disparate Li abundances of [16CygA and B]{}, and the eccentricity of the planet [16CygB]{} b are suggested.'
author:
- 'Simon C. Schuler, Katia Cunha, Verne V. Smith, Luan Ghezzi, Jeremy R. King, Constantine P. Deliyannis, AND Ann Merchant Boesgaard'
title: 'DETAILED ABUNDANCES OF THE SOLAR TWINS 16 CYGNI A AND B: CONSTRAINING PLANET FORMATION MODELS'
---
INTRODUCTION {#s:intro}
============
[16CygA]{} and [16CygB]{} are a well known common proper-motion pair of solar-twin stars with spectral types G1.5V and G3V, respectively. Stellar parameters and \[Fe/H\] abundances of the pair have been derived by numerous groups , and the abundances of additional elements have been derived by others . In each study, [16CygA and B]{} have been found to be physically similar, with A being slightly hotter and having a slightly lower surface gravity than B, consistent with their spectral types. Differences in the derived stellar parameters in the sources listed above range from +25 to +62 K in [$T_{\rm eff}$]{}, -0.03 to -0.15 dex in $\log g$, and 0 to +0.05 dex in \[Fe/H\] (all comparisons herein are made in the sense of A $-$ B).
A defining property distinguishing the two stars is the designation of [16CygB]{} as a planet host. @1997ApJ...483..457C reported the presence of a radial-velocity detected planet ([16CygB]{} b) with $M \sin i=1.5 \;
M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ orbiting [16CygB]{} on an eccentric orbit ($e=0.63$), but despite being monitored with the same temporal coverage, no planet was detected around [16CygA]{}. Continued radial-velocity monitoring has yielded no additional planet signatures for either star (D. Fischer, private communication). Imaging observations, however, do indicate that [16CygA]{} has a faint M dwarf binary companion with a separation of $\sim 3$”, corresponding to projected separation of $\sim 70$ AU at the measured distance of the system [$\sim 22$ pc; @1999PASP..111..321H; @2001AJ....121.3254T; @2002ApJ...581..654P]. Whether these two objects are gravitationally bound has yet to be determined firmly, but initial proper motion measurements do suggest that they are physically associated [@2002ApJ...581..654P].
and subsequently @1997AJ....113.1871K found that [16CygA and B]{} differ in another fundamental way: their Li abundances. The photospheric Li abundance of [16CygB]{} is a factor $\geq 4.5$ lower than that of [16CygA]{}. While both stars are depleted in Li relative to the Solar System’s meteoritic value , the Li abundance of [16CygA]{} ($\log N(\mathrm{Li})=1.27$) is slightly higher and that of [16CygB]{} is lower ($\log N(\mathrm{Li}) \leq 0.60$) than that of the Sun ($\log N_{\odot}(\mathrm{Li})=1.05$) [@1997AJ....113.1871K]. The difference in the Li abundances of [16CygA and B]{} cannot be explained by standard stellar models, which predict Li depletion is a function of stellar age, mass, and composition; empirical evidence suggests that an extra parameter is needed. @1997AJ....113.1871K argue that a slow mixing mechanism, possibly related to rotation, can account for the low absolute Li abundances of both stars, and they discuss a possible connection between Li depletion and planet formation as an explanation for the difference between the two. More recently, others have also argued that an extra parameter (beyond standard models) is needed to account for the observed Li abundances of solar-type stars . @2000AJ....119.2437D note that the Li–[$T_{\rm eff}$]{} trend could be quite steep for solar twins, consistent with the 16 Cyg A – Sun – 16 Cyg B pattern, so that even if initial angular momentum ($J_{\mathrm{o}}$) and rotational history do play the role of the extra parameter, $J_{\mathrm{o}}$ need not be unreasonably different between A and B. @2000AJ....119.2437D also found that the Be abundances of [16CygA and B]{} are the same within the measurement uncertainties, placing an additional constraint on the mechanism responsible for the disparate Li abundances.
In this Letter we present the results of a detailed abundance analysis of 15 elements of the solar twins [16CygA]{} (HR7503, HD186408, HIP96895) and [16CygB]{} (HR7504, HD186427, HIP96901) based on high-resolution echelle spectroscopy. The abundances allow us to constrain more fully the physical similarities of the two stars, and the implications for Li depletion and planet formation in this system are discussed.
DATA AND ANALYSIS {#s:dat}
=================
Abundances of 15 elements have been derived from high-resolution, high-signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) spectroscopy of [16CygA and B]{} obtained with the 10-m Keck I telescope and HIRES echelle spectrograph (UT 1994 July 30). The spectra are characterized by a nominal resolution of $R=\lambda / \Delta \lambda=45,000$ and SNR at the continuum near $\lambda 6700$ of 750 and 1050 for [16CygA]{} and [16CygB]{}, respectively. A solar spectrum (Moon) was also obtained and has a SNR of 1500 near $\lambda 6700$. The data are the same as those used by @1997AJ....113.1871K, in which the observations, calibration scheme, and data reduction are fully described.
An updated version of the LTE spectral analysis package MOOG [@1973ApJ...184..839S] was used for the abundance analysis. All abundances are derived from equivalent width (EW) measurements of atomic lines and the measurements were made using the one-dimensional spectrum analysis package SPECTRE [@1987BAAS...19.1129F]. Carbon abundances are also derived by using the synthesis method to fit the observed spectra of two features ($\lambda5086$ and $\lambda5135.6$) of the C$_2$ Swan system. Stellar parameters were derived using excitation and ionization balance of and lines in the usual manner.
Our abundance and error analyses follow exactly those described in @2011ApJ...732...55S, where a more detailed description of the procedures can be found. Final abundances– given relative to solar abundances derived from our solar spectrum– stellar parameters, and uncertainties for [16CygA and B]{} are given in Table \[tab:params\]. The adopted line list, equivalent width measures, and line-by-line abundances of each element for the Sun, [16CygA]{}, and [16CygB]{} are provided in Table \[tab:linelist\].
RESULTS & DISCUSSION {#s:RandD}
====================
The stellar parameters shown in Table \[tab:params\], we find [16CygA and B]{} to be physically similar, with A being slightly hotter and having a slightly lower surface gravity than B. The differences in parameters are $\Delta$[$T_{\rm eff}$]{} $=+43 \pm
45$ K, $\Delta \log g=-0.02 \pm 0.17$ dex, and $\Delta \xi=+0.10 \pm 0.11$ km s$^{-1}$. While the parameters are the same within the uncertainties, previous studies find consistently that [16CygA]{} is slightly hotter and has a lower surface gravity than [16CygB]{}, suggesting that the small parameter differences are real.
The \[Fe/H\] abundances are found to be indistinguishable within uncertainties, with $\Delta$\[Fe/H\] $=+0.018 \pm 0.025$ ($\sigma$) dex, in agreement with previous studies. The difference in the Fe abundance, $\Delta$\[Fe/H\], is the average of the line-by-line abundance differences of the and lines (difference of each individual line), as opposed to the difference in the mean abundances. @2001ApJ...553..405L carried out a differential Fe abundance analysis of [16CygA and B]{} and found A to be enhanced in Fe relative to B by $0.025
\pm 0.009$ dex. However, @2005PASJ...57...83T conducted a similar differential analysis and found the metallicities to be identical at a level of $\lesssim 0.01$ dex. Takeda also pointed out a possible systematic error in the analysis of @2001ApJ...553..405L that could account for the different results. Abundances of the remaining elements derived here are also found to be indistinguishable, as seen in Table \[tab:params\] and shown graphically in Figure \[fig:dif\]. The abundance differences shown in Figure \[fig:dif\] are the means of the line-by-line differences for each element. The mean abundance difference of all elements is $+0.003 \pm 0.015$ ($\sigma$) dex, with no element abundance differing by more than 0.026 dex between the two stars.
Given the marked agreement in the abundances of [16CygA and B]{} for the 15 elements studied here, it seems likely that these two binary components are chemically identical save the factor of $\geq 4.5$ difference in their Li abundances [@1997AJ....113.1871K]. The chemical homogeneity suggests that the Li abundance difference is not primordial but rather due to some physical process during the lifetime of the system. @2001ApJ...553..405L suggested that accretion of planetary material by A could explain its enhanced Li abundance relative to B. have alternatively demonstrated that episodic accretion onto a young star can affect its internal structure and increase its core temperature, resulting in enhanced surface Li depletion. The similar chemical compositions of [16CygA and B]{} argues against any differential accretion onto either of the stars having occurred.
The disparate Li abundances of [16CygA and B]{} are more likely the result of rotationally-induced mixing and differences in angular momentum evolution. @1997AJ....113.1871K argue that non-standard slow mixing on the main sequence, possibly related to rotation, can account for the stars’ low absolute Li abundances. The difference in the Li abundances of [16CygA and B]{} would then be due to differences in $J_{\mathrm{o}}$ and/or the rates of angular momentum loss. @1997AJ....113.1871K suggest that planet formation could affect the angular momentum evolution of the host star. Recent modeling efforts do indeed demonstrate the plausibility of this assertion . For instance, shows that shear-induced turbulence due to core-envelope decoupling can result in enhanced Li depletion in solar-type stars and that stars with slow rotation rates on the zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) have longer core-envelope coupling timescales than fast rotators. Slow rotators are thus expected to deplete more Li than fast rotators. Bouvier further demonstrates that, compared to stars with short-lived circumstellar disks, stars with longer-lived disks will experience more angular momentum loss via magnetic star-disk interactions and will arrive on the ZAMS as more slowly rotating stars and thus have lower Li abundances.
This could explain, at least qualitatively, why two otherwise physically similar and chemically homogeneous stars such as [16CygA and B]{} could have significantly different Li abundances. Whereas the presence of a massive planet orbiting [16CygB]{} evidently requires a disk with a lifetime sufficient to form such a planet, the lack of a detected planet orbiting [16CygA]{} suggests that, if this star had a disk, its physical properties were such that planet formation was inhibited. Both observational [e.g., @1996ApJ...458..312J] and computational [e.g., @2005MNRAS.363..641M] studies suggest disk structure and as a result planet formation are disrupted in binary systems with separations less than 100 AU. If the disk of [16CygA]{} was truncated by its M dwarf companion, determined to be at $\sim 70$ AU, its shorter lifetime compared to the planet-forming disk of [16CygB]{} may have resulted in less Li destruction. While the lower Li abundance of [16CygB]{} relative to [16CygA]{} is consistent with this scenario, results of observational studies aimed at tying enhanced Li depletion to the presence of planets have not reached a consensus on the matter . Nonetheless, the case of [16CygA and B]{} is intriguing as it may be an ideal system for further studies of the possible connection between binarity, planet formation, and Li depletion.
Abundance Trends with Condensation Temperature of the Elements {#ss:tc}
--------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that no planet has heretofore been discovered around [16CygA]{} does not preclude the existence of a planet orbiting this star. However, the chemical composition of [16CygA and B]{} may place additional constraints on the existence of such a planet. @2009ApJ...704L..66M have demonstrated that the Sun is deficient in refractory elements relative to volatile elements compared to a sample of solar twins. Moreover, the deficiencies are correlated with the condensation temperature of the elements ([$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}) such that the abundances of refractory elements ([$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}$\gtrsim 900$ K) decrease with increasing [$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}. @2009ApJ...704L..66M suggest that the abundance pattern is due to dust condensation and terrestrial planet formation in the proto-solar nebula. Follow-up studies including larger samples of solar twins and analogs found that the abundance patterns of $\sim85$% of the stars analyzed differ from the Sun, i.e., they have increasing abundances of refractory elements as a function of [$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}. The authors speculate that the remaining $\sim 15$% with flat or decreasing trends are potential terrestrial planet hosts.
We have recently extended the analysis of abundances versus [$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} trends to a sample of 10 stars known to host giant planets [@2011ApJ...732...55S]. The slopes of linear least-squares fits to the \[m/H\]-[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} trends were compared to similar slopes for a sample of 121 stars with and without known giant planets from @2010MNRAS.407..314G; the distribution of slopes as a function of \[Fe/H\] for this larger sample was taken as the general trend arising from Galactic chemical evolution. Four of the 10 stars in our sample have very close-in giant planets (three at 0.05 AU) and are found to have positive slopes that fall above the general trend defined by the Gonzalez et al. data. These stars are speculated to have accreted refractory-rich planet material sometime during the evolution of their planetary systems. Abundance trends with [$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} then may not only indicate the presence of terrestrial planets but also provide clues to the architecture of a planetary system and/or evolution thereof. The remaining six stars from @2011ApJ...732...55S have negative slopes, possibly indicating the presence of terrestrial planets, but the slopes fall along the general trend of Galactic chemical evolution and thus may not be related to planet formation.
The abundances of [16CygA and B]{} are plotted versus [$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} in Figure \[fig:tc\]. Only the refractory elements ([$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{}$\gtrsim 900$ K) are considered, because it is among these elements that the putative planet signature has been detected [@2009ApJ...704L..66M]. The abundances are plotted against 50% [$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} from @2003ApJ...591.1220L. Slopes of linear least-squares fits are positive and identical within the uncertainties: $m_{\mathrm{A}}=5.77 \pm 2.08 \times 10^{-5}$ dex K$^{-1}$ and $m_{\mathrm{B}}=4.42 \pm 1.94 \times 10^{-5}$ dex K$^{-1}$ for [16CygA]{} and [16CygB]{}, respectively.
Positive slopes in the \[m/H\]-[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} relations for [16CygA and B]{}, in the interpretation of , imply that these solar twins are not terrestrial planet hosts. Continued RV monitoring have failed to yield additional planet signatures for either [16CygA and B]{}, but the sensitivity of the ground-based RV observations may not be sufficient to detect small terrestrial planets. @2007AJ....134.1276W investigated the likelihood that additional planets could survive in the [16CygB]{} system given the large eccentricity of [16CygB]{} b. Using test-particle simulations, they found that particles only remained in stable orbits inside 0.3 AU, leaving open the possibility that short period planets may exist in this system. However, combining the numerical simulations with RV monitoring data, planets with masses $M \sin i \gtrsim 2$ Neptune mass with periods of less than about 100 days (roughly corresponding to $a=0.3$ AU) can be excluded at the 99% confidence level.
The physical process(es) responsible for the large eccentricities characteristic of many of the known extrasolar planets, including [16CygB]{} b, is currently not well constrained. Planet-disk interactions have been investigated, but simulations generally result in the dampening of orbital eccentricities and do not reproduce the observed planet eccentricity distribution . An alternative explanation is dynamical instabilities resulting from planet-planet scattering. Simulations of multi-planet systems can produce planets with highly eccentric orbits, and more importantly, they can reproduce the observed extrasolar planet eccentricity distribution [e.g., @2008ApJ...686..621F; @2009ApJ...699L..88R]. For [16CygB]{} b, [16CygA]{} may be the culprit. Secular interactions with a distant stellar companion have been shown to produce long-period oscillations in the eccentricities of a planet orbiting the companion binary star [the so called Kozai mechanism; @2005ApJ...627.1001T]. @1997Natur.386..254H and @1997ApJ...477L.103M have independently demonstrated that such a mechanism is plausibly responsible for the large eccentricity of [16CygB]{} b.
A possible consequence of induced eccentricity enhancement is the ejection of disk or planet material in the inner region of the system, disrupting terrestrial planet formation. Simulations testing the effects of giant planets with eccentric orbits on the formation of terrestrial planets generally show a near complete clearing out of inner planetary material and thus no terrestrial planet formation . In particular, reported that in simulations in which a giant planet scattered to a minimum periastron distance of $< 1.3$ AU, all of the terrestrial material in those systems was destroyed. Extending this result to [16CygB]{} b, the periastron of which is $r_{\mathrm{p}}=0.52$ AU based on the most recently derived orbital parameters [$e=0.689$ and $a=1.68$ AU; @2007ApJ...654..625W], no terrestrial planet material would be expected to have survived around [16CygB]{}. This is consistent with the implication of the positive slopes in the \[m/H\]-[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} relations for [16CygA and B]{}.
Conclusions {#s:con}
===========
We have presented the results of a detailed abundance analysis of the solar twins [16CygA and B]{}, the second of which is host to a giant planet. Aside from a factor of $\sim 4.5$ difference in Li abundances, the two stars are found to be otherwise chemically identical based on the 15 elements considered. Slopes in the \[m/H\]-[$T_{\mathrm{c}}$]{} relations are also statistically identical and are another indication that [16CygA and B]{} are chemically homogeneous. The stark consistency of the compositions of these stars suggest that the physical process(es) responsible for the enhanced Li depletion in B did not alter the abundances of other elements. This argues against any kind of accretion related mechanism and supports differences in internal mixing efficiencies possibly related to different angular momentum evolutions as the most likely explanation for the disparate Li abundances. Enhanced Li depletion in B can be plausibly tied to the presence of its giant planet, as predicted by rotational stellar evolution models; however, the mixed observational results regarding Li abundances of planet host stars cloud this issue. More work is clearly required to understand how star-disk interactions and/or planet formation does or does not increase Li depletion in planet host stars.
The chemical homogeneity of [16CygA and B]{}, combined with the heretofore lack of detected planets around [16CygA]{}, further suggests that the planet formation process did not affect the bulk composition of [16CygB]{}. Since the discovery that stars with giant planets tend to be more metal-rich than stars without known planets , countless abundance studies of host stars have aimed to identify possible chemical vestiges of the planet formation process. As described above, Li may be one of these. As for the overall metallicity of planet hosts, the result for [16CygA and B]{} adds to the considerable evidence indicating that the planet-metallicity correlation for stars with giant planets is intrinsic in nature and does not arise from processes, such as accretion of solid-body material, associated with the formation and evolution of giant planets. Furthermore, it appears that the abundances of individual elements heavier than Li [with the possible exception of Be and B, the abundances of which can also be depleted by internal mixing mechanisms, depending on the depth and efficiency of the mixing; @1998ApJ...498L.147D; @2005ApJ...621..991B] are also not affected by planet formation, at least in systems like [16CygB]{}.
The physical characteristics of 16 Cygni make it an ideal system to test and constrain planet formation models. Most tellingly, the conditions necessary for planet formation apparently were present for [16CygB]{} but not [16CygA]{}, despite their physical and chemical similarities. We have discussed empirical and computational results that can possibly account for the observed characteristics of the system, including the lack of a detected planet around [16CygA]{}, the enhanced Li depletion of [16CygB]{}, and the eccentricity of the planet [16CygB]{} b, and that imply that neither [16CygA]{} nor [16CygB]{} is a terrestrial planet host. Future efforts that can combine all of these attributes into a single model will represent a significant achievement in understanding the formation and evolution of planetary systems.
S.C.S. acknowledges support provided by the NOAO Leo Goldberg Fellowship; NOAO is operated by AURA, Inc. under a cooperative agreement with the NSF. L.G. acknowledges support by the PAPDRJ - CAPES/FAPERJ Fellowship. J.R.K. acknowledges support by NSF award AST-0908342.
[*Facilities:*]{}
[50]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, M., [Grevesse]{}, N., [Sauval]{}, A. J., & [Scott]{}, P. 2009, , 47, 481
, I., & [Chabrier]{}, G. 2010, , 521, A44+
, P., [Ram[í]{}rez]{}, I., [Mel[é]{}ndez]{}, J., [Asplund]{}, M., & [Lind]{}, K. 2010, , 519, A87+
, B., & [Kley]{}, W. 2010, , 523, A30+
, A. M., [Deliyannis]{}, C. P., & [Steinhauer]{}, A. 2005, , 621, 991
, J. 2008, , 489, L53
, W. D., [Hatzes]{}, A. P., [Butler]{}, R. P., & [Marcy]{}, G. W. 1997, , 483, 457
, C. P., [Boesgaard]{}, A. M., [Stephens]{}, A., [King]{}, J. R., [Vogt]{}, S. S., & [Keane]{}, M. J. 1998, , 498, L147+
, C. P., [Cunha]{}, K., [King]{}, J. R., & [Boesgaard]{}, A. M. 2000, , 119, 2437
, P., [Maeder]{}, A., & [Meynet]{}, G. 2010, , 519, L2+
, S., & [Gustafsson]{}, B. 1998, , 129, 237
, J., [Neckel]{}, H., [Solano]{}, E., & [Wamsteker]{}, W. 1996, , 311, 245
, D. A., & [Valenti]{}, J. 2005, , 622, 1102
, M. J., & [Sneden]{}, C. 1987, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 19, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 1129–+
, E. B., & [Rasio]{}, F. A. 2008, , 686, 621
, E., [Cayrel de Strobel]{}, G., [Chmielewski]{}, Y., [Spite]{}, M., [Lebre]{}, A., & [Bentolila]{}, C. 1993, , 274, 825
, K., [Pfeiffer]{}, M. J., & [Bernkopf]{}, J. 1998, , 336, 942
, A. I., [Bikmaev]{}, I. F., [Musaev]{}, F. A., & [Galazutdinov]{}, G. A. 2004, Astronomy Reports, 48, 492
, L., [Cunha]{}, K., [Smith]{}, V. V., & [de la Reza]{}, R. 2010, , 724, 154
, G. 1997, , 285, 403
—. 1998, , 334, 221
, G., [Carlson]{}, M. K., & [Tobin]{}, R. W. 2010, , 407, 314
, D. F. 1994, , 106, 1248
, H. M., & [Marcy]{}, G. W. 1999, , 111, 321
, M., [Touma]{}, J., & [Tremaine]{}, S. 1997, , 386, 254
, G., [et al.]{} 2009, , 462, 189
, E. L. N., [Mathieu]{}, R. D., & [Fuller]{}, G. A. 1996, , 458, 312
, J. R., [Deliyannis]{}, C. P., [Hiltgen]{}, D. D., [Stephens]{}, A., [Cunha]{}, K., & [Boesgaard]{}, A. M. 1997, , 113, 1871
, C., & [Gonzalez]{}, G. 2001, , 553, 405
, K. 2003, , 591, 1220
, L., [Wadsley]{}, J., [Quinn]{}, T., & [Stadel]{}, J. 2005, , 363, 641
, T., [Krymolowski]{}, Y., & [Rosenfeld]{}, G. 1997, , 477, L103+
, J., [Asplund]{}, M., [Gustafsson]{}, B., & [Yong]{}, D. 2009, , 704, L66
, L., [Biazzo]{}, K., [Bonifacio]{}, P., [Randich]{}, S., & [Bedin]{}, L. R. 2008, , 489, 677
, J., [et al.]{} 2002, , 581, 654
, I., [Asplund]{}, M., [Baumann]{}, P., [Mel[é]{}ndez]{}, J., & [Bensby]{}, T. 2010, , 521, A33+
, I., [Mel[é]{}ndez]{}, J., & [Asplund]{}, M. 2009, , 508, L17
, S. N., [Armitage]{}, P. J., & [Gorelick]{}, N. 2009, , 699, L88
, S. N., [et al.]{} 2011, , 530, A62+
, B. E., [Tomkin]{}, J., [Lambert]{}, D. L., & [Allende Prieto]{}, C. 2003, , 340, 304
, N. C., [Israelian]{}, G., & [Mayor]{}, M. 2004, , 415, 1153
, S. C., [Flateau]{}, D., [Cunha]{}, K., [King]{}, J. R., [Ghezzi]{}, L., & [Smith]{}, V. V. 2011, , 732, 55
, C. 1973, , 184, 839
, G., & [Rasio]{}, F. A. 2005, , 627, 1001
, Y. 2005, , 57, 83
, Y., [et al.]{} 2001, , 53, 1211
, N. H., [ten Brummelaar]{}, T. A., [McAlister]{}, H. A., [Mason]{}, B. D., [Hartkopf]{}, W. I., & [Roberts]{}, Jr., L. C. 2001, , 121, 3254
, D., & [Armitage]{}, P. J. 2005, , 620, L111
, R. A., [Endl]{}, M., & [Cochran]{}, W. D. 2007, , 654, 625
, R. A., [Endl]{}, M., [Cochran]{}, W. D., & [Levison]{}, H. F. 2007, , 134, 1276
[lrrrr]{} $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ (K) && 5796 $\pm 34$ && 5753 $\pm 30$\
$\log g$ (cgs) && 4.38 $\pm 0.12$ && 4.40 $\pm 0.12$\
$\xi$ (km s$^{-1}$) && 1.45 $\pm 0.07$ && 1.35 $\pm 0.08$\
$[$Fe/H$]$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.01$ $\pm 0.05$ &&+0.05 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.05$\
$[$C/H$]$ &&+0.10 $\pm0.03 \, \pm 0.05$ &&+0.08 $\pm0.03 \, \pm 0.05$\
$[$Na/H$]$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.00 \, \pm 0.03$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.00 \, \pm 0.03$\
$[$Mg/H$]$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.04 \, \pm 0.05$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.04 \, \pm 0.03$\
$[$Al/H$]$ &&+0.11 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.03$ &&+0.10 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.03$\
$[$Si/H$]$ &&+0.09 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.01$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.01$\
$[$Ca/H$]$ &&+0.08 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.04$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.04$\
$[$Sc/H$]$ &&+0.12 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.07$ &&+0.10 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.07$\
$[$Ti/H$]$ &&+0.10 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.07$ &&+0.11 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.07$\
$[$V/H$]$ &&+0.06 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.04$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.04$\
$[$Cr/H$]$ &&+0.08 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.04$ &&+0.08 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.03$\
$[$Mn/H$]$ &&+0.07 $\pm0.03 \, \pm 0.04$ &&+0.08 $\pm0.03 \, \pm 0.04$\
$[$Co/H$]$ &&+0.08 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.04$ &&+0.09 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.03$\
$[$Ni/H$]$ &&+0.09 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.02$ &&+0.08 $\pm0.01 \, \pm 0.02$\
$[$Zn/H$]$ &&+0.10 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.04$ &&+0.10 $\pm0.02 \, \pm 0.03$\
[lcccccccrccrccrc]{} && 5052.17 && 7.68 && -1.304 && 31.8 & 8.43 && 39.6 & 8.56 && 37.0 & 8.54\
&& 5380.34 && 7.68 && -1.615 && 19.8 & 8.46 && 25.0 & 8.58 && 22.7 & 8.55\
&& 6587.61 && 8.54 && -1.021 && 13.5 & 8.41 && 18.5 & 8.57 && 16.7 & 8.54\
&& 5682.63 && 2.10 && -0.700 && 105.0 & 6.21 && 109.7 & 6.29 && 110.2 & 6.27\
&& 6154.23 && 2.10 && -1.560 && 38.4 & 6.29 && 42.7 & 6.36 && 44.5 & 6.37\
&& 6160.75 && 2.10 && -1.260 && 58.1 & 6.26 && 62.9 & 6.33 && 64.2 & 6.33\
&& 4730.03 && 4.35 && -2.523 && 74.1 & 7.91 && 80.0 & 8.00 && 80.3 & 7.99\
&& 5711.09 && 4.35 && -1.833 && 104.3 & 7.60 && 106.7 & 7.64 && 108.6 & 7.66\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The supernova remnant (SNR) [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} is a young SNR which displays a non-thermal X-ray and TeV shell structure. A molecular cloud at a distance of $\sim$3.2kpc is spatially coincident with the western part of the SNR, and it is likely hit by the SNR. The X-ray emission from this part of the shell is much lower than from the rest of the SNR. Moreover, a compact GeV emission region coincident with the cloud has been detected with a soft spectrum. These observations seem to imply a shock-cloud collision scenario at this area, where the stalled shock can no longer accelerate super-TeV electrons or maintain strong magnetic turbulence downstream, while the GeV cosmic rays (CRs) are released through this stalled shock. To test this hypothesis, we have performed a detailed [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT reanalysis of the [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} region with over $9$ years of data. Two distinct GeV components are found, one displaying a soft spectrum is from the compact GeV emission region, the other one displaying a hard spectrum is from the rest of the SNR (excluding the cloud region). A hadronic model involving a shock-cloud collision scenario is built to explain the $\gamma$-ray emission from this area. It consists of three CR sources: run-away super-TeV CRs that have escaped from the fast shock, leaked GeV CRs from the stalled shock, and the local CR sea. The X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission of the SNR excluding the shock-cloud interaction region is explained in a one-zone leptonic model. Our shock-cloud collision model explains the GeV-TeV observations from the clouds around [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}, i.e. a cloud in contact with the SNR and a distant cloud in spatial coincidence to the TeV source HESS J1729-345. We find however that the leaked GeV CRs from the shock-cloud collision do not necessarily dominate the GeV emission from the clouds, due to a comparable contribution from the local CR sea.'
author:
- Yudong Cui
- Ruizhi Yang
- Xinbo He
- 'P.H. Thomas Tam'
- Gerd Pühlhofer
title: 'Is the SNR HESS J1731-347 colliding with molecular clouds?'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
[[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} was first discovered as an unidentified TeV source by [@Ah2008a]. A newly discovered radio SNR (G353.6-0.7) was then found in spatial coincidence to the TeV source [@Tian2008]. The following X-ray and TeV observations [@Tian2010; @Ab2011; @Bamba2012] have revealed an X-ray and TeV shell structure of non-thermal radiation from the SNR. An extended TeV structure – HESS J1729-345 was found Northwest of the SNR. At the center of the SNR, thermal X-ray emission from a central compact object (CCO) has been discovered by [@Tian2010; @Ab2011]. This CCO is likely a neutron star (NS) [@Klochkov2013], although pulsations have been detected neither in radio nor in X-rays. Upper limits of the GeV emission from the SNR region have been given by [@Yang2014; @Acero2015b] from a [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT data analysis. Recently, more detailed GeV spectra with power-law indices of -1.7 and -1.8 has been given by [@Condon2017] and [@Guo2018], respectively. All of these hard GeV spectra slightly favor a leptonic origin of the $\gamma$-ray emission from the SNR. The lack of thermal X-ray emission of the SNR leads to an upper-limit (90% confidence level) on the ambient medium density of $\sim0.01$cm$^{-3}$ via a shocked medium model [@Ab2011].
The CO studies together with the X-ray studies by [@Ab2011; @Doroshenko2017; @Maxted2018] have suggested a giant MC of the Scutum-Crux arm ($\sim$3.2kpc) to be located right in front of the western part of the SNR, and this giant MC could have already been encountered by the SNR [@Doroshenko2017; @Maxted2018]. This distance of 3.2kpc is also supported by the NS modeling work by [@Klochkov2013; @Klochkov2015]. Hence, we adopt the distance of 3.2kpc in our work, and it leads to a SNR radius of 15pc. The age of the SNR is estimated to be 2kyr - 6kyr through modeling several CC SNR scenarios [@Cui2016]. These ages are consistent with those derived by the modeling work of a cooling NS [@Klochkov2015].
In our previous modeling work on [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} [@Cui2016], run-away super-TeV CRs that have escaped from the SNR shock are at present illuminating the MC at HESS J1729-345 (MC-J1729) through hadronic $\gamma$-ray production. Additionally, [@Cui2016] assumed a leptonic explanation for the $\gamma$-ray emission from the entire SNR region. The densest cloud of this entire MC complex at 3.2kpc, i.e. MC-core, is spatially overlapping with the western part of the SNR. [@Cui2016] had put MC-core 100pc away from the SNR, in order to prevent the run-away CRs from reaching MC-core, and allow the leptonic model to dominate the $\gamma$-ray emission in the entire SNR image.
Interestingly, a relatively compact GeV source in spatial coincidence with MC-core was also found in the recent [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis work by [@Condon2017]. This source – named S0 – shows a power-law index of -2.5, in contrast to -1.7 measured for the entire SNR. However, [@Condon2017] did not derive the spectral energy distribution (SED) for S0 in their work. One important open question is whether the emission from S0 (or even from the entire MC-core region) could be of hadronic origin. Further XMM-Newton studies on the SNR by [@Doroshenko2017] revealed that the average X-ray surface brightness – with energies up to 10keV – from the shell in MC-core region is significantly lower than the surface brightness from other regions of the SNR. All of these findings support the hypothesis that this young SNR has already collided in the West with MC-core. Hence, this part of the shock is stalled by MC-core such that it can no longer accelerate super-TeV electrons, nor can it maintain a strong magnetic turbulence downstream. Without the confinement by strong magnetic turbulence at the shock, the low energy CRs are released into nearby MCs through this stalled shock. This hypothesis naturally implies that the GeV-TeV $\gamma$-ray emission of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} can be separated into two components, one hadronic from the collision region and one leptonic from the rest of the SNR.
The work explores the shock-cloud collision hypothesis in the case of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}. The previous [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis work by @Condon2017 only provided a power-law index of MC-core (S0), therefore our main goal in Section \[data\] is to subtract the GeV emission of MC-core and obtain the GeV spectra of both MC-core and the rest of the SNR. In Section \[model\], our hadronic model describes how the young SNR is colliding with MC-core and how it releases its GeV-TeV CRs over time into the nearby environment.
[[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT Data Analysis {#data}
=================================
Data preparation
----------------
We select more than nine years of data (MET 239557417 - MET 545548766) observed by [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT for regions around the shell of the supernova remnant [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and used the standard LAT analysis software (v11r5p3) [^1]. Only events with energy above 1 GeV are used so that the point spread function (PSF) is sharp enough to disentangle multiple spatial components. The region-of-interest (ROI) is selected to be a $10^ \circ \times 10^ \circ$ square centered on the position of J1731-347. Observations with Rocking angle larger than $52^{\circ}$ are excluded in this analysis.
In order to reduce the effect of the Earth albedo background, we exclude the time intervals when the parts of the ROI were observed at zenith angles $> 90^{\circ}$. The spectral analysis is performed based on the P8R2 version of post-launch instrument response functions (IRFs). Both the front and back converted photons are selected.
FL8Y results
------------
The galactic and isotropic diffuse model provided by the [[*Fermi*]{}]{} collaboration [^2] is used in the analysis, and the corresponding counts map of the diffuse model at 1GeV is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:TS\]. [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT 8 years sources are also included, and the parameters for point sources within the ROI are allowed to vary. We note that [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} was already included in the 8 years catalog as FL8Y J1732.2-3443. And the source FL8Y J1730.4-3447 are coincide with the source S0 in [@Condon2017]. In Fermi LAT analysis, the likelihood ratio test are used to hypothesis testing. The Test statistics are defined as $TS=-2 ({\rm ln} L_0-{\rm ln} L_1)$, where $L_0$ and $L_1$ is the likelihood function value in the hypothesis without and with the corresponding source. The source detection significance in $\sigma$ are roughly square root of the TS value [@Mattox1996]. The Test statistic maps of the inner $3^{\circ}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:TS\].
In deriving the TS maps we do not include the source FL8Y J1732.2-3443 and FL8Y J1730.4-3447 in the source model. We also find strong excess to the west and north east of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}, we label them as three new point sources (PS1, PS2, PS3) and add them in the further analysis. For simplicity we fix the position of these additional sources in the maximum of the TS excesses, rather than perform a full likelihood analysis to find the exact position. The influence of the additional sources are checked by simply removing these sources, and those influence are included in the systematic errors of the measured spectra. We then perform likelihood analysis by varying the position of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} (FL8Y J1732.2-3443) and find that the best-fit position is at (RA= $262.953^{\circ}$ and Dec=$-34.722^{\circ}$, labeled as white diamond in Fig. \[fig:TS\]. The TS value for [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} is 26 (corresponding to 5.1$\sigma$). We perform the same procedure for S0 (FL8Y J1730.4-3447), the best fit position is (RA=$262.710^{\circ}$ and Dec=$-34.780^{\circ}$, labeled as cyan circle in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:TS\] and the resulted TS value is 27 (5.2$\sigma$). Addition to the $>1$GeV TS map, we have also derived the $>10$GeV TS map, as seen in the middle panel of Fig. \[fig:TS\], in which the soft component – S0 can be easily told apart from the hard component – SNR. We also check the extension of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} by assuming disk templates with different radius and found no improvement of the fit, furthermore, the spectrum of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and S0 are significant different, we consider them as independent sources.
For the spectral analysis we applied *gtlike* in the energy range \[1, 300\] GeV and modelled the spectrum of both sources as a power-law function, fixing the position to that found above. The derived photon index for [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} is $1.79 \pm 0.22 (stat) \pm 0.10(sys)$, and the total flux above 1 GeV is $4.0 \pm 1.9(stat)\pm 0.4(sys) \times 10^{-10} ~\rm cm^{-2} s^{-1}$, while for S0 the index is $2.42 \pm 0.22 (stat) \pm 0.13(sys)$ and the flux is $1.2 \pm 0.34(stat)\pm 0.14(sys) \times 10^{-9} ~\rm cm^{-2} s^{-1}$. For the systematic errors we include the errors coming from the uncertainties of the effective area and the point spread function of LAT [@Acero2015a]. We also vary the normalization of the diffuse background by 6% to check the influence on the derived spectra of S0 and [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}. Finally we also include uncertainties of the added sources by including or removing the three sources in the likelihood analysis.
To obtain the spectral energy distribution (SED), we divided the full energy range into 5 logarithmically spaced bands and applied *gtlike* to each of these bands. The results of this analysis are shown in Fig. \[fig:SED\]. All data points have TS values larger than 4, which corresponds to a significance of larger than $\sim2\sigma$.
4FGL results
------------
During the process of this work 4FGL catalog and the corresponding diffuse background model [[^3] ]{} have been published. We use the P8R3 data of the same period and the Conda version of Fermi tools to redo the analysis above. We show the TS map above 10 GeV in this case in Fig.\[fig:4fgl\]. The point sources corresponding to [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and S0 are removed from the catalog. Near the positions of our added point source PS1 and PS2, there are three new point sources. Thus for the 4FGL catalog we didn’t add any new point source. We perform the similar analysis mentioned above to find the position of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and S0. The derived position are (RA= $262.943^{\circ}$ and Dec=$-34.742^{\circ}$ for [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and (RA=$262.636^{\circ}$ and Dec=$-34.815^{\circ}$) for S0, which are slightly different from the ones in FL8Y case but within the error bars. The derived TS value for [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and S0 are 27 (corresponding to 5.2$\sigma$) and 14 ( 3.5$\sigma$). We also performed the above spectral analysis for the 4FGL case, the results are shown as red data points in Fig.\[fig:SED\]. Ultimately, the 4FGL results are similar to the FL8Y results, except for S0 which shows a lower flux at low energy band ($<10$GeV). This low energy band is dominated by CR sea in our following model, and see relevant discussions in section \[CR\_sea\].
To compare the results directly with HESS observations we also use the HESS excess map as the template of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}. Taking into account S0, we subtract a circle (MC-core region) from the HESS excess map (see fig.\[fig:HESS\]). This analysis template is based on our model (section \[model\]), in which the GeV-TeV emission from the HESS template ([[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}) is leptonic, while the GeV-TeV emission from MC-core (S0) is hadronic. One can also find the definition of MC-core region in our model (section \[MC\]). We then perform the likelihood analysis to derive the flux from both [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and S0. The newly found best-fit position of S0 is RA= $262.629^{\circ}$ and Dec=$-34.808^{\circ}$. In this case the derived TS value for [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} and S0 are 30 (corresponding to 5.5$\sigma$) and 10 (3.1$\sigma$), respectively. The derived SEDs are also shown in Fig.\[fig:SED\] as blue points. The flux of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}, especially at the $>10$GeV energy band, are larger than the point source case due to the larger area of the source, but the total likelihood is not improved.
Data analysis summary
---------------------
In summary, our results have further supported the recent finding of S0 by [@Condon2017], that the GeV emission from [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} is likely to be dominated by two components, a hard component at SNR and a soft component at S0. After separating the S0 from the SNR, our GeV flux of the SNR is basically consistent with those historical ones, as seen in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:SED\]. In the following modeling work, we only show the analysis results of the HESS template for a better model-consistency.
The Hadronic Model {#model}
==================
Our hadronic model is made of three sub-models, the SNR evolution model (section \[SNR\]), the CR acceleration & diffusion model (section \[acceleration\]), and the shock-cloud collision model (section \[shock-cloud\]). In section \[MC\] and section \[sea\], we justify the adopted 3D structure of nearby clouds and the density of the local CR sea, respectively.
SNR evolution {#SNR}
-------------
Summarising the multi-wavelength observations described in section \[Intro\], there are three main observational features of the SNR [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}: 1) a large shell structure of non-thermal X-ray and TeV emission, 2) a low density of the circumstellar medium, and 3) a hard GeV spectrum that slightly favors a leptonic $\gamma$-ray emission model. These observational features indicate that the SNR is likely expanding inside the pre-SN wind bubble with a very low density, and this could result a high shock velocity of $v_\mathrm{SNR}\gtrsim2000\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$[@Ah1999; @Vink2013] at a 15pc radius (adopting a distance of 3.2kpc).
The progenitor mass need to be $\gtrsim 20\mathrm{M_\odot}$ in order to blow a $>15\,$pc pre-SN wind bubble [@Chen2013; @Chevalier1999]. There are basically two types of pre-SN bubble structures with such a massive progenitor, 1) an empty pre-SN bubble made by the main sequence (MS)/ Wolf-Rayet (WR) wind, 2) a MS bubble with a red super giant (RSG) bubble embedded inside it. A $20\mathrm{M_\odot}$ type IIL/b scenario and a $25\mathrm{M_\odot}$ type Ib/c scenario from [@Cui2016] are adopted in our model to represent these two bubble features.
In the $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, the gas density inside the MS bubble is $n_\mathrm{MS}\sim0.01\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ and the density inside the RSG bubble follows $n_\mathrm{RSG}(r)= \dot{M}_\mathrm{RSG}/4\pi r^2 v_\mathrm{RSG}$ [@Chevalier2005], where $\dot{M}_\mathrm{RSG}$ and $v_\mathrm{RSG}$ are the mass loss rate and the wind speed during the RSG phase, respectively. By choosing $\dot{M}_\mathrm{RSG}\approx 5\times10^{-5} \,\rm{M_{\odot}}/s$ and $v_\mathrm{RSG}\approx 15\,\rm{km/s}$ [@Chevalier2005], one can obtain the RSG bubble radius as $R_\mathrm{RSG}\approx5\,$pc.
In the $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, the fast H-poor WR wind is able to blow away the pre-existing RSG bubble [@Chevalier2005], and leave behind a CNO core (maybe some He), which becomes the main ejecta material of a type Ib/c SN. Review work by [@Smartt2009] pointed out that type Ib SNe have unambiguous signatures of He and type Ic SNe show no H or He. Hence, we assume most of the H and He layers ($21\,\rm{M}_\odot$) are blown into the WR bubble with a radius of $\sim22$pc, we can obtain an averaged density of $n_\mathrm{WR}\sim0.02\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ in the WR bubble.
In both SNR scenarios, we adopt a typical CC SN explosion energy of $E_\mathrm{SN}$ as $10^{51}\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ ($\mathcal{E}_{51}$) [@Smartt2009]. The SN ejecta masses ($M_\mathrm{ej}$) are set as $2\,\rm{M}_\odot$ in both SNR scenarios and they are consistent with our pre-SN physics, in which the progenitor mass is the sum of the MS wind mass loss, the RSG wind mass loss, the neutron star mass ($2\,\rm{M}_\odot$), and the SN ejecta mass.
With known pre-SN environments and known SN physics, we calculate the SNR evolution history through a self-similar solution [@Chevalier1982; @Nadezhin1985] for the ejecta-dominated stage, and a thin-shell approximation [@Ostriker1988; @Bisnovatyi1995] for the Sedov stage. The SNR evolution parameters and results can be found in table \[table:SNR\]. The SNR evolution equations used here are derived by [@Zirakashvili2005], they can also be found in [@Cui2016].
Noticeably, dense MC-clumps, i.e. MC-core in our shock-cloud encountering model, can very well survive the MS wind and even the Wolf-Rayet wind, see e.g. the recent discovery of a dense MC-clump that survived the strong UV fields and winds from a young massive star in the 30 Doradus region [@Rubio2009].
CR acceleration and diffusion {#acceleration}
-----------------------------
Substantial theoretical improvement has been achieved to support the idea that young SNRs can indeed accelerate particles up to 100 TeV, employing the concept of fast amplification of magnetic turbulence upstream of the SNR shocks through nonresonant streaming instability [@Bell2004; @Zirakashvili2008]. We adopt the analytical approximation of the MHD simulation result by [@Zirakashvili2008] and derive the amplified magnetic turbulence upstream and the escape energy ($E_\mathrm{max}$) by using the input parameters from the SNR evolution history. The flux of run-away CRs ($J$) and the density of the confined CRs in the acceleration region ($N_0$) are also given in [@Zirakashvili2008]. Here $J$ is mostly made of CRs with energies above $E_\mathrm{max}$, while $N_0$ basically follows a broken power-law with an index of -2.0 and an exponential cutoff energy of $E_\mathrm{max}$. Detailed equations about the acceleration model can be found in [@Zirakashvili2008; @Cui2016].
The main input parameters of our acceleration model are given through solving the SNR evolution history, they are the shock velocity – $v_\mathrm{SNR}(t)$, the SNR radius – $R_\mathrm{SNR}(t)$ and the density of incoming gas upstream – $n_\mathrm{ISM}(t)$. The other input parameters include the magnetic field in the un-shocked upstream – $B_0$, the initial magnetic fluctuation upstream – $B_\mathrm{b}$, and the acceleration efficiency – $\eta_\mathrm{esc}$. Here $\eta_\mathrm{esc}$ represents the ratio between the energy flux of run-away CRs and the kinetic energy flux of incoming gas onto the shock upstream, and it is constrained by the hypothesis that the total CR energy accounts for $\lesssim10\%$ of the SN kinetic energy. A magnetic field strength of $B_0=5\mu$G in the inter-clump medium (ICM) is assumed following [@Crutcher2012] and a ratio of $B_\mathrm{b}/B_0=1.35\%$ is assumed following [@Zirakashvili2008].
Once the CRs run away from the SNR, they enter an inhomogeneous diffusion environment, which is divided into three sub-regions: MC-core region, MC-J1729 region, and the region covering the entire outer-space other than these two MC-clumps. The last one is mostly made of the pre-SN wind bubble, the ICM and other MC structures. Inside each sub-region, a homogeneous diffusion coefficient is assumed, see also table \[table:diffusion\] for the adopted values of the diffusion coefficients. To calculate the diffusion process in this inhomogeneous diffusion environment, we adopt the Monte-Carlo diffusion method developed in section 2.4.2 of [@Cui2016].
Shock-cloud collision {#shock-cloud}
---------------------
When the western part of the SNR [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} encounters with the dense MC-clump, i.e. with MC-core, the shock is rapidly stalled [@Sano2010; @Gabici2016] and the magnetic turbulence in the upstream and downstream of the shock is quickly damped by the high-density neutrals. This collision eventually leads to the release of all CRs confined in the shock [@Ohira2011]. However, [@Inoue2012] argued that the release of the GeV CRs may not be an immediate event after the shock-cloud collision, i.e., in case of the hadronic model of the SNR RX J1713.7-3946, [@Inoue2012] suggested a shell of amplified magnetic turbulence formed at the stalled shock. This turbulent shell, which could last for $\lesssim 10^3\,$year when a fast shock ($2500\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$) is hitting the MC-clump, can prevent GeV CRs from entering the MC-clumps. The relative short age of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} (around 2 - 6kyr) would need to take this amplified magnetic field shell into consideration, and the effect is simplified as a delayed releasing time of the CRs ($t_\mathrm{delay} = 500$ years) after the shock-cloud collision. Furthermore, due to the short age of the SNR, the shock-cloud encounter can no longer be seen as an instantaneous event. Instead, it is described as MC-core gradually swollen by the SNR. As seen in the bottom panel of Fig \[fig:scratch\], at any certain time, a belt feature will represent the shock-cloud collision area as well as the following CR leaking area.
In our numerical simulation, within a time interval $\Delta t_\mathrm{SNR}$, leaked CRs with a total number of $\Delta N_\mathrm{leak}(t) = N_0 \cdot l_\mathrm{down} \cdot A_\mathrm{belt}$ are released from the surface of the collision belt at a time of $t=t_\mathrm{SNR}+t_\mathrm{delay}$. Here $l_\mathrm{down}$ is the thickness of the acceleration region at the shock downstream which is used to normalize the total CRs trapped at the shock. $l_\mathrm{down}$ is set as $3\%R_\mathrm{SNR}$ following the MHD simulation work by [@Zirakashvili2008; @Zirakashvili2012], who suggested that most of the CRs and the swept gas of a young SNR are concentrated right behind the shock with a thickness $\lesssim10\%R_\mathrm{SNR}$. $A_\mathrm{belt}$ is the integrated area of the collision region during each $\Delta t_\mathrm{SNR}$, which is shown as the purple belt in Fig. \[fig:scratch\]. On the surface of this collision belt, the CR acceleration and CR run-away processes are immediately stopped after collision.
Nearby molecular clouds {#MC}
-----------------------
From the recent $\rm{^{12}CO}$ observations with Mopra by [@Maxted2018], which are shown in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:scratch\], one can obtain the column density of the MC near the SNR. Our model adopts a $\rm{^{12}CO}$ emission integrated from $-5\,\rm{km/s}$ to $-25\,\rm{km/s}$ [the giant MC at 3.2kpc, @Maxted2018] and a CO-to-H$_2$ mass conversion factor of $1.8\times10^{20}\,\rm{cm^{-2}K^{-1}km^{-1}s}$ [@Dame2001]. When compared with the previous $\rm{^{12}CO}$ observations on [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} with the CfA survey [@Ab2011; @Cui2016], the $\rm{^{12}CO}$ observations with Mopra have much higher angular resolution and deliver a slightly lower column density ($\sim95\%$) at MC-core region. However, at the MC-J1729 region, the CO column density with Mopra is only $\sim65\%$ of the one with CfA. We believe this is due to the low angular resolution of CfA survey, which causes contaminations into the MC-J1729 region from the bright CO features nearby. The brightest CO region with an intensity above $50\,\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}}$ in the MC complex can be divided into two features, one is the MC-core, one is a bright extended CO feature at south of MC-J1729 (Western-CO-filament) which looks like a gas filament extending from MC-core to the West. These features can be seen clearer in Fig. 2 of [@Maxted2018], due to a different scale of color bar used in their CO map.
Following our previous work on [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} [@Cui2016], we only focus on two MC regions – MC-core ($2.75\times 10^4\, \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$) and MC-J1729 ($1.57\times 10^4\, \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$), which are labeled as the red and blue circles in Fig. \[fig:scratch\]. The rest of the observed clouds in this 3.2kpc MC complex (excluding the MC-core and MC-J1729), especially the Western-CO-filament, are ignored in our model, due to their lack of TeV counterparts [@Ab2011]. The definition of MC-J1729 region is based on the on-region of HESS J1729-345 in the HESS data analysis [@Ab2011] (centered at $\alpha_\mathrm{J2000}$ =17h29m35s, $\delta_\mathrm{J2000} = −34^\circ$32’22”, radius $0.14^\circ$), and MC-core region represents the densest core region of this giant MC (centered at $\alpha_\mathrm{J2000}$ =17h30m36s, $\delta_\mathrm{J2000} = −34^\circ$43’0”, radius $0.13^\circ$). These two MC regions are simplified as two homogeneously filled spheres in our model. Noticeably, here the MC-core region is arbitrarily chosen following two criteria: a) The region should be large enough to cover most of the dense cloud gas around the densest core, i.e., the region with $\rm{^{12}CO}$ intensities above $50\,\mathrm{K\,km\,s^{-1}}$. b) The region should not be too large that it could overlap with HESS J1731-345 (small blue circle), because we try to separate the $\gamma$-ray emissions from these two MC clumps.
In our previous work [@Cui2016], MC-core is put at a distance of 100pc to the SNR, hence the hadronic $\gamma$-ray emission at this region is suppressed. Recent ATLASGAL survey study [@Li2016] suggests that the MC-clumps inside one giant MC are more likely to be close to each other ($\lesssim$10pc) and connected through filaments. Under the assumption that the observed MC complex at 3.2kpc is indeed one giant MC, we use a more reasonable 3D structure in this work, as seen in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:scratch\], MC-core and MC-J1729 are close to each other, and they are located at 3D distances of $\sim$16.91pc and $\sim$31.18pc to the SNR center, respectively. In a Cartesian frame, we set the SNR center as (x,y,z)=(0,0,0)pc, where (x, y) represent the distances along the directions of RA and Dec, and (z) is along the line of sight to Earth. The (x,y) values of MC-core and MC-J1729 obtained from the CO and TeV observations are (16.65, -2.14) and (28.32, -12.04), respectively. The (z) value of MC-core is chosen arbitrarily at 2 pc, which corresponds to a collision area of 5% of the SNR surface at present. The (z) value of MC-J1729 is chosen as -5 pc, this leads to a 3D distance between MC-core and MC-J1729 of 16.83pc, which is roughly consistent with the ATLASGAL survey. In our model, the favored (z) value of MC-core/MC-J1729 can vary within a range of (-3,3)pc/(-10,10)pc. However, the (z) values and the diffusion coefficients ($D$) are degenerated parameters. In the model fitting, we fix the (z) value and free the $D$. Another reason that we choose these fixed (z) values is to make a relative clearer scratch figure, as shown in Fig. \[fig:scratch\].
Local CR sea {#sea}
------------
The CR sea could play an important role in the soft GeV spectrum observed at MC-core. We adopt a radial profile of Galactic CR density [@Yang2016; @Acero2016], which is derived through studying the [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT data and the gas density in our entire galaxy. Hence, [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}, with a distance to the Galactic center of around 5kpc, should be embedded in a CR sea with a density similar to the one observed on Earth (CR spectral index $\Gamma_\mathrm{CR,sea} \sim$ -2.55 to -2.72, energy density $U_\mathrm{CR,sea}\sim1.1\,\mathrm{eV\,cm^{-3}}$). In section \[CR\_sea\], we further discuss the $\gamma$-ray contributions by the CR sea.
Results and discussions
=======================
The fixed & fitting Parameters {#parameter}
------------------------------
Firstly, we summarise the fixed parameters in our model.
- In our SNR model (section \[SNR\]), the pre-SN environment ($n_\mathrm{ISM}$) and the SNR physics ($E_\mathrm{SN}$, $M_\mathrm{ej}$) are fixed based on the multi-wavelength observations and the conventional values. An assumed value of pre-SN magnetic environment ($B_0/B_\mathrm{b}$) is chosen following [@Zirakashvili2008].
- In our acceleration and diffusion model (section \[acceleration\]), the escape energy ($E_\mathrm{max}$) is calculated using the nonresonant instability acceleration theory, its value is dependent on the SNR evolution history, the pre-SN environment, and the acceleration efficiency. Diffusion coefficient in outer-space ($D_\mathrm{ICM}$) is assumed as the Galactic value [$D(E) = D_{10}(E/10\,\rm{GeV})^{\delta}$, $D_{10}=10^{28}\,\rm{cm^2/s},\ \delta= 0.5$, @Ptuskin2006].
- In our shock-cloud collision model (section \[shock-cloud\] & \[MC\]), the times and locations of the shock-cloud collisions are determined by the 3D MC structure and the SNR evolution history. The MC clumps are assumed to be homogeneous spheres, their 3D locations (x,y,z) are based on the CO observation and the assumed (z) values. All CRs confined in the stalled shock are assumed to be released at the collision point, and a delayed releasing time of 500years is assumed following the argument of [@Inoue2012].
Secondly, we list the dependency of each fitting parameter below. The fitting parameters are the diffusion coefficients ($D_\mathrm{MC}$) in MC-core and MC-J1729, as well as the acceleration efficiency ($\eta_\mathrm{esc}$).
- [*The acceleration efficiency $\eta_\mathrm{esc}$*]{}: When the acceleration efficiency increases, more kinetic energy from the incoming plasma onto the shock is transferred into CR energy. Therefore, the magnetic turbulence upstream (i.e. the escape energy) and the run-away CR flux are boosted.
- [*The diffusion coefficient inside the MC-clumps $D_\mathrm{MC}$*]{}: When the diffusion coefficient inside the MC-clumps decreases, the average time for a CR being trapped inside the MC-clumps increases, which leads to a larger accumulation of CRs at the present time.
In conventional models of CR diffusion around SNRs , only the $D_{10}$ is set free in fitting and an one zone diffusion coefficient is adopted for the entire space. Our model uses a three zone diffusion environment (MC-core, MC-J1729, and outer-space) and we set both the $D_{10}$ and $\delta$ free in fitting. This provides us more fitting parameters and eventually leads to an easier fitting.
Results of the hadronic model {#HadronResults}
-----------------------------
- [*The SNR evolution history.*]{}\
In our model, the SNR with a progenitor of $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$/$25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ has spent around 6.1/2.9kyr expanding inside the pre-SN wind bubble before reaching 15pc. The western part of the SNR starts to encounter with MC-core at an age of 3.8/1.3 kyr at a radius of 9.7pc in the scenario of $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$/$25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$. During the Sedov stage, the shock velocity is mainly dependent on the mass of the total swept gas [@Cui2016]. In both scenarios, $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ and $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$, we obtain similar masses of the total swept gas at the present time ($\sim21\mathrm{M_\odot}$ in scenario $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$, $\sim25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ in scenario $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$), and we also obtain similar shock velocities of $v_\mathrm{SNR}\approx2100\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ at present. In the $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, after sweeping the thick RSG bubble at a radius of 5pc, the shock is rapidly slowed down to a velocity of $v_\mathrm{SNR}\approx2000\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$, and it maintains this high velocity during the following expansion inside the low-density MS bubble. In the $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, the shock is sweeping inside the homogeneous WR bubble and its velocity is gradually reduced to $v_\mathrm{SNR}\approx2100\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ at a radius of 15pc. Clearly, the averaged shock velocity in the $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario is much higher than the one in the $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, and this leads to a younger SNR age at present.
- [*The sub-regional $\gamma$-ray observations.*]{}\
The GeV data points of MC-core in Fig. \[fig:SED\_hadron\] are obtained by our [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis of the soft GeV component – S0. No sub-regional HESS analysis of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} has been published yet. Hence, the TeV data points of MC-core is taken as $20\%$ of the observed data points from the entire SNR region. This ratio is calculated with the TeV counts map by [@Ab2011], using the TeV counts in the SNR ($F_\mathrm{SNR}$, the big blue circle in Fig. \[fig:scratch\]) and the counts in the MC-core region ($F_\mathrm{core}$, the red circle). Part of the SNR is overlapped by MC-core, and the TeV counts in this overlapped region account for $\sim12\%$ of $F_\mathrm{SNR}$, the rest ($88\% F_\mathrm{SNR}$) of the observed TeV emission in SNR is assumed to be leptonically dominated, see also the leptonic model in section \[lepton\]. Choosing a larger MC-core region will lead to a higher cloud mass and a higher sub-regional TeV flux, and vice versa.
- [*The spectral fitting results.*]{}\
In Fig. \[fig:SED\_hadron\], we show the $\gamma$-ray emissions from MC-core and MC-J1729 predicted in our model. In both scenarios, with progenitor masses of $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ and $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$, the high shock velocities of $v_\mathrm{SNR}>2000\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ during the entire SNR histories ensure that only the super-TeV CRs are able to run away from this fast shock. These run-away CRs become the main contributor to the hadronic TeV emission outside the SNR, as seen as the dash-dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:SED\_hadron\]. The total energy of run-away CRs is $5.67\%/1.44\% E_\mathrm{SN}$ at present. When the western part of the SNR hit MC-core, the GeV CRs leaked through the stalled shock dominate the GeV emission at MC-core, as seen as the dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:SED\_hadron\]. The local CR sea is a significant contributor to the $\lesssim10\,$GeV $\gamma$-ray emission at the MC-clumps, as seen from the dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:SED\_hadron\].\
In contrast to the observed TeV spectrum from the SNR peaking at $\lesssim1$TeV, our hadronic model predicts TeV spectra from the MC-core similar to the ones from MC-J1729, which are peaking at $\gtrsim2$TeV. Future sub-regional TeV observation/analysis may resolve this MC-core region and tell us its true spectrum. The observed spectrum of MC-J1729 (index $2.24\pm0.15\mathrm{stat}$) is quite hard and shows no obvious exponential cutoff at very high energy band [@Ab2011]. The $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario fails to explain the very high energy tail ($\gtrsim20\,$TeV) of MC-J1729. The reason is that the incoming ISM density of the $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario remains roughly constant during the entire SNR history, in such a way the energies of run-away CRs ($E_\mathrm{max}$) are confined in a relative narrow range. In the $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, run-away CR energy is boosted up to $\sim100\,$TeV during the SNR expansion inside the dense RSG bubble, which leads to a relative better fitting in the $\gtrsim20\,$TeV band. Through increasing $E_\mathrm{ej}$ or $\eta_\mathrm{esc}$ in the $25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, we can get a higher averaged $E_\mathrm{max}$, but this new hadronic spectrum will be still narrow and it may fail to fit the $<$1TeV band. The SNR evolution and CR acceleration in reality are more complex than our simplified model and they may generate a wider energy distribution of run-away CRs. 1) The SNR may encounters a clumpy WR bubble [@Chu1981]. 2) The acceleration efficiency could be location dependent and time dependent, see e.g., the efficient/inefficient accelerators in SNR1006, due to the angle of background magnetic field [@Petruk2009].
- [*The diffusion coefficients.*]{}\
In this work, we find that our best fitting results require diffusion coefficients inside the MC-clumps lower than the Galactic value, their detailed values can be found in table \[table:diffusion\]. Observational studies summarised by @Crutcher2012 found that the maximum strength of the interstellar magnetic field stays constant at $\sim10\,\rm{\mu G}$ in the MC with densities up to $n_\mathrm{H}\sim 300\,\rm{cm}^{-3}$, and above $300\,\rm{cm}^{-3}$ it increases following a power law with exponent $\approx2/3$. Non-thermal motions (kinetic turbulence) inside dense MC-clumps are often observed as well, see e.g. the classic review by [@Larson1981] and the recent discovery by [@Li2014]. These observational findings seem to imply a low diffusion coefficient inside the dense MC-clumps, which is also consistent with previous theoretical work on CR diffusion near SNRs, in which a self-consistent picture requires low diffusion coefficients (an averaged one covering the entire space), $\sim 3-20$ times lower than typical Galactic values .
In summary, we find the shock-cloud encounter scenario a plausible hypothesis to explain the $\gamma$-ray observations at MC-core and MC-J1729. Our model prefers the type IIL/b $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario, and diffusion coefficients lower than the Galactic one are needed inside the MC clumps.
Leptonic $\gamma$-ray emission from the SNR other than the shock-cloud collision region {#lepton}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides MC-core region, we believe that the rest of the SNR is still dominated by leptonic emission, due to the low density of the wind bubble the SNR is residing in. A hadronic attempt by [@Cui2016] using the swept circumstellar medium downstream as target gas has been shown to fail. In our leptonic model, as seen in Fig. \[fig:SED\_lepton\], the TeV data points are simply a fraction ($\sim88\%$) of the ones observed from the entire SNR (see the “sub-regional $\gamma$-ray" paragraph in section \[HadronResults\] for this $\sim88\%$ fraction). The GeV data points come from our [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis of the hard component, namely from the SNR. In our model, the fitted magnetic field downstream is $B=27\,\mathrm{\mu G}$, which is similar to the ones of RX J1713.7-3946 [@Abdo2011; @Yuan2011], Vela Junior [@Tanaka2011], and RCW 86 [@Yuan2014]. We adopt a soft photon background with a temperature of 40K and a density of $1\,\mathrm{eV\,cm^{-3}}$, following a modified [GALPROP](http://galprop.stanford.edu) model by [@Porter2008] for a galactocentric radius of 4 kpc. The electron population in our model follows a power-law with $\Gamma_\mathrm{e}=-2.05, E_\mathrm{cut}=10$TeV. A low energy cutoff at 10GeV is induced to better fit the radio data. The total energy of the $>1\,$GeV electrons downstream is $\sim0.042\%\mathcal{E}_{51}$, which is about 2.8%/7.0% of the total CR energy trapped in the shock downstream in the scenario of $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$/$25\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$.
Could the CR sea cause the soft GeV component coming from MC-core? {#CR_sea}
------------------------------------------------------------------
In our hadronic model fitting, the CR sea contribution (dotted lines) at the GeV band is comparable to that of the leaked GeV CRs, especially at energies of $\lesssim10\,$GeV, see Fig. \[fig:SED\_hadron\]. The CR sea density used in our model only represents an averaged one at a distance of $\sim5$kpc to the Galactic center. In reality, the density of the local CR sea, especially the GeV CRs, could vary significantly depending on the nearby environment, e.g. a star-forming region. One can also see e.g. the Galactic CR distribution simulation by [@Werner2015]. If the GeV emission is indeed dominated by the CR sea, we expect to see a spatial match between the [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT data and the CO data.
As seen in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:TS\], the diffuse background used in our [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis (FL8Y) has shown a slight increase to the west of the SNR, and the flux of the diffuse background at MC-core region is around 1-2 times of the GeV flux of MC-core (S0) derived in our [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis. If the diffuse background is overestimated, it is possible that the majority of the CR sea contribution at MC-core region has already been removed during our [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT background reduction and vice versa. Interestingly, our 4FGL results indeed show a lower flux at $\sim2$GeV.
In our work, the mass of MC-core is set to the maximum value ($2.75\times 10^4\, \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$), which is derived by integrating the CO data from $-5\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ to $-25\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$. If we choose a smaller value of MC-core mass, the CR sea contribution can be further reduced, e.g., a CO emission integrated from $-15\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ to $-25\,\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}$ following [@Ab2011] can lead to a mass of MC-core of $1.94\times 10^4\, \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$, and a mass of MC-J1729 of $1.34\times 10^4\, \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. To compensate the reduced hadronic $\gamma$-ray contribution from the CR sea, we could increase the contribution from leaked CRs by tuning input parameters as discussed in section \[parameter\]. In this work, we adopt this maximum value, which thus provides an upper limit of the CR sea contribution.
Future observational expectations
---------------------------------
In this work, we separate MC-core region (S0) from the SNR in the [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis. We expect that future spectral analysis with HESS/CTA could spatially resolve this region as well. Additionally, we also expect that future TeV observations and analysis could deliver an improved TeV image matching with the molecular clouds image at 3.2kpc, see e.g., the new HESS analysis attempt by [@Capasso2017]. We chose only two spheres – MC-J1729 and MC-core instead of the entire MC complex into our hadronic models. Because the rest of the observed clouds in this 3.2kpc MC complex, especially the Western-CO-filament, lack TeV counterparts [@Ab2011]. Therefore, this Western-CO-filament is assumed to be located far from the SNR center ($\gg30$pc) in our model. However, the new HESS analysis by [@Capasso2017] argued that this Western-CO-filament is also shining in TeV. Future hard X-ray observations on this SNR could also help us to further probe the dim X-ray emission at MC-core region. More direct evidence for the proposed shock-cloud collision scenario would require millimeter observations, such as molecular clumps with strong velocity dispersion within the SNR, e.g., the SNR CTB109 [@Sasaki2006], or evidence for ionisation inside the MC-clumps, e.g., in SNR W28 [@Vaupre2014; @Maxted2016]. CC SNRs are normally considered to be born inside MCs, whereas the scenario found for [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{} with a young SNR hitting a nearby MC is clearly observationally more attractive and follow-up observations are encouraged.
Conclusion
==========
The SNR [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}, which displays a non-thermal X-ray and TeV shell structure, is believed to be still expanding inside the low-density pre-SN bubble. A dense molecular clump, called MC-core, is located at the western part of the SNR, and it is possibly embedded inside this pre-SN bubble and presently colliding with the SNR. Following the previous intriguing discoveries on [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}, that MC-core region has shown a soft GeV emission (S0) and a dim X-ray emission up to 10 keV, we explored whether the SNR has collided with MC-core at its west.
1. Our [[*Fermi*]{}]{}-LAT analysis has unveiled two GeV components of [[HESS J1731-347]{}]{}, one located at the SNR center displaying a spectral index of $1.79 \pm 0.22 (stat) \pm 0.10(sys)$, and one located at MC-core displaying a spectral index of $2.42 \pm 0.22 (stat) \pm 0.10(sys)$. We also perform a Fermi-LAT analysis using the HESS excess map as template, and its results further confirm the hard GeV component at the SNR and the soft component at MC-core.
2. We have built a hadronic model involving a shock-cloud encounter at MC-core. Our CR sources include run-away CRs from the strong shocks, leaked GeV CRs from the shock-cloud collision at MC-core region, and the local CR sea. Because of the young age of the SNR, we can not use an instantaneous event to describe the shock-cloud collision. Instead, MC-core is gradually “swallowed” by the SNR in our model. The type IIL/b $20\,\mathrm{M_\odot}$ scenario in our model can explain the GeV-TeV observations from the MC clumps, where diffusion coefficients inside the MC-clumps are about $30\%$ of the Galactic value. The multi-wavelength emissions from the rest of the SNR (other than MC-core region) are explained in a one-zone leptonic model. To better testify this hypothesis, more detailed sub-regional GeV-TeV data analysis are needed.
3. We find that leaked GeV CRs released in the shock-cloud collision are not necessarily the dominating component to explain the GeV observation at MC-core, because the CR sea with a density of $\gtrsim200\%$ of the averaged one at a galactocentric radius of 5 kpc (such density fluctuations are reasonable for the GeV CRs) can also dominate the $\lesssim10$GeV emission at MC-core.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We like to thank Nigel Maxted and Guangxing Li for helpful discussions on the millimeter observations. We also thank the referee for the advise on the HESS template. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) grants 11633007, 11661161010, and U1731136.
Abramowski, A., et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration) 2011, , 531, A81
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2011, , 734, 28
Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2015, , 218, 23
Acero, F., Lemoine-Goumard, M., Renaud, M., et al. 2015, , 580, A74
Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2016, , 223, 26
Aharonian, F. A., & Atoyan, A. M. 1999, , 351, 330
Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al. 2008, , 477, 353
Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2008, , 481, 401
Bamba, A., P[ü]{}hlhofer, G., Acero, F., et al. 2012, , 756, 149
Bell, A. R. 2004, , 353, 550
Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Silich, S. A. 1995, Reviews of Modern Physics, 67, 661
Capasso, M., Condon, B., Coffaro, M., et al. 2017, [6th International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4968930), 1792, 040026, [arXiv:1612.00258](https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00258)
Chen, Y., Zhou, P., & Chu, Y.-H. 2013, , 769, L16
Chevalier, R. A. 1982, , 259, 302
Chevalier, R. A. 1999, , 511, 798
Chevalier, R. A. 2005, , 619, 839
Chu, Y.-H. 1981, , 249, 195
Condon, B., Lemoine-Goumard, M., Acero, F., & Katagiri, H. 2017, , 851, 100
Cui, Y., P[ü]{}hlhofer, G., & Santangelo, A. 2016, , 591, A68
Cui, Y., Yeung, P. K. H., Tam, P. H. T., & P[ü]{}hlhofer, G. 2018, , 860, 69
Crutcher, R. M. 2012, , 50, 29
Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, , 547, 792
Doroshenko, V., P[ü]{}hlhofer, G., Bamba, A., et al. 2017, , 608, A23
Gabici, S., & Aharonian, F. A. 2007, , 665, L131
Gabici, S., Aharonian, F. A., & Casanova, S. 2009, , 396, 1629
Gabici, S., Casanova, S., Aharonian, F. A., & Rowell, G. 2010, SF2A-2010: Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the French Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 313
Gabici, S., & Aharonian, F. 2016, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 121, 04001
Guo, X.-L., Xin, Y.-L., Liao, N.-H., et al. 2018, , 853, 2
Inoue, T., Yamazaki, R., Inutsuka, S.-i., & Fukui, Y. 2012, , 744, 71
Klochkov, D., P[ü]{}hlhofer, G., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2013, , 556, A41
Klochkov, D., Suleimanov, V., P[ü]{}hlhofer, G., et al. 2015, , 573, A53
Larson, R. B. 1981, , 194, 809
Li, H., & Chen, Y. 2010, , 409, L35
Li, H., & Chen, Y. 2012, , 421, 935
Li, D. L., Esimbek, J., Zhou, J. J., et al. 2014, , 567, A10
Li, G.-X., Urquhart, J. S., Leurini, S., et al. 2016, , 591, A5
Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al. 1996, , 461, 396
Maxted, N. I., de Wilt, P., Rowell, G. P., et al. 2016, , 462, 532
Maxted, N., Burton, M., Braiding, C., et al. 2018, , 474, 662
Nadezhin, D. K. 1985, , 112, 225
Nayana, A. J., Chandra, P., Roy, S., et al. 2017, , 467, 155
Ohira, Y., Murase, K., & Yamazaki, R. 2011, , 410, 1577
Ostriker, J. P., & McKee, C. F. 1988, Reviews of Modern Physics, 60, 1
Porter, T. A., Moskalenko, I. V., Strong, A. W., Orlando, E., & Bouchet, L. 2008, , 682, 400
Rubio, M., Paron, S., & Dubner, G. 2009, , 505, 177
Sano, H., Sato, J., Horachi, H., et al. 2010, , 724, 59
Sasaki, M., Kothes, R., Plucinsky, P. P., Gaetz, T. J., & Brunt, C. M. 2006, , 642, L149
Smartt, S. J. 2009, , 47, 63
Tanaka, T., Allafort, A., Ballet, J., et al. 2011, , 740, L51
Tian, W. W., Leahy, D. A., Haverkorn, M., & Jiang, B. 2008, , 679, L85
Tian, W. W., Li, Z., Leahy, D. A., et al. 2010, , 712, 790
Vaupr[é]{}, S., Hily-Blant, P., Ceccarelli, C., et al. 2014, , 568, A50
Vink, J. 2012, , 20, 49
Vink, J. 2013, in Lamers H., Pugliese V., eds, [370 years of astronomy in Utrecht, 470, 269](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ASPC..470..269V)
Werner, M., Kissmann, R., Strong, A. W., & Reimer, O. 2015, Astroparticle Physics, 64, 18
Petruk, O., Dubner, G., Castelletti, G., et al. 2009, , 393, 1034
Ptuskin, V. 2006, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 47, 113
Ptuskin, V. S., & Zirakashvili, V. N. 2005, , 429, 755
Yang, R.-z., Zhang, X., Yuan, Q., & Liu, S. 2014, , 567, A23
Yang, R., Aharonian, F., & Evoli, C. 2016, , 93, 123007
Yuan, Q., Liu, S., Fan, Z., Bi, X., & Fryer, C. L. 2011, , 735, 120
Yuan, Q., Huang, X., Liu, S., & Zhang, B. 2014, , 785, L22
Zirakashvili, V. N., & Ptuskin, V. S. 2008, , 678, 939
Zirakashvili, V. N., & Ptuskin, V. S. 2012, Astroparticle Physics, 39, 12
{width="75mm"}
{width="78mm"}
{width="76mm"}
{height="60mm"}
{height="60mm"}
{height="60mm"}
{width="90mm"}
{width="90mm"}
SN Type $M$ $R_\mathrm{b,MS}$ $R_\mathrm{b,RSG}$ $t_\mathrm{SNR,\ end}$ $v_\mathrm{SNR,\ end}$ $\eta_\mathrm{esc}$ $E_\mathrm{max,\ end} $ $E_\mathrm{CR, run} $ $E_\mathrm{CR, leak} $
----------- ----------------------- ------------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------
SNe IIL/b $20 \,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ 18pc 5pc $6.1 \,\rm{kyr}$ $2140\,\rm{km/s}$ 0.02 $34.9\, \rm{TeV}$ $ 5.67\%\,\rm{\mathcal{E}_{51}}$ [ 0.07%$\,\rm{\mathcal{E}_{51}}$]{}
SNe Ib/c $25 \,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ 22 pc - $2.9 \,\rm{kyr}$ $2470\,\rm{km/s}$ 0.01 $16.5\, \rm{TeV}$ $1.44\% \,\rm{\mathcal{E}_{51}}$ [ 0.03%$\,\rm{\mathcal{E}_{51}}$]{}
SNR scenarios MC-core MC-J1729 ICM
--------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ---------
SNe IIL/b $20 \,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ 0.3 & 0.5 0.5 & 0.3 1 & 0.5
SNe Ib/c $25 \,\rm{M_{\odot}}$ 0.9 & 0.5 1.1 & 0.3 1 & 0.5
: Diffusion coefficients in different sub-regions ($D_{10}$ & $\delta$, in unit of $10^{28}\mathrm{cm^2\,s^{-1}}$ & 1. The Galactic value is 1 & 0.5.)[]{data-label="table:diffusion"}
{height="75mm"}
{height="75mm"}
{height="10cm"}
{height="10cm"}
{height="10cm"}
[^1]: http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc
[^2]: Files: gll\_iem\_v06.fit and iso\_P8R2\_SOURCE\_V6\_v06.txt available at\
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/BackgroundModels.html
[^3]: Files: gll\_iem\_v07.fit and iso\_P8R3\_SOURCE\_V1\_v01.txt from http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/access/lat/BackgroundModels.html
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The construction of good effective models is an essential part of understanding and simulating complex systems in many areas of science. It is a particular challenge for correlated many body quantum systems displaying emergent physics. Using information theoretic techniques, we propose a model machine learning approach that optimizes an effective model based on an estimation of its partition function. The success of the method is exemplified by application to the single impurity Anderson model and double quantum dots, with new non-perturbative results obtained for the old problem of mapping to effective Kondo models. We also show that the correct effective model is not in general obtained by attempting to match observables to those of its parent Hamiltonian.'
author:
- 'Jonas B. Rigo'
- 'Andrew K. Mitchell'
bibliography:
- 'refs\_ml.bib'
title: Machine learning effective models for quantum systems
---
The approach to understanding and simulating complex quantum systems can be divided into two groups: *ab initio* studies in which one tries to account for all microscopic details, or studies of simplified effective models that still capture the essential physical phenomena of interest. A prerequisite for the latter is to construct a good effective model. The question of how to do this systematically, starting from a more complex microscopic system, is an important one for many areas of physics.
Effective models are often defined in a reduced Hilbert space involving only those degrees of freedom relevant to describe the low-temperature physics of a complex microscopic model. They can be derived by perturbatively eliminating degrees of freedom, coarse-graining, or by using renormalization group (RG) methods [@Cardy1996xt; @PhysRevB.4.3174; @PhysRev.149.491; @RevModPhys.47.773; @*RevModPhys.80.395]: at low energies, microscopic details only enter through effective interactions and renormalized coupling constants. For the purposes of simulation, and to make realistic contact with experiment, not only the structure of the effective model but also its parameters and emergent energy scales must be determined. By contrast to this bottom-up approach, one can also target specific states or experimental observables of interest, and try to engineer effective models that yield the desired properties [@PhysRevB.97.075114].
In this Letter, we use information theory and machine learning (ML) methods to find good effective models. We describe two different approaches for quantum many-body systems. The first approach is based on comparing the low-energy eigenspectrum of the effective and microscopic models (see Fig. \[fig:schematic\]), which gives a deceptively simple and intuitive optimization condition on their partition functions (‘model ML’). The second approach compares the distribution of diagrams in a perturbative expansion, yielding an optimization condition on *specific* local observables. Perhaps surprisingly, these two approaches yield different results for the optimized effective model, with implications for the Gibbs-Bogoliubov-Feynman (GBF) [@feynman1998statistical] inequality. By studying specific example systems, we show explicitly that the correct low-energy physics (with the correct emergent energy scales) is obtained by optimization based on the partition function. In general, observables of the correct effective model and the parent Hamiltonian need not agree, due to information monotonicity along RG flow [@PhysRevA.92.022330]. ML optimization schemes employing cost functions involving physical observables [@1907.05898] cannot be relied upon to give the correct low-energy physics. Furthermore, different effective models are required to match different observables.
![Schematic comparison of bare \[left\] and effective \[right\] models: (a) Finite size spectra, which agree up to some high-energy cutoff, $E_{\text{cut}}$. (b) Density of states (Boltzmann weighting $e^{-\beta E}$ as dotted line). (c) Spectrum of the thermal density matrix. (d) Thermodynamics, such as entropy, match at low temperatures $T\ll E_{\text{cut}}$ when $\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{eff}}=\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{bare}}$. []{data-label="fig:schematic"}](fig1.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
ML stands on the foundations of statistical inference and information theory. The goal is to approximate an unknown probability distribution by optimizing an auxiliary probabilistic model [@bengio; @Bishop2006]. ML is generally treated as a ‘black box’ method, since the probabilistic models are of high complexity and abstraction with no physical content [@1702.08608]. However, mapping the input to the desired output in deep learning by processing through successive layers of ever increasing abstraction is conceptually similar to RG [@1906.05212; @1410.3831; @PhysRevLett.121.260601; @Koch-Janusz2018; @B_ny_2015; @APENKO201262]. Applications of ML in physics include the search for eigenstates of Hamiltonians [@carleo; @1904.00031; @PhysRevX.8.011006; @1807.03325; @1704.05148; @1905.04312], the inverse problem of finding the parent Hamiltonian of a given state [@1907.02540; @1712.00477; @PhysRevLett.122.020504], predicting properties of materials [@Butler2018; @1906.08534; @1906.08534], and identifying phases of matter [@Carrasquilla2017; @PRL.121.245701; @Zhang2019; @1907.05417]. In our model ML approach, the optimized probabilistic model is the desired effective model, and has physical meaning.
*Partition function condition on effective models.–* As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:schematic\], the goal is to find an effective model with the same low-energy eigenspectrum, or density of states $\rho(\omega)$, as the bare model. Since the effective model lives in a restricted Hilbert space, its high-energy spectrum is typically more sparse than the bare model. The regime of applicability of the effective model is therefore restricted below some cutoff $E_{\text{cut}}$. At low temperatures $T\ll E_{\text{cut}}$, the thermally-weighted density of states (density matrix spectrum) $q(\omega)=\exp(-\beta \omega) \rho(\omega)$ should therefore agree. This guarantees that the bare and effective models have the same low-temperature thermodynamics, including the same emergent energy scales. Note that if $q_{\rm{bare}}(\omega)\simeq q_{\rm{eff}}(\omega)$ at a given temperature, then the partition functions $\mathcal{Z}=\int d\omega q(\omega)$ necessarily match. However, two models with different $q(\omega)$ and therefore different low-energy physics may also have the same $\mathcal{Z}$.
In principle, optimizing an effective model could be achieved by minimizing the difference between the bare and effective probability distributions $P(\omega)=q(\omega)/\mathcal{Z}$ by minimizing their Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence [@kullback1951], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:KL}
D_{\text{KL}} = \int d\omega~ P_{\rm{eff}}(\omega) \log[P_{\rm{eff}}(\omega)/P_{\rm{bare}}(\omega)] \;.\end{aligned}$$
ML algorithms based in this way on optimizing with respect to the density matrix are referred to as ‘quantum Boltzmann machines’ [@PhysRevX.8.021050]. The problem is that this rigorous prescription only applies in the eigenbasis of the models, and the gradient descent update required to find the optimal effective model involves taking derivatives of Eq. \[eq:KL\] with respect to tuning parameters. In most cases this is not practicable, and the ML algorithm itself would need to be run on a quantum computer.
Our central result is that this can be avoided if we restrict our attention to effective models that can *in principle* be derived by a continuous RG transformation from the bare/microscopic model. In particular, the low-energy spectrum of the effective model should remain in one-to-one correspondence with the bare model, with the same quantum numbers, and the symmetries of the bare model are preserved (although the effective model may have larger symmetries). We exclude, for example, a large class of effective models involving a non-interacting quantum gas fine-tuned to trivially reproduce the desired eigenspectrum, or other unphysical models. While an RG-derivable effective model $\hat{H}_{\rm{eff}}=\sum_i \theta_i \hat{h}_i$ may have high physical complexity, its parametric complexity $\{\theta_i\}$ is typically modest. A given effective model has correspondingly modest expressibility in terms of describing different physical systems; the structure of an effective model must be appropriate to the physics being described. This is unlike the standard philosophy for Boltzmann machines that employ an unphysical auxiliary energy-based model to represent $P_{\rm{bare}}(\omega)$, with high expressibility but also high parametric complexity [@bengio].
{width="16cm"}
Since the RG process can be regarded as a ‘quantum channel’ [@PhysRevA.92.022330] (a completely positive, trace preserving linear map [@PhysRevLett.78.2275]), the partition function is invariant under RG. An RG-derivable effective model therefore satisfies the condition, $\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{eff}}=\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{bare}}$. Optimization can therefore be done directly on the level of the partition functions.
Our model ML does not perform RG: given a suitable structure for the effective model, the method efficiently finds the optimized model parameters by matching partition functions. With loss function $L_{\mathcal{Z}}=[\log(\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{eff}})-\log(\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{bare}})]^2$, the gradient descent update for tuning a parameter $\theta_i$ of the effective model is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:loss}
\partial L_{\mathcal{Z}}/\partial \theta_i \sim [\log(\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{eff}})-\log(\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{bare}})] \times \langle \hat{h}_{i} \rangle_{\rm{eff}} \;.\end{aligned}$$ If the effective model cannot describe the physics of the bare model, such that $\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{eff}}\ne \mathcal{Z}_{\rm{bare}}$, the optimization procedure yields coupling constant $\theta_i=0$.
Finally, note that the partition functions themselves can be estimated by any suitable method at any temperature $T<E_{\text{cut}}$ (the optimization is robust and found to be insensitive to the particular temperature chosen).
*Model machine learning for the Anderson model.–* As a simple but non-trivial demonstration, we apply the model ML scheme to the Anderson impurity model (AIM) [@hewson1993], $$\label{eq:aim}
\hat{H}_{\text{A}} = \hat{H}_{\text{bath}}
+ \sum_{\sigma}\epsilon\hat{n}_{d\sigma} + U \hat{n}_{d\uparrow}\hat{n}_{d\downarrow}
+ V\sum_{\sigma} ( d_{\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{0\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}+c_{0\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}} )$$ where $\hat{H}_{\text{bath}}=\sum_{k,\sigma}\epsilon_k c_{k\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{k\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}$, $\hat{n}_{d\sigma}=d_{\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}$, and $V c_{0\sigma}=\sum_k V_k c_{k\sigma}$. For simplicity we consider particle-hole symmetry $\epsilon=-U/2$, and a flat conduction electron density of states in a band of half-width $D=1$. The well-known low-energy effective model is the Kondo Hamiltonian [@hewson1993], describing impurity-mediated spin-flip scattering, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kondo}
\hat{H}_{\text{K}}=\hat{H}_{\text{bath}} + J \hat{\vec{S}}_d \cdot \hat{\vec{S}}_0 \;, \end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\vec{S}}_d$ is a spin-$\tfrac{1}{2}$ operator for the impurity, and $\hat{\vec{S}}_0=\tfrac{1}{2}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma'}\vec{\tau}_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{0\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{0\sigma'}^{\phantom{\dagger}}$ is the spin density of conduction electrons at the impurity. Traditionally, the Kondo model is derived from the Anderson model by means of the Schrieffer-Wolff (SW) transformation [@PhysRev.149.491], which perturbatively eliminates excitations out of the singly-occupied spin manifold of impurity states. SW yields $J_{\text{SW}}=8V^2/U$ to second order in the impurity-bath hybridization. However, even SW to infinite-order neglects renormalization effects (retardation) [@KEHREIN19961; @doi:10.1080].
We use the numerical renormalization group (NRG) method [@RevModPhys.47.773; @*RevModPhys.80.395; @PhysRevLett.99.076402; @PhysRevLett.95.196801; @SM] to determine the partition functions of the Anderson and Kondo models ($\mathcal{Z}_{\text{A}}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{\text{K}}$ respectively) at temperature $T$. Optimization of the Kondo coupling $J$ by minimizing $L_{\mathcal{Z}}$ using a bisection method converges exponentially rapidly. NRG results are presented in Fig. \[fig:MML\], comparing the bare AIM (circle points) with effective Kondo models: $J$ determined by model ML (red lines), the SW result (blue lines), and $J$ obtained by observable matching (green lines, discussed shortly). Panel (a) shows the impurity contribution to entropy $S(T)$, for $U=0.5$ and $J_{\text{SW}}=0.25$ (inset for $U=0.5$ and $J_{\text{SW}}=0.4$), while panel (b) shows the scattering t-matrix spectrum $t(\omega)$, at $T=0$ for the same parameters. Panels (c,d) show the ML optimization procedure.
Figs. \[fig:MML\](a,b) demonstrate that the model ML method perfectly determines the true coupling $J$ of the effective Kondo model – even in the case where an incipient local moment is never fully developed (insets). By contrast, the SW result substantially over-estimates the coupling, leading to the wrong low-energy physics and Kondo scales. In more complex models, errors in determining the couplings may lead to incorrect ground state assignment. Deviations between the AIM and Kondo model with $J=J_{\text{ML}}$ set in only at high temperature scales $T\sim U$ (impurity charge fluctuations in the AIM cannot be described by the Kondo model [@hewson1993]).
In the AIM and Kondo models, the density of states $\rho(\omega)=-\tfrac{1}{\pi}\sum_k \text{Im} G_{kk}(\omega)$, is related to the t-matrix via $G_{kk'}(\omega)=G_{kk'}^0(\omega)+G_{kk}^0(\omega) \mathrm{t}_{kk'}(\omega) G_{k'k'}^0(\omega)$, where $G_{kk'}$ and $G_{kk'}^0$ are the full and free electron Green’s functions [@hewson1993]. All non-trivial correlations are encoded in the t-matrix spectrum $t(\omega)$ [@SM] plotted in Fig. \[fig:MML\](b). Matching the low-energy density of states as per Fig. \[fig:schematic\](b) is therefore equivalent to matching the low-energy t-matrix. However, we have shown that this is achieved automatically by satisfying the simpler condition $\mathcal{Z}_{\text{K}}=\mathcal{Z}_{\text{A}}$.
Fig. \[fig:optJ\](a) shows the evolution of the Kondo coupling $J$ obtained by model ML for a reference AIM with fixed $J_{\text{SW}}=0.3$, but varying $U$ (red line). Panel (b) shows the corresponding Kondo temperature $T_{\text{K}}$ of the ML-optimized Kondo model, compared with the true $T_{\text{K}}$ of the AIM (circle points). The breakdown of SW is clearly seen: only at very large $U$ much greater than the conduction bandwidth $D=1$, does SW apply. In particular, note that modest differences in $J$ translate to dramatic deviations in $T_{\text{K}}$. We find that, with $J=J_{\text{ML}}$ the Kondo scale is given very accurately by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tk}
T_{\text{K}} = \alpha\sqrt{\rho_0 J_{\text{ML}}} \exp[-1/\rho_0 J_{\text{ML}} + \gamma \rho_0 J_{\text{ML}}] \;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_0$ is the Fermi level free density of states, $\gamma=\pi^2/4$, and $\alpha=\mathcal{O}(1)$. Eq. \[eq:tk\] is consistent with exact results for a pure Kondo model [@RevModPhys.55.331; @SM]. Eq. \[eq:tk\] applies quite generally to the AIM, provided the correct coupling $J$ is identified, and generalizes previous results for the AIM valid at large-$U$ [@hewson1993]. As a simple rule of thumb, we find: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MLvsSW}
T_{\text{K}}(J_{\text{ML}}) \simeq T_{\text{K}}(J_{\text{SW}})\times \frac{U}{U+15\sqrt{\rho_0 J_{\text{SW}}}} \;.\end{aligned}$$ Inverting Eq. \[eq:MLvsSW\] provides an accurate estimate of the true coupling $J$ of the AIM in terms of the SW result.
Fig. \[fig:optJ\](c) shows how the results of model ML depend on temperature. We perform optimization of the Kondo coupling $J$ by matching partition functions at temperature $T$ for three reference AIM with the same $T_{\text{K}}$ but different $U, V$. We find that $J_{\text{ML}}$ is robust and essentially constant for all $T\ll U$, where one expects the Kondo model to apply (in practice, $J$ is obtained with less than 3% error for $U/T>100$). This has the important implication that model ML can be performed using estimates of the partition functions at relatively high temperatures, making it amenable to treatment with e.g. quantum Monte Carlo methods [@BENNETT1976245; @VONDERLINDEN199253; @PhysRevB.72.035122]. Note that for $T\gtrsim U$, the Kondo model is not a good effective model, and the resulting $J_{\text{ML}}$ vanishes as per Eq. \[eq:loss\].
A further application of model ML to double quantum dots is given in the Supplementary Material [@SM].
{width="16cm"}
*Optimization using observables.–* ML employing heuristic cost functions based on physical observables might seem appealing if the goal is to reproduce observables of the bare model within the simpler description of an effective model. However, as shown below, this is not always possible. Indeed, different effective models are in general required to reproduce different observables. The correct low-energy effective model (in the sense discussed in this paper) cannot reproduce all observables of the bare model, even at low temperatures, due to information monotonicity along RG flow. The information content of the effective model is necessarily lower than the bare model. Under RG the value of observables may flow, meaning that optimizing effective models using observables cannot constitute a reliable ML scheme.
This surprising result is presaged by the Gibbs-Bogoliubov-Feynman (GBF) inequality [@feynman1998statistical] for the free energy, $F_{\rm{eff}} \le F_{\rm{bare}} + \langle\hat{H}_{\rm{eff}}-\hat{H}_{\rm{bare}}\rangle_{\rm{bare}}$. Differentiating with respect to the coupling constants of the effective model $\hat{H}_{\rm{eff}}=\sum_i \theta_i\hat{h}_i$, we obtain $\langle \hat{h}_{i}\rangle_{\rm{eff}} \le \langle \hat{h}_{i}\rangle_{\rm{bare}}$. GBF implies that, when optimizing the effective model with respect to $\theta_i$, the corresponding observable $\langle \hat{h}_i \rangle$ in the effective model is merely *bounded* by its value in the bare model, not necessarily equal to it.
In the case of mapping AIM to Kondo, we find that the proper effective model ($J$ determined by model ML) yields $\langle \vec{S}_d \cdot \vec{S}_0 \rangle_{\text{K}} \le \langle \vec{S}_d \cdot \vec{S}_0 \rangle_{\text{A}}$, with the GBF bound satisfied only in the SW limit $U\rightarrow \infty$, see inset to Fig. \[fig:optJ\](a).
To compare with model ML, we implement optimization of the effective Kondo model using the observable-based cost function $L_J=[\langle \vec{S}_d \cdot \vec{S}_0 \rangle_{\text{K}}-\langle \vec{S}_d \cdot \vec{S}_0\rangle_{\text{A}}]^2$. The green lines in Fig. \[fig:MML\] show the result of minimizing $L_J$. The Kondo model with $J=J_{\text{obs}}$ has the same impurity-bath spin correlation as the reference AIM, but does not yield the correct low-energy physics or Kondo scale (panels a,b). Panels (c,d) show that $\langle \vec{S}_d \cdot \vec{S}_0 \rangle_{\text{K}}=\langle \vec{S}_d\cdot \vec{S}_0 \rangle_{\text{A}}$ and $\mathcal{Z}_{\text{K}}=\mathcal{Z}_{\text{A}}$ cannot be simultaneously satisfied. Fig. \[fig:optJ\](a) shows how $J_{\text{obs}}$ varies with $U$ for fixed $J_{\text{SW}}$. Only for $U\rightarrow \infty$ in the reference AIM does $J_{\text{obs}}\rightarrow J_{\text{ML}}$ (in which case $J_{\text{SW}}$ is the correct result). For $U<1$, $J_{\text{obs}}$ is a poor approximation to the true $J$ ($\simeq J_{\text{ML}}$), as highlighted by the differences in Kondo scales in panel (b).
*ML based on diagrammatic expansion.–* To gain further insight, we formulate an alternative ML approach using a classical probability distribution extracted from a diagrammatic expansion of the partition function, serving as a proxy for the Hamiltonian. We focus on generalized quantum-impurity problems $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{\text{imp}}+\hat{H}_{\text{bath}}+\hat{H}_{\text{hyb}}$, of which AIM and Kondo are the simplest examples. The partition function may be written in terms of the continuous-time hybridization expansion [@Haldane_1978; @RevModPhys.83.349; @PhysRevB.75.155113], viz:
\[eq:ct-hyb\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} &=\mathcal{Z}_{\text{bath}}\int dx ~w(x) \;, \\
w(x) &= \text{det}(\Delta^{(x)}) \Lambda^{(x)} \exp[-\beta \langle \hat{H}_{\text{imp}} \rangle_x] \;,\end{aligned}$$
where $w(x)$ is the weight of a distinct Feynman diagram labelled by the tuple $x$, $\Delta^{(x)}$ is the antiperiodic hybridization matrix, $\Lambda^{(x)}$ is a product of Dyson orbitals, and $\langle \hat{H}_{\text{imp}} \rangle_x$ is the expectation value of the impurity Hamiltonian on diagram $x$. Observables are evaluated as $\langle \hat{\mathcal{O}}\rangle=\int dx ~w(x)\langle \hat{\mathcal{O}}\rangle_x $. Further details and discussion are provided in the Supplementary Material [@SM].
For $w(x) > 0$, one may define a classical probability distribution of diagrams, $P(x)=(\mathcal{Z}_{\text{bath}}/\mathcal{Z})w(x)$. As with the classical Boltzmann machine, $P(x)$ is in the form of an energy-based model, with the weights here distributed according to the impurity Hamiltonian. The distribution of diagrams for bare and effective models can be compared using the KL divergence, Eq. \[eq:KL\]. The parameters $\theta_i$ of the effective impurity Hamiltonian can be optimized by minimizing the KL divergence. The ML gradient descent update is $\nabla_{\theta} D_{\text{KL}}[P_{\rm{eff}}:P_{\rm{bare}}]=\beta\langle \nabla_{\theta}\hat{H}_{\rm{eff}}\rangle_{\rm{bare}}-\beta\langle \nabla_{\theta}\hat{H}_{\rm{eff}}\rangle_{\rm{eff}}$, provided $\nabla_{\theta}\Lambda_{\rm{eff}}^{(x)}=0$. This is a strictly convex optimization problem, with the minimum found when the impurity observables match.
This rigorous derivation highlights several important features. The observable-matching criterion follows only if there is no ‘sign problem’, $w(x)>0$, such that $P(x)$ can be regarded as a proper probability distribution, and when the impurity eigenbasis does not depend on the parameters being tuned, $\nabla_{\theta}\Lambda_{\rm{eff}}^{(x)}=0$. Even with these conditions fulfilled, observable matching merely minimizes the KL divergence – it does *not* imply that $P_{\rm{eff}}(x)=P_{\rm{bare}}(x)$ or that $\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{eff}}=\mathcal{Z}_{\rm{bare}}$.
*Conclusion and applications.–* Finding a good effective low-energy model for a given bare Hamiltonian is a challenging and subtle problem. In this Letter we approach the problem using ML techniques, showing that optimization on the level of the partition function yields the correct low-energy physics for RG-derivable effective models. The success and efficiency of our model ML method is demonstrated for quantum impurity problems. We show that local observables of the correct effective model do not necessarily match those of the bare model.
The model ML framework we introduce is general; applications include deriving effective models for complex molecular junctions [@Mitchell2017], and solving inverse problems for rational design. Model ML may also be adapted to find the effective equilibrium problem for non-equilibrium systems [@PhysRevB.62.R16271], or to find simplified/coarse-grained effective descriptions within multi-orbital/cluster dynamical mean field theory [@RevModPhys.78.865; @RevModPhys.77.1027].\
*Acknowledgments.–* We thank Sudeshna Sen for useful discussions, and acknowledge funding from the Irish Research Council Laureate Awards 2017/2018 through grant IRCLA/2017/169.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'GENIUS is a proposal for a large scale detector of rare events. As a first step of the experiment, a small test version, the GENIUS test facility, will be build up at the Laboratorio Nazionale del Gran Sasso (LNGS). With about 40kg of natural Ge detectors operated in liquid nitrogen, GENIUS-TF could exclude (or directly confirm) the DAMA annual modulation signature within about two years of measurement.'
address: 'Max–Planck–Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany'
author:
- 'L. Baudis$^{*}$, A. Dietz, G. Heusser, B. Majorovits,'
- 'H. Strecker and H. V. Klapdor–Kleingrothaus$^{**}$'
title: 'GENIUS-TF: a test facility for the GENIUS project'
---
Introduction
============
GENIUS (GErmanium in liquid NItrogen Underground Setup) is a proposal for operating a large amount of ’naked’ Ge detectors in liquid nitrogen to search for rare events such as WIMP-nucleus scattering, neutrinoless double beta decay and solar neutrino interactions, with a much increased sensitivity relative to existing experiments [@ringb; @nim_genius; @prop_genius]. By removing (almost) all materials from the immediate vicinity of the Ge-crystals, their absolute background can be considerably decreased with respect to conventionally operated detectors. The liquid nitrogen acts both as a cooling medium and as a shield against external radioactivity. The proposed scale of the experiment is a nitrogen tank of about 12m diameter and 12m height with 100kg of natural Ge and 1 ton of enriched $^{76}$Ge in the dark matter and double beta decay versions, respectively, suspended in its center.
To cover large parts of the MSSM parameter space, relevant for the detection of neutralinos as dark matter candidates [@jkg96; @bedny1; @bedny2], a maximum background level of 10$^{-2}$ counts/(kgykeV) in the energy region below 50keV has to be achieved. In the double beta decay region (Q-value = 2038.56keV) a background of 0.3 events/(tykeV) is needed in order to test the effective Majorana neutrino mass down to 0.01eV (90%C.L.). This implies a very large background reduction in comparison to our recent best results [@prd-hdmo; @prl-hdmo] with the Heidelberg–Moscow experiment.
The focus of this paper is to present a small scale version experiment, the GENIUS test facility (GENIUS-TF), which will be built up at the Laboratorio Nazionale del Gran Sasso (LNGS). It is designed to test experimentally the feasibility of GENIUS. Up to 40kg of Ge detectors will be operated directly in liquid nitrogen, the overall dimension of the experiment not exceeding 2m$\times$2m$\times$2m. As a side effect, it will improve limits on WIMP-nucleon cross sections with respect to our results with the Heidelberg–Moscow and HDMS experiments [@prd-hdmo; @prd-hdms]. The relatively large mass of Ge compared to existing experiments would permit to search directly for a WIMP signature in form of the predicted [@freese] seasonal modulation of the event rate.
The GENIUS Test Facility
========================
GENIUS-TF consists of up to 14 natural Ge crystals (40kg) operated in a volume of 0.064m$^3$ of ultra-pure liquid nitrogen. The liquid nitrogen is housed by a 0.5mm thick steel vessel inside a 0.9m$\times$0.9m$\times$0.9m box of polystyrene foam, with a 5cm thick inner shield of high purity Ge bricks (the basic concept is described in [@bargein]). Outside the foam box there are 10cm of low-level copper, 30cm of lead and 15cm of borated polyethylene as shields against the natural radioactivity of the environment (see Fig. \[gtf\_setup\]). The Ge crystals are positioned in two layers (each layer of 7 detectors in two concentric circles) on a holder system made of high molecular polyethylene. The signal and high voltage contacts of the individual crystals are established using a minimized amount of ultra pure stainless steel (about 3g) as already demonstrated in previous experiments [@nim_genius; @la_diss; @bela_diss].
Background considerations
=========================
The aim of GENIUS-TF is to reach the background level of 2events/(kgykeV) in the energy region below 50keV (50keV ionization energy in germanium corresponds to about 200keV nuclear recoil energy). This is one order of magnitude lower than the actual background of the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment and two orders of magnitude higher than the final goal of GENIUS. To estimate the background contributions from the various components we performed detailed Monte Carlo simulations of the relevant background sources using the geometry shown in Fig. \[gtf\_setup\] [^1]. The simulations are based on the [GEANT3.21]{} package [@geant] extended for nuclear decays.
The sources of background can be divided into external and internal ones. The external background is generated by events originating from outside the shields, such as photons and neutrons from the Gran Sasso rock and by muon interactions. We simulated the measured photon [@arpesella92], neutron [@arp] and muon [@macro] fluxes at LNGS. With a total of 30cm of lead and 15cm of borated polyethylene shield, the contribution of the photons and neutrons are negligible. The muons yield a count rate of 2$\times$10$^{-2}$ events/(kgykeV) in the energy region 0-50keV (this, and all following rates are given after computing the anti-coincidence between the 14 Ge detectors). Secondary neutron induced interactions in the liquid nitrogen, as well as negative muon capture and inelastic muon scattering reactions generate only a negligible contribution to the overall expected background rate (for details see [@nim_genius; @prop_genius; @la_diss]).
Internal background arises from residual impurities in the liquid nitrogen, the steel vessel, the polystyrene foam isolation, the Ge and Cu shields, the crystal holder system, the Ge crystals themselves and from activation of the Ge crystals and of the copper during fabrication and transportation at the Earths surface. The assumed intrinsic impurity levels for the simulated materials and the resulting count rates in the low-energy region are listed in Table \[intr-assumpt\].
The values assumed for the $^{238}$U and $^{232}$Th contamination of the liquid nitrogen are 1000 times higher than already measured by BOREXINO [@borexino] for their liquid scintillator. The $^{222}$Rn contamination of freshly produced liquid nitrogen was recently measured to be 325$\mu$Bq/m$^3$ [@rau]. No additional assumptions were made. The U/Th, $^{40}$K and $^{60}$Co contamination for the steel are taken from a recent measurement in the Heidelberg low level lab [@heusser-privat]. The intrinsic impurity levels in Ge crystals are conservative upper limits from measurements with the detectors of the Heidelberg–Moscow experiment. We assumed a 100 times higher contamination level for the HPGe bricks used as inner shield. The contamination level of polystyrene was measured with a natural Ge detector in appropriate shielding at LNGS [@bela_diss]. However, no material selection or special handling were applied and a higher purity can certainly be reached. The $^{238}$U, $^{232}$Th and $^{40}$K contamination values, as well as the cosmogenic activation of the Cu shield were taken from a former measurement with the Ge detectors of the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment [@hdmo-old]. In the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment we also measure activities of the anthropogenic isotopes $^{125}$Sb, $^{207}$Bi, $^{134}$Cs, $^{137}$Cs. Although these impurities could be found anywhere in the experimental setup, we assume that they are located in the copper shield. The respective activities are taken from [@maier_diss]. The assumed values for polyethylene were reached by the SNO experiment [@sno] for an acrylic material. Though a 10-100 times higher contamination level would also be acceptable, such a crystal support system still has to be developed.
We have estimated the cosmogenic production rates of radioisotopes in the Ge–crystals with the $\Sigma$ program [@JensB]. Assuming an unshielded production and transportation time of 30 days at sea level for the Ge–detectors, and a deactivation time of one year, we obtain the radioisotope concentrations listed in Table \[ge\_cosmo\] (for $^{68}$Ge the saturation activity is assumed; the value for $^{3}$H is taken from [@avignone]). All other produced radionuclides have much smaller activities due to their shorter half lives. The count rate between 5keV and 11keV is dominated by X–rays from the decays of the various isotopes (see Table \[ge\_cosmo\]). However, if the energy threshold of the Ge detectors will be as low as 0.7keV (as stated by the manufacturer) GENIUS-TF will nonetheless be sensitive to low WIMP masses. The sum of all contributions from the cosmogenic activation of the Ge crystals amounts to 4$\times$10$^{-1}$ counts/(kgykeV) between 1 and 4keV and between 11 and 50keV. After the decay of those isotopes with half lives around 1 year, this region will be dominated by contribution from $^{3}$H and $^{63}$Ni, due to their low Q–value (18.6keV and 66.95keV) and large half life (12.33yr and 100.1yr). Figure \[cosmo\] shows the sum and the single contributions from the different isotopes.
Summing up the background contributions discussed so far, the mean count rate in the low energy region amounts to about 4 events/(kgykeV). In Fig. \[specall\] the spectra of individual contributions and the summed up total background spectrum are shown (after one year of storage of the Ge detectors below ground). The low-energy spectrum is dominated by events originating from the polystyrene foam isolations, from the copper shield and the steel vessel. Regarding the polystyrene, no material selections were performed so far and efforts in this direction are starting to being made. Careful selections will have to be performed also for the steel vessel, which, in spite of its low total mass, yields a significant contribution due to its proximity to the Ge crystals. Lower contamination values by a factor of 5-10 than assumed in this simulation were already reached in the past [@heusser-privat]. For copper the cosmogenic activities of $^{54}$Mn, $^{57}$Co, $^{58}$Co, $^{60}$Co, as well as anthropogenic activities are dominating and low exposures at the Earths surface as well as electro-polishing of surfaces are desirable.
Goals of GENIUS-TF
===================
The primary goal of GENIUS-TF is to demonstrate the feasibility of the GENIUS project. It has to be shown that ‘naked’ Ge detectors work reliably in liquid nitrogen over a longer period of time (at least for one year). Material selections have to be performed for various experimental components and their purity tested down to 1event/(kgykeV). A crystal support system, made of low-radioactivity polyethylene has to be developed and designed such that it can be extended in order to house up to 40 crystals (100kg). A new, modular data acquisition system and electronics have to be developed and tested. Besides above issues, which certainly are important, GENIUS-TF can have a physics program of its own.
WIMP Dark Matter {#wimp-dark-matter .unnumbered}
----------------
With 40kg of natural Ge and a background of 2events/(kgykeV) in the energy region below 50keV, GENIUS-TF can cover the ‘evidence region’ in the MSSM parameter space for neutralinos as dark matter candidates singled out by the DAMA experiment [@dama3]. It would exclude DAMA after about one year of measurement, delivering an independent test by using a different technology and raw data without background subtraction.
Figure \[limits\] shows a comparison of existing constraints and future sensitivities of cold dark matter experiments, together with the theoretical expectations for neutralino scattering rates [@vadim99]. For GENIUS-TF, energy thresholds of 2keV and 11keV (worst case scenario) were assumed. In addition to setting limits on WIMP-nucleon cross sections, GENIUS-TF will be able to test the DAMA region by directly looking for a seasonal modulation of the event rate and of the energy spectrum. Depending on the background and energy threshold, an overall exposure between 1 and 5 years are needed in order to test the DAMA region with 99.5% C.L. (according to [@cebrian99]). For example, for an energy threshold of 2keV and a background level of 4events/(kgykeV), 1.4yr of measurement with 40kg of Ge are required. Even for an initial lower mass of 20kg the time scale of about 3yr would still be acceptable.
Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay {#neutrinoless-double-beta-decay .unnumbered}
------------------------------
Neutrinoless double beta decay provides a unique method for gaining information about the absolute neutrino mass scale and of discerning between a Majorana and a Dirac neutrino. The current most stringent experimental limit on the effective Majorana neutrino mass, $\langle {\rm m} \rangle < $0.35eV, comes from the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment [@hdmo_dark]. For a significant step beyond this limit, much higher source strengths and lower background levels are needed, a goal which could be accomplished by the GENIUS experiment operating 300–400 detectors made of enriched $^{76}$Ge (1 ton).
Operating the enriched $^{76}$Ge detectors of the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment within the GENIUS test facility could improve existing half life limits by up to a factor of 8. The Heidelberg-Moscow Ge detectors have the advantage of having been stored for several years at LNGS, so that cosmogenic activities will not play a major role for the background. However, in order to improve the background in the high-energy region by a factor of 30, more stringent requirements for the purity of the used materials have to be made (see Table \[intr-assumpt-bb\]). The U/Th contamination of nitrogen is 100 times less stringent than measured by BOREXINO, the contamination of the Ge bricks 10 times higher than the upper limit for the detectors of the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment. For steel, the best measured values so far ($^{238}$U: 0.6mBq/kg, $^{232}$Th: 0.2mBq/kg [@heusser-privat]) have been assumed. While the above components are not critical, the background is dominated by the U/Th contaminations of the polystyrene foam and of the copper shield. Here 50 and 10 times lower contamination levels than measured so far have been assumed. While for polystyrene such values could be achieved after severe material selections, the case of copper is more subtle and it might have to be replaced by a cleaner material, as for example low-level lead. The muon contribution, which amounts to about 1$\times$10$^{-3}$events/kgyrkeV could be further reduced by a factor 10 with a muon veto with 90% efficiency. Fig. \[specall-betabeta\] shows the individual contributions and the sum spectrum from 2000 to 2080keV. The background of 6$\times$10$^{-3}$events/kgyrkeV is about a factor of 30 lower than the (raw) background of the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment in the energy region between 2000-2080keV [@la_diss] and can be further reduced by a factor of 3 with pulse shape analysis [@prl-hdmo]. It would allow to reach a half life limit of about 1.6$\times$10$^{26}$yr and thus to test the effective Majorana neutrino mass down to 0.1eV with 90% C.L. after 6 years of measurement. Although 6 years seem long, the time scale is short compared to those of other experiments proposed to improve the Heidelberg-Moscow mass limit by a significant amount, such as GENIUS [@prop_genius], EXO [@exo] or CUORE [@cuore].
Summary and Outlook
===================
We have presented a test facility for the GENIUS experiment, GENIUS-TF, which is approved and is going to be installed at LNGS in the course of the year 2001. We have estimated the expected background from the various experimental components in a detailed Monte Carlo simulation based on [GEANT3.21]{}. A background reduction by a factor of 10 compared to the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment [@prd-hdmo] seems feasible even with 30 days exposure of the Ge crystals at the Earths surface. The dominating sources of background arise from the U/Th contamination of the polystyrene foam isolation, from the steel vessel and from the cosmogenic activation and anthropogenic contamination of the copper shield. While for polystyrene and steel material selections will be pursued, low exposure times and special treatment of the copper surfaces will be essential.
Besides offering an environment to test different solutions to be adopted in the GENIUS experiment, GENIUS-TF will bring its own contribution to the fields of direct WIMP detections and neutrinoless double beta decay search. It will allow to improve current limits on WIMP-nucleon cross sections and thus to test the DAMA evidence region [@dama3] within about one year of measurement. Moreover, with 40kg of WIMP target material and an energy threshold of 1keV (11keV in the worst case), an eventual WIMP signature could be seen (or excluded) directly within 1year (5years) of measurement. No other planned experiment for the near future and using a different technique than DAMA can achieve this goal. The operation of the Heidelberg-Moscow enriched $^{76}$Ge detectors (about 11kg of active mass) in the same facility would allow to test the effective Majorana neutrino mass down to 0.1eV with 90% C.L. within 6 years of measurement.
$^{*}$ email: [email protected]\
$^{**}$ spokesman of the GENIUS collab., email: [email protected]
[99]{}
H.V. Klapdor–Kleingrothaus: In [*Proc. of Beyond the Desert 1997*]{}, ed. by H.V. Klapdor–Kleingrothaus, H. Päs (IOP Bristol 1998) pp. 485–531, H.V. Klapdor–Kleingrothaus, Int. Journ. Mod. Phys. A [**13**]{}, 3953 (1998), H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, M. Hirsch, Z. Phys. A [**359**]{}, 351 (1997), H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, J. Hellmig, M. Hirsch, J. Phys. G [**24**]{}, 438 (1998).
L. Baudis, G. Heusser, B. Majorovits, Y. Ramachers, H. Strecker, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [ 426]{}, 425 (1999).
H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, L. Baudis, G. Heusser, B. Majorovits, H. Päs, [ ‘GENIUS: a Supersensitive Germanium Detector System for Rare Events’]{}, Proposal, MPI-H-V26-1999, hep-ph/9910205 (1999).
G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, K. Griest, Phys. Rep. [ 267]{}, 195 (1996).
V. Bednyakov, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, S. Kovalenko, Y. Ramachers, Z. Phys. A [ 357]{}, 339 (1997).
V. Bednyakov, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, submitted to Phys. Rev. D, (2000).
L. Baudis et al. (Heidelberg–Moscow collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [ 59]{}, 022001 (1998).
L. Baudis et al. (Heidelberg–Moscow collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [ 83]{}, 41 (1999).
L. Baudis, A. Dietz, B. Majorovits, F. Schwamm, H. Strecker, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Phys. Rev. D 63, 22001 (2001), astro-ph/0008339.
K. Freese, J. Frieman, and A. Gould, Phys. Rev. D [ 37]{} 3388 (1988).
B. Majorovits, L. Baudis, G. Heusser, H. Strecker, H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [ 455]{}, 371 (2000).
L. Baudis, PhD Thesis, University of Heidelberg (1999).
B. Majorovits, PhD Thesis, University of Heidelberg (2000).
GEANT3.21: Detector Description and Simulation Tool, Geneva (1993).
M. Günther et al. (Heidelberg–Moscow Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [ 55]{}, 54 (1997).
C. Arpesella, Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) A [ 28]{}, 420 (1992).
P. Belli et al., Nuovo Cim. A [ 101]{}, 959 (1989).
deMarzo (MACRO collaboration), Nucl. Instr. Meth. A [314]{}, 380 (1992).
G. Alimonti et al. (BOREXINO Collaboration), Astropart. Phys. [8]{}, 141 (1998).
G. Heusser, private communication.
G. Heusser et al., Appl. Rad. Inst. [52]{}, 691 (2000).
B. Maier, PhD Thesis, University of Heidelberg (1995).
SNO Collaboration: In [*Proceedings of the 4th International Solar Neutrino Conference, Heidelberg, April 8-11, 1997*]{}, ed. by W. Hampel (1997) pp. 210.
J. Bockholt, PhD Thesis, University of Heidelberg (1994).
Avignone III et. al, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl) 28 A 280 (1992).
R. Bernabei et al., Phys. Lett. B [424]{}, 195 (1998), Phys. Lett. B [450]{}, 448 (1999), Phys. Lett. B [480]{}, 23 (2000).
V.A. Bednyakov, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus: ‘SUSY Spectrum Constraints on Direct Dark Matter Detection’, Phys. Rev. D (2000) accepted, hep-ph/9908427.
S. Cebrian et al., Astropart.Phys. 14 339-350 (2001), hep-ph/9912394.
A. Dietz, L. Baudis, G. Heusser, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I.V. Krivosheina, S. Kolb, B. Majorovits, H. Päs, H. Strecker, V. Alexeev, A. Balysh, A. Bakalyarov, S.T. Belyaev, V.I. Lebedev, and S. Zhukov in Proc. of the Third Int. Conference on Dark Matter in Astro– and Particle Physics (DARK2000) July 2000, Heidelberg, Eds. H.V. Klapdor–Kleingrothaus and B. Majorovits, IOP, Bristol& Philadelphia, 2001.
R. Bernabei et al., Nucl. Phys. B [70]{} (Proc. Suppl), 79 (1998).
R. Abusaidi et al. (CDMS Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [444]{}, 345 (2000), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 5699-5703 (2000).
M. Bravin et al.: Astrop. Physics [12]{}, 107 (1999).
R.W. Schnee et al.: Physics Reports [307]{} (Proc. Suppl.), 283 (1998).
M. Danilov et al., Phys.Lett. B 480, 12 (2000).
E. Previtali et al., in Proc. of the Second Int. Conference on Dark Matter in Astro– and Particle Physics (DARK98) July 1998, Heidelberg, Eds. H.V. Klapdor–Kleingrothaus and L. Baudis, IOP, Bristol& Philadelphia, 1999.
-------------------- ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- ----------------------
Source Radionuclide Purity Count rate (0-50keV)
\[events/(kgykeV)\]
Ge crystals $^{238}$U 1.8$\times$10$^{-15}$g/g 1.2$\times$10$^{-3}$
$^{232}$Th 5.7$\times$10$^{-15}$g/g 0.5$\times$10$^{-3}$
Holder system U/Th, K 1$\times$10$^{-12}$, 1$\times$10$^{-9}$g/g 1$\times$10$^{-2}$
Nitrogen $^{238}$U 3.5$\times$10$^{-13}$g/g 3$\times$10$^{-2}$
$^{232}$Th 4.4$\times$10$^{-13}$g/g 2$\times$10$^{-2}$
$^{40}$K 1$\times$10$^{-11}$g/g 3$\times$10$^{-3}$
$^{222}$Rn 325$\mu$Bq/m$^3$ 4$\times$10$^{-3}$
Steel $^{238}$U 3mBq/kg 3$\times$10$^{-1}$
$^{232}$Th 4mBq/kg 4.5$\times$10$^{-1}$
$^{40}$K 2mBq/kg 1.5$\times$10$^{-2}$
$^{60}$Co 2mBq/kg 3$\times$10$^{-1}$
Ge shield $^{238}$U 1.8$\times$10$^{-13}$g/g 4.5$\times$10$^{-2}$
$^{232}$Th 5.7$\times$10$^{-13}$g/g 6$\times$10$^{-2}$
$^{40}$K 1$\times$10$^{-11}$g/g 4.5$\times$10$^{-4}$
Polystyrene shield $^{238}$U 1.7$\times$10$^{-10}$g/g 1.5$\times$10$^{-1}$
$^{232}$Th 1.8$\times$10$^{-9}$g/g 6$\times$10$^{-1}$
$^{40}$K 2.6$\times$10$^{-7}$g/g 4$\times$10$^{-2}$
Cu shield $^{238}$U 5.4$\times$10$^{-12}$g/g 2.5$\times$10$^{-1}$
$^{232}$Th 3.0$\times$10$^{-12}$g/g 6.5$\times$10$^{-2}$
$^{40}$K 4.5$\times$10$^{-10}$g/g 6$\times$10$^{-3}$
cosmogenics $^{54}$Mn, $^{57}$Co, $^{58}$Co, $^{60}$Co 23,30,50,70$\mu$Bq/kg 8$\times$10$^{-1}$
anthropogenics $^{125}$Sb, $^{207}$Bi, $^{134}$Cs, $^{137}$Cs 50,8,150,11$\mu$Bq/kg 7.5$\times$10$^{-1}$
-------------------- ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------- ----------------------
: Assumed intrinsic impurity levels and resulting count rates for the simulated background components in the energy region relevant for dark matter detection.
\[intr-assumpt\]
Isotope Decay, T$_{1/2}$ Energy deposition in the crystal \[keV\] A \[$\mu$Bq kg$^{-1}$\]
----------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
$^{3}$H $\beta ^-$, 12.33yr E$_{\beta^-}$= 18.6keV 0.12
$^{49}$V EC, 330d E$_K$(Ti)= 5, no $\gamma$ 2.4
$^{54}$Mn EC+$\beta ^+$, 312.3d E$_{\gamma}$= 840.8, E$_K$(Cr)= 5.4 3.1
$^{55}$Fe EC, 2.73yr E$_K$(Mn)= 6, no $\gamma$ 1.6
$^{57}$Co EC, 271.8d E$_{\gamma}$= 20.81,142.8, E$_K$(Fe)= 6.4 3.5
$^{58}$Co EC+$\beta ^+$, 70.9d E$_{\gamma}$= 817.2, E$_K$(Fe)= 6.4 1.5
$^{60}$Co $\beta ^-$, 5.27yr E$_{\beta^-}$= 318, E$_{\gamma}$=1173.2,1332.5 0.7
$^{63}$Ni $\beta^-$, 100.1yr E$_{\beta^-}$= 66.95, no $\gamma$ 0.04
$^{65}$Zn EC+$\beta ^+$, 244.3d E$_{\gamma}$=1124.4, E$_K$(Cu)=8-9 27
$^{68}$Ge EC, 270.8d E$_K$(Ga)=10.37 676
$^{68}$Ga EC+$\beta ^+$, 67.6m Q-value=2921.1 676
: Cosmogenically produced isotopes in the Ge crystals for an exposure at sea level of 30 days and a subsequent deep underground storage of 1year (for $^{68}$Ge the saturation activity was assumed)
\[ge\_cosmo\]
-------------------- -------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------
Source Radionuclide Purity Count rate (2000-2080keV)
\[events/(kgykeV)\]
Ge crystals $^{238}$U 1.8$\times$10$^{-15}$g/g 2$\times$10$^{-5}$
$^{232}$Th 5.7$\times$10$^{-15}$g/g 1$\times$10$^{-5}$
Holder system U/Th 1$\times$10$^{-12}$ 1$\times$10$^{-5}$
Nitrogen $^{238}$U 3.5$\times$10$^{-14}$g/g 7$\times$10$^{-5}$
$^{232}$Th 4.4$\times$10$^{-14}$g/g 4$\times$10$^{-5}$
$^{222}$Rn 325$\mu$Bq/m$^3$ 6$\times$10$^{-5}$
Steel $^{238}$U 0.6mBq/kg 6$\times$10$^{-4}$
$^{232}$Th 0.2mBq/kg 8$\times$10$^{-4}$
$^{60}$Co 2mBq/kg 1$\times$10$^{-5}$
Ge shield $^{238}$U 1.8$\times$10$^{-14}$g/g 4$\times$10$^{-5}$
$^{232}$Th 5.7$\times$10$^{-14}$g/g 2$\times$10$^{-4}$
Polystyrene shield $^{238}$U 3.4$\times$10$^{-12}$g/g 5$\times$10$^{-5}$
$^{232}$Th 3.6$\times$10$^{-11}$g/g 6$\times$10$^{-4}$
Cu shield $^{238}$U 5.4$\times$10$^{-13}$g/g 4$\times$10$^{-4}$
$^{232}$Th 3.0$\times$10$^{-13}$g/g 4$\times$10$^{-4}$
-------------------- -------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------
: Assumed intrinsic impurity levels and resulting count rates for the simulated background components in the energy region relevant for neutrinoless double beta decay in $^{76}$Ge.
\[intr-assumpt-bb\]
\[limits\]
[^1]: in [@bargein] some first simulations with one detector in a simplified geometry had been made
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Robust multi-vehicle path-planning is important for ensuring the safety of multi-vehicle systems in applications like transportation, search and rescue, and robotic exploration. Chance-constrained methods like Iterative Risk Allocation (IRA)[@IRA] have been developed for situations where environmental disturbances are unbounded. However, chance-constrained methods for the multi-vehicle case generally use centralized strategies where the vehicle set is planned with couplings between all vehicle pairs. This approach is intractable as fleet size increases because computation time is exponential with respect to the number of vehicles being planned over due to a polynomial increase in coupling constraints between vehicle pairs. We present a faster approach for chance-constrained multi-vehicle path-planning that relies upon a decentralized path-planning method called Risk-Aware Decentralized Model Predictive Control (RADMPC) to rapidly approximate a centralized IRA approach. The RADMPC approximation is evaluated for vehicle interactions to determine the vehicle sets that should be planned in a coupled manner. Applying IRA to the smaller vehicle sets determined from the RADMPC approximation rapidly plans safe paths for the entire fleet. A Monte Carlo simulation analysis demonstrates the correctness of our approach and a significant improvement in computation time compared to a centralized IRA approach.'
author:
- |
Aaron Huang, Benjamin J. Ayton, Brian C. Williams\
Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory\
Massachusetts Institute of Technology\
32 Vasser Street\
Cambridge, MA 02139\
title: 'RADMPC: A Fast Decentralized Approach for Chance-Constrained Multi-Vehicle Path-Planning'
---
Introduction
============
Recent interest in the utilization of autonomous vehicle fleets has skyrocketed for applications like urban transportation and undersea exploration. There is an imminent need for architectures that support safe coordination of multiple vehicles in a practical and optimal manner. A critical element of multi-vehicle coordination is safe multi-vehicle path-planning in an environment where collisions are possible. Paths for autonomous vehicle fleets should be optimal by some measure (e.g. actuation cost, solution execution time) and must have a reasonable computation time to be practical.
Prior methods for fast multi-vehicle path-planning are primarily fixated on situations where environmental disturbances are assumed to be bounded. Robust Model Predictive Control (RMPC) techniques have been extensively studied for multi-vehicle path-planning in this case. However, the assumption of bounded environmental disturbances is invalid in many practical applications. Chance-constrained techniques are commonly used for path-planning in the alternate case where environmental disturbances are assumed to be unbounded. Current chance-constrained techniques for the multi-vehicle case generally use a *centralized* strategy where the couplings are present for all vehicle pairs in the entire vehicle set. Centralized strategies are intractable as fleet size increases because computation time is typically exponential as more vehicles are considered. This is due to a combinatorial increase in binary variables that are required for vehicle and obstacle avoidance constraints.
We present a faster approach to chance-constrained multi-vehicle path-planning that relies upon a novel method called Risk-Aware Decentralized Model Predictive Control (RADMPC). RADMPC extends from Decentralized Model Predictive Control (DMPC) techniques by using a single iteration of IRA as the primary optimization method. RADMPC plays a key role in reducing the complexity of the multi-vehicle path-planning problem by rapidly approximating a centralized application of IRA. The approximation is examined for vehicle interactions to determine smaller sets of vehicles that need to be planned in a coupled manner. Individually applying IRA to the smaller vehicle sets plans safe paths for the vehicle fleet much more quickly than a centralized IRA approach.
Literature Review
=================
There is a considerable body of work in path-planning for multiple autonomous vehicles. This is a hard problem because of two reasons: the presence of environmental uncertainty and the nonconvexity of the optimization problem. Mixed-Integer Linear Programming [@MILP] and Disjunctive Linear Programming [@DLP] strategies were used in initial techniques to handle the nonconvex optimization problems. However, these approaches did not account for sources of uncertainty in the problem.
Many methods that handle uncertainty usually make the assumption of bounded uncertainties and environmental disturbances, allowing for the design of robust trajectories that are resistant to constraint failure against the worst case disturbances. Robust Model Predictive Control (RMPC) is an extension of Model Prediction Control (MPC) that is commonly used for path-planning under this assumption. Trajectories generated with RMPC techniques have been shown to be safe from obstacle collision at up to 3$\sigma$ confidence at each timestep [@RMPC-RRT; @RMPC; @RMPC-SURVEY]. However, RMPC techniques are still intractable for multi-vehicle problems with larger groups of vehicles.
Decentralized Model Predictive Control (DMPC) [@DMPC] algorithms employ the strategy of decomposing the full multi-vehicle trajectory optimization problem into decentralized subproblems to reduce computational intensity. Each subproblem optimizes the trajectory of a single vehicle using an RMPC strategy. To account for inter-vehicle coupling constraints, each subproblem must be solved while considering all other vehicle trajectories. DMPC techniques are computationally inexpensive compared to RMPC techniques for multi-vehicle problems.
Many real-life situations involve uncertainties that cannot be bounded, making it impossible to guarantee constraint satisfaction with zero probability of failure using most RMPC and DMPC approaches. In lieu of guaranteed constraint satisfaction, a different approach to path-planning is to place *chance constraints* to limit the *probability* of violating constraints. There are two kinds of chance constraints: *individual* chance constraints limiting the probability of failure of a single constraint at a single timestep, and *joint* chance constraints limiting the probability of failure of any constraint in a problem [@PROBABILISTIC-MPC].
Solving a multi-vehicle path-planning problem with a joint chance constraint is hard because it requires the computationally intensive calculation of the probabilities of non-independent events. @BLACKMORE-ONO-WILLIAMS demonstrate an elegant method in which Boole’s inequality is used to decompose the joint chance constraint into individual chance constraints. The new RMPC problem with individual constraints can be more easily solved by constraint tightening. However, this chance-constrained method is conservative since it assigns a uniform value to the risk bound for every individual chance constraint.
Iterative Risk Allocation (IRA) [@IRA] is a two-stage optimization method that uses the concept of *risk reallocation* to reduce the suboptimality of chance-constrained approaches. By iteratively reallocating risk from *inactive* chance constraints to *active* chance constraints, the allocation of risk that optimizes the objective function can be found. Unfortunately, the centralized application of IRA still has an exponential solution time and is impractical for problems with many vehicles.
A strategy for reducing the complexity of centralized approaches is to decouple unnecessary coupling constraints between vehicle pairs using heuristics. @KEVICZKY-ETAL uses a distance-based heuristic for multi-vehicle path-planning to maintain a communication topology graph that is updated over time. Undirected edges between any two vehicles represent a coupling constraint indicating that either vehicle must account for the other vehicle’s actions when planning. However, the distance-based heuristic does not make full use of the vehicle information available when determining coupling constraints.
Problem Statement
=================
Notation
--------
The following notation is used throughout the paper $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{x}_i^k&:& &\text{State vector for vehicle } i \text{ at time } k\\
\boldsymbol{u}_i^k&:& &\text{Control input for vehicle } i \text{ at time } k\\
\boldsymbol{w}_i^k&:& &\text{Disturbance for vehicle } i \text{ at time } k\\
\bar{\boldsymbol{x}}_i^k&:=&& E[\boldsymbol{x}_i^k]: \text{Nominal state for vehicle } i \text{ at time } k\\
\delta_j^k&:& &\text{Risk bound for chance constraint } j \text{ at time } k\\
\Delta&:& &\text{Risk bound for the joint chance constraint}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{X} := \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{x^0_0} \\
\vdots \\
\boldsymbol{x_N^T}
\end{bmatrix}
&&&
\boldsymbol{\bar{X}} := \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\bar{x}^0_0} \\
\vdots \\
\boldsymbol{\bar{x}_N^T}
\end{bmatrix}
&&&
\boldsymbol{U} := \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{u^0_0} \\
\vdots \\
\boldsymbol{u_N^T}
\end{bmatrix} \\\\
i \in [0 \hdots N] &&& j \in [0 \hdots L] &&& k \in [0 \hdots T]\end{aligned}$$
$N$ denotes the number of vehicles to plan over. $T$ denotes the total number of timesteps in the problem. $L$ refers to the number of chance constraints present.
RMPC with a joint chance constraint
-----------------------------------
The chance-constrained multi-vehicle path-planning problem is formulated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\boldsymbol{U}}{\text{min}} & & E[J(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{U})] \\
& \text{s.t.} & & \boldsymbol{x}_i^{k+1} = A\boldsymbol{x}_i^k + B\boldsymbol{u}_i^k + \boldsymbol{w}_i^k \\
& & & \boldsymbol{u}_{i,\text{min}} \leq \boldsymbol{u}_i^k \leq \boldsymbol{u}_{i,\text{max}} \\
& & & \boldsymbol{w}_i^k \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \Sigma_{w_i^0}) \\
& & & \boldsymbol{x}_i^0 \sim \mathcal{N}(\bar{\boldsymbol{x}}_i^0, \Sigma_{x_i^0}) \\
& & & \text{Pr}\Bigg[\overset{N}{\underset{i=0}{\bigwedge}}\overset{L}{\underset{j=0}{\bigwedge}}\overset{T}{\underset{k=0}{\bigwedge}} \boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT} \boldsymbol{x}_i^k \leq g_j^k\Bigg] \geq 1 - \Delta\end{aligned}$$
We model vehicles as discrete-time linear time invariant (LTI) systems operating in the presence of *unbounded* environmental disturbances. In Equation 1, we wish to determine the control sequence $\boldsymbol{U}$ that generates a state sequence $\boldsymbol{X}$ that minimizes the expected value of the objective function $\boldsymbol{J}$ while obeying Equations 2 - 6. Equation 2 defines state evolution for vehicles from time $k$ to time $k+1$ where matrices $A$ and $B$ represent linear vehicle dynamics and control effects. The combination of Equation 2 and Equation 4 explicitly describe the effects of an unbounded Gaussian disturbance $\boldsymbol{w_i^k}$, forcing vehicle states to be unbounded. Equation 6 defines the total risk bound $\Delta$ as the upper bound on the probability that any individual chance constraint fails.
Preliminaries
=============
We will briefly describe IRA and the decomposition of the joint chance constraint into individual chance constraints to provide better context for our approach.
RMPC with individual chance constraints
---------------------------------------
We cannot easily solve RMPC with a joint chance constraint because Equation 6 involves the integration of a multivariate Gaussian distribution. However, this problem can be made more tractable by decomposing the joint chance constraint into individual chance constraints using Boole’s inequality ($\text{Pr}[A\cup B] \leq \text{Pr}[A] + \text{Pr}[B]$).
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber & \underset{\boldsymbol{U}}{\text{min}} & & E[J(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{U})] \\
\nonumber & \text{s.t.} & & \boldsymbol{x}_i^{k+1} = A\boldsymbol{x}_i^k + B\boldsymbol{u}_i^k + \boldsymbol{w}_i^k \\
\nonumber & & & \boldsymbol{u}_{i,\text{min}} \leq \boldsymbol{u}_i^k \leq \boldsymbol{u}_{i,\text{max}} \\
\nonumber & & & \boldsymbol{w}_i^k \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \Sigma_{w_i^0}) \\
\nonumber & & & \boldsymbol{x}_i^0 \sim \mathcal{N}(\bar{\boldsymbol{x}}_i^0, \Sigma_{x_i^0}) \\
& \forall i,j,k & & \text{Pr}\Big[\boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\boldsymbol{x}_i^k \leq g_j^k\Big] \geq 1 - \delta_j^k \\
& & & \overset{L}{\underset{j = 0}{\sum}}\overset{T}{\underset{k = 0}{\sum}} \delta_j^k \leq \Delta\end{aligned}$$
Decomposing the joint chance constraint directly reduces Equation 6 to Equation 7, with Equation 8 constraining the sum of all $\delta_j^k$ to be no greater than $\Delta$. @BLACKMORE-ONO-WILLIAMS demonstrate a method to solve this problem that transforms the stochastic problem into a deterministic problem. However, their method produces a suboptimal solution since it fixes all $\delta_j^k$ using a uniform allocation of $\Delta$. In other words, there may be an allocation of $\delta_j^k$ that produces a more optimal solution.
Iterative Risk Allocation
-------------------------
IRA is a method that is designed to achieve greater solution optimality for RMPC problems with joint chance constraints. IRA is a two-stage optimization method that uses *risk reallocation* to determine the best risk allocation of $\delta_j^k$ that optimizes the objective function. The innovation of risk reallocation is in moving risk from inactive constraints to active constraints to monotonically decrease overall cost.
To determine if a constraint is active or inactive, we must compare an individual chance constraint’s risk bound to the probability of constraint satisfaction. This requires the probability of constraint satisfaction to be reformulated using deterministic variables. Recall that an individual chance constraint is defined as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
P(\boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\boldsymbol{x}_i^k \leq g_j^k) &\geq 1 - \delta_j^k\end{aligned}$$
The lower stage optimization in IRA computes a solution for $\boldsymbol{x}_i^k$ using the fixed $\delta_j^k$ for each constraint. Then, we can define a constraint for the acceptable values of $\delta_j^k$ by writing the probability of constraint satisfaction in terms of a deterministic cumulative distribution function of $\boldsymbol{x}_i^k$.
$$\begin{aligned}
P(\boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\boldsymbol{x}_i^k \leq g_j^k) &= \text{cdf}(g_j^k - \boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\boldsymbol{x}_i^k) \\
\implies \delta_j^k &\geq 1 - \text{cdf}(g_j^k - \boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\boldsymbol{x}_i^k)\end{aligned}$$
This result defines the minimum value for $\delta_j^k$ that is required to satisfy the chance constraint given the current solution for $\boldsymbol{x}_i^k$. Active and inactive constraints are determined by comparing the fixed $\delta_j^k$ to the newly defined $\delta_{j,min}^k$ using a tolerance $\eta$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{j,min}^k = 1 - \text{cdf}(g_j^k - \boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\boldsymbol{x}_i^k)\\
\text{Active:}\:|\delta_j^k - \delta_{j,min}^k| \leq \eta\\
\text{Inactive:}\: |\delta_j^k - \delta_{j,min}^k| > \eta\end{aligned}$$
The risk reallocation upper stage reallocates risk from active to inactive constraints while respecting the minimum risk bound. This defines a new risk allocation to be used in the next iteration of the lower optimization stage. This two-stage procedure is iteratively run for a fixed number of iterations or until the value of the objective function converges. Although this method produces excellent results, a centralized application of IRA to large multi-vehicle problems is computationally intensive because the number of avoidance constraints increases combinatorially.
Avoidance Constraints
---------------------
Vehicle and obstacle avoidance constraints are defined by a disjunction of individual chance constraints each represented as a linear inequality. For a set of individual chance constraints that comprise an object $O$ to be avoided, the following disjunction of inequalities define a safe zone.
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{O}{{\underset{j}{\bigvee}}}\;\boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT} \boldsymbol{x}_i^k \leq g_j^k\end{aligned}$$
However, using a disjunction of linear inequalities for obstacle avoidance is insufficient for path-planning because a vehicle cannot simultaneously be on every side of an object at once. Instead, we use a conjunction of the same linear inequalities and introduce binary variables $b_k^j$ that are multiplied with an arbitrarily large number $M$ to turn off boundary inequalities as needed. To ensure that at least one constraint is turned on, the sum of all binary variables must be less than the number of individual chance constraints that comprise $O$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\overset{O}{\underset{j}{\bigwedge}}\,\boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT} \boldsymbol{x}_i^k &\leq g_j^k + Mb_j^k \\
\overset{O}{\underset{j}{\sum}} b_j^k &\leq card(O) - 1\end{aligned}$$
This formulation induces a polynomial increase in binary variables as more objects are considered. Vehicle avoidance constraints are similarly encoded. However, computation time is more adversely affected by additional vehicles than additional obstacles. This follows because avoidance constraints must exist between every vehicle pair, which grows combinatorially as more vehicles are added. A problem with $N$ vehicles must include ${N\choose2}$ vehicle avoidance constraints over $T$ timesteps. This implies that binary variables for vehicles increase with $O(N^2T)$ complexity and force an $O(e^{N^2T})$ solution time. On the other hand, additional obstacles increase binary variables with $O(NT)$ complexity, adding only $O(e^{NT})$ complexity. This distinction is important as we will later use a special form of obstacle called a *temporal obstacle* to represent vehicles, reducing RADMPC complexity.
Technical Approach
==================
We propose a three-step approach to produce the result of a centralized application of IRA to a large vehicle set with much less computational overhead. We present RADMPC - a fast, risk-aware path-planner used to approximate centralized IRA. The RADMPC approximation is evaluated to identify vehicle pairs with high probability of collision and decompose the full set of vehicles into smaller vehicle subsets that have only *relevant* vehicle coupling constraints. Finally, we apply IRA to the smaller subsets to produce paths for all vehicles far more quickly than centralized IRA. Figure 1 depicts the flow of our approach. Figure 2 depicts example plots of different stages of our approach. The runtime of the centralized IRA solution exceeds the combined runtime of the RADMPC approximation and the runtime of applying IRA to the two vehicle subsets.
![The three stages of our approach[]{data-label="radmpc_flow"}](algorithm_flow.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
RADMPC
------
We have developed a novel path-planning algorithm called Risk Aware Decentralized Model Predictive Control (RADMPC) to be used as the fast path-planner in our approach. To be useful, it must be able to closely approximate centralized IRA. To be practical, it cannot be computationally expensive lest we fail to handle the core issue of solution time complexity for multi-vehicle path-planning. RADMPC is an extension of Decentralized Model Predictive Control (DMPC) as proposed by @DMPC. However, our approach differs from DMPC by assuming unbounded environmental disturbances as opposed to bounded disturbances and using *temporal obstacles* to communicate vehicle plans across subproblems.
RADMPC uses a decentralized path-planning strategy to quickly plan paths. Given $N$ vehicles, RADMPC decomposes the full problem into $N$ subproblems that each optimize the trajectory of a single vehicle. At time $k$, the subproblems are solved in a randomized order. The optimization method used to solve each subproblem simply consists of a single iteration of IRA with a uniform initial allocation over a *risk pool*. After a subproblem is solved, the first control input of the solution is executed and a temporal obstacle is created to bound the vehicle’s subproblem solution. RADMPC is recursively executed in this way until all vehicles are in their respective goal.
$O \gets$ initTemporalObstacles($V$) $\Delta^\# \gets \Delta,\,N^* \gets N$ **return** $\boldsymbol{X}_{appr}$
{width="\linewidth"} {width="\linewidth"} {width="\linewidth"}
### Risk Pooling
A *risk pool* $\Delta^\#$ is used to track the total risk remaining while executing RADMPC. $\Delta^\#$ is initialized to $\Delta$. Every subproblem is given a uniform risk allocation over $\Delta^\#/N^*$ where $N^*$ is the number of vehicles that are not in goal. After a subproblem is solved, $\Delta^\#$ is updated as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^\# \leftarrow \Delta^\# - \overset{L}{\underset{j=0}{\sum}} \delta_0^j\end{aligned}$$
This allows RADMPC to be risk-aware by subtracting the risk that is used at the *executed* timestep from the risk pool. The risk pool is then divided among the remaining vehicles for the next subproblem.
### Temporal Obstacles
We introduce a *temporal obstacle* representation for a vehicle’s plan according to its most recently solved subproblem (hereafter referred to as *temporal vehicle obstacles*. Temporal obstacles are a simple extension of static obstacles where the linear inequalities describing the obstacle boundaries change with respect to time.
Temporal vehicle obstacles are created after a subproblem is solved for a vehicle $i$ using the subproblem solution $\boldsymbol{X}_i^*$ A temporal vehicle obstacle bounds the $3\sigma$ confidence region of $\boldsymbol{x^*}_i^k$ for all timesteps $k \in [0 \hdots T]$ for vehicle $i$. We define distance $d$ as the radial distance from $\bar{x^*}_i^k$ bounding the $3\sigma$ confidence region. As truly circular obstacles are difficult to represent, $d$ is instead used to compute square coordinates around $\boldsymbol{x^*}_i^k$. Square obstacles are used to represent vehicles in goal and vehicles at time $k = 0$. At other timesteps, the obstacle is generated by wrapping a convex hull around the square coordinates generated at $\boldsymbol{x^*}_i^k$ and $\boldsymbol{x^*}_i^{k+1}$.
Using a temporal obstacle representation for vehicles offers a light, yet powerful representation when other vehicles need to consider their intent while planning. Representing vehicles as temporal obstacles has $O(e^{NT})$ computational complexity as opposed to $O(e^{N^2T})$ complexity otherwise. This formulation also offers an intuitive way of evaluating interactions between vehicles planned using RADMPC.
Identifying Couplings
---------------------
Couplings are determined by evaluating the probability of collision between vehicles and temporal vehicle obstacles. For each boundary in a temporal vehicle obstacle that has an activated linear constraint (i.e. the associated binary variable is 0), the collision probability is computed as follows [@BLACKMORE-ONO-WILLIAMS]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\text{Pr}\Big[\boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\boldsymbol{x}_i^k > g_j^k\Big] = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2}\text{erf}\Bigg(\frac{g_j^k - \boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\bar{\boldsymbol{x}}_i^k}{\sqrt{2\boldsymbol{h}_j^{kT}\Sigma_{x_i^k}\boldsymbol{h}_j^k}} \Bigg)\end{aligned}$$
After a RADMPC subproblem is solved, we record the collision probabilities between the subproblem vehicle and the temporal vehicle obstacles *at the initial timestep*. We do not record the collision probabilities at other timesteps because RADMPC replans for the vehicle at the following timestep.
After RADMPC converges on a solution, the maximum probability of collision of a vehicle with another temporal vehicle obstacle provides a direct metric for the probability of collision between the vehicle pair. This is used to determine vehicle pairs that have significant interactions and must be planned together. For every vehicle pair, there are two candidate maximum collision probabilities since both vehicles avoid the other’s temporal vehicle obstacle when planning. The greater of the two probabilities is chosen as the maximum probability of collision for the vehicle pair. If the maximum probability of collision for the vehicle pair exceeds a given threshold $\Psi$, the vehicle pair must be planned in a coupled manner.
Distributed Solving
-------------------
Determining coupled vehicle sets is analogous to determining the disconnected parts of a graph where vehicles are nodes and couplings are edges between vehicles. Path-planning problems are created for each coupled vehicle set. Applying IRA on every problem and combining the solutions computes the RADMPC solution to the original multi-vehicle problem.
### Computation Time Analysis
We now analyze the solution time of our two-step approach. For ease of notation, we will factor out runtime due to common factors between our approach and the centralized approach (e.g. static obstacles used in both approaches). A centralized application of IRA to a problem with $N$ vehicles over $T$ timesteps uses $O(N^2T)$ binary variables for vehicle avoidance constraints between vehicle pairs, causing a $O(e^{N^2T})$ computational complexity.
The solution time of RADMPC likewise depends on the number of vehicles in the problem and the number of timesteps it takes for vehicles to reach their goal in our receding horizon approach. Since each decentralized subproblem uses temporal vehicle obstacles for vehicle avoidance, there are $O(NT)$ binary variables that imply $O(e^{NT})$ computation complexity per subproblem. Using the conservative assumption that RADMPC requires all $T$ timesteps to execute, there are $N$ decentralized problems over $T$ timesteps giving RADMPC $O(NTe^{NT})$ total computational complexity.
Let us assume that analysis of the RADMPC approximation separates the full vehicle set into $\frac{N}{P}$ coupled vehicle sets with $P$ vehicles each. Applying centralized IRA on problems covering the coupled vehicle sets has $O(\frac{N}{P}e^{P^2T})$ computational complexity. Factoring in RADMPC runtime indicates $O(NTe^{NT} + \frac{N}{P}e^{P^2T})$ complexity. In the optimal scenario, we would be able to completely separate the problem into $N$ subproblems that are each individually solved with IRA for $O(NTe^{NT} + Ne^T)$ complexity. In the worst case, the complexity is $O(NTe^{NT} + e^{N^2T})$. However empirical results indicate that RADMPC decouples most vehicle couplings and generally does not exhibit worst case performance.
Results
=======
In this section, we demonstrate empirical results of the RADMPC approach. We focus on analyzing the accuracy of the RADMPC approximation, average runtime of our approach compared to centralized IRA, and correctness of the RADMPC solution.
RADMPC Approximations
---------------------
![Centralized solution on left, RADMPC approximation on right[]{data-label="solution_approximation"}](complex-centralized-solution.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"} ![Centralized solution on left, RADMPC approximation on right[]{data-label="solution_approximation"}](complex-radmpc-approximation.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
Figure \[solution\_approximation\] demonstrates the RADMPC approximation on an eight vehicle problem. The RADMPC approximation is a good approximation of the centralized solution with only slight disturbances A visual inspection of multiple sample problems indicates that RADMPC generally approximates the centralized solution well enough to be useful.
However, the accuracy of the RADMPC approximation decreases in some cases especially when the complexity of the multi-vehicle problem increases. This may be because larger vehicle sets exhibit perturbances where “ripple” effects in RADMPC cause the displacement of a single vehicle to propagate to the other vehicles. Significant deviations from the centralized solution could lead RADMPC to make incorrect determinations of coupled vehicle sets, adversely affecting the correctness of the RADMPC solution. In general, RADMPC works the best in situations where vehicle interactions are less abundant i.e. situations where the problem should be decoupled.
Runtime Comparisons
-------------------
We compare the average runtime of our approach and a centralized application of IRA by drawing 50 sample problems for each of $N \in [2, 8]$ vehicles and generating random vehicle starts and goals for each sample problem. We use a simple environment with three regular obstacle and use the following parameters:
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{A} =
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & dt & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & dt\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{bmatrix} &\quad
\boldsymbol{B} =
\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}dt^2 & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{2}dt^2\\
dt & 0\\
0 & dt
\end{bmatrix}\\\\
T = 10 \quad \Delta = 0.05 &\quad \Psi = 0.000001\\
J(\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{U}) &= \overset{N}{\underset{i = 0}{\sum}}\overset{T}{\underset{k = 0}{\sum}} |u_k^i|\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[runtime\_comparison\] demonstrates a significant reduction in solution time when solving complex RMPC problems with the heuristic, even when RADMPC runtime is included. As the size of the vehicle set increases, our approach will run faster by margins that increase with vehicle account. In our largest experiments involving 8 vehicles, the mean speedup factor reached 46. Much of this improvement can be attributed to the observation that most randomly generated complex problems can be separated into smaller, simpler problems with one or two vehicles each.
![Runtime comparison between centralized IRA and our approach[]{data-label="runtime_comparison"}](runtime_comparisons.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Simulation
----------
A Monte Carlo simulation is used to verify the correctness of the RADMPC solution. Our Monte Carlo simulation uses the sample problems described in the prior section. A success rate is computed for each sample problem to express correctness. A correct solution is a solution that does not exhibit a probability of collision above the risk bound. To compute vehicle collisions in the RADMPC solution, every vehicle state $\boldsymbol{x}_k^i$ in the computed state sequence $\boldsymbol{X}$ is sampled 100,000 times. Vehicle collisions are detected using a simple computation that ensures that sampled vehicle states at corresponding time $k$ are not within two vehicle radii of each other.
![Success rate of our approach with different numbers of vehicles[]{data-label="success_rates"}](success_rates.png){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Our approach on average works extremely well for the range of vehicles we considered for our experimentation. However, the success rate decreases as the number of vehicles increases and more deviation from the average success rate occurs. This trend can be expected to continue as the complexity of the problem increases, indicating that RADMPC is not as well suited for approximating complex problems with extensive inter-vehicle interaction. Still, the results presented demonstrate that our approach is useful to problems that include up to eight vehicles, with possible extension to more vehicles with further development.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a method that intelligently decouples computationally expensive chance-constrained multi-vehicle problems to reduce solution time complexity. We describe a novel path-planning method called Risk-Aware Decentralized Model Predictive Control (RADMPC) to determine sets of coupled vehicles that have should be planned together. Applying IRA to each set generates collision-free paths in far less time than a centralized application of IRA.
We envision our approach being used to enable more rapid planning capabilities for vehicle swarms being used in the field. Although this approach was specifically designed to support autonomous underwater vehicle exploration, fast multi-vehicle path-planning spans a large range of academic, industrial, and humanitarian applications. Further research into fast multi-vehicle path-planning will facilitate more rapid integration of large-scale autonomous vehicle solutions in situations where they are sorely needed.
Acknowledgement
===============
I would like to sincerely thank Benjamin Ayton for advising me on this project over the past year and helping me develop my skills as an undergraduate researcher. Thanks to Professor Brian Williams for being my faculty adviser and the MERS group for welcoming me into the family. Lastly, thanks to the MIT SuperUROP program for financially and logistically supporting this research project.
Alexis, K.; Papachristos, C.; Siegwart, R.; and Tzes, A. 2015. Robust model predictive flight control of unmanned rotorcrafts. 81.
Balas, E. 1998. Disjunctive programming: Properties of the convex hull of feasible points. 89(1):3 – 44.
Blackmore, L.; Ono, M.; and Williams, B. C. 2011. Chance-constrained optimal path planning with obstacles. 27(6):1080–1094.
Jalali, A. A., and Nadimi, V. 2006. A survey on robust model predictive control from 1999-2006. In [*2006 International Conference on Computational Inteligence for Modelling Control and Automation and International Conference on Intelligent Agents Web Technologies and International Commerce (CIMCA’06)*]{}, 207–207.
Keviczky, T.; Borrelli, F.; Fregene, K.; Godbole, D.; and Balas, G. J. 2008. Decentralized receding horizon control and coordination of autonomous vehicle formations. 16(1):19–33.
Li, P.; Wendt, M.; and Wozny, G. 2002. A probabilistically constrained model predictive controller. 38(7):1171 – 1176.
Ono, M., and Williams, B. C. 2008. Iterative risk allocation: A new approach to robust model predictive control with a joint chance constraint. In [*2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*]{}, 3427–3432.
Pepy, R., and Lambert, A. 2006. Safe path planning in an uncertain-configuration space using rrt. In [*2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems*]{}, 5376–5381.
Richards, A., and How, J. 2004. A decentralized algorithm for robust constrained model predictive control. In [*Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference*]{}, volume 5, 4261–4266 vol.5.
Schouwenaars, T.; Moor, B. D.; Feron, E.; and How, J. 2001. Mixed integer programming for multi-vehicle path planning. In [*2001 European Control Conference (ECC)*]{}, 2603–2608.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study current-current correlations in the three-band Hubbard model for two-leg CuO ladders using the density-matrix renormalization group method. We find that these correlations decrease exponentially with distance for low doping but as a power law for higher doping. Their pattern is compatible with the circulating current (CC) phase which Varma has proposed to explain the pseudo-gaped metallic phase in underdoped high-temperature superconductors. However, for model parameters leading to a realistic ground state in the undoped ladder, the current fluctuations decay faster than the d-wave-like pairing correlations in the doped state. Thus we conclude that no phase with CC order or dominant CC fluctuations occur in the three-band model of two-leg CuO ladders.'
author:
- 'S. Nishimoto'
- 'E. Jeckelmann'
- 'D.J. Scalapino'
title: 'Current-current correlations in the three-band model for two-leg CuO ladders'
---
Since the discovery of the high-temperature superconducting copper oxide compounds, the anomalous behavior of the contiguous “pseudogap" phase has been considered a key to understanding the superconductivity mechanism in these materials. However, the nature of the pseudogap transition and its order parameter remained a puzzle. Early $\mu$SR experiments[@Sonier01] on YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ crystals showed evidences for the onset of spontaneous static magnetic fields near what was called the pseudogap crossover temperature $T^*(x)$. In addition, different photocurrents for left- and right-circularly polarized photons in angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy[@Kaminski02] were reported for Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$0$_{8+\delta}$. Now recent polarized neutron scattering[@Fauque06] and Kerr effect[@Xia08] measurements on YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6+x}$ provide new evidence that there is a pseudogap phase associated with a novel magnetic transition. The neutron scattering experiments observe a phase characterized by a magnetic order which does not break translational symmetry and the polar Kerr studies find the phase transition at $T^*(x)$ which breaks time-reversal symmetry. There is at present no agreement regarding a theory which encompasses all of these observations.
Theoretically, ground states, in which circulating currents (CC) form spontaneously and thus break the time-reversal symmetry, have been found in several models [@Marston02] but in the more realistic $t-J$ model the current-current correlations decrease exponentially fast on a two-leg ladder. [@Scalapino01] However, Varma has argued [@Varma06] that the minimal model for a CC state is a doped three-band Hubbard-type model with one Cu $d$-orbital, one O $p_x$-orbital, and one O $p_y$-orbital per unit cells. Using a mean-field approach he has found that a CC ground state is possible in this model if the Cu-O hopping integral $t_{pd}$ is of the same order of magnitude as the nearest-neighbor Coulomb interaction $V_{pd}$ between the Cu and the O orbitals and larger than the energy difference $\Delta_{pd}$ between these orbitals. This CC state, which breaks time-reversal symmetry but not translational symmetry, is consistent with the neutron scattering experiments, but further additions[@Aji08] to the model are required to obtain results compatible with the orientation of the moments and the Kerr rotation results. Moreover, since the interaction between particles is strong, the mean-field approach cannot reliably determine if a CC phase really exists in the three-band model.
Several studies of this model have been carried out to check Varma’s theory using methods for strongly correlated systems. Power-law current-current correlations have been observed in CuO chains. [@Srinivasan02] A related “staggered flux” phase but no CC phase has been found in the weak- and strong-coupling phase diagram of undoped two-leg ladders. [@Lee05] Recently, a phase with dominant orbital current fluctuations has been reported in the weak-coupling phase diagram of doped two-leg ladders. [@Chudzinski07] However, exact diagonalizations of small square clusters [@Greiter07] show no evidence for CC patterns in the ground state. Thus, the existence of a CC order or dominant CC fluctuations in the three-band model is still an open question.
In this paper we supplement our previous studies of the three-band model for two-leg CuO ladders [@Nishimoto02; @Jeckelmann98] by an analysis of the current-current correlation functions in doped systems for various parameters $\Delta_{pd}$ and $V_{pd}$. The hole Hamiltonian for this model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H &=&
- t_{pd} \sum_{\langle
ij\rangle\sigma} \left(d^\dagger_{i\sigma}
p_{j\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}} + p^\dagger_{j\sigma}
d_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}} \right) \nonumber \\
&& - t_{pp} \sum_{\langle ij\rangle\sigma}
\left(p^\dagger_{i\sigma}p_{j\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}} +
p^\dagger_{j\sigma}
p_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}} \right) \label{hamiltonian} \\
&& +U_d \sum_i d^\dagger_{i\uparrow}
d_{i\uparrow}^{\phantom{\dagger}} d^\dagger_{i\downarrow}
d_{i\downarrow}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
+ U_p \sum_i p^\dagger_{i\uparrow}
p_{i\uparrow}^{\phantom{\dagger}} p^\dagger_{i\downarrow}
p_{i\downarrow}^{\phantom{\dagger}} \nonumber \\
&& + V_{pd} \sum_{\langle
ij\rangle\sigma\sigma^\prime} p^\dagger_{i\sigma}
p_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}} d^\dagger_{j\sigma^\prime}
d_{j\sigma^\prime}^{\phantom{\dagger}} + \Delta_{pd} \sum_{i\sigma}
p^\dagger_{i\sigma} p_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}} , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the operators $d_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}$ and $p_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}$ create holes with spin $\sigma$ in the Cu $d$-orbitals and the O $p$-orbitals, respectively. The geometry of the two-leg CuO ladder is illustrated in Fig. \[lattice\], where the rung and leg O sites represent $p_y$ and $p_x$ orbitals, respectively. The first and fifth sums are over all nearest-neighbor Cu-O pairs while the second sum is over all nearest-neighbor $p_x$-$p_y$ pairs on O sites. The index $i$ runs over all Cu sites in the third term and over all O sites in the fourth and sixth sums. $t_{pd}$ is the hopping integral between nearest-neighbor Cu and O sites (solid lines in Fig. \[lattice\]) and $t_{pp}$ is the hopping integral between nearest-neighbor $p_x$-$p_y$ pairs on O sites. We have chosen the phases of the orbitals such that the signs of the hopping matrix elements are constant. With the minus sign convention of Eq. (\[hamiltonian\]) one has $t_{pd}>0$ and $t_{pp}\geq 0$. $U_d$ and $U_p$ are the on-site Coulomb energies for Cu and O sites, respectively. We will work in units where $t_{pd}=1$ and use the typical values $t_{pp}=0.5$, $U_d=8$, and $U_p=3$, throughout. [@Hybertsen89] In this model an undoped CuO-ladder corresponds to a density of one hole per Cu site. The hole concentration per Cu atom is $x=1+y$ with the doping rate $y=N/(2L)$, where $N$ is the number of doped holes ($N>0, y >0$) or doped electrons ($N<0, y < 0$) in a ladder with $L \times 2$ Cu atoms.
In this work correlation functions are calculated numerically using the density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method. [@White92; @Schollwoeck05] We have used up to $m=3400$ density-matrix eigenstates to build the DMRG basis. The DMRG ground-state energy is estimated to be accurate to parts in $10^{-2}t_{pd}$ or better for ladders with open boundary conditions and up to $40 \times 2$ Cu sites \[corresponding to a total of $282$ sites (Cu or O)\]. As in Ref. we have calculated correlations $$%c_{rs}(i_1,i_2)=\left\langle j_{r}^{\phantom{\dagger}}(i_1)j_{s}^\dagger(i_2) \right\rangle, \
c_{rs}(i_1,i_2)=\left\langle j_{r}(i_1)j_{s}(i_2) \right\rangle, \$$ of various local currents $j_{r}$ between nearest-neighbor O sites or nearest-neighbor Cu-O pairs which are illustrated in Fig. \[lattice\]. We have not found any long-range ordered current patterns for any set of the model parameters that we have investigated. Current-current correlations always decay faster than $1/l$ as a function of distance $l=|i_2 - i_1|$ in the present two-leg ladder system. Despite the absence of long-range order we can search for patterns in the sign of the correlation functions $c_{rs}$. Close to the ladder ends these signs fluctuate as widely as in small square clusters. [@Greiter07] In the middle of long enough ladders, however, the sign of a given function $c_{rs}$ does note change with the distance $l=|i_2 - i_1|$. In that case, the relative phases of the current-current correlations for various directions are compatible with the translationally invariant CC-pattern $\theta_I$ proposed by Varma. [@Varma06] We conclude that two-leg CuO ladders have CC-like current fluctuations.
The various correlation functions $c_{rs}$ show a qualitatively similar dependence on the interaction parameters and the hole concentration. Therefore, we will discuss only $c_1 = c_{aa}$ hereafter. As open boundary conditions are used, the correlation functions $c_1(l) = c_{aa}(i_1,i_2)$ have been calculated using distances $l=|i_1-i_2|$ taken about the midpoint of the ladders (i.e., the integer part of $\frac{i_1+i_2}{2}$ equals $L/2$). We only show results for $l \lesssim L/2 = 20$ which have been obtained in ladders with $40 \times 2$ Cu atoms, so that edge effects are small.
![ Log-log plot of the correlation function $|c_1(l)|$ versus $l$ for an electron-doped (top panel) and a hole-doped (bottom panel) ladder with $\Delta_{pd}=3$ and $V_{pd}=0$. Triangles, squares, and circles correspond to four, six, and eight doped particles ($|y|=5, 7.5, 10$ %), respectively. Lines are guides for the eyes. The dashed lines have slope $-1$ and $-2$. Inset: Semilog plot of $|c_1(l)|$ for a ladder doped with two particles ($|y|=2.5$%). []{data-label="D3V0_fig"}](fig2re.eps){width="5.5cm"}
We first investigate the evolution of the current-current correlations upon doping. Some results for $c_1(l)$ versus $l$ are shown in Fig. \[D3V0\_fig\] for various hole concentrations $x$. Although there are substantial differences between hole-doped and electron-doped two-leg ladders in the three-band model, [@Nishimoto02] we have found that the current-current correlations are qualitatively similar in both cases. In systems doped with two holes or two electrons these correlations decay exponentially with distance (see the inset of Fig. \[D3V0\_fig\]). This behavior can be seen for all interaction parameters that we have used. In ladders doped with at least four electrons or holes ($|y| \geq 5$ %), however, we have found that current-current correlation functions exhibit an approximate power-law decay $l^{-\nu}$ with $1 < \nu \le 2$ for $l \gtrsim 3$. The overall magnitude of the correlation function $|c_1(l)|$ is larger for six or eight doped particles than for four doped particles We therefore conclude that current-current fluctuations are enhanced upon doping.
We next turn to the effect of the Coulomb interaction $V_{pd}$ between nearest-neighbor Cu and O sites. Figure \[D2\_fig\] shows the current-current correlation function $|c_1(l)|$ versus $l$ for $V_{pd}=0,1,2$. (A recent [*ab initio*]{} calculation [@Korshunov05] suggests that $V_{pd} \sim 1-1.5$ is appropriate for cuprates.) The doping is $|y| = 10$ % (eight doped electrons or holes) which is close to optimal doping in high-temperature superconducting cuprates. We see that the results are similar for hole and electron doping and do not substantially change as a function of $V_{pd}$. Although the overall amplitude of $|c_1(l)|$ is slightly reduced by increasing $V_{pd}$, its order of magnitude does not change from $V_{pd}=0$ to $2$.
The current-current correlation depends more significantly on the energy difference $\Delta_{pd}$ than on the Coulomb repulsion $V_{pd}$. In Fig. \[V1\_fig\], we show $|c_1(l)|$ versus $l$ for several values of $\Delta_{pd}$. While it has been generally accepted [@Hybertsen89] that $\Delta_{pd}=2-3$, Varma has proposed [@Varma06] that the CC patterns are stabilized only when $\Delta_{pd} \lesssim {\cal O}(t_{pd})$. We have indeed found that the amplitude of the current-current correlations decreases with increasing $\Delta_{pd}$. For $\Delta_{pd}=3$, $|c_1(l)|$ is an order of magnitude smaller than for $\Delta_{pd}=0$.
![ Correlation function $|c_1(l)|$ versus $l$ for an electron-doped (top) and a hole-doped (bottom) ladder ($|y|=10$ %) with $V_{pd}=1$. Crosses, triangles, squares, and circles correspond to $\Delta_{pd}=0$, $1$, $2$, and $3$, respectively. Lines are guides for the eyes. The dashed lines have slope $-1$ and $-2$. []{data-label="V1_fig"}](fig4re.eps){width="5.5cm"}
Our data show that the overall amplitude of current fluctuations (for $l \leq 20$) increases with doping, decreases markedly with increasing $\Delta_{pd} \leq 3$ but is little affected by $V_{pd}$. However, to understand the long-range behavior of power-law correlations, it is necessary to investigate the variations of their exponent $\nu$. We have estimated $\nu$ by fitting our numerical data for the correlation function $|c_1(l \geq 2)|$ to a function $A l^{-\nu}$, where both $A$ and $\nu$ are fit parameters. As an illustration Fig. \[fig5\](a) shows two such fits: The first one corresponds to a rapid decay ($\nu\approx 2$) of the current-current correlations while the second one yields one of the smallest exponent, $\nu \approx 1.2$, that we have found. As we use data for short distances $l \leq 20$ only and the correlation functions oscillate widely, the fitted values of $\nu$ are not quantitatively accurate. Nevertheless, we think that the variations of the fitted exponent $\nu$ give a qualitative indication of the variations in the long-range behavior of the corresponding correlation functions.
Figure \[fig5\](b) shows the fitted values of $2-\nu$ for the current-current correlations $c_1(l)$ in the parameter space ($\Delta_{pd}$, $V_{pd}$) for several hole concentrations. (We use the deviation of the exponent from its value in a Fermi sea, $2-\nu$, as a measure of the strength of current-current correlations.) Two clear trends can be observed both for electron and hole dopings: The current fluctuations decrease faster for low doping $|y|=5$ % than for high doping $|y|=10$ % and $\nu$ increases with the nearest-neighbor coupling $V_{pd}$. The dependence of $\nu$ on the energy difference $\Delta_{pd}$ is irregular but a large value $\Delta_{pd} \geq 3$ results in a rapid decay of current-current correlation functions. The smallest exponent $\nu \approx 1.2$ is found around $\Delta_{pd}=1-2$ for electron doping. For hole doping, however, the smallest exponent $\nu \approx 1.3$ is found for $\Delta_{pd}=0-1$.
In our previous work [@Nishimoto02] we studied the pairing correlations in the three-band model for two-leg CuO ladders. We found that electron- and hole-doped systems exhibit $d$-wave-like power-law pairing correlations. Therefore, the three-band model at low-doping ($|y| \alt 2.5$%) and the $t-J$ model have similar properties: Power-law pairing correlations and exponentially decaying current fluctuations. [@Scalapino01] At high enough doping, however, both pairing and current power-law fluctuations seem to coexist in the three band model. Comparing fitted exponents for the current and pairing correlation functions in hole doped ladders ($ 5 \leq y \leq 10$ %), we find that pairing correlations always dominate (i.e., decay significantly slower) for $\Delta_{pd} \geq 2$ while current correlations dominate only in a small region of parameter space ($\Delta_{pd} \leq 2, V_{pd} \leq 1$) at the highest doping rate investigated ($y = 10$ %). Thus in the hole-doped three-band model on two-leg ladders, there is a region of enhanced and apparently dominant current fluctuations in good agreement with the interaction parameters proposed by Varma. [@Varma06]
For these parameters, however, we showed in our previous study [@Nishimoto02] that the undoped ladder has only very small charge and spin gaps (which probably vanish in the limit of infinitely long ladders). Moreover, local spin moments are not formed on the Cu sites as holes are not localized on those sites at any doping, and thus there is no tendency toward (short-range) antiferromagnetic order between the Cu sites. Therefore, in the regime of the three-band model, where dominating current fluctuations are found in two-leg ladders, the undoped system is a paramagnetic metal or small-gap insulator. In the regime of the three-band model where undoped ladders are “antiferromagnetic” insulators (see Ref. ) current fluctuations are not enhanced ($\nu \approx 2$) or decay faster than pairing correlations. We conclude that no phase with CC order or dominating CC fluctuations occurs in the three-band model on a two-leg ladders with realistic parameters for cuprate compounds.
We thank T. Giamarchi, R. Thomale, and P. Wölfle for helpful discussions.
[99]{}
J.E. Sonier *et al.*, Science [**292**]{}, 1692 (2001).
A. Kaminski *et al.*, Nature [**416**]{}, 610 (2002).
H.A. Mook *et al.*, e-print arXiv:0802.3620; B. Fauqué *et al.*, , 197001 (2006).
J. Xia *et al.*, **100**, 127002 (2008).
J.B. Marston, J.O. Fjaerestad, and A. Sudbo, , 056404 (2002); U. Schollwöck *et al.* , 186401 (2003); A.K. Kolezhuk, , 020405 (2007).
D.J. Scalapino, S.R. White, I. Affleck, , 100506 (2001).
C.M. Varma, , 155113 (2006). V. Aji, A. Shekhter and C.M. Varma, e-print arXiv: 0802.3258.
B. Srinivasan and M-B. Lepetit, , 024421 (2002).
S. Lee, J.B. Marston, and J.O. Fjaerestad, , 075126 (2005).
P. Chudzinski, M. Gabay, and T. Giamarchi, , 161101(R) (2007). M. Greiter and R. Thomale, , 027005 (2007); R. Thomale and M. Greiter, , 094511 (2008).
S. Nishimoto, E. Jeckelmann, and D.J. Scalapino, , 245109 (2002).
E. Jeckelmann, D.J. Scalapino, and S.R. White, , 9492 (1998).
M.S. Hybertsen, M. Schluter, and N.E. Christensen, , 9028 (1989).
S.R. White, , 2863 (1992); , 10345 (1993).
U. Schollwöck, , 259 (2005).
M.M. Korshunov *et al.*, , 165104 (2005).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Yaël Nazé[^1], Tahina Ramiaramanantsoa, Ian R. Stevens, Ian D. Howarth, Anthony F.J. Moffat'
title: |
A detailed X-ray investigation of [$\zeta$Pup]{} \
IV. Further characterization of the variability
---
[One of the optically brightest and closest massive stars, [$\zeta$Pup]{}, is also a bright X-ray source. Previously, its X-ray emission was found to be variable with light curves harbouring “trends” with a typical timescale longer than the exposure length, i.e. $>$1d. The origin of these changes was proposed to be linked to large-scale structures in the wind of [$\zeta$Pup]{}, but further characterization of the variability at high energies was needed to investigate this scenario.]{} [Since the previous papers of this series, a number of new X-ray observations have become available. Furthermore, a cyclic behaviour with a 1.78d period was identified in long optical photometric runs, which is thought to be associated with the launching mechanism of large-scale wind structures.]{} [We analysed these new X-ray data, revisited the old data, and compared the X-ray light curves with the optical data, notably those taken simultaneously.]{} [The behaviour of [$\zeta$Pup]{} in X-rays cannot be explained in terms of a perfect clock because the amplitude and shape of its variations change with time. For example, [$\zeta$Pup]{} was much more strongly variable between 2007 and 2011 than before and after this interval. Comparing the X-ray spectra of the star at maximum and minimum brightness yields no compelling difference beyond the overall flux change: the temperatures, absorptions, and line shapes seem to remain constant, well within errors. The only common feature between X-ray datasets is that the variation amplitudes appear maximum in the medium (0.6–1.2keV) energy band. Finally, no clear and coherent correlation can be found between simultaneous X-ray and optical data. Only a subgroup of observations may be combined coherently with the optical period of 1.78d, although the simultaneous optical behaviour is unknown. ]{} [The currently available data do not reveal any obvious, permanent, and direct correlation between X-ray and optical variations. The origin of the X-ray variability therefore still needs to be ascertained, highlighting the need for long-term monitoring in multiwavelengths, i.e. X-ray, UV, and optical.]{}
Introduction
============
Massive stars are well known for their ability to launch dense and fast stellar winds with important consequences for their evolution and their feedback on the environment. However, numerous uncertainties remain on their properties, notably regarding their structure. The first question that arose regarded clumping. The winds of massive stars are very different from those from solar-like stars since the winds of massive stars are propelled by intense UV radiation [@luc70]. Photons can be absorbed by the many transitions from metallic ions; since photons initially flow radially while scattering occurs in all directions, this leads to a net radial acceleration of those ions and, subsequently, of the entire atmospheric material after ion interactions. However, this line driving is an unstable process. If we take Doppler shifting into account, a slightly faster ion can absorb more photons and accelerate further, while slightly slower ions are deprived of photons and decelerate further since the needed photons were already absorbed by the layers just below the ion position. The line-driven winds are thus intrinsically unstable [see e.g. @luc70; @car80] with numerous small-scale stochastic perturbations pervading the wind flow [e.g. @eve98]. The presence of such perturbations alters the interpretation of mass-loss diagnostics, and this impact varies with the chosen diagnostic since some of the diagnostics depend on the square of the density while others vary linearly with density. After considering those effects, actual mass-loss rates are now believed to be lower than previous used unclumped values by a factor $\sim3$ [e.g. @bou05]. These wind instabilities are also responsible for the generation of X-rays [@luc82; @owo88; @fel97; @osk04 and references therein]. Stochastic variability should then arise on hourly timescales (e.g. wind flow time $R_*/v_{\infty}$ is $\sim$1.6h for [$\zeta$Pup]{}) with an amplitude linked to the number of involved clumps. However, dedicated analyses of sensitive X-ray observations failed to detect such changes, implying a very large number of clumps ($>10^5$; @naz13).
The structure of stellar winds is not restricted to small-scale clumping, however, because large-scale features are also inferred to be ubiquitous in massive hot-star winds. Indeed, variable discrete absorption components (DACs) observed in unsaturated UV P-Cygni profiles of O stars [@mas95; @how95] have been interpreted as a manifestation of co-rotating interaction regions (CIRs; see e.g. @cra96 [@lob08]). Related variability was detected for line profiles in the optical range as well [e.g. @pri96; @kap97]. These large-scale ($>R_*$) wind disturbances are believed to originate at the base of the wind from bright spots on the photosphere. The presence of such spots has also been inferred from optical variations, for example modelling of the photometry of $\xi$Per and [$\zeta$Pup]{}, [@ram14; @ram17] and modelling of the He[ii]{}$\lambda$4686 profile of $\lambda$Cep, (@sud16). But, until recently, CIRs were not considered to be a potential source of X-rays since models predicted only a velocity kink and not a large jump [e.g. @lob08].
[lcccccccccccc]{}\
ID & ObsID & EL & HJD && Count rate (ctss$^{-1}$) & $HR=H/M$ & &\
& & (ks)& && 0.5–10.keV & & M-band & H-band & M-band & H-band\
S-01 & 00032727001 &1.4& 2456350.796 && &\
S-2/3 &00032727002+3&1.1& 2457664.147 && 0.59$\pm$0.03 &0.44$\pm$0.05 &\
S-04 & 00032727004 &1.0& 2457748.540 && 0.66$\pm$0.03 &0.56$\pm$0.05 & 0.22$\pm$0.05 & 0.43$\pm$0.07 & 0.14$\pm$0.04 & 0.21$\pm$0.06\
S-05 & 00032727005 &1.0& 2457748.760 && 0.47$\pm$0.02 &0.42$\pm$0.05 &\
S-06 & 00032727006 &1.0& 2457748.929 && 0.36$\pm$0.04 &0.34$\pm$0.06 &\
S-07 & 00032727007 &1.0& 2457749.129 && 0.38$\pm$0.04 &0.49$\pm$0.07 &\
S-08 & 00032727008 &1.1& 2457749.262 && 0.49$\pm$0.02 &0.42$\pm$0.05 &\
S-09 & 00032727009 &1.0& 2457749.461 && 0.46$\pm$0.03 &0.46$\pm$0.05 &\
S-10 & 00032727010 &1.0& 2457749.540 && 0.52$\pm$0.03 &0.37$\pm$0.04 &\
S-11 & 00032727011 &0.5& 2457749.794 && 0.55$\pm$0.03 &0.39$\pm$0.06 &\
S-12 & 00032727012 &1.0& 2457749.992 && 0.50$\pm$0.02 &0.44$\pm$0.05 &\
S-13 & 00032727013 &1.0& 2457750.126 && 0.43$\pm$0.04 &0.57$\pm$0.07 &\
S-14 & 00032727014 &1.0& 2457765.553 && 0.64$\pm$0.03 &0.46$\pm$0.05 & 0.15$\pm$0.04 & 0.22$\pm$0.06 & 0.08$\pm$0.03 & 0.14$\pm$0.05\
S-15 & 00032727015 &0.9& 2457765.802 && 0.49$\pm$0.02 &0.37$\pm$0.04 &\
S-16 & 00032727016 &1.0& 2457765.936 && 0.62$\pm$0.03 &0.35$\pm$0.04 &\
S-17 & 00032727017 &1.0& 2457766.084 && 0.65$\pm$0.03 &0.42$\pm$0.04 &\
S-18 & 00032727018 &0.9& 2457766.271 && 0.53$\pm$0.03 &0.34$\pm$0.04 &\
S-19 & 00032727019 &1.0& 2457766.480 && 0.54$\pm$0.05 &0.34$\pm$0.04 &\
S-20 & 00032727020 &0.9& 2457766.631 && 0.60$\pm$0.03 &0.43$\pm$0.04 &\
S-21 & 00032727021 &1.0& 2457766.799 && 0.52$\pm$0.03 &0.43$\pm$0.05 &\
S-23 & 00032727023 &1.0& 2457767.070 && 0.68$\pm$0.03 &0.39$\pm$0.04 &\
S-24/1&00032727024+1&1.2& 2457847.727 && 0.48$\pm$0.02 &0.38$\pm$0.04 & 0.14$\pm$0.04 & 0.19$\pm$0.06 & 0.10$\pm$0.04 & 0.14$\pm$ 0.06\
S-25/2&00032727025+2&1.3& 2457847.794 && 0.54$\pm$0.02 &0.37$\pm$0.04 &\
S-26/3&00032727026+3&1.3& 2457847.994 && 0.65$\pm$0.03 &0.42$\pm$0.04 &\
S-27/4&00032727027+4&1.2& 2457848.193 && 0.54$\pm$0.02 &0.51$\pm$0.05 &\
S-28/5&00032727028+5&1.2& 2457848.259 && 0.55$\pm$0.02 &0.39$\pm$0.04 &\
\
Rev & ObsID & EL & HJD & Bgd & &\
& &(ks) & & & T-band & S-band & M-band & H-band & T-band& S-band & M-band & H-band\
0636 & 0159360101 &21.5 & 2452790.119 & 2 & 0.067$\pm$0.005 & 0.019$\pm$0.009 & 0.013$\pm$0.007 & 0.026$\pm$0.014 & & 0.012$\pm$0.008 & &\
0795 & 0159360301 &17.4 & 2453108.018 & 2 & 0.009$\pm$0.005 & 0.009$\pm$0.009 & 0.015$\pm$0.006 & 0.035$\pm$0.014 & 0.003$\pm$0.007 & & 0.006$\pm$0.006 & 0.022$\pm$0.012\
0903 & 0159360401 &20.9 & 2453323.292 & 3 & 0.020$\pm$0.005 & 0.018$\pm$0.009 & 0.029$\pm$0.007 & 0.047$\pm$0.014 & 0.012$\pm$0.005 & 0.004$\pm$0.014 & 0.018$\pm$0.007 & 0.027$\pm$0.012\
0980 & 0159360501 &29.3 & 2453476.954 & 2 & 0.009$\pm$0.005 & 0.020$\pm$0.009 & 0.015$\pm$0.007 & 0.023$\pm$0.013 & & 0.002$\pm$0.002 & 0.005$\pm$0.006 &\
1071 & 0159360701 &14.8 & 2453658.852 & 3 & 0.014$\pm$0.005 & 0.022$\pm$0.009 & 0.011$\pm$0.007 & 0.022$\pm$0.014 & 0.009$\pm$0.005 & 0.015$\pm$0.009 & &\
1096 & 0159360901 &35.6 & 2453708.477 & 3 & 0.007$\pm$0.005 & 0.014$\pm$0.009 & 0.014$\pm$0.007 & 0.042$\pm$0.014 & & & & 0.019$\pm$0.009\
1343 & 0414400101 &38.1 & 2454200.470 & 2 & 0.029$\pm$0.005 & 0.025$\pm$0.009 & 0.036$\pm$0.007 & 0.042$\pm$0.014 & 0.019$\pm$0.005 & 0.002$\pm$0.018 & 0.026$\pm$0.007 & 0.021$\pm$0.009\
1620 & 0159361301 &42.7 & 2454753.553 & 4 & 0.039$\pm$0.005 & 0.048$\pm$0.009 & 0.040$\pm$0.006 & 0.040$\pm$0.013 & 0.025$\pm$0.006 & 0.027$\pm$0.007 & 0.026$\pm$0.006 & 0.016$\pm$0.008\
1814 & 0561380101 &44.7 & 2455139.776 & 4 & 0.060$\pm$0.005 & 0.061$\pm$0.010 & 0.077$\pm$0.007 & 0.046$\pm$0.014 & 0.042$\pm$0.008 & 0.036$\pm$0.008 & 0.053$\pm$0.011 & 0.015$\pm$0.008\
1983 & 0561380201 &53.5 & 2455477.463 & 4 & 0.032$\pm$0.005 & 0.040$\pm$0.009 & 0.037$\pm$0.007 & 0.063$\pm$0.014 & 0.017$\pm$0.004 & 0.018$\pm$0.005 & 0.021$\pm$0.005 & 0.030$\pm$0.008\
2183 & 0561380301 &44.4 & 2455875.706 & 3 & 0.039$\pm$0.005 & 0.021$\pm$0.009 & 0.058$\pm$0.007 & 0.064$\pm$0.013 & 0.025$\pm$0.005 & 0.005$\pm$0.007 & 0.037$\pm$0.008 & 0.040$\pm$0.010\
2363 & 0561380501 &41.9 & 2456234.613 & 4 & 0.028$\pm$0.005 & 0.028$\pm$0.009 & 0.036$\pm$0.007 & 0.035$\pm$0.014 & 0.018$\pm$0.004 & 0.011$\pm$0.005 & 0.023$\pm$0.005 &\
2533 & 0561380601 &45.9 & 2456573.969 & 4 & 0.025$\pm$0.005 & 0.028$\pm$0.009 & 0.033$\pm$0.007 & 0.043$\pm$0.014 & 0.015$\pm$0.004 & 0.011$\pm$0.005 & 0.020$\pm$0.005 & 0.010$\pm$0.010\
2540 & 0159361601 &35.2 & 2456588.474 & 3 & 0.010$\pm$0.005 & 0.018$\pm$0.010 & 0.019$\pm$0.007 & 0.018$\pm$0.014 & & & 0.004$\pm$0.006 &\
2817 & 0561380701 &35.4 & 2457140.795 & 2 & 0.012$\pm$0.005 & 0.025$\pm$0.009 & 0.015$\pm$0.007 & 0.051$\pm$0.014 & 0.002$\pm$0.007 & 0.010$\pm$0.006 & & 0.024$\pm$0.009\
2911 & 0561380801 &30.5 & 2457328.107 & 3 & 0.012$\pm$0.005 & 0.029$\pm$0.009 & 0.010$\pm$0.007 & 0.044$\pm$0.014 & 0.004$\pm$0.004 & 0.012$\pm$0.006 & & 0.020$\pm$0.010\
2989 & 0561380901 &44.2 & 2457483.757 & 2 & 0.017$\pm$0.005 & 0.033$\pm$0.009 & 0.026$\pm$0.007 & 0.048$\pm$0.013 & 0.009$\pm$0.003 & 0.017$\pm$0.005 & 0.010$\pm$0.004 & 0.027$\pm$0.008\
3172 & 0561381001 &41.3 & 2457848.028 & 2 & 0.016$\pm$0.005 & 0.029$\pm$0.009 & 0.019$\pm$0.007 & 0.042$\pm$0.014 & 0.008$\pm$0.003 & 0.013$\pm$0.005 & 0.007$\pm$0.004 & 0.021$\pm$0.008\
\
The situation changed with the detection of trends in the X-ray light curves of several massive stars. The analysis of an extensive [*-Newton*]{} dataset of [$\zeta$Pup]{}, while failing to unveil the expected short-term stochastic variability associated with clumping, clearly revealed shallow monotonic increases, monotonic decreases, or modulations of the X-ray light curves with a relative peak-to-peak amplitude of $\sim$20% [@naz13]. No full cycle could be observed over the exposure lengths, which are usually less than a day, but time analysis tools point towards potential timescales between a day and a few days. A few other (relatively bright) single massive stars hinted at a similar variability. Variations with 15% amplitude were detected in $\xi$Per [@mas14]. The [*Chandra*]{} light curve could be fitted using a sinusoidal function with the period detected in UV P-Cygni profiles, although less than one cycle was observed and a linear trend was able to fit the data as well as this sinusoidal modulation. Changes by 15% were also detected in the four [*-Newton*]{} observations of $\lambda$Cep [@rau15] and they appear to be compatible with the 4.1d variation of the star observed in H$\alpha$ at the same epoch, although each exposure covers only about 1d and no single cycle was fully covered. In the past, a variation of 20% amplitude was also reported for $\zeta$Oph using the less sensitive [*ASCA*]{} observatory, and it appeared possibly related to the rotation period detected in the UV [@osk01]. As these X-ray changes presented strong similarities (in pattern or timescale) to the optical/UV variability associated with CIRs, these features were naturally suggested to explain the X-ray variations. A definite link is not proven yet, however, as there is a clear misfit between observing cadence at X-ray energies and the possible periodicities: no massive star has ever been monitored over a full –or to be more conclusive, several consecutive– variability cycle(s) in X-rays.
To better characterize these X-ray trends, additional data are thus needed. This paper aims at such a goal, thanks to new observations of [$\zeta$Pup]{} and revisiting old data. The choice of the target comes from its brightness: the signal to noise achieved for the other massive stars with such variability is many times below that which can be achieved for [$\zeta$Pup]{}. Re-examining this star requires a good knowledge of its cycle length, however. In the past, several variability timescales were reported for this star. In particular, a value of $\sim$5.1d was proposed as the rotation period for this star by @mof81 from H$\alpha$ observations, but this period was not recovered in the last 20 years. The presence of a 15–19h period was found in UV [@pri92; @how95], H$\alpha$ line [@rei96] and even X-ray observations [[*ROSAT*]{}; @ber96] although no sign of this period was later found in [*ASCA*]{} or [*-Newton*]{} data [@osk01; @naz13]. Recent extensive photometry now shows that timescale of 15–19h remains coherent for a few days at best, with very frequent complete disappearances [@ram17]. Recently, @how14 unveiled a much more stable periodicity in [$\zeta$Pup]{} of $P=1.780938\pm0.000093$d, from long, 40 to 236d, [*Coriolis/SMEI*]{} (Solar-Mass Ejection Imager) observing runs spread over three years. The presence of this signal is confirmed in [*BRITE*]{} (BRIght Target Explorer) observations of [$\zeta$Pup]{} taken in 2014–2015 as well as in observations of the He[ii]{}$\lambda$4686 line profile taken simultaneously [@ram17]. While @how14 proposed this signal to be pulsational in nature, @ram17 interpreted this behaviour as a rotational modulation associated with bright surface spots. Both cases could however launch CIRs in the wind, which should thus present the same recurrence timescale as detected for the variations of the He[ii]{}$\lambda$4686 wind emission line. Armed with this precise period, this paper revisits the X-ray variability of [$\zeta$Pup]{}. Section 2 presents the X-ray data and their reduction, while Section 3 presents and discusses the observational results, and Section 4 summarizes these results.
Observations and data reduction
===============================
[[*Swift*]{}]{}
---------------
At our request, [$\zeta$Pup]{} (O4I) was observed by [[*Swift*]{}]{} in December 2016 and January 2017. Each time, the X-ray emission of [$\zeta$Pup]{} was followed with [[*Swift*]{}]{}-XRT (X-Ray Telescope) over one entire 1.78d cycle with a set of 1ks observations taken every 3–6 h. Three older datasets and a set of calibration exposures taken simultaneously with the last [*-Newton*]{} observation were also available and are thus also analysed here; see Table \[journal\] for the full list of observations.
Corrected (full PSF) count rates in the same energy bands as previous [*-Newton*]{} analyses [@naz12 see also next subsection] were obtained, considering only grade 0, for each observation from the UK online tool[^2]. Heliocentric corrections were added to mid-observation times. To get spectra, XRT data were also locally reprocessed using [*xrtpipeline*]{} of HEASOFT v6.18 with calibrations available in winter 2016 and an explicit input of the Simbad coordinates of [$\zeta$Pup]{}.
[$\zeta$Pup]{} is a bright target both in the optical ($V$=2.25) and at X-ray energies, hence we could not use the photon-counting mode of [[*Swift*]{}]{}-XRT, which would be heavily affected by optical loading for such a bright source. However, even the alternative (windowed timing) mode has some problems. Indeed, below 0.5keV, the count rates sometimes increased erratically (up to a factor of 3) and the spectra showed a varying, unrealistic bump. Therefore, to avoid contamination by optical/UV photons as much as possible, only the best quality data ($grade=0$, $E>0.5$keV) were considered. Furthermore, as recommended by the XRT team, the source spectra were extracted within a circular aperture[^3] centred on the Simbad coordinates of the target[^4] with radius 10px to minimize the background contribution, while an annular background region with radii 70 and 130px was used[^5]. Spectra were then binned (using [*grppha*]{}) to reach 10 counts per bin (or a signal-to-noise ratio of 3 per bin). The redistribution matrix file (RMF), to be used for calibrating the energy axis of spectra at the observing date, was retrieved from the calibration database, after checking that the general RMF matrix or the position-dependent RMF matrices[^6] yielded the same results in our case. Finally, specific ancillary response files (ARFs), used to calibrate the flux axes of spectra, were calculated for each dataset (using [*xrtmkarf*]{}) considering the associated exposure map.
[*-Newton*]{}
-------------
[$\zeta$Pup]{} was used as a calibration target for [*-Newton*]{}, resulting in an exceptional number of 26 exposures taken since 2000. These observations were taken in a variety of modes and with various exposure lengths [see @naz12 for details]. For this new analysis, these datasets were re-reduced using the most recent calibration available (SAS v15.0.0 with calibration files available in winter 2016) and following the recommendations of the [*-Newton*]{} team[^7].
This paper primarily deals with variability issues, hence it is focussed on light curves. The most sensitive data in this regard are those taken by the pn camera, but they are affected by pile-up and/or optical loading in all but one mode (small window + thick filter). This mode has been used since 2003, but the first datasets were rather short and very affected by soft proton flares, mostly due to solar activity; the pn camera was even not switched on in one case (Rev. 1164 in 2006). The pn data have the additional advantage that they are the least affected by sensivity degradation; this detector is in fact considered stable by the [*-Newton*]{} calibration team, to within a few percents across the mission lifetime, which facilitates inter-pointing comparisons.
After the initial pipeline ([*epproc*]{}) processing, the pn data were filtered to keep only those with the best quality, using [pattern]{}=0+[flag]{}=0 and eliminating the flares whenever needed; time intervals with count rates above 10keV beyond 0.045ctss$^{-1}$ were discarded. The barycentric correction was calculated and applied to the recorded times (SAS task [*barycen*]{}). Light curves were then extracted in the same regions as in @naz12: the source region is a circle centred on the Simbad coordinates of [$\zeta$Pup]{} and with a radius of 850px (42.5”); the background region is also a circle centred on a nearby position (an identification number given in Table \[journal\] refers to the background region positions listed in Table 2 of @naz12); these circular regions have a radius of 700px except for Revs. 2363 and 2817, where it had to be reduced to 600px and 450px, respectively. We considered time bins of 5ks and four energy bands, i.e. soft band S=0.3–0.6keV, medium band M=0.6–1.2keV, hard band H=1.2–4.0keV, and total band T=0.3–4.0keV (see @naz12). The light curves were further processed by the task [*epiclccorr*]{}, which corrects for loss of photons due to vignetting, off-axis angle, or other problems such as bad pixels. In addition, to avoid very large errors and bad estimates of the count rates, we discarded bins displaying effective exposure time lower than 50% of the time bin length. For these light curves, the background contribution is less than half the $1\sigma$ error bars, hence background plays no significant role in the variability studied here.
{width="6.cm"} {width="6.cm"}
As explained in the next section, [*-Newton*]{} spectra of two extreme cases were specifically analysed. In those cases, pn spectra were extracted for the chosen time intervals via the task [*[especget]{}*]{} in the same regions as the light curves. Dedicated ARF and RMF response matrices were also derived for each observation. The pn spectra were finally grouped, with [*[specgroup]{}*]{}, to obtain an oversampling factor of five and to ensure that a minimum signal-to-noise ratio of 3 (i.e. a minimum of 10 counts) was reached in each spectral bin of the background-corrected spectra. After the initial pipeline ([*rgsproc*]{}) processing, Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) data were also filtered to keep only events in the chosen time intervals and the associated spectra and their response matrices were then calculated via the appropriate SAS tasks ([*rgsspectrum, rgsrmfgen*]{}). This was carried out for the default regions since [$\zeta$Pup]{} has no neighbour of similar X-ray brightness. Finally, the RGS spectra were individually grouped with [*[specgroup]{}*]{} to obtain an oversampling factor of five; calibrated combinations of both RGS and both orders were also derived via [*rgsfluxer*]{}.
Results
=======
Variations in light curve amplitudes
------------------------------------
Figures \[xmm3\], \[xmm1\], \[xmm2\], and \[swlc\] show the observed light curves, in several energy bands, phased with the ephemerides of @how14 [$P=1.780938$d, $T_0$=2450000] so that several light curves can be represented in the same graph using the same x-axis, facilitating the (direct) comparisons. The amplitude of the variations is immediately seen to change from one observation to the next. To quantify it, a variability index $VI$ was defined as $(max-min)/(max+min)$, i.e. the ratio between half the peak-to-peak amplitude and the mean. If the variations were sinusoidal in shape, this would yield the fractional semi-amplitude of the sine-wave. The values of this index are provided in Table \[journal\]. In the [*-Newton*]{} datasets, the exposure lengths are similar, but $VI$ varies between 1 and 6% in the total band, and the most recent datasets are the least variable. Indeed, the count rate in the total band varies from slightly below 6cts$^{-1}$ to slightly more than 7cts$^{-1}$ in 2007–2011 (Fig. \[xmm1\]), but only between 6.2 and 6.7cts$^{-1}$ in 2003–2006 and 2012–2016 (Fig. \[xmm2\]). Moreover, some light curves clearly appear above or below others[^8]. Analysing all [*-Newton*]{} datasets together therefore yields larger overall $VI$: 0.083$\pm$0.005, 0.079$\pm$0.009, 0.099$\pm$0.007, and 0.095$\pm$0.013 for the T, S, M, H energy bands, respectively, confirming the value of 20% peak-to-peak variations mentioned in @naz13. This 20% variation amplitude is also much higher than the possibly remaining calibration uncertainties ([*-Newton*]{} help desk, private communication). The $VI$ for various energy bands agree, usually well within 3$\sigma$, but the maximum variability seems to be reached in the medium band.
To correct these estimates from the variability due to noise, we also determined the fractional variability amplitude $F_{var}$ of the data [see Appendix A of @ede02]. $F_{var}$ is the square root of the normalized excess variance which is calculated by subtracting the average variance due to noise from the observed variance of the data and then normalizing the result by the mean. This thus gives an idea of the intrinsic variability of the source. The fractional variability amplitude (Table \[journal\]) varies from 0 to 4.2% in the T band (0.3–4.0keV), reaching the highest values ($>$1%) for data in 2007–2013. There is negligible variability for the other years (i.e. $F_{var}\sim0$ within 3$\sigma$), confirming the $VI$ results. Considering all data together, we found $F_{var}$ of 0.034$\pm$0.002, indicating that about half of the observed variability is due to measurement noise. The fractional variability amplitude amounts to 0.033$\pm$0.002, 0.040$\pm$0.002, and 0.027$\pm$0.002 for the S, M, H energy bands, respectively; again an agreement within 3$\sigma$ is found between $F_{var}(S)$ and $F_{var}(M)$ or between $F_{var}(S)$ and $F_{var}(H)$, but the larger value of the variability in the medium band appears here more clearly.
The hardness ratios indicate only slightly smaller variability indices than the band-by-band values, with $VI(M/S) =0.058\pm0.011$ and $VI(H/M)=0.081\pm 0.015$ or $F_{var}(M/S)=0.019\pm0.002$ and $F_{var}(H/M)=0.003\pm0.002$. Therefore, we examined correlations between energy bands. The correlation between soft and hard count rates is poor ($r=0.24$), but those between soft and medium count rates and between medium and hard count rates are better ($r$ of 0.79 and 0.49, respectively). Furthermore, there seems to be a correlation between hardness and brightness (Fig. \[xmmhr\]): as the source brightens, $M/S$ increases (correlation coefficient $r$ of 0.35) while $H/M$ decreases ($r=-0.59$), i.e. the flux of [$\zeta$Pup]{} principally changes in the medium band.
The [[*Swift*]{}]{} light curves display variations of larger amplitudes, although the variability indicators ($VI$ and $F_{var}$) can be reconciled with those measured for [*-Newton*]{} within 3$\sigma$ considering their larger errors. While the instrumental sensitivities of both observatories are different, which explains part of these differences, [[*Swift*]{}]{} light curves may also remain somewhat affected by optical loading. It is however encouraging to find the same brightness–hardness correlation in these data (except for two outliers, see rightmost panel of Fig. \[xmmhr\]), demonstrating that the X-ray signal dominates over contamination. We come back to [[*Swift*]{}]{} data in the next section.
Spectral differences
--------------------
In the [*-Newton*]{} light curves, the minimum count rate is reached for the beginning of Rev. 1814[^9], while the maximum is reached during the first part of Rev. 2183[^10]. The difference in total band count rate between these two cases amounts to at least 0.6ctss$^{-1}$, which corresponds to $>$12 times the error bars on the 5ks bins. Thus, the beginning of Rev. 1814 and Rev. 2183 are well differentiated in terms of brightness. As these two cases represent the most extreme brightness variations of [$\zeta$Pup]{}, their pn and RGS spectra were examined in more detail to determine the nature of the changes. Figure \[comp\] compares the spectra taken at minimum and maximum brightness. While a change in intensity is readily detected in both low- and high-resolution spectra, no other variation, such as shift of spectrum towards lower or higher energies or variation in line profile shapes, appears obvious by eye.
Parameter Min Max Min Max
----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ----------------- -----------------
$N_{\rm H}(1)$ (10$^{22}$cm$^{-2}$) 0.203$\pm$0.041 0.258$\pm$0.025 0.230$\pm$0.006 0.240$\pm$0.005
$kT(1)$ (keV) 0.0808$\pm$0.0345 0.0808$\pm$0.0212
$norm(1)$ (cm$^{-5}$) 0.111$\pm$0.150 0.295$\pm$0.238 0.162$\pm$0.012 0.229$\pm$0.014
$N_{\rm H}(2)$ (10$^{22}$cm$^{-2}$) 0.283$\pm$0.022 0.372$\pm$0.016 0.331$\pm$0.016 0.342$\pm$0.012
$kT(2)$ (keV) 0.259$\pm$0.006 0.288$\pm$0.002
$norm(2)$ ($10^{-2}$cm$^{-5}$) 1.487$\pm$0.162 3.064$\pm$0.245 1.814$\pm$0.146 2.732$\pm$0.162
$N_{\rm H}(3)$ (10$^{22}$cm$^{-2}$) 0.674$\pm$0.023 0.852$\pm$0.038 0.742$\pm$0.021 0.740$\pm$0.019
$kT(3)$ (keV) 0.609$\pm$0.006 0.679$\pm$0.016
$norm(3)$ ($10^{-2}$cm$^{-5}$) 1.152$\pm$0.027 1.089$\pm$0.059 1.028$\pm$0.016 1.249$\pm$0.017
$\chi_{\nu}^2$ (dof) 4.2 (109) 5.0 (114) 4.3 (112) 5.2 (117)
$F^{\rm obs}_{\rm X}$(T) ($10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) 12.00$\pm$1.30 15.95$\pm$1.60 12.01$\pm$0.04 15.94$\pm$0.04
$F^{\rm obs}_{\rm X}$(S) ($10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) 3.28$\pm$1.33 4.24$\pm$1.35 3.28$\pm$0.02 4.23$\pm$0.02
$F^{\rm obs}_{\rm X}$(M) ($10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) 6.29$\pm$0.15 8.58$\pm$0.20 6.26$\pm$0.02 8.60$\pm$0.02
$F^{\rm obs}_{\rm X}$(H) ($10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) 2.43$\pm$0.02 3.13$\pm$0.02 2.43$\pm$0.02 3.11$\pm$0.02
\
---------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ------------- -----------------
Line
position width skewness position width skewness
Ne[x]{}$\lambda$12.132 $-213\pm38$ 1253$\pm$20 0.318$\pm$0.064 $-233\pm35$ 1258$\pm$18 0.284$\pm$0.058
Fe[xvii]{}$\lambda$15.014 $-184\pm20$ 991$\pm$10 0.339$\pm$0.039 $-197\pm17$ 968$\pm$9 0.363$\pm$0.035
Fe[xvii]{}$\lambda$15.261 $-280\pm30$ 1059$\pm$15 0.375$\pm$0.053 $-259\pm28$ 1095$\pm$13 0.336$\pm$0.045
Fe[xvii]{}$\lambda$16.780 $-302\pm29$ 882$\pm$15 0.448$\pm$0.061 $-318\pm25$ 881$\pm$13 0.438$\pm$0.055
Fe[xvii]{}$\lambda$17.051,17.096 $-238\pm34$ 1202$\pm$18 0.178$\pm$0.066 $-206\pm27$ 1169$\pm$16 0.163$\pm$0.060
O[viii]{}$\lambda$18.967 $-447\pm36$ 1307$\pm$26 0.435$\pm$0.085 $-362\pm32$ 1321$\pm$22 0.426$\pm$0.071
N[vii]{}$\lambda$24.779 $-132\pm37$ 1500$\pm$23 0.259$\pm$0.068 $-89\pm34$ 1523$\pm$20 0.246$\pm$0.060
Averages $-257\pm12$ 1171$\pm$7 0.336$\pm$0.024 $-238\pm11$ 1174$\pm$6 0.322$\pm$0.021
---------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- ------------- -----------------
\
Fits were then performed for the pn spectra with Xspec 12.9.0i, using @asp09 for the reference solar abundances. A model $wabs*(vphabs*vapec+vphabs*vapec+vphabs*vapec)$ was used, where the first absorption was fixed to the interstellar value of $8.9\times10^{19}$cm$^{-2}$ [@dip94] and CNO abundances of the other components were fixed to those derived in @her13[^11]. This model is similar to that used in @naz12, although that model had a fourth thermal component. In our case, adding this hottest component did not significantly improve the fit, so it was discarded for simplicity. Fitting results are provided in Table \[pnfit\]. In a first trial, the absorptions, temperatures, and normalizations of all thermal components were free to vary. Higher values of these components were derived for the maximum brightness case. However, a second trial was then made, fixing the temperatures to their average values. The absorptions were then found to be consistent within errors, letting only normalization factors significantly vary between minimum and maximum brightness cases. In particular, the smallest variation is detected for the hottest component (0.644keV) and the largest variation is detected for the intermediate temperature (0.273keV). The largest flux change is recorded in the medium band, while the flux ratios in the soft and hard bands are similar, which confirms the light curve results. The variations in [$\zeta$Pup]{} thus seem to result from a global increase in the strength of the emission, particularly that of the warm plasma ($kT\sim0.3$keV).
To get a more detailed look at variations, X-ray lines recorded by RGS can be studied. However, the X-ray lines of [$\zeta$Pup]{} are well known to be non-Gaussian [e.g. @kah01]. Therefore, to best compare the RGS spectra, line moments (orders 0 to 3) were calculated in the velocity space for strong and relatively isolated lines (a method used e.g. by @coh06): Ne[x]{}$\lambda$12.132, Fe[xvii]{}$\lambda$15.014,15.261,16.780,17.051/96, O[viii]{}$\lambda$18.967, and N[vii]{}$\lambda$24.779. Table \[moment\] provides the results, showing that there are no significant differences between position, width, and skewness of lines at minimum or maximum brightness. Comparing the line profile shapes rather than their overall properties does not reveal any obvious feature either, considering the errors (Fig. \[comp\]). The changes thus seem limited to the line intensities, as found before for low-resolution pn spectra.
{width="6.cm"} {width="6.cm"} {width="6.cm"}
-------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -----------------
ID $norm(2)$ $norm(3)$ $\chi_{\nu}^2$ (dof) $F^{\rm obs}_{\rm X}$(M) $F^{\rm obs}_{\rm X}$(H) $gain\,offset$
($10^{-2}$cm$^{-5}$) ($10^{-2}$cm$^{-5}$)
S-01 1.22$\pm$0.16 1.10$\pm$0.13 0.78 (34) 5.10$\pm$0.30 2.44$\pm$0.20 0.114$\pm$0.006
S-2-3 2.07$\pm$0.23 1.23$\pm$0.19 1.08 (45) 7.21$\pm$0.34 2.89$\pm$0.25 0.136$\pm$0.015
S-04 1.69$\pm$0.26 1.69$\pm$0.27 0.92 (43) 7.36$\pm$0.37 3.67$\pm$0.29 0.109$\pm$0.008
S-05 1.33$\pm$0.18 1.34$\pm$0.14 1.06 (37) 5.86$\pm$0.29 2.91$\pm$0.23 0.100$\pm$0.005
S-06 1.34$\pm$0.20 1.18$\pm$0.16 1.24 (25) 5.53$\pm$0.35 2.61$\pm$0.28 0.071$\pm$0.010
S-07 1.41$\pm$0.25 1.07$\pm$0.30 0.57 (25) 5.44$\pm$0.40 2.42$\pm$0.33 0.048$\pm$0.008
S-08 1.78$\pm$0.20 1.05$\pm$0.16 1.46 (40) 6.20$\pm$0.31 2.48$\pm$0.20 0.111$\pm$0.011
S-09 1.20$\pm$0.23 1.63$\pm$0.19 1.18 (36) 6.24$\pm$0.38 3.46$\pm$0.30 0.071$\pm$0.013
S-10 2.05$\pm$0.25 1.35$\pm$0.22 0.55 (38) 7.45$\pm$0.41 3.13$\pm$0.34 0.123$\pm$0.009
S-11 1.80$\pm$0.27 1.41$\pm$0.33 1.15 (21) 7.03$\pm$0.48 3.17$\pm$0.38 0.034$\pm$0.006
S-12 1.56$\pm$0.19 1.50$\pm$0.15 0.94 (42) 6.76$\pm$0.32 3.31$\pm$0.26 0.071$\pm$0.009
S-13 1.75$\pm$0.24 1.65$\pm$0.28 1.09 (32) 7.42$\pm$0.44 3.60$\pm$0.38 0.108$\pm$0.009
S-14 1.70$\pm$0.24 1.31$\pm$0.25 1.17 (40) 6.61$\pm$0.37 2.96$\pm$0.24 0.145$\pm$0.009
S-15 1.78$\pm$0.22 1.39$\pm$0.17 1.23 (40) 6.99$\pm$0.41 3.15$\pm$0.27 0.049$\pm$0.004
S-16 1.96$\pm$0.30 1.10$\pm$0.14 0.73 (40) 6.72$\pm$0.33 2.63$\pm$0.24 0.099$\pm$0.004
S-17 1.94$\pm$0.22 1.28$\pm$0.17 0.68 (42) 7.04$\pm$0.32 2.96$\pm$0.26 0.096$\pm$0.009
S-18 2.03$\pm$0.20 1.17$\pm$0.15 1.05 (37) 7.04$\pm$0.38 2.79$\pm$0.26 0.071$\pm$0.009
S-19 2.09$\pm$0.20 0.99$\pm$0.16 1.12 (34) 6.80$\pm$0.42 2.47$\pm$0.28 0.154$\pm$0.008
S-20 1.63$\pm$0.22 1.22$\pm$0.18 0.62 (36) 6.25$\pm$0.32 2.77$\pm$0.26 0.149$\pm$0.007
S-21 1.77$\pm$0.21 1.40$\pm$0.21 1.12 (41) 6.96$\pm$0.35 3.14$\pm$0.27 0.117$\pm$0.009
S-23 2.25$\pm$0.20 1.14$\pm$0.16 0.79 (40) 7.43$\pm$0.37 2.78$\pm$0.26 0.105$\pm$0.004
S-24/1 1.65$\pm$0.25 1.36$\pm$0.18 1.28 (49) 6.71$\pm$0.34 3.09$\pm$0.23 0.055$\pm$0.003
S-25/2 1.95$\pm$0.22 1.28$\pm$0.17 1.16 (52) 7.05$\pm$0.31 2.96$\pm$0.22 0.061$\pm$0.007
S-26/3 1.88$\pm$0.19 1.39$\pm$0.16 0.86 (57) 7.15$\pm$0.32 3.15$\pm$0.23 0.106$\pm$0.009
S-27/4 1.86$\pm$0.20 1.22$\pm$0.19 0.98 (51) 6.74$\pm$0.29 2.82$\pm$0.21 0.111$\pm$0.013
S-28/5 1.84$\pm$0.20 1.26$\pm$0.15 1.07 (53) 6.78$\pm$0.28 2.89$\pm$0.21 0.086$\pm$0.007
-------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -----------------
\
As a last investigation, the [[*Swift*]{}]{} spectra were also analysed. The chosen model is the same as used for [*-Newton*]{}, but with some parameters fixed. The [*-Newton*]{} fits showed that, if temperatures are fixed, absorptions are similar whatever the brightness, so both parameters were fixed here. Furthermore, since the [[*Swift*]{}]{} spectra are only examined above 0.5keV and the first thermal component dominates at energies below 0.5keV, the $norm(1)/norm(2)$ ratio was also fixed. Following recommendations of the XRT team, the spectral fitting was performed considering the possibility of energy scale offsets (command “gain fit” under Xspec, with slope fixed to 1). Results are provided in Table \[swiftfit\] and the left panel of Fig. \[swiftflux\]. The fluxes present lower variability indicators than the light curves, leading to a better agreement with [*-Newton*]{} data. A direct comparison of the simultaneous [*-Newton*]{}/[[*Swift*]{}]{} observations of April 2017 is shown in the middle and right panels of Fig. \[swiftflux\], and it further confirms that fluxes derived from [[*Swift*]{}]{} spectra better correlate with the [*-Newton*]{} data than the [[*Swift*]{}]{} count rates. Problems due to optical loading seem negligible; the [[*Swift*]{}]{} spectra truly reflect the actual brightness variations of [$\zeta$Pup]{} and can thus be trusted. But we need to be aware of their larger Poisson noise, due to shorter exposure times and lower effective area of [[*Swift*]{}]{}, and of the potentially larger systematic uncertainties (up to $\sim20$% in the worst cases).
Shapes of the variations
------------------------
There is a second striking feature in Figures \[xmm3\] to \[swlc\]: the shape of the light curves. Indeed, one can observe near constancy (e.g. Rev. 2540), linear trends (e.g. Rev. 1343), or parabolic trends (e.g. Revs. 1983 and 2183), and there is even one case in which the X-ray luminosity experiences a slow increase followed by a steeper increase (Rev. 1814). Not only are the mean levels and amplitudes different, well beyond the calibration uncertainties, but the light curve shapes are sometimes incompatible with each other. Indeed, the steep increase at the end of Rev. 1814 cannot be reconciled with the shallower increases observed in, for example Revs. 1620, 1983, or 2183 (Fig. \[xmm1\]).
A last interesting feature is the phasing of these X-ray light curves, performed using the very precise value for the periodic variability in optical light of [$\zeta$Pup]{} derived by @how14 from $SMEI$ data, i.e. $P=1.780938\pm0.000093$d. Assuming the period to remain stable and considering its error bar, a 1$\sigma$ error on the period would yield a phase shift of only 0.02 after one year, or 0.1 after five years. There should thus be little phase shift between individual X-ray light curves in each of the figures \[xmm3\] to \[swlc\], although phase shifts as large as $\sim0.3$ (for a 1$\sigma$ error) can be expected between the beginning and the end of the 14yrs observing campaign in X-rays. However, the observed light curves do not form a coherent behaviour (Fig. \[xmm3\] to \[swlc\] and \[xmmp\], bottom). Even data taken the same year – an interval for which phasing errors and any instrumental sensitivity changes should be negligible – cannot be reconciled with each other. This is the case of Revs. 0795 and 0903, both taken in 2004, of Revs. 0980, 1071, and 1096, taken in 2005, (see Fig. \[xmm3\]) and, to a lesser extent (only some bins do not match within 3$\sigma$ for these, see Fig. \[xmm2\]), of Revs. 2533 and 2540, both taken in 2013, and of Revs. 2817 and 2911, both taken in 2015. The light curves of a subgroup of observations, however, can be combined to form a coherent, sinusoid-like overall shape. This is best achieved by slightly modifying the period to, for example 1.78065d (Fig. \[xmmp\], top), a value similar to that recently found by @ram17 - these authors have found $P=1.78063\pm0.00025$d for the weighted average of the period values derived from the analysis of the individual datasets ($SMEI$ 2003–2004, $SMEI$ 2004–2005, $SMEI$ 2005–2006, and $BRITE$ 2014–2015). This provides marginal support for the presence of this period in the X-ray data, but only at some epochs; it should be noted that some exposures taken in between those of this subgroup (e.g. Rev. 1814) do not show the same variations (Fig. \[xmm1\]). The X-ray variations of [$\zeta$Pup]{} definitely appear to differ widely from a perfectly stable modulation, both in terms of phasing and overall light curve shape. Retrospectively, this irregular behaviour may explain the variability detection obtained with [*ROSAT*]{} [@ber96] and the subsequent non-detection in [*ASCA*]{} data [@osk01]. The amplitude of variation found by Berghoefer is similar to what we detect with [*-Newton*]{}; simply, as in 2007–2011, such strong variability was transient.
![Subgroup of [*-Newton*]{} light curves can be phased with a period of 1.78065d to form a relatively coherent behaviour (top), but considering all available light curves only lead to scatter plots, whatever the value of the 1.78d period considered (bottom). []{data-label="xmmp"}](cyclex_new.ps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"} ![Subgroup of [*-Newton*]{} light curves can be phased with a period of 1.78065d to form a relatively coherent behaviour (top), but considering all available light curves only lead to scatter plots, whatever the value of the 1.78d period considered (bottom). []{data-label="xmmp"}](cyclex_all.ps "fig:"){width="8.5cm"}
Such a behaviour is not totally unprecedented for this star. Indeed, @how14 mentioned that the amplitude of the photometric cycle varied between 5 and 12 mmag. @ram17 further showed that the light curve shape changes as well. This could perhaps be understood if the photometric changes arise in a non-constant phenomenon, for example stellar spots. The behaviour remains coherent but only for a while during the lifetime of the spot, and as new spots arise, a phase shift and a change in the light curve shape can be observed. In any case, this somewhat erratic behaviour is usual for Oef stars such as [$\zeta$Pup]{}, where cycles with similar but not perfectly identical periodicities are often found in spectroscopic time series [@rau03; @deb04; @rau15; @sud16]. However, at a given date, the star should display one single behaviour. If a CIR scenario in which structures at the stellar surface launch strong wind pertubations is correct, a tight correlation is then expected between optical and X-ray light curves. In fact, in our case, this correlation between the behaviour of [$\zeta$Pup]{} at optical wavelengths and that at high energies can be directly evaluated as some photometric campaigns were obtained at the same time as the X-ray observations of [$\zeta$Pup]{}, for example $SMEI$ data in 2004–2005 [@how14] and $BRITE$ data in 2015–2017 (@ram17 and in preparation).
For $BRITE$ data, the noise on individual photometric points is small, so that two comparisons are possible: (1) simultaneous X-ray and optical data (Fig. \[britea\]) and (2) the X-ray light curve and the average 1.78d optical cycle around the same date (Fig. \[briteb\]). The latter solution compares the X-ray light curves only to the 1.78d cycle while the former compares these light curves to the full optical photometry, which includes both the 1.78d cycle and a stochastic component of similar amplitude [@ram17]. Because the origin of the X-ray variations is uncertain, both comparisons should be considered. For $SMEI$ data, the noise on individual photometric points is rather large, so that only averages could be used, erasing the short-term stochastic component. In fact, the optical data taken within $\pm15$d of the X-ray observing dates (Table \[journal\]) were combined and those averages are then compared with the associated X-ray data in Figure \[smei\].
In 2004, X-ray observations were taken in April and November (Fig. \[smei\]). The former data were taken during an optical photometric minimum and the X-ray light curve is relatively stable, and hence there may be a weak correlation between the two; the latter data were taken on the descending branch between the maximum and minimum optical brightnesses, but X-rays show an increase in strength (anti-correlation). In 2005, there were three X-ray observations in April, October, and December (Fig. \[smei\]). All of these observations were taken at and after the minimum optical brightness phase, but the first and third X-ray dataset are stable so there is no correlation between X-ray and optical for these datasets; the second X-ray light curve reveals an increase in X-ray brightness so a correlation is detected. In April 2015, the X-ray observations were taken as [$\zeta$Pup]{} displayed a marked increase in optical brightness (Figs. \[britea\] and \[briteb\]) but the X-ray light curve remained stable: there is no correlation between the two. In December 2016, [$\zeta$Pup]{} was observed by [[*Swift*]{}]{} as it slowly brightened at optical wavelengths but the X-ray light curve displays a dip and then remained relatively stable (Fig. \[britea\]): the last five points of the X-ray light curve are at a similar level, while their simultaneous $BRITE$ data show a clear increase. In January 2017, [$\zeta$Pup]{} remained stable both in optical and X-rays. Finally, in April 2017, the X-ray light curve shows a marked decrease while the optical photometry shows both an increase and a decrease over the same interval (Figs. \[britea\] and \[briteb\]). There is thus no obvious correlation between X-ray and optical emissions in the currently available data[^12].
Thus, in general, there does not seem to be a clear, unique correlation between the behaviour of [$\zeta$Pup]{} in optical and X-rays, even when we allow for short, fraction of day, time lags. Furthermore, the only potential evidence for a 1.78d cycle in the X-ray domain comes from a subset of observations (mostly from 2007–2013, see top of Fig. \[xmmp\]), but no optical monitoring is available these years. It is thus difficult to assess whether the brightness of [$\zeta$Pup]{} in the optical showed a similar variability at that time, or if on the contrary the optical changes had completely disappeared, in a scenario in which the variability source had become more energetic. In summary, we cannot directly and systematically relate the X-ray variability and optical changes, and therefore we find no support for the hypothesis of a simple, direct connection. The infrequent presence of a 1.78d timescale at X-ray energies is possible but requires further checking, using additional monitoring, to be fully demonstrated.
Conclusion
==========
Because [$\zeta$Pup]{} is a bright and nearby object, this star has been the target of numerous investigations, including at high energies. In particular, it is known to be variable in X-rays since at least @ber96. Using X-ray datasets obtained by [*-Newton*]{} before 2010, @naz12 [@naz13] found a lack of the short-term stochastic changes expected to be associated with the clumpy nature of the massive-star winds, but they detected longer term trends. Similar features were then found in other massive stars and they are currently thought to be associated with large-scale structures in the wind, i.e. wind perturbations somehow triggered at the stellar surface (perhaps from spots or pulsations). As the latter can be detected at optical wavelengths, a correlation is expected between the X-ray and optical behaviours.
Half a decade later, new X-ray observations of [$\zeta$Pup]{} were obtained by [*-Newton*]{} and [[*Swift*]{}]{}, and a clear, stable periodicity of 1.78d was identified in long optical photometric runs of the star (@how14 and @ram17). We thus revisited the X-ray variability of [$\zeta$Pup]{}.
The full dataset of X-ray light curves now reveals their variety: both the amplitude and the shape of the variations change from one exposure to the next. A subgroup of observations displays very large variations that can be combined to form a sinusoid-like shape for a period of 1.78d. However, the other X-ray datasets behave in a different way, often with rather constant light curves of different mean levels that are difficult to reconcile with one another or with the subgroup light curves.
Hoping to gather more detailed information on the nature of the X-ray changes, we then compared [*-Newton*]{} spectra (both EPIC at low resolution and RGS at high resolution) taken at extreme X-ray brightnesses since changing velocities or temperatures routinely help constrain the origin of high-energy variations. No significant changes were found for the temperatures, absorptions, and line shapes (centroid, width, and skewness). This notably rejects the scenario in which variability arises from changing absorption as denser wind structures come and go into the line of sight. Only changes in flux, slightly stronger in the medium (0.6–1.2keV) energy band than at softer or harder energies, are detected. The impossibility to constrain the hot plasma properties more precisely precludes us from clarifying its nature.
The ephemerides of @how14 are precise enough that datasets separated by a few years can be compared in phase. However, apart maybe from a subgroup, the X-ray light curves cannot be phased coherently because of incompatibilities arising even for datasets taken the same year where calibration and ephemeris uncertainties play little role. Since the 1.78d cycle of [$\zeta$Pup]{} varies in amplitude as well as shape, and since additional optical variations (stochastic changes of similar amplitude) are also present, a more meaningful comparison is achieved if X-ray data and optical photometry obtained simultaneously are examined. This comparison can be made thanks to $SMEI$ in 2004–2005 and $BRITE$ in 2015–2017 but again, no clear, single result is obtained. Sometimes a correlation between optical and X-ray data is detected, sometimes there is an anti-correlation, and there is a total absence of correlation at still other times. Therefore, there is no clear X-ray/optical link and the current data do not validate the scenario of X-rays arising in large-scale structures triggered at the surface of [$\zeta$Pup]{}, traced by the optical data.
To solve the riddle of [$\zeta$Pup]{} X-ray variations in the future, performing repeated, long-term, high-cadence, and multiwavelength monitoring will be needed. Only a multiwavelength study, which is best performed by combining X-rays to UV and optical data, can unveil the wind properties of the star at a given time. Such a comparison also needs to be long enough (several days/weeks, not a single snapshot) so that a clear view of the long-term (weeks) behaviour is acquired. Finally, since the variability properties of [$\zeta$Pup]{} are not constant with epoch ($>$weeks), repeated observations are required, so that conclusions drawn at one time can be checked and fully validated.
YN acknowledges support from the Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (Belgium), the Communauté Française de Belgique, the PRODEX [*-Newton*]{} and Integral contracts, and an ARC grant for concerted research actions financed by the French community of Belgium (Wallonia-Brussels Federation). TR acknowledges support from the Canadian Space Agency grant FAST. AFJM is grateful for financial support from NSERC (Canada) and FQRNT (Quebec). We thank Kim Page, from the [[*Swift*]{}]{} team, for her kind assistance, the [*-Newton*]{} team for their help, the referees for valuable comments that improved the paper, and the whole XRT team for their dedication towards making these [[*Swift*]{}]{} observations possible and usable. ADS and CDS were used for preparing this document. Based on data collected with [[*Swift*]{}]{}, the ESA science mission [*-Newton*]{} (an ESA Science Mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA), the *SMEI*/Coriolis instrument, and the *BRITE-Constellation* satellite mission (designed, built, launched, operated, and supported by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency - FFG, the University of Vienna, the Technical University of Graz, the Canadian Space Agency - CSA, the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies - UTIAS, the Foundation for Polish Science & Technology - FNiTP MNiSW, and National Science Centre - NCN).
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, , 53, 197 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., & Scott, P. 2009, , 47, 481 Berghoefer, T. W., Baade, D., Schmitt, J. H. M. M., et al. 1996, , 306, 899 Bouret, J.-C., Lanz, T., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, , 438, 301 Carlberg, R. G. 1980, , 241, 1131 Cohen, D. H., Leutenegger, M. A., Grizzard, K. T., et al. 2006, , 368, 1905 Conti, P. S., & Leep, E. M. 1974, , 193, 113 Cranmer, S. R., & Owocki, S. P. 1996, , 462, 469 De Becker, M., & Rauw, G. 2004, , 427, 995 de Vries, C. P., den Herder, J. W., Gabriel, C., et al. 2015, , 573, A128 Diplas, A., & Savage, B. D. 1994, , 93, 211 Edelson, R., Turner, T. J., Pounds, K., et al. 2002, , 568, 610 Eversberg, T., L[é]{}pine, S., & Moffat, A. F. J. 1998, , 494, 799 Feldmeier, A., Puls, J., & Pauldrach, A. W. A. 1997, , 322, 878 Herv[é]{}, A., Rauw, G., & Naz[é]{}, Y. 2013, , 551, A83 (Paper III) Howarth, I. D., Prinja, R. K., & Massa, D. 1995, , 452, L65 Howarth, I. D., & Stevens, I. R. 2014, , 445, 2878 Kahn, S. M., Leutenegger, M. A., Cottam, J., et al. 2001, , 365, L312 Kaper, L., Henrichs, H. F., Fullerton, A. W., et al. 1997, , 327, 281 Lobel, A., & Blomme, R. 2008, , 678, 408-430 Lucy, L. B., & Solomon, P. M. 1970, , 159, 879 Lucy, L. B. 1982, , 255, 286 Massa, D., Fullerton, A. W., Nichols, J. S., et al. 1995, , 452, L53 Massa, D., Oskinova, L., Fullerton, A. W., et al. 2014, , 441, 2173 Moffat, A. F. J., & Michaud, G. 1981, , 251, 133 Naz[é]{}, Y., Flores, C. A., & Rauw, G. 2012, , 538, A22 (Paper I) Naz[é]{}, Y., Oskinova, L. M., & Gosset, E. 2013, , 763, 143 (Paper II) Oskinova, L. M., Clarke, D., & Pollock, A. M. T. 2001, , 378, L21 Oskinova, L. M., Feldmeier, A., & Hamann, W.-R. 2004, , 422, 675 Owocki, S. P., Castor, J. I., & Rybicki, G. B. 1988, , 335, 914 Prinja, R. K., Balona, L. A., Bolton, C. T., et al. 1992, , 390, 266 Prinja, R. K., Fullerton, A. W., & Crowther, P. A. 1996, , 311, 264 Ramiaramanantsoa, T., Moffat, A. F. J., Chen[é]{}, A.-N., et al. 2014, , 441, 910 Ramiaramanantsoa, T., Moffat, A. F. J., Harmon, R., et al. 2017, , submitted Rauw, G., De Becker, M., & Vreux, J.-M. 2003, , 399, 287 Rauw, G., Herv[é]{}, A., Naz[é]{}, Y., et al. 2015, , 580, A59 Reid, A. H. N., & Howarth, I. D. 1996, , 311, 616 Sudnik, N. P., & Henrichs, H. F. 2016, , 594, A56 van Leeuwen, F. 2007, , 474, 653 Walborn, N. R. 1973, , 78, 1067
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}\
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}\
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}\
{width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"} {width="5.5cm"}
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
{width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"}
{width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"} {width="4.5cm"}
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}\
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
[^1]: F.R.S.-FNRS Research Associate.
[^2]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/user\_objects/
[^3]: Using an annular region to remove the core only degrades the signal-to-noise ratio without removing the low-energy contamination nor the energy scale offset (see Sect. 3.2).
[^4]: However, the use of a fixed extraction region such as here can lead to PSF correction uncertainties of up to 20%, especially for snapshots in which the target appears near the bad columns (as e.g. for ObsID 00032727026 and 00032727027).
[^5]: see http://www.swift.ac.uk/analysis/xrt/backscal.php
[^6]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/analysis/xrt/posrmf.php
[^7]: SAS threads, see\
http://xmm.esac.esa.int/sas/current/documentation/threads/
[^8]: This does not seem to be linked to a sensitivity degradation with time, as the faintest count rates (e.g. beginning of Rev. 1814) are not necessarily the most recent and the brightest ones (e.g. beginning of Rev. 2183) the oldest. Therefore, such variations reflect intrinsic variations of [$\zeta$Pup]{}.
[^9]: Corresponding to pn count rate $<$6.1ctss$^{-1}$ in total band, or [*-Newton*]{} $TIME$ in 373670893–373710893s (from 2009-Nov-03 at 21h27m to 2009-Nov-04 at 8h34m).
[^10]: Corresponding to pn count rate $>$6.7ctss$^{-1}$ in total band, or [*-Newton*]{} $TIME$ in 437255175–437300175 (from 2011-Nov-09 at 19h45m to 2011-Nov-10 at 8h15m)
[^11]: @her13 derived mass fractions of $6.6\times10^{-4}$, $7.7\times10^{-3}$, and $3.05\times10^{-3}$ for C, N, and O, respectively (with a mass fraction of hydrogen equal to 0.70643 since that paper used solar abundances from @and89). The Xspec abundances are in number, relative to hydrogen and relative to solar, hence the C, N, and O abundances used here are 0.26, 11.5, and 0.55 times solar, using @asp09 as reference.
[^12]: This also confirms that the [[*Swift*]{}]{} spectra are relatively free from optical contamination, since we would expect a correlation in that case.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
The question whether electrons are delocalized along the DNA duplex has attracted substantial recent interest and controversy. Both short and long-range migration was found by studies that were chemical in nature[@Lewis]. DC conductivity measurements on single DNA strands led to equally controversial results - with metallic[@Fink], semiconducting[@Porath] and insulating[@Braun; @de; @Pablo] behavior all observed. Recent experiments [@Kasumov] are also suggestive of a proximity-induced superconductivity at low temperatures. DNA networks in contrast were found to be highly resistive[@Okahata]. Our earlier experiments[@Tran] conducted on $\lambda $-DNA in the microwave spectral range gave evidence for a large resistance associated with the duplex and for a thermally driven transport process.
These conflicting results may, to a large extent be due to different DNA varieties. A native DNA duplex with random (or nearly random) base pair sequences is expected to have electron states that are different than an oligomer with identical base pairs, such as a poly(C)-poly(G) track. In addition, the DNA configuration is sensitive to the buffer environment, which surrounds the duplex. In a dry form the duplex has non-parallel base pairs, and at higher water concentrations the duplex undergoes a structural change to a more ordered system[@Pohl]. This then may lead to widely different transport properties and also charge excitations of a different nature.
In order to examine the nature of electron states in native DNA, we have conducted optical measurements spanning a wide spectral range, from microwave frequencies to the UV part of the electromagnetic spectrum, on oriented films, fabricated from DNA extracted from calf thymus. Our findings concerning the vibrational modes will be discussed elsewhere. Here we focus on the electronic excitations at high and at low energies. Our data gives evidence for well-defined charge excitations at high energies involving the p-orbitals of the base pairs, and at low energies charge excitations displaying all the characteristics of conduction due to a small number of localized electron states. Thus our experiments suggest that DNA is a wide bandgap semiconductor, with intrinsic disorder, counterion fluctuations, and possibly other sources leading to a small number of localized electronic states on the base pair sequence.
Wet-spun, free-standing oriented samples were prepared from calf thymus Li-DNA (Pharmacia) with a molecular weight of $10^{7}$ (corresponding to contour length of 5 mm or some 100 persistence lengths) by a method described by Rupprecht et al[@Rupprecht]. This spinning allows controlled production of sufficient amounts of highly oriented thin films by spooling DNA fibers that are continuously stretched during precipitation into an aqueous alcohol solution. Films of thickness of 0.2 mm and lateral dimensions between 5 and 10 mm were used.
In all applicable cases placing it in a chamber with appropriate relative humidity controlled the hydration of the DNA sample. Several configurations were employed to evaluate the optical conductivity $\sigma _{1}\left( \omega
\right) $. In all cases we treat the collection of DNA strands as a collection of thin wires, of diameter 2 nm, and we define the conductivity $%
\sigma $ as $j/E$ where $j$ is the electric current density induced along the helix axis. For randomly coiled DNA strands the loss due to motion of electric charges $W$ is, to a good approximation, given by $W=\frac{1}{3}%
V\sigma \left( E_{0}\right) ^{2}$, where $V$ is the volume of the sample and $E_{0}$ is the time averaged applied ac field at the position of the sample. At 12 GHz the conductivity was evaluated from the measured loss of highly sensitive resonant cavities that were loaded with the material. The technique and the analysis, which leads to evaluation of the conductivity from the measured losses, is well established[@Gruner]. In the millimeter spectral range, 100 GHz to 1000 GHz, backward wave oscillators were employed as coherent sources in a transmission configuration[@Schwartz]. The oriented calf-thymus DNA film was placed on a 1 mm thick sapphire substrate and then held in place by a sheet of 6 $\mu $m thick mylar to form a three layer system. Transmission as a function of frequency was recorded in the specified frequency range. In our analysis we utilized the fact that for plane waves incident normally on a slab of material, resonances occur whenever the slab is an integer number of half wavelengths. Thus, using the sapphire as a substrate, resonances occurred approximately every 50 GHz. Having analyzed the transmission through the sapphire alone prior to mounting the sample, the optical properties of the substrate were well characterized. The index of refraction of mylar was taken to be approximately 1.5, and its extinction coefficient was neglected. Thus using a three-layer transmission model, each resonance was analyzed for the optical properties of the DNA film, allowing for a 1.5 $cm^{-1}$ resolution of the spectrum. Thin tungsten wire grids with a spacing much smaller than the wavelength of our radiation acted as adjustable polarizers to probe the sample anisotropy. Transmission measurements in the UV spectral range were conducted using a Beckman Coulter DU 640 Spectrophotometer.
The optical conductivity, measured over a broad spectral range is displayed in Fig. 1. We have omitted the spectral range between 500 and 10,000 $%
cm^{-1} $, where various intramolecular vibrational excitations occur, which will be the subject of a separate publication. In the figure we have also displayed the conductivity extracted from the transmission data of Wittlin et al.[@Wittlin] conducted on dry specimens. Several comments on the experiments we have conducted are in order. First, during experiments with an electric field polarized parallel and perpendicular to the duplex axis we did not observe a substantial anisotropy of the conductivity, and the absorption peaks associated with vibrational modes were also found to be isotropic[@Wittlin]. While this is surprising, it can be explained by assuming that the DNA duplex while oriented macroscopically does not assume a straight configuration but displays a substantial local directional variation. This has been observed in certain DNA films[@Livolant]. As this issue is unresolved, we have not included a factor of $\frac{1}{3}$ in the loss equation; this however does not affect our overall conclusion. Second, it is evident from the figure that data at low frequencies, measured on dry DNA species is reproducible, that is, the conductivity we have evaluated is, within experimental error identical to those found by others [@Wittlin]. Third, the low frequency optical conductivity depends on the water environment with the conductivity in a wet environment significantly larger than that in a dry environment. We have found similar results earlier for $\lambda $-DNA[@Tran].
The mode with the onset at 30,000 $cm^{-1}$ is due to intra-base electronic excitations associated with the $\pi \rightarrow \pi ^{\ast }$ molecular orbital transitions. This we have confirmed by conducting optical absorption measurements on the individual A, T, C and G bases; the absorption as shown in Fig. 1 is virtually identical to the sum of the optical transitions associated with the four base pair species. The spectral weight
$$\int \sigma \left( \omega \right) d\omega =\frac{\pi Ne^{2}}{2m}
\label{Eq. 1}$$
of the mode, where $N$ is the concentration of charge carriers, and $m$ is the (electronic) mass, has been evaluated by using the measured extinction coefficient. By a numerical integration of the spectra for samples of known dimensions and concentration of DNA, we obtain a value for the concentration of charge carriers of order $N\sim 10^{21}cm^{-3}$, which compares favorably with the concentration evaluated by assuming that there is one electron per base associated with this transition[@Dyre], $N=2\times 10^{21}cm^{-3}$.
On the basis of this analysis we conclude that the absorption feature in the UV spectral range represents nearly all the spectral weight associated with the electronic excitations of the base pairs of the DNA duplex. We note that this excitation cannot be associated with the bandgap in the usual sense, as this mode does not represent a transition between the highest occupied and lowest unoccupied states associated with the entire electronic structure of the DNA duplex. The reason for this is the following: for a duplex, the optical transition we observe corresponds to a transition between energy levels of the various single bases, i.e. intra-base excitations, while the transition matrix element involving energy levels of different bases (such as A to T or C to G optical transitions) is vanishingly small. The bandgap, on the other hand, corresponds to the energy difference between the top of the HOMO band and the bottom of the LUMO band, with these bands in general corresponding to different bases[@de; @Pablo].
The optical conductivity below about 500 $cm^{-1}$, represented by the full line in Fig. 1 is due to low frequency vibrations involving the double helix structure. These vibrations have been described earlier[@Wittlin] and are not discussed here. In Fig. 2 the frequency dependent conductivity, as measured below these vibrational modes in the micro and millimeter wave spectral range is displayed for both dry and fully hydrated DNA. The dashed lines represent a conductivity given by the expression
$$\sigma _{1}\left( \omega \right) =A\left( T\right) \omega ^{\alpha }
\label{Eq. 2}$$
with the exponent $\alpha $ given in the figure. Such a power law dependence has been observed in a variety of disordered solids, ranging from ionic glasses[@Livolant] to materials where the electron states are localized [@Carini]. We believe that contributions to the conductivity due to the counter ions and water molecules, which surround the DNA duplex, can be neglected, and that the conductivity is due to localized electrons or holes, for several reasons. First, both the counter ions and the water in the hydration layers are strongly bound to the (negatively charged) DNA duplex and consequently excitations due to these should occur only at higher frequencies in the infrared spectral range and above. Second, the number of counter ions does not vary during the hydration, and thus they cannot be responsible for the strong increase of the conductivity with the increasing water content. The increased conductivity measured for the hydrated DNA may, in principle, originate from the response of the water molecules surrounding the duplex in the hydration layer. We believe this unlikely as we have measured the dependence of the optical conductivity as a function of humidity, and have found a strongly nonlinear dependence of said conductivity on the number of water molecules surrounding the duplex. Experiments on frozen samples[@Warman] of the same composition, where water molecules and counter-ions are immobilized, show similar behavior indicating that the contribution of the counter-ions to the optical conductivity is negligible. A more likely origin of the difference between the conductivity of the dry and water saturated DNA is as follows. In a water rich or high humidity environment, the DNA duplex takes on a more ordered structure (bases stacked parallel to each other) referred to as its B-form as compared to when the DNA duplex is in a dry or low humidity environment, where the structure is less ordered (bases are stacked with different angles with respect to the main axes of the molecules) and referred to as its A-form. We believe that the increased conductivity is due to the more ordered arrangement of the DNA system in its B-form as compared to the disordered A-form allowing for increased electronic charge transport in spite of the fact that distances between neighboring bases are shorter in the A-form. In Fig. 3 we display the temperature dependence of the conductivity measured at 12, 150 and 500 GHz as a function of temperature. Several features are of importance. First we find a strongly temperature dependent conductivity, and the temperature dependence is typical of a conductivity $\sigma _{1}$ determined by temperature driven transport processes. Second, the temperature dependence itself depends only weakly on the frequency over a substantial frequency range.
The temperature and frequency dependence of the conductivity as observed at low frequencies has all the hallmarks of a transport process that is determined by transitions between localized electronic states. The frequency dependence of the conductivity under such circumstances is well described by Eq. (2) with the exponent $a$ depending on the conduction process. For instance, in the case of variable range hopping (VRH) the strength of the electron-electron interactions can change the exponent $a$. For VRH, in the case of non-interacting electrons one finds an approximately linear dependence of the conductivity on frequency whereas in the case of interacting electrons, one finds a quadratic dependence of the conductivity on frequency (plus logarithmic corrections). We also find a conductivity that is well described by Eq. (2) with exponents different for dry and water saturated DNA. The reason for this difference is not clear; nevertheless the frequency dependence observed is clearly similar to that of a random assembly of charged entities. In the parameter region $%
k_{B}T>\hbar \omega $, the prefactor $A\left( T\right) $ in Eq. (2), should display a non-exponential temperature dependence. The function $A\left(
T\right) $ depends on the overall energy scale $E_{0}$ associated with the localized states. Variable range hopping is the dominant dc conduction mechanism if $E_{0}>k_{B}T$, for which
$$\sigma _{DC}=B\exp \left[ -\left( \frac{T_{0}}{T}\right) ^{\beta }\right]
\label{Eq. 3}$$
in one dimension, with $\beta =%
%TCIMACRO{\UNICODE[m]{0xbd}}%
%BeginExpansion
{\frac12}%
%EndExpansion
$, no matter the strength of electron-electron interactions, and the characteristic temperature $T_{0}$ depending on the localization length and also on the density of states of the carriers. The temperature dependence is non-exponential, and in addition becomes progressively weaker with increasing frequency. The measured temperature dependence displayed in Fig. 3 is in qualitative accordance with such behavior. This then strongly suggests states localized by disorder. Both static disorder associated with the random base pair sequences, and also fluctuations involving the DNA duplex may be responsible[@Bruinsma] for determining the overall temperature and frequency dependence.
Our experimental results, obtained over a broad spectral range strongly suggest that native DNA is a wide bandgap semiconductor, with disorder and counterion fluctuations (among other possible sources) leading to a small number of localized carriers on the base pairs - a situation not unlike what occurs in lightly doped crystalline or amorphous semiconductors or doped polymers[@Menon]. Under such circumstances two important contributions to the optical conductivity emerge: a well defined transition associated with the electron states of the ”pure” system (this transition occurring at finite energy) together with a low frequency contribution to the conductivity with prominent frequency and temperature dependencies. We observe both features in native DNA with some modifications from what is found for a typical lightly doped (crystalline or amorphous) semiconductor or polymer. In the latter case one observes a well-defined optical transition between the valence and conduction band, as discussed earlier, for DNA, the transition is between orbitals associated with individual bases. Thus the fact that band structure calculations[@de; @Pablo] give a bandgap smaller than that corresponding to the energy for the onset of absorption in Fig. 1 is not surprising.
The number of carriers involved in the low frequency transport process is difficult to estimate as the parameters that enter into the equations for the temperature and frequency dependent conductivity are determined by both the number of carriers, and by the localization length. A comparison with other disordered one-dimensional conductors however allows one to draw some conclusions and to make some order of magnitude estimates. The temperature dependence of the conductivity that we find for DNA is similar to a strongly disordered organic conductor $Qn(TCNQ)_{2}$ with disorder induced by irradiation[@Holczer], for which the localization length is $\xi \sim 10$Å, and the number of carriers is $N\sim 10^{22}cm^{-3}$. The magnitude of the conductivity we find here is approximately three orders of magnitude smaller than that observed in $Qn(TCNQ)_{2}$. For a conduction process determined by temperature driven transitions between localized electron states, the localization length, $\xi $, mainly determines the overall temperature dependence. The magnitude of $\sigma _{1}$ reflects both $\xi $ and the number of carriers, $N$. Thus the comparison between calf-thymus DNA and $Qn(TCNQ)_{2}$ suggests that in native DNA electron states are characterized by a short localization length not exceeding one lattice constant (the distance between base pairs), while the number of carriers participating in the low frequency transport process is of the order of $%
N\sim 10^{19}cm^{-3}$. The higher conductivity of DNA in a water rich environment may reflect a different carrier number, but most likely it is due to the more regular B-form of DNA which occurs for high water content, thus also leading to weaker localization effects, and thus to a larger localization length.
The source of the charge entities (electrons or holes) which are associatedwith the low frequency conductivity is not obvious. The random base pair sequences, together with disorder associated with the finite persistence length, and counter ion fluctuations all may lead to a small number of localized charges on the base pair stack. The fact that the states, which contribute to the low frequency optical response, are localized has different ingredients. The random base pair sequences which occur in native DNA lead to a random potential along the duplex, and thus to charge localization. The potential energy fluctuations associated with the base pair sequences are of the order of $0.5eV$, about ten times larger than the overlap integral between the electron states on neighboring base pairs along the double helix[@Bruinsma; @Jortner]. Under such circumstances the localization length is of the order of one lattice constant, comparable to the value we inferred before. One should also note that equally important is the dynamic disorder associated with base pair fluctuations, of which the influence on charge transport along the DNA duplex has been conjectured earlier[@Bruinsma].
We wish to thank Phu Tran for assisting with the cavity measurements. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation grant DMR-0077251.
F. D. Lewis et al., Science [**277**]{}, 673 (1997), and P. J. Dondliker, R. E. Holmlin and J. K. Barton, Science [**275**]{}, 1465 (1997).
H. W. Fink and C. Schonenberger, Nature [**398**]{}, 407 (1999).
D. Porath et al., Nature [**403**]{}, 635 (2000).
E. Braun et al., Nature [**391**]{}, 775 (1998).
P. J. de Pablo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4992 (2000).
A. Y. Kasumov et al., Science [**291**]{}, 280 (2001).
Y. Okahata and N. Nakayama, Proc. Jap. Acad., Series B [**76**]{}, 145 (2000).
P. Tran, B. Alavi and G. Grüner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1564 (2000).
H. Pohl and W. Kauzmann, [**35**]{}, 721 (1968).
A. Rupprecht, Acta Chem. Scan. [**2**]{}, 477 (1966).
G. Grüner, [*Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Spectroscopy of Solids*]{} (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1998).
A. Schwartz et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**66**]{}, 2943 (1995).
A. Wittlin et al., Phys. Rev. A [**34**]{}, 493 (1986).
F. Livolant, J. Physique [**48**]{}, 1051 (1987).
J. C. Dyre and T. B. Schroder, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72,**]{} 873 (2000) and references cited therein.
H. L. Lee, J. P. Carini, D. V. Baxter, W. Henderson and G. Grüner, Science [**287**]{}, 633 (2000).
J. M. Warman, M. P. de Haas and A. Rupprecht, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**249**]{}, 319 (1996).
A. L. Efros and B. I. Shklovskii, in [*Electron-electron Interactions in Disordered Systems*]{}, edited by A. L. Efros and M. Pollak (Elsevier New York, 1985), p. 409-482.
R. Bruinsma, G. Grüner, M. R. D’Orsogna and J. Rudnick, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4393 (2000).
R. Menon et al., Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 17685 (1993).
K. Holczer et al., J. Phys. C [**11**]{}, 4707 (1978).
J. Jortner et al., J. Chem. Phys. [**114**]{}, 5614 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $\kappa$ be any regular cardinal. Assuming the existence of a huge cardinal above $\kappa$, we prove the consistency of $\binom{\kappa^{++}}{\kappa^+}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\kappa^+}^{1,1}_\kappa$ for every ordinal $\tau<\kappa^{++}$. Likewise, we prove that $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\rightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_2$ is consistent when $\mathcal{A}$ is strongly closed under countable intersections.'
address: 'Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel'
author:
- Shimon Garti
bibliography:
- 'arlist.bib'
title: Amenable colorings
---
\[\]
Introduction
============
The strong polarized partition relation $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\lambda}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$ means that for every coloring $c:\lambda\times\kappa\rightarrow\theta$ there exists a monochromatic product $A\times B$ so that $|A|=\lambda$ and $|B|=\kappa$. Two major problems stand in the front. For any given infinite cardinal $\kappa$ we ask about the pair $(\lambda, \kappa)$ with respect to $\lambda=\kappa^+$ and $\lambda=2^\kappa$. Outside the interval $[\kappa^+,2^\kappa]$ the question becomes uninteresting. Let us try to explain why.
Firstly, we may always assume that $\kappa\leq\lambda$, since the notation of the strong polarized relation is symmetric. A simple coloring shows that $\binom{\kappa}{\kappa}\nrightarrow \binom{\kappa}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$ for every $\kappa$ (actually, a stronger negation can be proved), so our investigation begins with $\lambda\geq\kappa^+$. The interval $[\kappa^+,2^\kappa]$ exhibits non-trivial demeanor, as positive and negative statements can be proved both for specific $\lambda\in[\kappa^+,2^\kappa]$ and for the behavior of the entire interval. If $\lambda={{\rm cf}}(\lambda)>2^\kappa$ then $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\lambda}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$ follows from the fact that $|\mathcal{P}(\kappa)|=2^\kappa$, so the right-hand component of every coloring will be the same for $\lambda$-many ordinals. If $\lambda>2^\kappa$ is a singular cardinal then the behavior of $\lambda$ with respect to the relation $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\lambda}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$ is determined by the behavior of ${{\rm cf}}(\lambda)$ with respect to the relation $\binom{{{\rm cf}}(\lambda)}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{{{\rm cf}}(\lambda)}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$. Hence a knowledge of the pertinent relations for $\lambda\in[\kappa^+,2^\kappa]$ gives a full knowledge for every $\lambda$. As a reference to the facts mentioned in this paragraph we suggest Chapter 4 in [@williams] (in particular, Theorem 4.14 and Lemma 4.2.7).
In this paper we focus on the pair $(\kappa^+,\kappa)$. A negative consistency relation can be forced for every $\kappa$ since $2^\kappa=\kappa^+$ implies $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\nrightarrow \binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$. For a positive consistency relation it seems natural to classify infinite cardinals into three categories.
If $\kappa$ is a large cardinal (including the case $\kappa=\aleph_0$) then one can force $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ by increasing the splitting number $\mathfrak{s}_\kappa$. Assuming that $\kappa={{\rm cf}}(\kappa)$ it is known that $\mathfrak{s}_\kappa\geq\kappa$ iff $\kappa$ is strongly inaccessible, and $\mathfrak{s}_\kappa>\kappa$ iff $\kappa$ is weakly compact. So if one wishes to force $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ by increasing the splitting number, at least weak compactness must be assumed. Moreover, one needs $\mathfrak{s}_\kappa>\kappa^+$, and it is unknown if this setting is possible for mild large cardinals. It has been done for every supercompact cardinal (see [@MR3000439] and [@MR3201820]), and recently also when $\kappa$ is measurable with large enough Mitchell order (see [@MR3436372]). Of course, perhaps $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ can be forced without increasing $\mathfrak{s}_\kappa$, so it is still open for small large cardinals whether this strong relation is forceable (see [@1012], Question 4.4).
The second category is singular cardinals. If $\kappa$ is a singular cardinal then we have a comprehensive answer, as $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ can be forced at every singular cardinal (see [@MR2987137] and [@1012]).
The third category is successor cardinals. It is unknown whether $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ can be forced on such cardinals. In order to deal with this case we consider two different directions. The first one is based on the concept of amenable colorings, and the second is related to the concept of almost strong relations. Let us explain, shortly, the main idea of these concepts.
Given a collection $\mathcal{A}\subseteq[\kappa]^\kappa$ we focus on a coloring $c:\lambda\times\kappa\rightarrow\theta$ such that every fiber $\{\gamma\}\times\kappa$ has a monochromatic subset of the form $\{\gamma\}\times A_\gamma$ for some $A_\gamma\in\mathcal{A}$. Notice that the usual polarized relation is just the special case of $\mathcal{A}=[\kappa]^\kappa$. In the next section we shall focus on the pair $(\aleph_2,\aleph_1)$ for which we shall prove the consistency of $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\rightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_2$ with respect to a suitable $\mathcal{A}$. The precise definitions and required properties are given at the beginning of this section, but the main point is that amenability may give consistency results even with full monochromatic products.
In the last section we concentrate on the common polarized relation, but our monochromatic product is just *almost strong*. For colorings defined on $\lambda\times\kappa$ it means that the left-hand component can be of order type $\tau$ for every $\tau<\lambda$. Again, the precise defintion will be given at the beginning of the last section, but the theorem reads as follows: The relation $\binom{\kappa^{++}}{\kappa^+}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\kappa^+}^{1,1}_\kappa$ for every ordinal $\tau<\kappa^{++}$ can be forced at every regular cardinal $\kappa$ (by assuming the presence of a huge cardinal above $\kappa$ in the ground model).
We use standard notation. If $A,B\subseteq\kappa$ then $A\subseteq^*B$ iff $|A\setminus B|<\kappa$. If $\kappa={{\rm cf}}(\kappa)<\lambda$ then $S_\kappa^\lambda=\{\alpha<\lambda:{{\rm cf}}(\alpha)=\kappa\}$. Notice that $S^\lambda_\kappa$ is a stationary subset of $\lambda$. We use the Jerusalem forcing notation, i.e. $p\leq q$ means that the condition $q$ is stronger than $p$. A forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$ is $\kappa$-centered iff $\mathbb{P}$ can be decomposed into $\kappa$-many subsets, each of which consists of pairwise compatible conditions. If $\mathcal{A}\subseteq[\kappa]^\kappa$ then $\mathcal{A}$ is strongly closed under intersections iff the cardinality of $a\cap b$ is $\kappa$ for every $a,b\in\mathcal{A}$. Similarly define the notion of $\mathcal{A}$ being strongly closed under countable intersections, and so on.
Several generalizations of Martin’s Axiom for $\aleph_1$ are known in the literature. We shall make use of Shelah’s version (but the variants of Baumgartner and Laver can serve as well):
\[sssshelah\] Martin’s Axiom for $\aleph_1$. One can force $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1\wedge 2^{\aleph_1}>\aleph_2$, and if $\mathbb{P}$ is a forcing notion of size less than $2^{\aleph_1}$ satisfying the following three requirements:
1. Each pair of compatible conditions has a least upper bound in $\mathbb{P}$.
2. Every countable increasing sequence of conditions has a least upper bound in $\mathbb{P}$.
3. If $\{p_i:i<\aleph_2\}\subseteq\mathbb{P}$ then there is a club $C\subseteq\aleph_2$ and a regressive function $f:\aleph_2\rightarrow\aleph_2$ so that for $\alpha,\beta\in C\cap S^{\aleph_2}_{\aleph_1}$ if $f(\alpha)=f(\beta)$ then $p_\alpha\parallel p_\beta$.
then there is a generic filter $G\subseteq\mathbb{P}$ which intersects any given collection of $\kappa$-many dense subsets, when $\kappa<2^{\aleph_1}$.
We shall refer to the above statement as the generalized Martin’s axiom. The proof of the theorem appears in [@MR0505492]. We indicate that if $\kappa$ satisfies $\alpha<\kappa\Rightarrow\alpha^{\aleph_0}<\kappa$ then the assumption $|\mathbb{P}|<2^{\aleph_1}$ can be omitted (as shown in the above mentioned paper). Observe also that if $\mathbb{P}$ is $\aleph_1$-centered then requirement $(c)$ follows.
A cardinal $\kappa$ is huge iff there exists an elementary embedding $\jmath:{\rm V}\rightarrow M$ so that $\kappa={\rm crit}(\jmath)$ and ${}^{\jmath(\kappa)}M\subseteq M$. An ideal $\mathcal{I}$ is $(\mu,\mu,\theta)$-saturated iff for every collection $\mathcal{A}=\{A_\alpha: \alpha<\mu\}\subseteq\mathcal{I}^+$ there exists a sub-collection $\mathcal{B}\in[\mathcal{A}]^\mu$ such that $\mathcal{C}\in[\mathcal{B}]^\theta \Rightarrow \bigcap\limits_{\alpha\in\mathcal{C}}A_\alpha\in\mathcal{I}^+$. The following theorem belongs to Laver, [@MR673792]:
\[lavthm\] Assume there exists a huge cardinal, and $\theta$ is a regular cardinal below this huge cardinal. Then it is consistent that there is a $\theta^+$-complete and even normal ideal $\mathcal{I}$ over $\theta^+$ which is $(\theta^{++},\theta^{++},\theta)$-saturated. The existence of such an ideal can be forced also with $2^\theta=\theta^+$, and it preserves cardinalities and cofinalities in the interval $[\aleph_1,\theta]$.
The idea behind the proof of the theorem is captured in the words of Prince Humperdinck: “Someone has beaten a giant" ([@pbride], p. 191). By collapsing a huge cardinal one can preserve some of its qualities, resulting in the existence of a sufficiently saturated ideal. By and large, good combinatorial theorems hold over large cardinals, since the existence of a complete ultrafilter gives large monochromatic sets. However, a saturated ideal can play the rôle of an ultrafilter under suitable circumstances.
I wish to thank the referee of the paper for an extraordinary work, including both mathematical corrections and meaningful improvements of the presentation. This includes an elegant argument which simplified the proof of Theorem \[galthm\]. I also thank Yair Hayut for his help.
Amenability
===========
We begin with the concept of amenability:
\[aaaa\] Amenable coloring. Let $c:\lambda\times\kappa\rightarrow\theta$ be a coloring, and assume $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathcal{P}(\kappa)$. We say that $c$ is $\mathcal{A}$-amenable if for every $\gamma<\lambda$ there are $i_\gamma<\theta$ and $A_\gamma\in\mathcal{A}$ so that $\delta\in A_\gamma \Rightarrow c(\gamma,\delta)=i_\gamma$.
With the above definition we introduce the following notation:
\[aanotation\] $\rightarrow_{\mathcal{A}}$. We say that $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\lambda}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$ holds iff for every $c:\lambda\times\kappa \rightarrow\theta$ which is $\mathcal{A}$-amenable there are $A\in[\lambda]^\lambda, B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$ and a color $\iota<\theta$ so that $c\upharpoonright(A\times B)=\{\iota\}$.
The main theorem of this section establishes a positive consistency result of the strong relation for suitable amenability. In order to motivate the positive direction, we introduce the following:
\[ggggch\] Negative relations and GCH. Assume $2^{\aleph_1}=\aleph_2$. There exists a collection $\mathcal{A}=\{C_\alpha:\alpha<\omega_2\}$ of club subsets of $\omega_1$ for which $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\nrightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_2$.
*Proof*. We commence with a general assertion which does not depend on the assumption $2^{\aleph_1}=\aleph_2$. We claim that if $\{A_\beta:\beta\in\omega_1\}$ is any collection of unbounded subsets of $\aleph_1$ then there exists a club $C\subseteq\omega_1$ such that:
1. $\forall\beta<\omega_1, A_\beta\nsubseteq C$.
2. $\forall\beta<\omega_1, A_\beta\nsubseteq \aleph_1\setminus C$.
We construct $C$ by induction on $\varepsilon<\omega_1$. At the stage $\varepsilon=0$ we choose $a_0,b_0\in A_0$ so that $a_0<b_0$. At the stage $\varepsilon+1$ we choose $a_{\varepsilon+1},b_{\varepsilon+1}\in A_{\varepsilon+1}$ such that $b_\varepsilon<a_{\varepsilon+1}< b_{\varepsilon+1}$. If $\varepsilon$ is a limit ordinal then we let $\gamma_\varepsilon=\bigcup\limits_{\delta<\varepsilon}b_\delta$ and we choose $a_\varepsilon,b_\varepsilon\in A_\varepsilon$ such that $\gamma_\varepsilon< a_\varepsilon<b_\varepsilon$. Finally, define $C$ as the closure of $\{b_\varepsilon:\varepsilon<\omega_1\}$ in the order topology.
We first show that $\forall\beta<\omega_1, A_\beta\nsubseteq C$. Indeed, given any $\beta\in\omega_1$ we claim that $a_\beta\notin C$. For $\beta=0$, the first element of $C$ is $b_0$ and $a_0<b_0$, so $a_0\notin C$ and hence $A_0\nsubseteq C$. If $\beta=\eta+1$ then $b_\eta<a_\beta<b_\beta$ and by the construction of $C$ we can see that $C\cap(b_\eta,b_\beta)=\emptyset$ so $a_\beta\notin C$. Since $a_\beta\in A_\beta$ we infer that $A_\beta\nsubseteq C$. Similarly, if $\beta$ is a limit ordinal then $\gamma_\beta=\bigcup\limits_{\delta<\beta}b_\delta <a_\beta<b_\beta$, and $C\cap(\gamma_\beta,b_\beta)=\emptyset$ by the construction. It follows, again, that $a_\beta\notin C$ and hence $A_\beta\nsubseteq C$. Next we show that $\forall\beta<\omega_1, A_\beta\nsubseteq \aleph_1\setminus C$. Indeed, for every $\beta\in\omega_1$ we have an element $b_\beta\in A_\beta$ which belongs to $C$ by its definition, so $b_\beta\notin\aleph_1\setminus C$ and hence $A_\beta\nsubseteq \aleph_1\setminus C$.
Let $\{A_\beta:\beta\in\omega_2\}$ enumerate all the members of $[\aleph_1]^{\aleph_1}$. Here we use the assumption $2^{\aleph_1}=\aleph_2$. By induction on $\alpha\in\omega_2$ we choose a club $C_\alpha\subseteq\omega_1$ such that $\forall\beta<\alpha, A_\beta\nsubseteq C_\alpha \wedge A_\beta\nsubseteq \aleph_1\setminus C_\alpha$. This can be done since $\{A_\beta:\beta<\alpha\}$ is a collection of $\aleph_1$ many sets.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be $\{C_\alpha:\alpha\in\omega_2\}$. We define a coloring $c:\aleph_2\times\aleph_1\rightarrow 2$ by $c(\alpha,\beta)=0 \Leftrightarrow \beta\in C_\alpha$. Clearly, $c$ is $\mathcal{A}$-amenable. We claim that the negative relation $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\nrightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_2$ is exemplified by $c$. Indeed, if $I\in[\aleph_2]^{\aleph_2}$ and $J\in[\aleph_1]^{\aleph_1}$ then $J=A_\beta$ for some $\beta<\omega_2$. Pick up any ordinal $\alpha\in I$ so that $\beta<\alpha$. Inasmuch as $J=A_\beta\nsubseteq C_\alpha \wedge J\nsubseteq \aleph_1\setminus C_\alpha$ we conclude that $c\upharpoonright(I\times J)$ is not monochromatic. But $I,J$ were arbitrary, so we are done.
\[rrr\] We make the following comments:
1. The above claim works equally well for every infinite cardinal $\kappa$ with respect to $\kappa^+$ and $\kappa^{++}$. The pertinent assumption would be $2^{\kappa^+}=\kappa^{++}$.
2. The choice of club sets is just one example, and the method seems flexible enough to allow more instances of amenability.
3. The construction is taken from [@temp], with little modifications. A stronger theorem is proved there under the PFA, namely there exists a collection of $\omega_2$-many club subsets of $\omega_1$ such that the intersection of any sub-collection of size $\aleph_2$ of them is finite. This might give stronger negative relations in our context.
4. If $\mathcal{A}\subseteq[\kappa]^\kappa$ and $|\mathcal{A}|\leq\kappa$ then $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\rightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ is virtually true, so we always concentrate on large enough families of $[\kappa]^\kappa$ with respect to amenable colorings.
The opposite direction is the content of the following:
\[mt\] Positive relation for $\aleph_2$. It is consistent that, for every $\mathcal{A}\subseteq[\omega_1]^{\omega_1}$ which is strongly closed under countable intersections, $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\rightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_2$ holds.
*Proof*. We begin by forcing the generalized Martin’s axiom (Theorem \[sssshelah\]), so $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$ and $2^{\aleph_1}>\aleph_2$. Suppose $\mathcal{A}\subseteq[\omega_1]^{\omega_1}$ is strongly closed under countable intersections, and let $c:\aleph_2\times\aleph_1\rightarrow 2$ be any $\mathcal{A}$-amenable coloring. For every $\alpha<\aleph_2$ set $A_\alpha=\{\beta\in\omega_1: c(\alpha,\beta)=0\}$. By $\mathcal{A}$-amenability there is some $B_\alpha\in\mathcal{A}$ so that $(B_\alpha\subseteq A_\alpha)\vee(B_\alpha\subseteq \omega_1\setminus A_\alpha)$. As all we need is just $\aleph_2$-many sets from $\mathcal{A}$, we may assume without loss of generality that $B_\alpha\subseteq A_\alpha$ for every $\alpha<\aleph_2$.
We define a forcing notion $\mathbb{P}$. A condition $(A,s)\in\mathbb{P}$ consists of $A\in[\omega_2]^{\aleph_0}$ and $s\in[\omega_1]^{\aleph_0}$. For the order, we say that $(A,s)\leq_{\mathbb{P}}(B,t)$ iff $A\subseteq B, s\subseteq t$ and $\alpha\in A\Rightarrow t\setminus s\subseteq B_\alpha$. Notice that the requirements of Theorem \[sssshelah\] are met (in particular, $\mathbb{P}$ is $\aleph_1$-centered as each pair of conditions $(A,s),(B,s)$ is compatible and $\aleph_1^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$).
For every $\alpha<\omega_2$ let $D_\alpha=\{(A,s):\alpha\in A\}$. If $(A,s)\notin D_\alpha$ then $(A\cup\{\alpha\},s)\in D_\alpha$, and by the order definition we have $(A,s)\leq_{\mathbb{P}}(A\cup\{\alpha\},s)$ so $D_\alpha$ is dense. For every $\beta<\omega_1$ let $E_\beta=\{(A,s):s\nsubseteq\beta\}$. If $(A,s)\notin E_\beta$ then we let $x=\bigcap\{A_\gamma:\gamma\in A\}$, and recall that $A_\gamma$ contains a member of $\mathcal{A}$. Since $\mathcal{A}$ is closed under countable intersections, moreover, the intersection is uncountable, there is an ordinal $\delta>\beta$ so that $\delta\in x$. Consequently, $(A,s)\leq_{\mathbb{P}}(A,s\cup\{\delta\})$ and we infer that $E_\beta$ is dense.
By Theorem \[sssshelah\] there exists a generic set $G\subseteq\mathbb{P}$ so that $G\cap D_\alpha\neq\emptyset$ for every $\alpha<\omega_2$ and $G\cap E_\beta\neq\emptyset$ for each $\beta<\omega_1$. Set:
$$H=\bigcup\{s:\exists A,(A,s)\in G\}.$$
For every $\alpha\in\omega_2$ choose $(A_\alpha,s_\alpha)\in G$ such that $\alpha\in A_\alpha$. This can be done since $G\cap D_\alpha\neq\emptyset$. Recall that $2^{\aleph_0}=\aleph_1$, so for some $I\in[\omega_2]^{\omega_2}$ and a fixed $t\in[\omega_1]^{\aleph_0}$ we have $\alpha\in I\Rightarrow s_\alpha=t$. Set $J=H\setminus t$ and observe that the cardinality of $J$ is $\aleph_1$. By the construction, $c\upharpoonright(I\times J)=\{0\}$, so we are done.
Almost strong relations
=======================
In the former section we focused on colorings which are amenable with respect to some $\mathcal{A}$. We may ask what happens if $\mathcal{A}=[\omega_1]^{\omega_1}$, i.e. the usual polarized relation with no limitation on the colorings. It has been proved by Laver, [@MR673792], under the assumption that there is a huge cardinal, that the relation $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\rightarrow \binom{\aleph_1}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_{\aleph_0}$ is consistent. Laver indicates that Galvin announced that the stronger relation $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_{\aleph_0}$ for every $\tau<\omega_2$ can also be proved to be consistent from the same assumption. However, Galvin did not publish the proof.
Many years later, Jones [@MR2275863] used an unpublished result of Woodin in order to show the consistency of $\binom{\aleph_2}{\aleph_1}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\aleph_1}^{1,1}_{\aleph_0}$ for every $\tau<\omega_2$. The result of Woodin gives a special ideal over $\aleph_1$. It requires an instance of the rank-into-rank axiom I1, and it is strongly connected to the specific case of $\aleph_1$. Here we prove a general result in the spirit of Laver’s proof, based only on the existence of a huge cardinal. Let us begin with the following:
\[almdef\] Almost strong polarized relations. Assume $\kappa\leq\lambda$ are infinite cardinals, and $\tau<\lambda$ is an ordinal. The relation $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\kappa}^{1,1}_{\theta}$ means that for every coloring $c:\lambda\times\kappa\rightarrow\theta$ one can find $A\subseteq\lambda$ such that ${\rm otp}(A)=\tau$ and $B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$ for which $c\upharpoonright (A\times B)$ is constant. The relation $\binom{\lambda}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\lambda\ \tau}{\kappa\ \kappa}^{1,1}_2$ means that for every coloring $c:\lambda\times\kappa\rightarrow 2$ one can find either $A\in[\lambda]^\lambda, B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$ such that $c\upharpoonright (A\times B)=\{0\}$ or $A\subseteq\lambda, {\rm otp}(A)=\tau$ and $B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$ such that $c\upharpoonright (A\times B)=\{1\}$.
The first relation is called the balanced almost strong polarized relation if it holds for every $\tau<\lambda$. The second relation (in the above definition) is the unbalanced version. The consistency of the balanced relation for successors of regular cardinals is the main theorem of this section.
\[galthm\] Almost strong relations. Suppose $\theta={{\rm cf}}(\theta)$ and there exists a huge cardinal above $\theta$. Then one can force the relation $\binom{\theta^{++}}{\theta^+}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\theta^+}^{1,1}_{\theta}$ for every $\tau<\theta^{++}$, while preserving all cardinals and cofinalities in the interval $[\aleph_1,\theta]$.
*Proof*. By the existence of a huge cardinal one can force an ideal $\mathcal{I}$ which is $\theta^+$-complete and $(\theta^{++},\theta^{++},\theta)$-saturated over $\theta^+$, as shown in [@MR673792]. Thus, we may assume that there is a $\theta^+$-complete $(\theta^{++},\theta^{++},\theta)$-saturated ideal and $2^\theta=\theta^+$. Fix an ordinal $\tau<\theta^{++}$ (without loss of generality, $\theta^+<\tau$).
Suppose we are given a coloring $c:\theta^{++}\times\theta^+\rightarrow \theta$. For every $\alpha<\theta^{++}$ we choose $n(\alpha)\in\theta$ so that $x_\alpha=\{\beta\in\theta^+:c(\alpha,\beta)=n(\alpha)\}\in \mathcal{I}^+$. The existence of $x_\alpha$ follows from the completeness of the ideal. Let $x$ be $\{x_\alpha:\alpha<\theta^{++}\}$. In order to control the order type of the big component in the monochromatic product, we choose a chain $(M_\eta:\eta\leq\tau)$ of elementary submodels of $\mathcal{H}(\chi)$ for some large enough regular cardinal $\chi$, satisfying the following properties for every $\eta\leq\tau$:
1. $|M_\eta|=\theta^+, \theta^+\cup\{\theta^+\}\subseteq M_\eta$.
2. $\mathcal{I},c,\tau,x\in M_\eta$.
3. ${}^\theta M_\eta\subseteq M_\eta$.
4. If $\zeta<\eta\leq\tau$ then $M_\zeta\in M_\eta$.
For every $\eta\leq\tau$ let $\sigma_\eta=\sup(M_\eta\cap\theta^{++})$.
By the regularity of $\theta^{++}$ we may assume, without loss of generality, that $n(\alpha)=\iota$ for some fixed $\iota<\theta$ and every $\alpha<\theta^{++}$. This is true since we have a subset of $\theta^{++}$ of size $\theta^{++}$ for which $n(\alpha)=\iota$, and we can thin out the coloring only to this subset. A monochromatic product for the thinned-out coloring would be also monochromatic for the original coloring. We may also assume that $\bigcap\limits_{\alpha\in \mathcal{C}}x_\alpha\in\mathcal{I}^+$ for every $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \theta^{++}$ of size $\theta$. The saturation of $\mathcal{I}$ ensures that this holds for some collection of $\theta^{++}$-many sets, and we may assume that this collection is all the $x_\alpha$-s.
Fix a bijection $h:\theta^+\rightarrow\tau$. Let $S_0$ be $S^{\theta^{++}}_{\theta^+}\setminus \sigma_\tau$, so $S_0$ is a stationary subset of $\theta^{++}$. For every $\delta\in S_0$ we shall try to define two sequences of ordinals:
1. $\beta^\delta_0<\cdots<\beta^\delta_\gamma<\cdots<\theta^+$ for every $\gamma<\theta^+$.
2. $\langle\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma)}:\gamma<\theta^+\rangle$, a sequence of ordinals below $\delta$.
The construction is done by induction on $\gamma$. Notice that the second sequence need not be increasing. For the first stage of $\gamma=0$ we choose $\beta^\delta_0=\min(x_\delta)$. Then we ask whether there exists an ordinal $\epsilon>\sigma_\tau,\epsilon<\delta$ for which $\beta^\delta_0\in x_\epsilon$. If the answer is yes then there exists $\epsilon\in M_{h(0)+1}\setminus M_{h(0)}$ such that $\epsilon<\delta$ and $\beta^\delta_0\in x_\epsilon$, by elementarity. So we choose any ordinal in $M_{h(0)+1}\setminus M_{h(0)}$ which satisfies these requirements, and this is $\alpha^\delta_0$. If the answer is no, then the process is terminated.
Assume now that $\gamma>0$, and let $\beta^\delta_\gamma$ be $\min(\bigcap\limits_{\gamma'<\gamma}x_{\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma')}}\cap x_\delta\setminus \{\beta^\delta_{\gamma'}:\gamma'<\gamma\})$. This ordinal is well defined as the intersection is an element of $\mathcal{I}^+$ and we drop at most $\theta$-many ordinals from it, so the minimum is taken over a non-empty set. Next we ask whether there exists an ordinal $\epsilon<\delta, \epsilon>\sigma_\tau$ so that $\{\beta^\delta_0,\ldots,\beta^\delta_\gamma\}\subseteq x_\epsilon$. If the answer is yes then there exists $\epsilon\in M_{h(\gamma)+1}\setminus M_{h(\gamma)}$ for which $\{\beta^\delta_0,\ldots,\beta^\delta_\gamma\}\subseteq x_\epsilon$ (here we use the fact that ${}^\theta M_\eta\subseteq M_\eta$ for each $\eta$, and the fact that $\{\beta^\delta_0,\ldots,\beta^\delta_\gamma\}$ is of size at most $\theta$), and we choose such an ordinal as $\alpha^\delta_\gamma$. Notice that $\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma)}\neq\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma')}$ for every $\gamma'<\gamma$. If the answer is no then the process is terminated and we try again at the next ordinal $\delta\in S_0$.
The induction process might be terminated, indeed, before accomplishing $\theta^+$ steps. However, we claim that for some $\delta\in S_0$ the induction holds along all the steps. For proving it, assume that for every $\delta\in S_0$ there exists an ordinal $\gamma=g(\delta)$ such that we cannot choose the required ordinals at stage $\gamma$. As mentioned above, the problem arises only for the choice of $\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma)}$. Since $g$ is a regressive function on $S_0$, there is an ordinal $\gamma<\theta^+$ and a stationary set $S_1\subseteq S_0$ such that $\delta\in S_1\Rightarrow g(\delta)=\gamma$.
The cofinality of every $\delta\in S_1$ is $\theta^+$, and the cardinality of each sequence is at most $\theta$, so all sequences are bounded. Applying Fodor’s lemma once more, there exist a stationary set $S_2\subseteq S_1$ and an ordinal $\xi<\theta^{++}$ such that all the chosen sequences for $\delta\in S_2$ are bounded below $\xi$. Recall that $2^\theta=(\theta^+)^\theta=\theta^+$, so there are only $\theta^+$ many sequences of the form $(\beta^\delta_{\gamma'},\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma')}: \gamma'<\gamma)$. We may choose, therefore, two elements $\delta_0,\delta_1\in S_2$ such that $\delta_0<\delta_1$ and they share the same sequence. But then $\delta_0$ gives a positive answer to the question that we ask at the stage of choosing $\alpha^{\delta_1}_{h(\gamma)}$, so the induction can go on for $\delta_1$, a contradiction.
We conclude that for some $\delta\in S_0$ we could define the above two sequences for every $\gamma<\theta^+$. Define $A=\{\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma)}:\gamma<\theta^+\}$ and $B=\{\beta^\delta_\gamma: \gamma<\theta^+\}$. By the construction we have ${\rm otp}(A,<)=\tau$ and $c\upharpoonright(A\times B)=\{\iota\}$, so we are done.
\[rreferee\] The referee of the paper suggested a clever simplification to the construction of the sequences. We fix any $\delta\in S_0$, and we choose $\beta^\delta_0=\min(x_\delta)$. Now for every $\gamma<\theta^+$ we construct the sequences as follows. The inductive assumption is that $\langle\beta^\delta_{\gamma'}:\gamma'\leq\gamma\rangle$ and $\langle\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma')}:\gamma'<\gamma\rangle$ were chosen. Let $B$ be $\{\beta^\delta_{\gamma'}:\gamma'\leq\gamma\}$. By the closure of each $M_\eta$ we have $B\in M_\eta$. Moreover, $M_\eta\models$ there are unboundedly many $\alpha<\theta^{++}$ for which $B\subseteq x_\alpha$. It follows that we can find some $\alpha\in M_{h(\gamma)+1}\setminus M_{h(\gamma)}$ and define it as $\alpha^\delta_{h(\gamma)}$. It means that we don’t have to use Fodor’s lemma at the end of the proof, and every $\delta\in S_0$ yields a monochromatic product.
The above theorem gives almost strong relations, as the order type of the first component can be any ordinal $\tau$ below $\theta^{++}$. There is, however, a conceptual discrepancy between almost strong relations and full strong relations. As mentioned in the introduction, the assumption $2^{\theta^+}=\theta^{++}$ rules out the strong relation $\binom{\theta^{++}}{\theta^+}\rightarrow \binom{\theta^{++}}{\theta^+}^{1,1}_2$. This is not the case when dealing with almost strong relations. The claim below generalizes an observation of Foreman (see Theorem 8.16 in [@MR2768681]):
\[fforemanclm\] The relation $\binom{\theta^{++}}{\theta^+}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\theta^+}^{1,1}_{\theta}$ for every $\tau<\theta^{++}$ is consistent with $2^{\theta^+}=\theta^{++}$.
*Proof*. First we force $\binom{\theta^{++}}{\theta^+}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\theta^+}^{1,1}_{\theta}$ for every $\tau<\theta^{++}$. Now we proceed to the power set of $\theta^+$. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be Lévy$(\theta^{++},2^{\theta^+})$. Our claim is that the above relation still holds in the generic extension by the collapse.
For proving this fact, let $\name{f}$ be a name of a function from $\theta^{++}\times\theta^+$ into $\theta$. Choose a condition $p$ in $\mathbb{P}$ which forces $\name{f}$ to be a function. We shall define an increasing sequence of conditions $\langle p_j:j<\theta^{++}\rangle$, and a function $g:\theta^{++}\times\theta^+\rightarrow\theta$ so that $g$ belongs to the ground model.
We commence with $p_0=p$. Arriving at $j<\theta^{++}$ we choose $p_j$ so that $i<j\Rightarrow p_i\leq p_j$ and $\forall\alpha\leq j,\forall\beta<\theta^+, p_j\Vdash\name{f}(\alpha,\beta)=g(\alpha,\beta)$. This can be done because $p=p_0$ forces that $\name{f}$ is a function, hence if any condition $q$ extends $p$ and forces a value to $\name{f}(\alpha,\beta)$ then this value is uniqe. Now we use the completeness of our forcing (it is $\theta^{++}$-complete) in order to cover $\theta^+$-many pairs at each stage of the induction.
Since the forcing relation is definable in ${\rm V}$ we conclude that $g\in{\rm V}$, hence we can choose $A,B$ so that ${\rm otp}(A)=\tau,|B|=\theta^+$ and $g\upharpoonright(A\times B)$ is constant. Choose an ordinal $j<\theta^{++}$ such that $A\subseteq j$. By the construction, $p_j\Vdash\name{f}(\alpha,\beta)=g(\alpha,\beta)$ for all $\alpha\leq j$ and $\beta<\theta^+$, so $p_j$ forces that $\name{f}\upharpoonright(A\times B)$ is constant. However, $p\leq p_j$ and the choice of $p$ was arbitrary, so the empty condition forces that $\name{f}$ is constant on a product of the required size.
What can be said about the strong polarized relation with respect to successor cardinals? Positive results in recent years demonstrated the importance of the splitting number for this issue. It turns out that the splitting number is relevant also for negative results. Suppose $B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$. We say that $S$ splits $B$ iff $|S\cap B|=|(\kappa-S)\cap B|=\kappa$. We say that $\mathcal{A}\subseteq[\kappa]^\kappa$ is a splitting family iff for every element $B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$ there exists some $S\in\mathcal{A}$ such that $S$ splits $B$. In the case of successor cardinals $\kappa=\theta^+$, there is always a splitting family over $\kappa$ of size $\kappa^+$. We need, however, an additional property:
\[herdef\] Hereditary splitting family. Assume $\mathcal{A}\subseteq[\kappa]^\kappa$. We call $\mathcal{A}$ a hereditary splitting family iff $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ is a splitting family whenever $|\mathcal{B}|=|\mathcal{A}|$.
The following connects hereditary splitting with negative strong relations:
\[mmt\] Assume $\kappa<\mu={{\rm cf}}(\mu)$. If there exists a hereditary splitting family in $[\kappa]^\kappa$ of size $\mu$ then $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\nrightarrow \binom{\mu}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$. Conversely, if $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\nrightarrow \binom{\mu}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ and $\kappa={{\rm cf}}(\kappa)$ then there exists a hereditary splitting family in $[\kappa]^\kappa$ of size $\mu$.
*Proof*. Let $\mathcal{A}=\{S_\alpha:\alpha<\mu\}$ be a hereditary splitting family, and define a coloring $c:\mu\times\kappa\rightarrow 2$ by $c(\alpha,\beta)=0$ iff $\beta\in S_\alpha$. We claim that $c$ exemplifies the negative relation $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\nrightarrow \binom{\mu}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$.
Assume towards contradiction that $c\upharpoonright(A\times B)$ is constant for some $A\in[\mu]^\mu,B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$. If $c\upharpoonright(A\times B)=\{0\}$ then $B\subseteq S_\alpha$ for every $\alpha\in A$. Consequently, the sub-collection $\mathcal{B}=\{S_\alpha:\alpha\in A\}$ is not a splitting family in $[\kappa]^\kappa$, contradicting the hereditariness assumption. Similarly, if $c\upharpoonright(A\times B)=\{1\}$ then $B\subseteq\kappa-S_\alpha$ for every $\alpha\in A$ and the same $\mathcal{B}$ is non-splitting, a contradiction.
For the opposite direction, let $c$ be a coloring which exemplifies the negative relation $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\nrightarrow \binom{\mu}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$. For every $\alpha<\mu$ let $S_\alpha$ be $\{\beta\in\kappa:c(\alpha,\beta)=0\}$. Set $\mathcal{A}=\{S_\alpha:\alpha<\mu\}$. We claim that $|\mathcal{A}|=\mu$. Indeed, without loss of generality $\alpha<\beta<\mu\Rightarrow S_\alpha\neq S_\beta$, since if some $S_\alpha$ appears $\mu$-many times then $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\mu}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$, so we may remove all the repetitions from $\mathcal{A}$ and still remain with a collection of size $\mu$. We claim that $\mathcal{A}$ is a hereditary splitting family.
For proving this fact, assume $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ and $|\mathcal{B}|=\mu$. Choose any $B\in[\kappa]^\kappa$ and let $A$ be $\{\alpha<\mu:S_\alpha\in\mathcal{B}\}$. Since $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\nrightarrow \binom{\mu}{\kappa}^{1,1}_2$ as exemplified by $c$, we have $c\upharpoonright(A\times B)=\{0,1\}$. If $\mathcal{B}$ fails to split $B$ then $B\subseteq^* S_\alpha \vee B\subseteq^* \kappa-S_\alpha$ for every $S_\alpha\in\mathcal{B}$, so without loss of generality $B\subseteq^* S_\alpha$ for every $S_\alpha\in\mathcal{B}$.
Recall that $\kappa<\mu$ are regular cardinals, so we can assume without loss of generality that $B\subseteq S_\alpha$ for every $S_\alpha\in\mathcal{B}$. This can be done by removing a fixed initial segment of $\kappa$ from $B$ over $\mu$-many elements of $\mathcal{B}$. Recall that $A=\{\alpha<\mu:S_\alpha\in\mathcal{B}\}$ and notice that $c\upharpoonright(A\times B)=\{0\}$, a contradiction.
The above theorems invite further investigation, and we phrase several open problems. The strong relation $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\mu}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$ is balanced in the sense that the monochromatic product is of the same size for all colors. Likewise, the almost strong relation $\binom{\mu}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\kappa}^{1,1}_\theta$ for ordinals $\tau<\mu$ is balanced. One may wonder what happens at successor cardinals when dealing with the strongest unbalanced relation:
\[q0\] Unbalanced relation for successor cardinals. Suppose $\kappa$ is successor cardinal. Is it consistent that $\binom{\kappa^+}{\kappa}\rightarrow \binom{\kappa^+\ \tau}{\kappa\ \kappa}^{1,1}_2$ for every $\tau<\kappa^+$?
The second problem is motivated by the amenability result. We employed the generalization of Martin’s axiom, for the case of $\aleph_2$. Higher generalizations are problematic. The following is natural:
\[q1\] Amenable positive relations above $\aleph_2$. Is it possible to prove the consistency of $\binom{\mu^+}{\mu}\rightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\mu^+}{\mu}^{1,1}_2$ when $\mu>\aleph_1$, under the assumption that $2^\mu=\mu^+$ implies that $\binom{\mu^+}{\mu}\nrightarrow_{\mathcal{A}} \binom{\mu^+}{\mu}^{1,1}_2$?
Finally, the existence of the special ideal over $\theta^+$ can be proved when $\theta={{\rm cf}}(\theta)$. One may wonder what happens at singular cardinals:
\[q2\] Almost strong relations and singular cardinals. Assume $\theta>{{\rm cf}}(\theta)$. Is it consistent that $\binom{\theta^{++}}{\theta^+}\rightarrow \binom{\tau}{\theta^+}^{1,1}_2$ for every $\tau<\theta^{++}$?
A possible direction will be to begin with a supercompact cardinal $\theta$ and a huge cardinal above it. The forcing of Laver is $\theta$-directed-closed, so if $\theta$ is Laver-indestructible then it remains supercompact after the forcing of Theorem \[lavthm\]. Now we would like to add either Prikry of Magidor seuquence to $\theta$. The problem is to keep the special saturation property of the ideal over $\theta^+$, or to replace it by a weaker property which will be preserved by Prikry and Magidor forcing.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We examine a Type-1 neck pinch singularity in simplicial Ricci flow (SRF) for an axisymmetric piecewise flat 3-dimensional geometry with topology $S^3$. SRF was recently introduced as an unstructured mesh formulation of Hamilton’s Ricci flow (RF). It describes the RF of a piecewise-flat simplicial geometry. In this paper, we apply the SRF equations to a representative double-lobed axisymmetric piecewise flat geometry with mirror symmetry at the neck similar to the geometry studied by Angenent and Knopf (A-K). We choose a specific radial profile and compare the SRF equations with the corresponding finite-difference solution of the continuum A-K RF equations. The piecewise-flat 3-geometries considered here are built of isosceles-triangle-based frustum blocks. The axial symmetry of this model allows us to use frustum blocks instead of tetrahedra. The $S^2$ cross-sectional geometries in our model are regular icosahedra. We demonstrate that, under a suitably-pinched initial geometry, the SRF equations for this relatively low-resolution discrete geometry yield the canonical Type-1 neck pinch singularity found in the corresponding continuum solution. We adaptively remesh during the evolution to keep the circumcentric dual lattice well-centered. Without such remeshing, we cannot evolve the discrete geometry to neck pinch. We conclude with a discussion of future generalizations and tests of this SRF model.'
author:
- |
Paul M. Alsing$^{1}$, Warner A. Miller$^{2,3}$[^1], Matthew Corne$^1$, David Gu$^{4}$,\
Seth Lloyd$^5$, Shannon Ray$^3$ & Shing-Tung Yau$^2$
date: 'Submitted: June 25, 2013'
title: 'Simplicial Ricci Flow: An Example of a Neck Pinch Singularity in 3D'
---
Exploring Simplicial Ricci Flow in 3D
=====================================
Hamilton’s Ricci flow (RF) has yielded new insights into pure and applied mathematics as well as engineering fields [@Hamilton:1982; @Cao:2003; @Chow:2004; @Chow:2006; @Chow:2007]. Here the time evolution of the metric is proportional to the Ricci tensor, $$\label{eq:RF}
\dot g_{ab} = -2\, R_{ab},$$ and yields a forced diffusion equation for the curvature; i.e., the scalar curvature evolves as $$\label{eq:fdeqn}
\dot R = \triangle R + 2 R^2.$$ The bulk of the applications of this curvature flow technique have been limited to the numerical evolution of piecewise-flat simplicial 2–surfaces [@Gu:2012]. It is well established that, ordinarily, a geometry with complex topology is most naturally represented in a coordinate-free way by unstructured meshes. e.g. finite volume [@Peiro:2005], finite element [@Humphries:1997], in general relativity by Regge calculus [@Regge:1961; @Gentle:1998] and for electrodynamics by discrete exterior calculus [@Hirani:2005]. While the utility of piecewise–flat simplicial geometries in analyzing the RF of 2–dimensional geometries is well established and proven to be effective [@Gu:2012; @Chow:2003], one expects a wealth of exciting new applications in 3 and higher dimensions. Here we explore the utility of RF in three and higher dimensions. However, we first note that the applications of discrete RF in two dimensions arise from its diffusive curvature properties and from the uniformization theorem, that every simply connected Riemann surface evolves under RF to one of three constant curvature surfaces — a sphere, a Euclidean plane or a hyperbolic plane. RF on surfaces is perhaps the only general method to engineer a metric for a surface given only its curvature [@Gu:2012]. In three dimensions the uniformization theorem yields to the geometrization conjecture of Thurston suggesting that all Riemannian 3-manifolds have a similar, but richer, classification into a connected sum of one or more of eight canonical geometries [@Besson:2007]. The diffusive curvature flow in 3 and higher dimensions together with this classification can provide a richer taxonomy than its 2-dimensional counterpart. We believe this more refined taxonomy will prove useful in network classification. Diffusive curvature flow can provide noise reduction in higher dimensional manifolds, and in this direction we are currently exploring a coupling RF with persistent homology [@Corne:2014; @Mischaikow:2013].
A discrete RF approach for three and higher dimensions, referred to as Simplicial Ricci Flow (SRF), has been introduced recently and is founded on Regge calculus [@Miller:2013; @AMM:2011; @McDonald:2012], as well as complementary work in this direction by [@Glickenstein:2011a; @Glickenstein:2011; @G:2005; @Ge:2013; @Forman:2003; @Glickenstein:2005; @GuSaucan:2013]. The Regge-Ricci flow (RRF) equations of SRF are similar to their continuum counterpart. They are naturally defined on a $d$-dimensional simplicial geometry as a proportionality between the time rate of change of the circumcentric dual edges, $\lambda_i$, and the simplicial Ricci tensor associated to these dual edges, $$\label{eq:ref}
\dot \lambda_i = -2\ Ric_\lambda.$$ It is the aim of this paper to explore the behavior of these RRF equations in 3-dimensions for a geometry with axial symmetry, and to examine the development of a Type-1 neck pinch singularity. We use as a foundation of this work the analysis of Angenent and Knopf on the Type-1 singularity analysis of the continuum RF equations [@Knopf:2004]. They carefully analyzed a class of axisymmetric dumbbell-shaped geometries with mirror symmetry about the plane of the neck as illustrated in the top of Fig. \[fig:dumbbell\]. The metrics these researchers evolve under RF are commonly referred to as warped product metrics on $I \times S^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wpm}
g & = &\underbrace{\varphi(z)^2 dz^2}_{da^2} + \rho(z)^2 g_{can}\\
\label{eq:asmetric}
& = & da^2 + \rho(a)^2 g_{can}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $I \in \mathbb{R}$ is an open interval, $$\label{eq:gcan}
g_{can} = d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\phi^2,$$ is the metric of the unit 2-sphere, $$a(z) = \int_{0}^{z} \, \varphi(z) dz,$$ is the geodesic axial distance away from the waist, and $\rho(a)$ is the radial profile of the mirror-symmetric geometry, i.e. $s=\rho(a)$ is the radius of the cross-sectional 2-sphere at an axial distance $a$ away from the waist. Angenent and Knopf proved that the RF evolution for such a geometry has the following properties:
1. If the scalar curvature is everywhere positive, $R\ge0$, then the radius of the waist ($s_{min}=\rho(0)$) is bounded, $$(T-t) \le s_{min}^2 \le 2(T-t),$$ where $T$ is the finite time that a neck pinch occurs.
2. As a consequence, the neck pinch singularity occurs at or before $T = s_{min}^2$.
3. The height of the two lobes are bounded from below and under suitable conditions, the neck will pinch off before the lobes will collapse.
4. The neck approaches a cylindrical-type singularity.
We demonstrate in this paper that the SRF equations, for a sufficiently pinched radial profile, will produce a neck pinch singularity in finite time. Furthermore, we show that the results agree with a finite-difference solution of the continuum RF equations for the same profile. The discrete model here is a very coarse approximation to the dumbbell geometry (e.g. the $S^2$ cross sections are modeled by icosahedra, and adjacent faces of the icosahedra are connected to each other via frustum blocks). However, this work represents the first non-trivial numerical solution of the SRF equations, and it is the goal of this paper to demonstrate for the first time neck pinch behavior in SRF.
We can very well believe that the set of RRF equations will have an equally rich spectrum of application as does its 2-dimensional counterpart known as combinatorial RF [@Chow:2003]. We therefore are motivated to explore the discrete RF in higher dimensions so that it can be used in the analysis of topology and geometry, both numerically and analytically to bound Ricci curvature in discrete geometries and to analyze and handle higher–dimensional RF singularities [@LinYau:2010; @Knopf:2009]. The topological taxonomy afforded by RF is richer when transitioning from 2 to 3–dimensions. In particular, the uniformization theorem says that any 2–geometry will evolve under RF to a constant curvature sphere, plane or hyperboloid, while in 3–dimensions the curvature and surface will diffuse into a connected sum of prime manifolds [@Thurston:1997].
A Simplicial Approximation of a Angenent-Knopf Neck pinch-Type Model: Initial Value Data and Lattice Structure {#sec:2}
==============================================================================================================
For the purpose of examining Type-1 neck pinch behavior of the SRF equations introduced in [@Miller:2013], we have adopted for our simulations the qualitative features of the Angenent and Knopf initial data [@Knopf:2004], as shown in Fig. \[fig:dumbbell\]. The cross sections of this geometry in planes perpendicular to the symmetry axis are 2-sphere surfaces. As discussed in the last section, the surface and metric can be parameterized by two coordinates, $a$ and $s$. Here a given point on the surface is identified by its proper “axial" distance of $a$ from the throat, and the radius, $s=\rho(a)$, of the cross-sectional sphere where the point lies, Eqs. \[eq:asmetric\] and \[eq:gcan\].
![An illustration of a 2-D dumbbell geometry analogous to the 3-D dumbbell we will analyze in this manuscript. The top illustration shows an embedding surface of a continuum dumbbell, while the bottom figure shows a simplicial representation of this geometry using trapezoids of three shapes and two small hexagonal end-caps at the poles. The topology of these models is $S^2$. Just as this 2-D piecewise-flat dumbbell geometry is characterized by the sum of axial edges, $a_c = a^{(coord)}_i$, measuring the proper distance a hexagonal cross section (of edge length $s_i$) is away from the waist; the 3-D dumbbell is parameterized with the same set of edge lengths. However, in the case of the 3-D dumbbell the surface is tiled with regular triangle frustum blocks and two icosahedral end caps as shown Fig. \[Fig:9icosa\].[]{data-label="fig:dumbbell"}](Fig1Dumbbell2.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
The initial data is determined by a radial profile function for the dumbbell geometry, and amounts to specifying a function relating the cylindrical radius of the dumbbell, $s$, to a scaled proper axial distance along the dumbbell away from the neck, $a\in\{-\pi/2,\pi/2\}$, $$s = \rho(a).$$ If the dumbbell geometry has no neck, and is just a sphere of radius, $R_0$, this initial value data (ivd) radial profile function is simply the cylindrical coordinate radius, $$s = \rho_{sphere}(a)=R_0\, cos(a).$$ In order to cleanly prove their theorems on the evolution of such geometries, Angenent and Knopf introduced a parabolic waist for the purpose to aid in the mathematical analysis of the neck singularity, $$r=\rho_{_{AK}} = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
R_0 \cos{(a)} & |a|\ge \frac{\pi}{4} \\
R_0 \sqrt{A + B a^2} & |a| < \frac{\pi}{4}
\end{array}
\right. .$$ The constant $A$ controls the degree of neck pinching in the ivd, while the constant $B$ is chosen so as to ensure continuity in the radial profile function at $a=\pm \pi/4$. To better serve our purposes in this paper of numerically comparing the continuum RF with the RRF equations in SRF, we analyze a geometry with a smoother radial profile, $$\label{Eq:ivd}
\boxed{\rho(a) = R_0 \left(\cos{\left(a/R_0\right)} + (1-\rho_0) \cos^4{\left( a/R_0 \right)}\right), \ \ \forall\, a\in R_0 \left\{- \frac{\pi}{2}, \frac{\pi}{2}\right\}. }$$ We examine here the single case where $\rho_0=0.1$ and $R_0=100$. A 2-D embedding diagram for this 3-D geometry (suppressing one of the azimuthal angles) is shown in Fig. \[Fig:cos4\].
![We illustrate here an embedding of the initial 3-D hypersurface representing the dumbbell geometry at $t=0$. This is the initial-value data we examine in this manuscript. It is determined by the radial profile in Eq. \[Eq:ivd\]. Here, one of the azimuthal angles have been suppressed so that it can be embedded in $R^3$. The cross sections perpendicular to its symmetry axis are 2-spheres of various radii, $\rho$, and are given by the radial profile equation. In the case considered in this paper, the waist has the smallest radius, $\rho_w(t=0):=\rho_0=10$ at $a_c=a_w=0$, and the lobes have a maximal radius, $\rho_m(t=0) \approx 48.9$ at $a\approx \pm 86.0$.[]{data-label="Fig:cos4"}](DB3DContinuumT0Op6){width="10cm"}
We approximate this double-lobed geometry (as shown in Fig. \[Fig:cos4\]) by first identifying a finite number, ($N_{s}$), of spherical cross sections along its symmetry axis. To help visualize our lattice geometry, we illustrate this 3-D dumbbell model for the case of $n_s=9$ as shown in Fig. \[Fig:9icosa\]. However, in this paper we choose $n_s=45$ for our numerical simulation. Each 2-sphere cross section is approximated by a regular icosahedron, of edge length $s_i$, where $i=1,2,\ldots, 45$. The icosahedron with index $i=(n_s+1)/2=23$ is placed at the waist while the remaining 44 icosahedra are paired off so that each pair ($i=23\pm j$ for $j=1,2,\ldots, 22$) is placed at an ever increasing, but equal distance to the left and right of the waist. We do not enforce mirror symmetry in our SRF equations; however, our initial value profile at $t=0$ is mirror symmetric. The two end-cap icosahedra with index $i=1$ and $i=45$ are placed inside the two extreme ends of the dumbbell geometry. In this way they initially have a nonzero radius, $s_{1}$ and $s_{45} > 0$.
We connect the vertices of each pair of adjacent icosahedra, i.e. icosahedra of index $i$ and $i+1$, using twelve equal axial edges of length, $a_i$. We do not allow any twist of one icosahedron with respect to another; therefore, each regular triangle face of the $i$’th icosahedron, when connected by three axial edges, $a_i$, to its adjacent triangle on the $(i+1)$’st icosahedron will form a regular triangle frustum block as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:frustum\]. There are twenty such frustum blocks sandwiched between any two adjacent icosahedra. The geometry of this piecewise-flat icosahedral frustum model contains $20(n_s-1)=880$ equilateral-triangle-based frustum blocks and two icosahedra. The lattice is rigid due to its axial symmetry and because we do not allow any twisting of the frustum blocks. The geometry is completely determined by the $n_s=45$ icosahedral edge lengths, $s_i$ and the $(n_s-1)=44$ axial lengths, $a_i$. Each evolution step requires the solution of $(2n_s-1)=89$ locally-coupled nonlinear algebraic first order SRF equations. These equations are described in some detail in Sec. \[sec:srfeqns\].
In order to compare our geometry with the continuum we set the circumradius of each icosahedron equal to the radius of sphere, $r_i$, $$\label{eq:s2r}
r_i =\frac{\sqrt{10+2\sqrt{5}}}{4} \, s_i,$$ and the proper distance from the waist $a$ in the continuum is related to the sum of the axial edges, $$\label{eq:a2ac}
a^{(coord)}_i = \sum_{j = 1}^i a_i - \underbrace{\sum_{j=1}^{\frac{n_s-1}{2}} a_i}_{a_w}.$$
![[*Top Figure:*]{} The illustration at the top is our icosahedral dumbbell model with $n_s=9$ icosahedra. The geometry of each of these icosahedra is determined by a single parameter, its edge length, $s_i$. There are nine of these edge lengths, $\{s_1,s_2, \ldots, s_{n_s}\}$, in this model. Adjacent icosahedra are connected with twelve equal axial edges of length $a_i$. There are $n_s-1=8$ axial edges. For clarity we only show two of the twelve axial edges $a_i$ sandwiched between the $i$’th and $(i+1)$’st icosahedron. This yields a piecewise-flat geometry built of $20 (n_s-1)$ frustum blocks (as described in Appendix \[app:1\]) and two icosahedral end caps. [*Bottom Figure:*]{} The bottom figure illustrates its circumcentric dual dodecahedral frustum lattice as described in the text.[]{data-label="Fig:9icosa"}](9Icosa8DodecaNeckPinch.pdf){width="14.5cm"}
The RRF equations will use extensively the elements of the circumcentric-dual lattice. The original icosahedron-based lattice described above is constructed by regular triangle-based frustum blocks and two end cap icosahedra. Recall that in this icosahedral frustum lattice, there are $n_s$ icosahedral edge lengths, $s_i$, and $(n_s-1)$ axial edges, $a_i$. The dual lattice shown in Fig. \[Fig:9icosa\] is an axisymmetric geometry consisting of $(n_s-1)$ cross-sectional spheres approximated by regular dodecahedra with edges of length, $\sigma_i$. There is one dodecahedron of the dual lattice sandwiched between every pair of adjacent icosahedra. The 20 vertices of each dodecahedron are the 20 circumcenters of the 20 triangle frustum blocks sandwiched between two adjacent icosahedra. Any two adjacent dodecahedra (e.g. the $i$’th and the $(i+1)$’st) in the dual lattice are connected to each other by the 20 dual axial edges, $\alpha_i$. At each of the two end caps of the dumbbell geometry the 20 axial edges meet at a vertex. As mentioned, the vertices of the circumcentric dual lattice are located at the circumcenters of the triangular frustum blocks; however, at the two end caps the two dual lattice vertices are located at the circumcenter of the icosahedral end caps. The edges of the dual lattice connect adjacent circumcenters. The geometry of the dual dodecahedral lattice is composed of $12(n_s-2)$ regular pentagonal-based frustum blocks and 12 tetrahedra at each end cap. Ordinarily, there are may more circumcentric dual edges than original edges; however, the discrete 3-dimensional axisymmetric geometry we are considering in this manuscript has an equal number. We take advantage of this and show in Appendix \[app:B\] that the dual edge RRF equations are equivalent to the original RRF equations.
Each edge of the icosahedral frustum lattice is dual to a polyhedron in the dodecahedral frustum lattice, and visa versa. The dual areas are used to construct the RRF equations. In particular each axial edge, $a_i$, is dual to a pentagonal face of the $i$’th dodecahedron. We refer to this dual pentagonal face by, $a^*_i$. Each icosahedral edge, $s_i$, is dual to a trapezoidal face $s^*_i$ of the $i$’th pentagonal-based frustum block. The edges of $s^*_i$ are $\sigma_i$, $\sigma_{i+1}$ and $\alpha_i$. Similarly, each dodecahedron edge, $\sigma_i$, is dual to a trapezoidal face $\sigma^*_i$ of the $i$’th regular triangle-based frustum block. The edges of $\sigma^*_i$ are edges $s_i$, $s_{i+1}$ and $a_i$. Finally, each dual axial edge, $\alpha_i$, is dual to a regular triangle face of the $i$’th icosahedron, $\alpha^*_i$. These dual areas and their associated edges are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:dualareas\]
![We illustrate here the dual areas (shaded in blue) for each of the four types of edges in our lattice geometry. We also identify a couple of representative moment arms (thin red lines) connecting the center of the edge, $a_i$ and $s_i$ to the perpendicular bisector of the dual edge, $\sigma_i$ and $\alpha_i$; respectively. The pentagonal-shaped dual area $a^*_i$ to axial edge $a_i$ is used in part to define the sectional curvature associated of edge $a_i$ and is used in the construction of the Ricci tensor. This is also true for the trapezoidal dual area $s^*_i$ to icosahedral edge $s_i$.[]{data-label="Fig:dualareas"}](dualareas){width="7cm"}
The Continuum Ricci Flow Equations for a Warped Product Metric {#sec:continuum}
==============================================================
In this section, we briefly highlight the continuum equations for the warped-product metric as introduced by Angenent and Knopf [@Knopf:2004] and Simon [@Simon:2000]. We do this so that we can more precisely compare the numerical solution of these continuum RF equations governing the dynamics of the specific radial profile (Eq. \[Eq:ivd\]) to that of the evolution of the corresponding SRF equations for our axisymmetric piecewise-flat lattice geometry. The numerical comparison will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:numerics\], here we briefly outline the continuum equations.
There are only two distinct mixed Ricci tensors for the warped product metric given by Eq. \[eq:asmetric\], $$\begin{aligned}
Rc^a{}_{a} & =& -2 \left(\frac{\rho''}{\rho}\right),\\
Rc^\theta{}_\theta & = & Rc^\phi{}_\phi = \frac{1}{\rho^2} - \frac{\rho''}{\rho} -\left(\frac{\rho'}{\rho}\right)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho=\rho(a)$ and the primes are partial derivates with respect to the proper distance $a$. The RF equations for this warped-product metric in mixed form govern the dynamics of the radial profile by a single partial differential equation for $\rho(a)$, $$\label{eq:rhoeqn}
\frac{\dot \rho}{\rho} = - \frac{1}{\rho^2}+ \frac{\rho''}{\rho} + \left(\frac{\rho'}{\rho}\right)^2.$$ where the dots are time derivatives and the primes are partial derivatives with respect to $a$. The time evolution of $\varphi$ can be recovered solely from the radial profile $\rho$ and its second derivatives, $\rho''$, $$\frac{\dot \varphi}{\varphi} = - 2\, \frac{\rho''}{\rho}.$$ We numerically solve Eq. \[eq:rhoeqn\] using the initial radial profile given by Eq. \[Eq:ivd\]. This allows us in Sec. \[sec:numerics\] to compare the solution of our SRF equations with the continuum solution.
The SRF equations for the Icosahedral Frustum Model {#sec:srfeqns}
===================================================
For the axisymmetric model we are analyzing, we show in Appendix \[app:B\] that the RRF equations for the axial edges, $a_i$, and the icosahedral edges, $s_i$, are equivalent to the dual-edge RRF equations associated with dual edges $\sigma_i$ of the dodecahedra and dual axial edges $\alpha_i$ (Fig. \[Fig:9icosa\]). In particular, we show that $$\label{eq:drrf-rrf}
\underbrace{
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\frac{\dot \sigma_i}{\sigma_i} = -Rc_{\sigma_i}\\
\frac{\dot \alpha_i}{\alpha_i} = -Rc_{\alpha_i}
\end{array}
\right\}
}_{dual-edge\ RRF\ equations}
\Longleftrightarrow \ \ \
\underbrace{
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\sum_{\lambda_j \in s^*_i} \frac{\dot \lambda_j}{\lambda_j} \left(\frac{V_{s_i \lambda_j}}{V_{s_i}}\right) = -Rc_{s_i}\\
\sum_{\lambda_j \in a^*_i} \frac{\dot \lambda_j}{\lambda_j} \left(\frac{V_{a_i \lambda_j}}{V_{a_i}}\right) = - Rc_{a_i}
\end{array}
\right\}
}_{simplicial-edge\ RRF\ equations},$$ where the $\lambda_i$’s in the sum are the edges of the dual lattice in the boundary of the polygon, $a^*_i$ or $s^*_i$ dual to the edge $a_i$ or $s_i$, respectively (as shown in Fig. \[Fig:dualareas\]). The dual-edge RRF equations are significantly simpler. For this reason, we have chosen to solve the dual-edge equations for this model. Our analysis relies heavily on a recent paper by some of us, and in particular on Sec. 3 and Sec. 5 of [@Miller:2013]. The notation here corresponds to the notation used in the recent SRF manuscript [@Miller:2013].
The $\alpha_i$ dual axial equations
-----------------------------------
There is one axial dual-edge equation associated each of the $n_s$ dual axial edges $\alpha_i$. Each of these equations can be expressed locally in terms of the four edges, $a_i$, $a_{i+1}$, $s_i$ and $s_{i+1}$ of the icosahedral frustum model and their time derivatives, $$\label{eq:alpha}
\frac{\dot \alpha_i}{\alpha_i} = -Rc_{\alpha_i}.$$ The axial edge, $\alpha_i$, reaches from the circumcenter of one triangle frustum to the adjacent triangle frustum sharing an equilateral triangle of the $i$’th icosahedron and is given by the sum of Eqs. \[eq:theta\_[s\_i]{}\] and \[eq:theta\_[s\_[i+1]{}]{}\], except for the two dual axial edges on the end caps where they terminate at the circumcenter of the end cap icosahedron. In particular, we find $$\alpha_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{12}\left(3+\sqrt{5}\right) s_1 + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6} \left( \frac{3 a_1^2-2 s_1 (s_1-s_2)}{\sqrt{3 a_1^2-(s_1-s_2)^2}}\right), & i=1, \\
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6} \left( \frac{3 a_i^2+2 s_{i+1} (s_i-s_{i+1})}{\sqrt{3 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}}\right)+ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6} \left( \frac{3 a_{i+1}^2-2 s_{i+1} (s_{i+1}-s_{i+2})}{\sqrt{3 a_{i+1}^2-(s_{i+1}-s_{i+2})^2}}\right), & i\in\{2,3,\ldots,N_{s-1}\},\\
\frac{\sqrt{3}}{12}\left(3+\sqrt{5}\right) s_{n_s} + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6} \left( \frac{3 a_{n_s}^2-2 s_{n_s} (s_{n_s}-s_{n_s-1})}{\sqrt{3 a_{n_s}^2-(s_{n_s}-s_{n_s-1})^2}}\right), & i=n_s,
\end{array}
\right.$$ together with the time derivatives, $$\dot \alpha_i = \frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial a_i} \, \dot a_i + \frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial a_{i+1}} \, \dot a_{i+1} + \frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial s_i} \, \dot s_i + \frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial s_{i+1}} \, \dot s_{i+1}.$$ These quantities are used to construct the left-hand side of Eq. \[eq:alpha\].
The right-hand side of Eq. \[eq:alpha\] are the Ricci tensors associated with the dual axial edges, $$Rc_{\alpha_i} = \sum_{\ell_j \in \alpha^*_i} Rc^{(hyb)}_{\ell_j} \left( \frac{V_{\alpha_i \ell_j}}{V_{\alpha_i}} \right) = 3 Rc^{(hyb)}_{s_i} \left( \frac{1}{3} \right) = 2 Rm_{s_i} = 2\, \frac{\epsilon_{s_i}}{s^*_i}.$$ Here, the deficit angle $\epsilon_{s_i}$ is associated with the icosahedral edge, $s_i$. Edge $s_i$ is the edge common to four triangle frustum blocks, except for the bounding icosahedral caps where it is the edge common to two frustum blocks and one end cap icosahedron; we find $$\label{eq:defs}
\epsilon_{s_i} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
2\pi - \theta_{icosa} - 2\ \theta{s_1}, & i=1\\
2\pi - 4\,\theta{s_{i}}, & i\in\{2,3,\ldots,N_{s-1}\},\\
\theta_{icosa} + 2\,\theta{s_{n_s-1}}. & i=n_s,
\end{array}
\right.$$ The dihedral angles ($\theta$) are give in Appendix \[app:1\]. Care must be taken when calculating the dual areas, $s^*_i$, as shown in the lower-right of Fig. \[Fig:dualareas\]. This dual area is given by moment arms and the three distinct dual edges in the boundary of $s^*_i$. It is simply the sum of four triangle areas, two of which are always equal, $$s^*_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
m_{s_1\alpha_1}\, \alpha_1 + \frac{1}{2} m_{s_1 \sigma_1}, & i=1\\
m_{s_i\alpha_i}\, \alpha_i + \frac{1}{2} m_{s_i \sigma_i}\, \sigma_i + \frac{1}{2} m_{s_i \sigma_{i+1}}\, \sigma_{i+1}, & i\in\{2,3,\ldots,N_{s-1}\},\\
m_{s_{n_s}\alpha_{n_s}}\, \alpha_{n_s} + \frac{1}{2} m_{s_{n_s} \sigma_{n_s}}. & i=n_s,
\end{array}
\right.$$
Therefore, we find that the dual axial RRF equations are simply $$\label{eq:daerrfeqns}
\boxed{\frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial a_i} \, \dot a_i + \frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial a_{i+1}} \, \dot a_{i+1} + \frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial s_i} \, \dot s_i + \frac{\partial \alpha_i}{\partial s_{i+1}} \, \dot s_{i+1} = -2\, \frac{\epsilon_{s_i}}{s^*_i}.}$$
The $\sigma_i$, or dual dodecahedral edge equations
---------------------------------------------------
In many ways, the dual RRF equations for the $\sigma_i$ edges are simpler than the $\alpha_i$ equations because they have no special boundary terms. On the other hand, the Ricci tensors are more complicated. There is one dual dodecahedral edge equation associated each of the $(n_s-1)$ dodecahedron edges $\sigma_i$. Each of these equations can be expressed locally in terms of the edges $a_i$, $s_i$, and $s_{i+1}$ of the icosahedral frustum model and their time derivatives, $$\label{eq:sigma}
\frac{\dot \sigma_i}{\sigma_i} = -Rc_{\sigma_i}.$$ The axial edge, $\sigma_i$, reaches from the circumcenter of one triangle frustum to the adjacent triangle frustum sharing a common trapezoid face sandwiched between the $i$’th and $(i+1)$’st icosahedrons. This edge is given by the sum of Eq. \[eq:sigma\_1\], $$\sigma_i = \left(\frac{a_i^2 (s_i+s_{i+1})}{\sqrt{3 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}\sqrt{4 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}}\right),$$ and its time derivative is $$\dot \sigma_i = \frac{\partial \sigma_i}{\partial a_i} \, \dot a_i + \frac{\partial \sigma_i}{\partial s_i} \, \dot s_i + \frac{\partial \sigma_i}{\partial s_{i+1}} \, \dot s_{i+1},$$ yielding the left-hand side of Eq. \[eq:sigma\].
The right-hand side of Eq. \[eq:alpha\] are the Ricci tensors associated with the dual dodecahedron edges, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Rcsig1}
Rc_{\sigma_i} & = & \sum_{\ell_j \in \sigma^*_i} Rc^{(hyb)}_{\ell_j} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i \ell_j}}{V_{\sigma_i}} \right) \\ \label{eq:Rcsig2}
& = & 2 Rc^{(hyb)}_{a_i} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i a_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} \right) +
Rc^{(hyb)}_{s_i} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} \right) +
Rc^{(hyb)}_{s_i} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}}\right) \\ \label{eq:Rcsig3}
& = & 4\, \frac{\epsilon_{a_i}}{a^*_i} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i a_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} \right)+
2 \, \frac{\epsilon_{s_i}}{s^*_i} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} \right) +
2 \, \frac{\epsilon_{s_{i+1}}}{s^*_{i+1}} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the ratios of the restricted dual hybrid volumes to the hybrid volumes are expressed in terms of the moment arms in Appendix \[app:1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{V_{\sigma_i a_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} & = & \frac{m_{a_i\sigma_i} a_i}{2 m_{a_i\sigma_i} a_i + m_{s_i\sigma_i} s_i + m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_i} s_{i+1}},\\
\frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} & = & \frac{m_{s_i\sigma_i} s_i}{2 m_{a_i\sigma_i} a_i + m_{s_i\sigma_i} s_i + m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_i} s_{i+1}}, \\
\frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} & = &\frac{m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_i} s_{i+1}}{2 m_{a_i\sigma_i} a_i + m_{s_i\sigma_i} s_i + m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_i} s_{i+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Two of the three deficit angles in Eq. \[eq:Rcsig3\] are given by Eq. \[eq:defs\], while the remaining axial-edge deficit angle $\epsilon_{a_i}$ is associated with the edge common to five triangle frustum blocks, $$\epsilon_{a_i} = 2\pi - 5 \theta_{a_i}.$$ The dihedral angles ($\theta$) are given in Appendix \[app:1\]. Once again, care must be taken when calculating the dual areas, $a^*_i$, as shown in the upper-left of Fig. \[Fig:dualareas\]. This dual area is given by moment arms and the dual edges, $\sigma_i$, in the boundary of $a^*_i$. It is simply the sum of five identical isosceles triangle areas, $$a^*_i = \frac{5}{2}\, m_{a_i\sigma_i}\, \sigma_i.$$
The dual-dodecahedron-edge RRF equations are $$\label{eq:dderrfeqns}
\boxed{ \frac{\partial \sigma_i}{\partial a_i} \, \dot a_i + \frac{\partial \sigma_i}{\partial s_i} \, \dot s_i + \frac{\partial \sigma_i}{\partial s_{i+1}} \, \dot s_{i+1} = -4\, \frac{\epsilon_{a_i}}{a^*_i} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i a_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} \right)-
2 \, \frac{\epsilon_{s_i}}{s^*_i} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}} \right) -
2 \, \frac{\epsilon_{s_{i+1}}}{s^*_{i+1}} \left( \frac{V_{\sigma_i s_i}}{V_{\sigma_i}}\right).}$$
the Numerical Algorithm and Simulations {#sec:numerics}
=======================================
We report on our numerical solution of Eqs. \[eq:daerrfeqns\] and \[eq:dderrfeqns\] given the initial profile dual-loabed profile of Eq. \[Eq:ivd\]. These equations form a sparsely-coupled first-order system of nonlinear algebraic equations, $$\label{eq:matrixeq}
M_{ij} \, \dot \ell_j = f_i,\ \ \ \forall i,j\in\{1,2,\ldots,2n_s-1\}.$$ We define the coordinate vector as alternating icosahedral and axial edges, $$\pmb{\ell} = \{s_1,a_1,s_2,a_2, \ldots, s_{N_{s-1}},a_{N_{s-1}},s_{n_s}\};$$ consequently, the square matrix $\pmb M$ is sparse with four non-zero diagonals and populated with partial derivatives of the dual edges with respect to isosceles frustum lattice edges. The vector $\pmb f$’s components are the weighted sectional curvatures. We solve the equations using a fixed-time step 4-th order Runge-Kutta algorithm and remesh the lattice occasionally to keep the circumcenters roughly inside the frustum blocks. As a diagnostic, we linearize, $$\label{eq:jac}
{\pmb J} := \delta\left({\pmb M}^{-1} \cdot {\pmb f}\right),$$ and track this Jacobian and its corresponding eigenvalues during the evolution.
The initial radial profile of the double-lobed geometry given by Eq. \[Eq:ivd\] is translated into initial values for the axial and icosahedral edges using Eqs. \[eq:s2r\] and \[eq:a2ac\]. However, we exploit our freedom in the axial placement of each icosahedron. We choose to concentrate more icosahedra near the waist where we expect a singularity in finite time. In order to remesh, we construct an cubic interpolating function, $s\left( a^{coord}\right)$ for the simplicial geometry. We also extrapolate to the poles ($s=0$) of the dumbbell geometry in order to keep the end cap icosahedra bounded away from the poles. This extended interpolating function allows us to place the icosahedra along the geometry based on a distribution function. We choose a Gaussian distribution centered on the waist, $$a^{(new)}_i = a^{(ext)}_i
\left(
1 - \kappa \exp{
\left( -\frac{ (\bar a^{{coord}}_i /a^{(coord)}_{max})^{2} }{ 2 \sigma^{2} } \right)
}
\right)$$ Here we use $\kappa=0.95$, $\sigma=0.1$, $a^{(coord)}_{max}$ is the maximal length geodesic from pole to pole, $\bar a^{{coord}}_i = \left( a^{{coord}}_{i+1} - a^{{coord}}_i \right)/2$, and $a^{(ext)}_i = a^{(coord)}_{max}/(n_s+1)$ represents the equally-spaced $a$’s along the extrapolated length of the interpolating function.
During the evolution, we want each of the circumcenters to lie within, or nearly within, their respective triangular frustum blocks. The condition for this well-centeredness is obtained from Eqs. \[eq:alpha\_i\], \[eq:alpha\_ip\], and an expression for the altitude of the frustum block; we impose, $$\label{eq:wc}
a_i \ge \sqrt{\frac{s_{i+1} |s_i-s_{i+1}|}{3}}.$$ Given the very poor azimuthal resolution afforded to us by the icosahedra, this well-centeredness condition is nearly impossible to satisfy, and we have to allow each circumcenter to evolve slightly outside its frustum block before we remesh. We find, on occasion, the adjacent circumcenters cross in very short time scales, and this abruptly crashes the evolution. This problem is exacerbated when we increase the number of icosahedral cross sections in our model. In this case the height of the frustum block vanishes, we observe that the gradients in the radial profile, $(s_i+1-s_i)/a_i$, will cause changes in the axial edges, $a_i$, which in turn cause the circumcenter to evolve through the largest equilateral triangle face. With this in mind, we find empirically that the nearly maximal number of icosahedral cross sections we can use in our simulation in order to to evolve stably is $n_s=45$. However, if we were to remove the condition that the corrections be limited to regular icosahedron then the azimuthal resolution could increase which would allow cross-sectional slices, which should lead more finely resolved evolution and comparison with the continuum. However, this was beyond the scope and intent of this paper.
In Fig. \[fig:p75\] we show the results of our evolution. This evolution includes remeshing at those times during the evolution when the well-centeredness condition (Eq. \[eq:wc\]) is violated. It is interesting to note that we observed that this evolution only runs a few units in time without remeshing. Furthermore, we find that the system of dual-edge RRF equations is rather stiff, with the condition number of the Jacobian in Eq. \[eq:jac\] becomes on the order of ${\cal C} \sim 10^8$. As a rule of thumb, the accuracy is diminished by $\log_{10}\left({\cal C}\right)$. Therefore, it is important to keep the condition number as small as possible. Remeshing reduces the condition number by a factor of 2 and also produces more negative eigenvalues in the Jacobian. While the equations we are solving are obtained by the method of lines, the equations are nonlinear. The eignenvalue spectrum of the Jacobian will change during evolution; that we observe more negative eigenvalues under remeshing is a positive diagnostic. We identify an interesting phenomenon where the axial distance of every other icosahedron shrinks, while the adjacent axial edges grow. The relatively poor resolution of the icosahedra prohibits us from exploring this in much detail, and a refinement in the azimuthal directions is beyond the scope and intent of this paper.
![The evolution of the 3-dimensional SRF icosahedral frustum geometry using the RRF equations with the remshing described above. The solid line is the radius of the waist as a function of time. The long dashed line at the top is the time evolution of the largest radius of the lobes. The short dashed line in between the other two lines is the difference between the maximum radius and the waist radius, thus demonstrating a neck pinching singularity. Just below the time axis, and at four separate times during the evolution we plot an embedding surface representing the dumbbell geometry as it evolves toward neck pinch singularity. []{data-label="fig:p75"}](DB_wp1_Plot_Combined){width="14cm"}
We also solve the continuum RF equation, Eq. \[eq:rhoeqn\], for the same initial radial profile and compare it to the SRF solution. These two solutions show excellent agreement and demonstrate neck pinching in SRF. To make the comparison shown in Fig. \[fig:p75Steps\], we only rescale the collapse time of the continuum equations to agree with the SRF evolution.
![We show here a comparison of the continuum RF equation and the RRF equations. The black curves are the solution of the RRF equations, and the red curves are as solution the continuum equations. The solid lines (lying on top of each other) are the radius of the waist as a function of time. The long dashed lines at the top are the time evolution of the largest radius of the lobes. The short dashed lines in between are the difference between the maximum radius and the waist radius, thus demonstrating a neck pinch singularity. These curves are only scaled in time so that the pinch happened at the same instant. Given the relatively low resolution afforded by the icosahedral cross sections, the agreement is rather striking. []{data-label="fig:p75Steps"}](DB3CurvesContinuumMinusSRF){width="14.5cm"}
Toward Higher Resolution, Proper Sampling and Surgery in SRF {#sec:conclusion}
=============================================================
The purpose of this paper has been to demonstrate a neck pinching evolution in 3-dimensional SRF. Our comparison with the continuum solution accomplishes this goal. We have learned that these equations require delicate numerical techniques and higher resolution. We have demonstrated here the necessity of remeshing, and we expect to need a more sophisticated adaptive mesh and remeshing algorithm for higher-dimensional SRF simulations. Our model used regular icosahedral cross sections and therefore we could not explore the scaling behavior of our code with resolution in a meaningful way. However, the extension of our warped-produce geometries to higher dimensions will not change the structure or complexity of the RRF equations. There will still be only one axial equation and one azimuthial equation per cross-sectional slice. It should not add any substantial computational demands to extend beyond 3-dimensions. The sparsity of the matrix we need to invert will not increase in the discretization of our warped-product geometry. Notwithstanding this observation, the availability of regular polytopes in four and higher dimensions is restricted to the cross polytope. The azimuthal resolution would be more course than our 3-dimensional icosahedral model and we would not be able to resolve the dumbbell along the axial direction as well either. The computational scaling of our algorithm should be dominated by the inversion of the a sparse square matrix in Eq. \[eq:matrixeq\]. This matrix needs to be constructed and inverted at each time step. The structure of this matrix, $M_{i j}$, is determined by the lattice structure. In our case it will have at most four non-zero diagonals. This is also the case for higher dimensional dumbbell geometries. A regular lattice structure will yield a well structured matrix. There are efficient parallelized preconditioned matrix inversion algorithms to extend our numerical techniques for arbitrary geometries in three and higher dimensions [@Chow:2001]. We see no way in three and higher dimensions to decouple the RRF equations.
Two conditions govern the proper sampling of the geometry. First, we would like to have large blocks where the curvature is small and small blocks where the curvature is large. This can be accomplished with the condition that all the deficit angles be small and roughly equal, since the sectional curvature will then be inversely proportional to its dual area. Second, we would like to keep the blocks as well-centered and equilateral as possible. This can be accomplished by using a well-centeredness or fullness condition introduced by Whitney [@Whitney:1957], and others used in RC, e.g. the waste function [@Miller:1986].
We consider that the best way to advance this numerical work in SRF follows three distinct approaches. First, we can introduce a higher-resolution triangulation of each of the cross-sectional spheres in the current model. We are currently exploring a simplicial model that can be arbitrarily refined, and refer to this as the “continuum SRF model" [@Miller:2014]. With this higher azimuthal resolution, we will be better able to maintain well-centeredness of the lattice to a higher tolerance, and we hope to introduce more spherical cross-sectional spheres. The numerical intricacies in solving the RRF equations that we may learn from the continuum model will guide us to a fully-generic (e.g., no axial symmetry restrictions) simplicial geometry evolving under SRF. Note that for a general simplicial geometry there are more dual edges than simplicial edges which necessitates solving the simplicial-edge RRF equations directly. In addition, we need to develop a sophisticated implementation of remeshing as well as adapting the mesh during evolution (i.e. resample the mesh in areas at higher or lower resolution). We also need an adaptive time step stiff integrator. This example makes clear that such techniques are essential for the analysis of singularity development in this model. Such techniques will enable us to automatically detect singularity formation, perform surgery in these regions, and continue our integration. Some of us are already exploring surgery techniques in SRF [@Corne:2014]. Finally, we think it important to explore a reformulation of SRF where we have a diffeomorphically equivalent flow under a convex energy functional, e.g. a simplicial application of the de Turck trick, or a simplicial version of a convex entropy functional [@LiYau:1986; @Perelman:2003].
Ackowledgements {#ackowledgements .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Dan Knopf, David Glickenstein, Huai-Dong Cao, Howard Blair, Chris Tison, and Arkady Kheyfets for discussions, and Xuping Wang for his suggestions on the SRF equations for this model. We are especially grateful for the discussions we had with Jonathan McDonald. This work has benefited from the discussions and input we received from Lars Hernquist on mesh refinement and re-meshing strategies, some of which we partially implemented here. WAM would like to thank the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University for their support and hospitality this year. This work was supported from USAF Grant \# FA8750-11-2-0089. WAM, CT, and SR acknowledge support from Air Force Office of Scientific Research through the American Society for Engineering Education’s 2012 Summer Faculty Fellowship Program, and from AFRL/RITA and the Griffiss Institute’s 2013 Visiting Faculty Research Program. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the AFRL.
The Geometry of the Equilaterial Triangle Frustum Block {#app:1}
=======================================================
The SRF equations depend directly on the geometry of the triangular frustum block. We will outline the relevant geometric features of this polyhedron that are used to construct the axial and icosahedral-edge RRF equations for this model. We focus in this section on a single isosceles-based triangular frustum block as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:frustum\].
![The isosceles triangle frustum block[]{data-label="Fig:frustum"}](frustum.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
Here the block has three types of edges: three axial edges each of length $a_i$, three equal edges of the base isosceles triangle of length $s_i$, and three equal edges of the cap triangle of length $s_{i+1}$. Here we assume the base triangle is larger than the top cap triangle, $s_i > s_{i+1}$. Since all three of the axial edges are equal then the top triangle is parallel to the base triangle; also, the circumcenter of the two triangles and the circumcenter of the frustum block all lie on the same line.
Each of our SRF equations are constructed, in part, from the three dihedral angles of the frustum block. The dihedral angle between any two of its three trapezoidal faces sharing an edge, $a$, is the axial dihedral angle, $$\label{eq:theta_a}
\theta_{a_i} = \arccos{\left(\frac{2 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}{4 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}\right)}.$$ The dihedral angle along edge $s_i$ is the angle between the base triangle and the trapezoid sharing $s_i$ we refer to as the base dihedral angle, $$\label{eq:theta_{s_i}}
\theta_{s_i} = \arccos{\left(\frac{\sqrt{3} (s_i-s_{i+1})}{3\sqrt{4 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}}\right)},$$ and consequently the corresponding dihedral angle associated to the top cap edge, $s_{i+1}$, is the supplementary angle, $$\label{eq:theta_{s_{i+1}}}
\theta_{s_{i+1}}=\pi-\theta_{s_i}.$$
This frustum block contains the segments of three of the dual edges in our model: the dual decahedron edge, $\sigma_i$, the dual axial edge $\alpha_i$, and the dual axial edge $\alpha_{i+1}$. The circumcentric dual edge $\sigma_i$ associated with this frustum block is the line segment that starts at the circumcenter of this frustum block, pierces through the circumcenter of one of the three trapezoidal blocks of the frustum, and terminates at the circumcenter of the adjacent frustum block. In this case half of the dual edge, $\sigma_{\frac{1}{2}_i}$, lies in the frustum considered here, $$\label{eq:sigma_1}
\sigma_{\frac{1}{2}_i} = \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{a_i^2 (s_i+s_{i+1})}{\sqrt{3 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}\sqrt{4 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}}\right),$$ and $\sigma_i=2\, \sigma_{\frac{1}{2}_i}$. There are two segments of dual axial edges within the frustum, one dual to the base isosceles triangle, $\alpha_{i}$, and the other with the top cap triangle, $\alpha_{i+1}$. Here, the dual axial edge segment reaches from the circumcenter of the frustum to the circumcenter of the base isosceles triangle, $$\label{eq:alpha_i}
h_{1_i} = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6} \left( \frac{3 a_i^2-2 s_i (s_i-s_{i+1})}{\sqrt{3 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}}\right).$$ The dual edge reaching from the circumcenter of the frustum to the circumcenter of the top cap isosceles triangle can be obtained from $\alpha_{i+1}$ by switching the base edges in Eq. \[eq:alpha\_i\], i.e. $s_{i+1} \leftrightarrow s_i$, $$\label{eq:alpha_ip}
h_{2_{i+1}} = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6} \left( \frac{3 a_i^2+2 s_{i+1} (s_i-s_{i+1})}{\sqrt{3 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}}\right).$$
Each of our SRF equations depend on one or more of the five types of moment arms. A moment arm, e.g. $m_{a_i\sigma_i}$ is defined as the line segment reaching from the center of an edge of the frustum, $a_i$ in this case, to the perpendicular bisector of a dual edge, $\sigma_i$ in this case. Since $\sigma_i$ is dual to a trapezoid, there are three moment arms, $m_{a_i \sigma_i}$, $m_{s_i \sigma_i}$ and $m_{s_{i+1} \sigma}$. Moment arm $m_{a_i \sigma_i}$ is the length of the edge that reaches from the center of edge, $a_i$ to the circumcenter of the trapezoidal face of the frustum, $$\label{eq:m_asigma}
m_{a_i\sigma_i} = \frac{a_i (s_i+s_{i+1})}{2 \sqrt{4 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}}.$$ This moment arm is perpendicular to dual edge $\sigma_i$. Similarly, $m_{s_i \sigma_i}$ is the length of the edge that reaches from the center of either edge $s_i$ to the circumcenter of the trapezoidal face of the frustum, $$\label{eq:m_bsigma}
m_{s_i\sigma_i} = \frac{2 a_i^2 -s_i (s_i-s_{i+1})}{2 \sqrt{4 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}},$$ and finally, $$\label{eq:m_csigma}
m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_i} = \frac{2 a_i^2 +s_{i+1} (s_i-s_{i+1})}{2 \sqrt{4 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}},$$ which is obtained from the base moment arm via $s_{i+1} \leftrightarrow s_i$. The two remaining moment arms are associated with the dual axial edges, $\alpha_i$. In particular, the moment arm $m_{s_i\alpha_i}$ reaches from the center of edge $s_i$ to the circumcenter of the base triangle. It is the inradius of the base triangle, $$\label{eq:m_balpha}
m_{s_i\alpha_i} = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}\, s_i.$$ The corresponding moment arm associated with the top cap of the frustum is also the inradius of the top triangle, $$\label{eq:m_calpha}
m_{s_{i+1}\alpha_{i+1}} = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}\, s_{i+1}.$$
The only other quantities that enter into the normalized SRF equations from the frustum block is its volume, $V_f$, $$\label{eq:volume_f}
V_{f_i} = \frac{1}{12} \left(s_i^2+s_{i+1}^2 + s_i s_{i+1}\right)\, \sqrt{3 a_i^2-(s_i-s_{i+1})^2}.$$ In addition, our frustum geometry has two regular icosahedral boundaries at both ends of the dumbbell. The dihedral angle of the regular icosahedron of edge length, $s$, $$\label{eq:theta_icosa}
\theta_{icosa} = \arccos{ \left(-\frac{\sqrt{5}}{3}\right)},$$ as well as its 3-volume, $$\label{V_icosa}
V_{icosa} = \frac{5}{12} \left( 3+\sqrt{5} \right) s^3,$$ also enter into our axial and spherical SRF equations.
The Equivalence of the RRF and Dual-Edge RRF Equations for Axisymmetric Geometries {#app:B}
==================================================================================
In this section we prove that the RRF equations associated with the edges of the icosahedral-frustum model are equivalent to the dual-dodecahedron-edge RRF equations. We follow as closely as possible the notation and equations from recent work in Sec. 3 and Sec. 5 of the Simplicial Ricci Flow manuscript [@Miller:2013]. 0.15 true in [*Theorem:*]{} The Regge-Ricci Flow equations associated to the edges of the icosahedral-frustum-block geometry are equivalent to the dual-edge Regge-Ricci Flow equations. 0.1 true in [*Proof.*]{} There are two sets of RRF equations associated with the edges of the icosahedral-frustum model as shown in the right-hand side of Eq. \[eq:drrf-rrf\]. One equation, the $s_i$-equation, is associated with each icosahedron, the other set is associated with the axial edges ($a_i$). In particular, there is one $a_i$-equation associated with each axial edge. These can be expressed in terms of the moment arms, deficit angles, dual areas and edge lengths. All moment arms are strictly positive. The $s_i$-equation can conveniently be written as the sum of three terms, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:si}
m_{s_i\sigma_i} & \underbrace{\left( \dot \sigma_{i} + \left( \frac{\sigma_{i}}{\sigma^*_{i}} \right) \left\{ \left( \frac{s_{i}}{s^*_{i}} \right) m_{s_{i}\sigma_{i}} \epsilon_{s_{i}} + \left( \frac{s_{i+1}}{s^*_{i+1}} \right) m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_{i}}\epsilon_{s_{i+1}} + 2 \left( \frac{a_{i}}{a^*_{i}} \right) m_{a_{i}\sigma_{i}}\epsilon_{a_{i}} \right\} \right)}_{Term\ \sigma_i} \nonumber \\
+ m_{s_i\sigma_{i+1}} & \underbrace{\left( \dot \sigma_{i+1} + \left( \frac{\sigma_{i+1}}{\sigma^*_{i+1}} \right) \left\{ \left( \frac{s_{i+1}}{s^*_{i+1}} \right) m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_{i+1}} \epsilon_{s_{i+1}} + \left( \frac{s_{i+2}}{s^*_{i+2}} \right) m_{s_{i+2}\sigma_{i+1}}\epsilon_{s_{i+2}} + 2 \left( \frac{a_{i+1}}{a^*_{i+1}} \right) m_{a_{i+1}\sigma_{i+1}}\epsilon_{a_{i+1}} \right\} \right)}_{Term\ \sigma_{i+1}} \nonumber \\
+ 2 m_{s_i\alpha_i} & \underbrace{\left( \dot \alpha_i + 3 \, \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{\alpha^*_i} \right) \left( \frac{s_i}{s^*_i} \right)m_{s_i\alpha_i} \epsilon_{s_i} \right)}_{Term\ \alpha_i} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The axial-edge equation associated with edge $a_i$ is just [*Term*]{} $\sigma_i$ of the $s_i$-equation. $$\label{eq:ai}
\underbrace{\left( \dot \sigma_{i} + \left( \frac{\sigma_{i}}{\sigma^*_{i}} \right) \left\{ \left( \frac{s_{i}}{s^*_{i}} \right) m_{s_{i}\sigma_{i}} \epsilon_{s_{i}} + \left( \frac{s_{i+1}}{s^*_{i+1}} \right) m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_{i}}\epsilon_{s_{i+1}} + 2 \left( \frac{a_{i}}{a^*_{i}} \right) m_{a_{i}\sigma_{i}}\epsilon_{a_{i}} \right\} \right)}_{Term\ \sigma_i} = 0$$ The under braces on these equations are important for the clarity of the proof. There are just two dual-dodecahedral-edge RRF equations for this model. The $\alpha_i$-equation is simply [*Term*]{} $\alpha_i$, $$\label{eq:alpi}
\underbrace{\left( \dot \alpha_i + 3 \, \left(\frac{\alpha_i}{\alpha^*_i} \right) \left( \frac{s_i}{s^*_i} \right)m_{s_i\alpha_i} \epsilon_{s_i} \right)}_{Term\ \alpha_i} = 0,$$ and the $\sigma_i$-equation is simply [*Term*]{} $\sigma_i$, $$\label{eq:sigi}
\underbrace{\left( \dot \sigma_{i} + \left( \frac{\sigma_{i}}{\sigma^*_{i}} \right) \left\{ \left( \frac{s_{i}}{s^*_{i}} \right) m_{s_{i}\sigma_{i}} \epsilon_{s_{i}} + \left( \frac{s_{i+1}}{s^*_{i+1}} \right) m_{s_{i+1}\sigma_{i}}\epsilon_{s_{i+1}} + 2 \left( \frac{a_{i}}{a^*_{i}} \right) m_{a_{i}\sigma_{i}}\epsilon_{a_{i}} \right\} \right)}_{Term\ \sigma_i} = 0.$$ Suppose Eqs. \[eq:si\] and \[eq:ai\] are satisfied. Then, Eq. \[eq:sigi\] is automatically satisfied as it equals Eq. \[eq:ai\]. Also, by an indexing argument, Eq. \[eq:ai\] implies that *Term* $\sigma_{i} = 0 $ and *Term* $\sigma_{i+1} = 0 $. The vanishing of *Term* $\sigma_{i} $ and *Term* $\sigma_{i+1} $, with Eq. \[eq:si\] and the strict positivity of moment arms, imply that \[eq:alpi\] is true. Conversely, if the dual-edge equations (Eqs. \[eq:alpi\] and \[eq:sigi\]) are satisfied, then all three terms in Eq. \[eq:si\] vanish so that their sum is zero. Also, Eq. \[eq:ai\] is identical to Eq. \[eq:sigi\]. QED
[99]{} R. Hamilton, “Three-manifolds with positive Ricci curvature,” [*J. Diff. Geom*]{} [**17**]{} (1982), 255-306. H-D. Cao, B. Chow, S-C Chu & S-T Yau, eds., [*Collected Papers on Ricci Flow*]{} in Series in Geometry and Topology, Volume 37 (International Press; Somerville, MA; 2003). B. Chow & D. Knopf, [*The Ricci Flow: An Introduction*]{}, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Volume 110 (American Mathematical Society; Providence, RI; 2004). B Chow, P. Lu & L. Ni, [*Hamilton’s Ricci Flow*]{}, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Volume 77 (American Mathematical Society; Providence, RI; 2006). B. Chow, S-C Chu, D. Glickenstein, C. Guenther, J. Isenberg, T. Ivey, D. Knopf, P. Lu, F. Luo & L. Ni, [*The Ricci Flow: Techniques and Applications, Part 1: Geometric Aspects*]{}, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Volume 135 (American Mathematical Society; Providence, RI; 2007). X. Yu, X. Yin, W. Han, J. Gao & X. Gu, “Scalable routing in 3D high genus sensor networks using graph embedding,” [*INFOCOM 2012*]{}: 2681-2685; Y. Wang, J. Shi, X. Yin, X. Gu, T. F. Chan, S-T Yau, A. W. Toga & P. M. Thompson, “Brain surface conformal parameterization with the Ricci flow,” [*IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging*]{} [**31**]{}(2) (2012) 251-264. X. Gu, F. Luo & S-T Yau, “Fundamentals of computational conformal geometry,” [*Mathematics in Computer Science*]{} [**4**]{}(4) (2010) 389-429; B. Chow & F. Luo, “Combinatorial Ricci flows on surfaces,” [*J. Differential Geometry*]{} [**63**]{} (2003) 97-129. J. Peiro & S. Sherwin, [*Finite Difference, Finite Element and Finite Volume Methods For Partial Differential Equations,*]{} in Handbook of Materials Modeling, Volume 1, Methods and Models, Springer, 2005. S. Humphries, Jr., [*Finite-Element Methods for Electromagnetism*]{}, http://www.fieldp.com/freeware/finite\_element \_electromagnetic.pdf; originally published as [*Field Solutions on Computers*]{} (ISBN 0-8493-1668-5) (Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, 1997). T. Regge, “General relativity without coordinates,” [*Il Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**19**]{} (1961) 558-571. A. P. Gentle & W. A. Miller, “A fully (3+1)-D Regge calculus model of the Kasner cosmology,” [*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{} [**15**]{} (1998) 389-405. M. Desbrun, A. N. Hirani, M. Leok & J. E. Marsden, “Discrete exterior calculus,” e-print arXiv:math/0508341v2 \[math.DG\] on arxiv.org (2005). D. Glickenstein, D. Champion and A. Young, “Regge’s Einstein-Hilbert functional on the double tetrahedron,” [*Differential Geom. Appl.*]{} [ **29**]{} (2011), 109-124, doi:10.1016/jdifgeo.2010.10.001. D. Glickenstein, “Discrete conformal variations and scalar curvature on piecewise flat two- and three-dimensional manifolds," [*J. Diff. Geom.*]{} [**87**]{} (2011) 201-238. D. Glickenstein, “Geometric triangulations and discrete Laplacians on manifolds,” arXiv:math/0508188 \[math.MG\]. H. Ge, “Discrete Quasi-Einstein Metrics and Combinatorial Curvature Flows in 3-Dimension,” arXiv:1301.3398 \[math.DG\]. R. Forman, “Bochner’s Method for Cell Complexes and Combinatorial Ricci Curvature,” [*Discrete Comput. Geom.*]{} [**29**]{} (2003) 323Ð374. D. Glickenstein, “A combinatorial Yamabe flow in three dimensions,” [*Topology*]{} [**44**]{} (2005) pp. 791-808. D. X. Gu & E. Saucan, “Metric Ricci curvature for PL manifolds,” [*Geometry*]{} (2013) 694169. G. Besson, “The geometrization conjecture after R. Hamilton and G. Perelman,” [*Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino*]{}[**65**]{} (2007) p. 397?411. M. Corne, P. Alsing, H. Blair, G. Jones, W. A. Miller, & V. Nanda, “Applications of Persistent Homology to Ricci Flow on $S^2$ and $S^3$. Private communication K. Mischaikow, V. Nanda & J. Bush (2013). W. A. Miller, J. R. McDonald, P. M. Alsing, D. Gu & S-T Yau, “Simplicial Ricci Flow,” submitted to [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} (2013); arXiv:1302.0804v1 \[math.DG\]. P. M. Alsing, J. R. McDonald & W. A. Miller, “The simplicial Ricci tensor," [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**28**]{} (2011) 155007 (17 pp). J. R. McDonald, W. A. Miller, P. M Alsing, X. D. Gu, X. Wang & S-T Yau, “On exterior calculus and curvature in piecewise-flat manifolds,” [*paper submitted to J. Math. Phys.*]{} (2012) arxiv.org/abs/1212.0919. S. Angenent & D. Knopf, “An example of neckpinching for Ricci flow on $S^{n+1}$” . [*Math. Res. Lett.*]{} [**11**]{} (2004) 493-518. M. Simon, “A class of Riemannian manifolds that pinch when evolved by Ricci flow,” [*Manuscripta Math.*]{} [**101**]{}, no. 1 (2000) 89Ð114. S. Angenent, J. Isenberg and D. Knopf, “Formal matched asymptotics for degenerate Ricci flow neckpinches,” [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**24**]{} (2011), 2265-2280. H.-D. Cao, [*Private communication,*]{} UBC, Vancouver BC (2011). R. S. Hamilton, “The formation of singularities in the Ricci flow,” [*Surveys in Differential Geometry*]{} [**2**]{} (1995) 7-136. B. Chow and F. Luo, “Combinatorial Ricci Flows on Surfaces,” [*J. Differential Geom.*]{} [**63**]{}, no. 1 (2003) 97-129. Y. Lin and S-T Yau, “Ricci curvature and eigenvalue estimate on locally finite graphs,” [*Math. Res. Lett.*]{} [**17**]{} (2010) 343Ð356. D. Knopf, “Estimating the trace-free Ricci tensor in Ricci flow,” [*Journal: Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**137**]{} (2009), 3099-3103. W. Thurston, [*Three-dimensional geometry and topology,*]{} Vol. 1. Edited by Silvio Levy, Princeton Mathematical Series, 35, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997). H. Whitney, [*Geometric Integration Theory*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; 1957) pp. 124Ð135. W. A. Miller, ÒGeometric Computation: Null-Strut Geometrodynamics and the Inchworm Algorithm,Ó in [*Dynamical Spacetimes and Numerical Relativity*]{}, ed. J. Centrella, Cambridge Univ. Press.(1986) 256-303. W. A. Miller, P. M. Alsing, M. Corne & S. Ray “An Analysis of Neck Pinching in High Resolution Simplicial Ricci Flows,” [*in preparation*]{} (2014). M. Corne, P. Alsing and W. Miller, “Surgery in Simplicial Ricci Flow," [*in preparation*]{} (2014). P. Li and S-T Yau, “On the parabolic kernel of the Schrödinger operator," [*Acta Math.*]{} [**156**]{}, no. 3-4 (1986)153Ð201. G. Perelman, “The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications,” preprint, math.DG/0211159; G. Perelman, “Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds,” preprint, math.DG/0303109; & G. Perelman, “Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds,” preprint, math.DG/0307245. R. Chow, “Parallel implementation and practical use of sparse approximate inverse pre conditioners with a priori sparsity patterns,” [*Intl. J. High Perf. Comput. Appl.*]{} [**15**]{} (2001) pp. 56-74.
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'betw.bib'
title: Supplementary information
---
**Supplementary Information**\
Betweenness centrality for temporal multiplexes
European flights dataset
========================
The dataset contains all flights passing through ECAC (European Civil Aviation Conference) airspace[^1] on 1 September 2017. We selected scheduled passenger flights (excluding e.g. charter, cargo) departing after 00:00 AM and either departing from or landing at an ECAC airport (and not only passing through the airspace). For each flight, we consider the following information: scheduled departure time, scheduled landing time, airline. For the analysis we selected only a subset of all the airlines present in the dataset. In particular, we considered only the airlines having both a number of flights and of destinations above the average, in order to avoid having a large number of layers with few links. Note that the dataset includes a total of 183 airlines, many of which are extra-EU airlines with few flights and destinations within the ECAC space. With this selection, we retain 19648 flights. Airlines with few flights but that are part of an alliance are still retained in the analysis, because all airlines part of the same alliance form a single layer. This choice reflects the fact that connections within airlines of the same alliance are as favoured as connections within a single airline, therefore no additional ’cost’ needs to be considered.
Effect of the time discretization
=================================
To transform the temporal multiplex $G$ into a static single-layer network $\mathcal{G}$ we need to discretize time in windows of a length $\Delta t$. This is a common approach to treat temporal networks [@Habiba2007; @Kim2012; @Grindrod2011; @Taylor2017; @Tsalouchidou2019; @Zaoli2019], however the length of the temporal window must be chosen carefully so that it does not affect too much the results. Clearly, if the time window is too large with respect to the typical interval between the disappearance of an incoming link to a node and the appearance of an outgoing link from the same node, the real temporal order of links will in some cases not be respected in the static network. Taking the example of the air traffic network, suppose that we take a time window of 30 minutes. Suppose flight A lands at an airport at time $t$, and flight B departs from the same airport at time $t-15 min$. Then, if in the discretization the two times fall in the same window there will be a paths that takes flight A and the flight B in succession, although this is not possible in reality. If we choose $\Delta t<15 min$, instead, this path will not be possible on $\mathcal{G}$. In this example we neglected connecting time, but if we add a minimum connecting time of 30 minutes, obtained by adding 30 minutes to the duration of all flights, with a time window of 30 minutes we can have itineraries with down to no connecting time, while with a time window of 15 minutes we can have down to 15 minutes of connecting time (instead of the desired 30). The smaller $\Delta t$ is, the more precisely $\mathcal{G}$ corresponds to the original temporal network and respects the imposed connecting time, if present. However, diminishing $\Delta t $ increases the number of nodes in $\mathcal{G}$, and therefore the time required to run the algorithm. Therefore, choosing $\Delta t$ is a trade-off between precision of the description and run time.\
In figure \[fig:deltat\] we compare the betweenness centrality obtained in the application to the ECAC air transport network (see main text for detail on the dataset) with different values of $\Delta t$ of 5, 10, 15 and 30 minutes. The airports on the x-axis are ordered according to their centrality with $\Delta t$= 5 min, the y-axis is in log-scale to enhance the differences. We observe that the difference in betweenness centrality are not very large between the different time windows, although they become larger for the less central airports. In particular, note in the left end of the plot a small number of points for which centrality is zero for smaller values of $\Delta t$ (points not appearing in the log-scale plot) but not for larger ones. The obtained rankings are very similar for the most central airports, and differ slightly for the less central ones. The Kendall correlation coefficients of the obtained ranking are 0.97 for the ranking obtained with 5 and 10 minutes, 0.96 for the ranking obtained with 5 and 15 minutes, 0.93 for the ranking obtained with 5 and 30 minutes.\
For the results shown in the main text we used a time window of 15 minutes together with a minimum connecting time of 30 minutes, meaning that in the worst case scenario we consider an itinerary with only 15 minutes of real connecting time. As mentioned above, this choice produces a ranking that is very similar to the one obtained with the finer discretization in 5 minutes windows.
![Comparison between the betweenness centrality obtained with different values of $\Delta t$ of 5, 10, 15 and 30 minutes. The airports on the x-axis are ordered according to their centrality with $\Delta t$= 5 min, the y-axis is in log-scale to enhance the differences. Results were obtained with $\alpha=12/13$, $\varepsilon=0$.[]{data-label="fig:deltat"}](TB_deltat.pdf)
Excluding ‘cloned’ paths from the counting
==========================================
Every path on the static single-layer network $\mathcal{G}$ described in the main text corresponds to a time-ordered path on the temporal multiplex $G$, and its weight corresponds to the length $\mathcal{L}$ of the original path. It is however possible that one path on $G$ has more than one corresponding paths on $\mathcal{G}$, with the same weight. This happens in two cases:\
(i) For inter-layer paths when, between the time-step at which the path arrives in a node $v$ on layer $\lambda$ and the time-step at which it leaves $v$ from layer $\mu$, more than one inter-layer link are available to jump between layers. In fact, in this case alternative paths that correspond in everything but the time-step at which they change layer are possible on $\mathcal{G}$. Only one of these alternative paths should be counted, as they all correspond to the same path on $G$. This is obtained by only finding one shortest path for each pair of nodes in $\mathcal{V}$, instead of all the possible ones (when running Dijkstra’s algorithm). Note that in this way we can still find several shortest paths between each pair of nodes of $V$. Actual shortest paths are neglected with this procedure only if there are two paths of the same length between $(v,t_1,\lambda)$ and $(u,t_2,\mu)$ that actually correspond to two different paths in $G$. However this seems very improbable in trasportation networks for a sufficiently fine time-discretization, as it would mean that two itineraries leave at the same time-step on the same layer to arrive at the same time-step on the same other layer;
\(ii) When $\alpha=1$, i.e. only the topological length of the path is considered. In this case, given a shortest path from $i$ to $j$, a second path obtained waiting an additional time in $i$ before the beginning or in $j$ at the end has the same length. Therefore, for each shortest path between $i$ and $j$ in $G$ several ‘cloned’ ones are found in $\mathcal{G}$ that differ by the waiting times in $i$ and $j$. This problem can be fixed by eliminating, at the beginning and at the end of each shortest path found, the ‘excess’ copies of node $i$ and node $j$ and then removing repeated paths in the shortest paths list.
Note that (i) applies to all value of the parameters, while (ii) only to the case $\alpha=1$. Another case to treat with care is the case in which changes of layer are free, i.e. $\varepsilon=0$. In this case, given a shortest path from $i$ to $j$, a second path that coincides with the first except for some additional changes of layer would weight the same. For example, the two paths $(i, t,\lambda) \rightarrow (j,t', \lambda)$ and $(i, t, \lambda) \rightarrow (j,t', \lambda) \rightarrow (j,t', \eta)$ are counted as two shortest paths of equal length. The solution not to have these cloned paths is simply to build $\mathcal{G}$ without copies of each node for each layer, since when $\varepsilon=0$ the multi-layer structure has no effect on the path length.
Finally, some previous works dealing with shortest paths in temporal networks [@Habiba2007; @Tsalouchidou2019] add to $\mathcal{G}$ dummy nodes, e.g. one outgoing dummy node $i_{out}$ and one incoming dummy node $i_{in}$ for each $i \in V$, such that $i_{out}$ has an outgoing link to all copies of $i$ and $i_{in}$ has an incoming link from all copies of $i$. The weight of all links from and to dummy nodes is zero. The advantage of having dummy nodes is that one only needs to find the shortest paths between the $N\times N$ pairs of dummy nodes instead of the $NTM \times NTM$ pairs. However, with this choice it is not possible anymore to find all shortest paths between a pair $i,j$ without counting also the cloned paths mentioned above. In fact, if we only find one shortest path for each pair of dummy nodes, we neglect potential other paths of the same length that are genuinely different paths in $G$. On the other hand, if we find all shortest paths between a pair (using a modified version of Dijkstra’s algorithm), these will include the cloned paths of (i).
Supplementary figures
=====================
![Jaccard index between the sets of airports with zero-betweenness according to the proposed betweenness centrality and to static betweenness centrality computed on the aggregated network obtained with method (i) (see main text), for different values of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\varepsilon$. The index $J$ is computed as the quotient between the number of elements in the intersection and the number of elements in the union of the two sets. []{data-label="fig:jaccard"}](SupplFig2){width="13"}
![Comparison between the ranking according to the static betweenness on the aggregated network (aggregated with method (i), see main text) and the betweenness proposed here, computed with $\varepsilon=1$ and $\alpha=1$. Compare with Figure 2(b) of the main text. Each dot represents an airport, red dots are airports having $b_{stat}>0$ but $b=0$. The red line is the 1:1 line.[]{data-label="fig:rank"}](SupplFig3.png){width="13"}
![Comparison between the ranking according to the sum of temporal betweenness computed on each single layer ($b(i)=\sum_{\lambda=1}^{32} b_\lambda(i)$ with $b_\lambda(i)$ temporal betweenness of node $i$ on layer $\lambda$) and the betweenness proposed here, computed with $\alpha=12/13$ and $\varepsilon=\infty$. Each dot represents an airport. The red line is the 1:1 line.[]{data-label="fig:ranklayers"}](RANKTBInfvsSumLayer1213.png){width="13"}
![(a) Comparison between the rankings with $\varepsilon=0$ and $\varepsilon=1$ (for $\alpha=12/13$); (b) Comparison between the rankings with $\varepsilon=1$ and $\varepsilon=\infty$ (for $\alpha=12/13$) Each dot represents an airport. The red line is the 1:1 line. []{data-label="fig:rankeps"}](TB0vsTB1andTBInf.png){width="8.6"}
![(a) Correlation between the ranking obtained with the proposed betweenness centrality and with static betweenness centrality computed on the aggregated network obtained with method (ii) (see main text); (b) Jaccard index between the sets of airports with zero-betweenness according to the proposed betweenness centrality and to static betweenness centrality computed on the aggregated network obtained with method (ii) (see main text), for different values of the parameters $\alpha$ and $\varepsilon$. The index $J$ is computed as the quotient between the number of elements in the intersection and the number of elements in the union of the two sets. []{data-label="fig:jaccard"}](SupplFig4_cut.png){width="11"}
[^1]: Countries in the enlarged ECAC space are: Iceland (BI), Kosovo (BK), Belgium (EB), Germany-civil (ED), Estonia (EE), Finland (EF), UK (EG), Netherlands (EH), Ireland (EI), Denmark (EK), Luxembourg (EL), Norway (EN), Poland (EP), Sweden (ES), Germany-military (ET), Latvia (EV), Lithuania (EY), Albania (LA), Bulgaria (LB), Cyprus (LC), Croatia (LD), Spain (LE), France (LF), Greece (LG), Hungary (LH), Italy (LI), Slovenia (LJ), Czech Republic (LK), Malta (LM), Monaco (LN), Austria (LO), Portugal (LP), Bosnia-Herzegovina (LQ), Romania (LR), Switzerland (LS), Turkey (LT), Moldova (LU), Macedonia (LW), Gibraltar (LX), Serbia-Montenegro (LY), Slovakia (LZ), Armenia (UD), Georgia (UG), Ukraine (UK).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We estimate the quantity $\vert f_{\eta''}^{(c)}\vert$ which is associated with the charm content of $\eta''$ meson from the experimentally known ratio $R=B (\psi\to\eta''\gamma )/B (\psi\to\eta_c\gamma )$. It is shown that due to the off-shellness of the $c\bar c$ component of $\eta''$, which has been overlooked so far, $f_{\eta''}^{(c)}$ is further suppressed. Assuming that $\psi\to\eta''\gamma$ decay is dominated by $\psi\to\eta_c$ transition, we obtain $\vert f_{\eta''}^{(c)}\vert \approx 2.4$ MeV which could imply that the $b\to c\bar c s$ mechanism does not play a major role in the $B\to K\eta''$ decay mode.'
address: |
$^a$Department of Applied Mathematics\
University of Western Ontario\
London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada\
$^b$ Department of Physics, Ochanomizu University\
1-1 Otsuka 2, Bunkyo-ku,Tokyo 112-0012, Japan
author:
- 'Mohammad R. Ahmady$^a$ [^1] , Emi Kou$^b$[^2]'
date: March 2000
title: 'A more careful estimate of the charm content of $\eta''$'
---
Various properties of $\eta'$ meson have been at the focus of a lot of theoretical attentions. Recently, a fresh interest in this psuedoscalar particle has arisen due to the measurement of unexpectedly large branching ratios for inclusive $B\to X_s\eta'$ and exclusive $B\to K\eta'$ decay modes by the CLEO collaboration[@s; @b; @bw]. There have been various attempts at explaining these experimental results within or beyond the Standard Model. For example, anomalous coupling of $\eta'$ to two gluons has been used in conjunction with the QCD penguin to reproduce the observed results[@as; @aks]. On the other hand, it has been argued that the possible charm content of $\eta'$ plus the the CKM favored $b\to c\bar cs$ transition could be responsible for the large $\eta'$ production in B meson decays[@hz].
In this work, we investigate whether or not $\eta'$ contains a sizable charm component. The parameter $f_{\eta'}^{(c)}$ which is defined as $$\langle 0\vert\bar c\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 c\vert\eta'(q)\rangle =f_{\eta'}^{(c)}q_\mu\;\; ,$$ is estimated by utilizing the observed value for the ratio $R=B (\psi\to\eta'\gamma )/B (\psi\to\eta_c\gamma )$. For this purpose, one can write the $\eta'$ meson state in terms of its various possible components $$\vert\eta'\rangle =C_1\vert\eta_1\rangle +C_8\vert\eta_8\rangle +C_g\vert gg\rangle +C_c\vert\eta_c\rangle +...\;\; ,$$ where $\vert\eta_1\rangle$ and $\vert\eta_8\rangle$ are flavor $SU(3)$ singlet and octet states, respectively, and $\vert gg\rangle$ represents a glueball state. The last term in Eq. (2) is the $c\bar c$ content of $\eta'$ which should have the same quantum numbers as $\eta_c$. The probability amplitude of finding $\vert\eta'\rangle$ in any of its components is described by the coefficients $C_i$, $i=1,8,g,c$ in Eq. (2). Here an explanation about the inclusion of the gluon and charm components that may appear due to the $U(1)_A$ anomaly, is in order. The role of the strong anomaly in the low energy dynamics of the $\eta'$ meson was established by $^,$t Hooft[@th], Witten[@witten] and Veneziano[@veneziano]. In fact, one can write a low energy effective chiral Lagrangian for the meson field which obeys the anomalous conservation law[@rst; @vv; @na] and where other degrees of freedoms (like glueballs etc.) are integrated out (or equivalently, eliminated by using the equations of motion). Therefore, this effective Lagrangian may be expressed purely in terms of the light meson fields[@miransky] which is useful if we are interested only in $\eta'$ meson. However, to examine various mechanisms in the fast $\eta'$ production in two body B decays, the conventional approach is to write all possible states that mix with this anomalous psuedoscalar meson explicitly. The mixing coefficients, i.e. $C_i$, are in principle related if they are calculated from the underlying dynamics. However, here they are considered as phenomenological parameters to be determined from experimental data.
From Eqs. (1) and (2), to leading order in $1/m_c$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber f_{\eta'}^{(c)}q_\mu &=&C_c\langle 0\vert\bar c\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 c\vert\eta_c(q)\rangle \\
&=& C_cf_{\eta_c}(q^2=m_{\eta'}^2)q_\mu\;\; ,\end{aligned}$$ which results in $$f_{\eta'}^{(c)}=C_cf_{\eta_c}(q^2=m_{\eta'}^2)\;\; .$$ We note that $q$ is the momentum of the physical $\eta'$ meson and hence, $f_{\eta_c}$ should be evaluated far off $\eta_c$ mass-shell as is explicitly shown in Eqs. (3) and (4). This important issue has not been taken into account so far in the estimates of $f_{\eta'}^{(c)}$ and is the main point of the present work. In fact, we show that the off-shellness effect leads to the suppression of $f_{\eta_c}$ and, consequently, a smaller value for $f_{\eta'}^{(c)}$ is obtained.
The value of on-mass-shell $f_{\eta_c}$ is extracted from the two photon decay rate of $\eta_c$ $$\Gamma (\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma )=\frac{4{(4\pi\alpha )}^2f_{\eta_c}^2(m_{\eta_c}^2)}{81\pi m_{\eta_c}}\;\; .$$ Using the measured decay width $\Gamma (\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma )=7.5^{+1.6}_{-1.4}$ KeV[@pdg] results in an estimate of $f_{\eta_c}(m_{\eta_c}^2)=411$ MeV where $m_{\eta_c}^2$ in the parentheses is to emphasize that the obtained number is for on-mass-shell $\eta_c$. However, as it is pointed out in Ref. [@aks2], a model calculation of $\eta_c$-photon-photon coupling reveals a drastic suppression of the $\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma$ transition form factor $g(q^2)$ when $q^2$ is small compared to its on-shell value, i.e. $q^2\ll m_{\eta_c}^2$. In this model, the two photon decay of $\eta_c$ proceeds via a triangle quark loop which is illustrated in Fig. 1. The corresponding expression can be written in the following form $$T^{\mu\nu}(\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma )=Ng(q^2)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p_{1\alpha}p_{2\beta} \;\; ,$$ where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the four-momenta of the photons and $q=p_1+p_2$. The form factor $g(q^2)$ is obtained from the quark loop calculation: $$g(q^2)\begin{array}[t]{l}\displaystyle = \int^1_0dx\int_0^{1-x}dy\frac{1}{m_c^2-q^2xy} \\
=\left \{ { \begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle\frac{-2}{q^2}Arcsin^2\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4m_c^2}}\;\;\; 0\le q^2\le 4m_c^2 \\
\displaystyle\frac{2}{q^2}{\left [ Ln\left (\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4m_c^2}}+\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4m_c^2}-1}\right )-\frac{I\pi}{2}\right ]}^2 \;\;\; 4m_c^2\le q^2\end{array}}\right . \;\; ,
\end{array}$$ where $m_c$ is the charm quark mass. In Fig. 2, the variation of $g(q^2)/g(m_{\eta_c}^2)$ in the range $m_{\eta'}^2\le q^2\le m_{\eta_c}^2$ is depicted. We observe that for $q\approx m_{\eta'}^2$, the form factor suppression is quite substantial. In writing Eq. (6), the constants are all swept into the factor $N$ which can be obtained using the requirement that for $q^2=m_{\eta_c}^2$ Eq. (6) should yield the experimentally measured decay rate $\Gamma (\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma )$. Consequently, we obtain the following form for the $\eta_c$-$\gamma\gamma$ transition amplitude: $$\displaystyle
A(\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma)= \frac{16i\sqrt{m_{\eta_c}\Gamma (\eta_c\to\gamma\gamma )}}{\pi^{3/2}}g(q^2)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon_\mu (p_1)\epsilon_\nu (p_2)p_{1\alpha}p_{2\beta}\;\; .$$ $\epsilon (p_i)$ is the polarization of the photon with momentum $p_i$ and we assumed weak binding for charmonium, i.e. $m_{\eta_c}\approx 2m_c$. Eqs. (5) and (8) lead to the following result $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber f_{\eta_c}(q^2=m_{\eta'}^2)&=&\displaystyle\frac{g(m_{\eta'}^2)}{g(m_{\eta_c}^2)}f_{\eta_c}(m_{\eta_c}^2) \\
&=&\displaystyle\frac{m_{\eta_c}^2}{m_{\eta'}^2}\frac{{Arcsin}^2\sqrt{\frac{m_{\eta'}^2}{m_{\eta_c}^2}}}{{(\frac{\pi}{2})}^2}f_{\eta_c}(m_{\eta_c}^2)\;\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where the last term is obtained by using Eq. (7). As a result, we observe that $f_{\eta_c}$ on $\eta'$ mass-shell $$f_{\eta_c}(q^2=m_{\eta'}^2)\approx 0.42f_{\eta_c}(m_{\eta_c}^2)\approx 172 \;{\rm MeV}\;\; ,$$ is reduced to less than 50% of its value for on-mass-shell $\eta_c$.
To proceed with the numerical estimate of $f_{\eta'}^{(c)}$ via Eq. (4), we use the branching ratios $B(\psi\to\eta'\gamma )=(4.31\pm 0.30)\times 10^{-3}$ and $B(\psi\to\eta_c\gamma )=(1.3\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-2}$ which are experimentally known[@pdg]. Assuming that the former decay mode dominantly occurs through $\psi$ transition to the $\eta_c$ component of $\eta'$ results in $$R=\frac{B(\psi\to\eta'\gamma )}{B(\psi\to\eta_c\gamma )}=C_c^2\frac{{(m_\psi^2-m_{\eta'}^2)}^3}{{(m_\psi^2-m_{\eta_c}^2)}^3}\;\; .$$ We evaluate $C_c$ by inserting the central value of the branching ratios in Eq. (11) which yields $$\vert C_c\vert =0.014\;\; ,$$ and consequently, leads to our estimate for $\vert f_{\eta'}^{(c)}\vert$ $$\vert f_{\eta'}^{(c)}\vert \approx 2.4\; {\rm MeV}\;\; .$$ We note that the stringent bound in Eq. (12) is considerably lower than the estimated range of (50-180) MeV for $f_{\eta'}^{(c)}$ in Refs. [@hz] and [@sz].[^3] The value of $\vert f_{\eta'}^{(c)}\vert$ obtained by us is less than half of the estimates in Refs. [@ag] and [@fk] due to the fact that the off-shellness effect of the $c\bar c$ component of $\eta'$ has been taken into account in our evaluations. At the same time, the estimate given in Eq. (12) is within the range $-65\; {\rm MeV}\le f_{\eta'}^{(c)}\le 15\; {\rm MeV}$ presented in Ref. [@fk2] based on an analysis of the transition form factor data which is also consistent with $f_{\eta'}^{(c)}=0$.
In conclusion, we estimated the parameter $f_{\eta'}^{(c)}$, which is related to the charm content of $\eta'$, by using experimental inputs and considering the fact the pseudoscalar $c\bar c$ component of $\eta'$ is highly off mass-shell. Our stringent bound could imply that the decay mode $B\to K\eta'$ does not receive significant contribution from $b\to c\bar cs$ transition.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}\
We would like to thank V. A. Miransky and V. Elias for useful discussions. M. A. acknowledges support from the Science and Technology Agency of Japan. E. K. acknowledges support from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science.
J. G. Smith, preprint COLO-HEP-395 (1998), hep-ex/9803028.
B. H. Behrens et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 3710 (1998).
T. E. Browder et al. (CLEO Collaboration), preprint CLNS 98/1544, CLEO 98-4, hep-ex/9804018.
D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B [**405**]{}, 150 (1997).
M. R. Ahmady, E. Kou and A. Sugamoto, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 014015 (1998).
I. Halperin and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 438 (1998); Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 7247 (1997).
G. $^,$t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{}, 8 (1976).
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B [**156**]{}, 269 (1979).
G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B [**159**]{}, 213 (1979).
C. Rosenzweig, J. Schechter and C. G. Trahern, Phys. Rev. D [**21**]{} 3388 (1980).
P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B [**171**]{}, 253 (1980).
P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Nucl. Phys. B [**209**]{}, 234 (1982).
For a brief insight see V. A. Miransky, [*Dynamical symmetry breaking in quantum field theories*]{} (World Scientific, 1993) section 12.12.
Particle Data Group, C. Caso et al., Eur. Phys. J. C [**3**]{}, 1 (1998).
M. R. Ahmady, E. Kou and A. Sugamoto, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 1997 (1998).
E. V. Shuryak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 2001 (1998).
A. Ali and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 2996 (1998).
T. Feldmann, P. Kroll and B. Stech, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 114006 (1998).
T. Feldmann and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C [**5**]{}, 327 (1998).
M. Franz, P. V. Pobylitsa, M. V. Polyakov and K. Goeke, hep-ph/9810343.
F. Araki, M. Musakhanov and H. Toki, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 037501 (1999).
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Email: [email protected]
[^3]: Some recent estimates along the same line point to smaller results[@fppg; @amt]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the effects of modifying the expansions history of the Universe on Dark Matter freezeout. We derived a modified Boltzmann equation for freeze-out for an arbitrary energy density in the early Universe and provide an analytic approach using some approximations. We then look at the required thermally averaged cross sections needed to obtain the correct relic density for the specific case where the energy density consists of radiation plus one extra component which cools faster. We compare our analytic approximation to a numerical solutions. We find that it gives reasonable results for most of the parameter space explored, being at most a factor of order one away from the measured value. We find that if the new contribution to the energy density is comparable to the radiation density, then a much smaller cross section for Dark Matter annihilation is required. This would lead to weak scale Dark Matter being much more difficult to detect and opens up the possibility that much heavier Dark Matter could undergo freezeout without violating perturbative unitarity.'
author:
- Alexandre Poulin
title: Dark Matter freezeout in modified cosmological scenarios
---
Introduction
============
Dark Matter is still one of the biggest unsolved puzzles in modern physics. It continues to escape detection in both direct and indirect detection experiments while collider experiments have yet to be able to identify a statistically significant Dark Matter signal. If one wishes to construct a particle physics model which can explain Dark Matter, then they must ensure that its interactions are quite weak to avoid all these constraints. For recent reviews on the topic of Dark Matter, see [@Bertone:2004pz; @Feng:2010gw; @Gelmini:2015zpa; @Roszkowski:2017nbc; @Arcadi:2017kky; @Battaglieri:2017aum]
One measurement we do have is the Dark Matter relic density, $\Omega_{CDM}h^2=0.120\pm 0.001$ [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. This measurement has been a key part of model building as a robust model must be able to explain this observation with some production mechanism. A popular production mechanism that has been studied is freeze-out. In this scenario, the Dark Matter starts in thermal equilibrium with the Standard Model at an early time but eventually decouples once the rate of the reactions maintaining chemical equilibrium become comparable to the expansion rate of the universe [@Bertone:2004pz; @Feng:2010gw; @Gelmini:2015zpa; @Roszkowski:2017nbc; @Arcadi:2017kky; @Battaglieri:2017aum; @Kolb:1990vq]. This is the usual mechanism used for Weakly Interacting Dark Matter (WIMPs) models [@Bertone:2004pz; @Feng:2010gw; @Gelmini:2015zpa; @Roszkowski:2017nbc; @Arcadi:2017kky; @Battaglieri:2017aum; @Kolb:1990vq].
Ensuring that freezeout produces the right amount of Dark Matter can fix some of the couplings in a model. This can lead to a model of Dark Matter being ruled out if the required couplings are too big to simultaneously avoid experimental bounds while producing enough Dark Matter. This has led to models which add more free parameters such as additional interactions between the Dark sector and the Standard Model, including multiple stable Dark Matter species, or considering a different production mechanisms all together.
However, WIMPs are very popular because of the so-called WIMP miracle where one could achieve the correct relic density through freeze-out with weak scale masses and couplings. Many extensions to the Standard Model naturally or can easily accommodate a WIMP like particle. Because of this, it is important to understand how freezeout works and how modifications to the standard cosmological picture could modify the freeze-out results.
In the standard model of cosmology, freezeout occurs during the radiation dominated era. However, because we do not have any observations before Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), we cannot say for sure what the expansion history of the universe was before BBN. Namely, we cannot exclude the possibility of an additional contribution to the energy density that cools at a faster rate than radiation. This can come about from alternative cosmological models like alternative Dark Energy models [@Linder:2002et; @vonMarttens:2018iav], anisotropic expansion [@Barrow:1982ei; @Kamionkowski:1990ni], brane world cosmology [@Stoica:2000ws; @Okada:2004nc; @AbouElDahab:2006glf; @Guo:2009nt; @Iminniyaz:2015wva], some inflaton models [@Arbey:2008kv; @Arbey:2011gu; @Bastero-Gil:2015lga], some quintessence models [@Salati:2002md; @Rosati:2003cu; @Profumo:2003hq; @Pallis:2005hm; @Iminniyaz:2013cla], or scalar-tensor gravity [@Catena:2004ba; @Catena:2006bd]. There has also been work on early matter dominated eras which decay away [@Bernal:2018ins; @Bernal:2018kcw; @Hamdan:2017psw; @Hardy:2018bph]. All these models have a different expansion rate from the standard $\Lambda_{\rm CMD}$ model and some previous work has been done to understand the physics in these scenarios [@DEramo:2017gpl; @DEramo:2017ecx; @Maldonado:2019qmp; @Iminniyaz:2018das].
In this work, we develop a general freeze-out equation that can be used for any modified expansion rate and includes the effects of changes in entropy density. In section \[sec:derivation\], we go through the derivation of the changes to the Boltzmann equations. In section \[sec:Analytic\], we take an analytic approach to obtain a simple way to approximate the relic density. In section \[sec:numAna\], we look at numerical results from solving the modified Boltzmann equations for the case of a simple change to the energy density and compare these results to our approximations. Finally, in section \[sec:conclusions\], we summarize our conclusions.
Derivation of the Modifications to the Boltzmann equation {#sec:derivation}
=========================================================
In this section, we derive changes to the Boltzmann equation based on modification to the Hubble Parameter. Many of the definitions and approximations are the same as those of Kolb and Turner [@Kolb:1990vq], namely CP conservation of the matrix elements, no Fermi degeneracy, no Bose-Einstein condensates, and that the temperature of the Dark Matter will be the same the photon temperature until after freeze-out.
Single effective component
--------------------------
In this section, we will derive the Boltzmann equation for a general energy density $\rho(T)$ where $T$ is the photon temperature. We will also use the equation of state $p(T)=w(T)\rho(T)$ which relates the energy density to the pressure $p(T)$. It will be important to not consider $w(T)$ as simply a constant for this treatment. This energy density can be any well-behaved function of temperature. We start with the Friedman equation: $$\begin{aligned}
H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho(T), \label{eq:FriedmanSingle}\end{aligned}$$ where $G$ is Newton’s constant. To take the expansion of the universe into account, it is typical to use the entropy density as a fiducial quantity. It is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
s=\frac{\rho+p}{T}=\frac{\rho(1+w)}{T}. \label{eq:s}\end{aligned}$$ We will assume that the there is no entropy injection during freezeout so that the entropy per comoving volume $S$ is conserved. This results in in $s\propto a^{-3}$ where $a$ is the scale factor, which gives $\dot{s}=-3Hs$.
We now introduce the dimensionless quantity $x=m/T$ where $m$ is some appropriate mass scale, typically the mass of the Dark Matter species. It will be important to find an expression for $\dot{x}$. This can be done by looking at $\dot{s}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{s}&=\frac{\dot{x}}{m}\left(\rho(1+w)+x(1+w)\frac{d\rho}{dx}+x\rho\frac{dw}{dx}\right),\label{eq:sdot}\\
\dot{x}&=-3xH\left(1+\frac{d\log\rho}{d\log x}+\frac{d\log(1+w)}{d\log x}\right)^{-1}. \label{eq:xdot}\end{aligned}$$
The usual Boltzmann equation for a single species is written as [@Kolb:1990vq]: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{n}+3Hn=&-\langle\sigma v \rangle \left(n^2-n^2_{\rm eq}\right)\label{eq:boltz},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the number density, $\langle\sigma v \rangle$ is the thermally-averaged DM annihilation cross-section times velocity, and $n_{\rm eq}$ is the equilibrium number density given by [^1] : $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\rm eq}=\frac{gm^2T}{2\pi^2}K_2\left(\frac{m}{T}\right)\approx g\left(\frac{mT}{2\pi}\right)^{3/2}e^{-m/T}, \label{eq:neq}\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the number of internal degrees of freedom, $m$ is the particles mass, and $K_2$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind. The approximation is valid for large $x$ or small $T$. [^2]
We now make the substitutions $$\begin{aligned}
Y=&\frac{n}{s},\\
Y_{\rm eq}=&\frac{n_{\rm eq}}{s}.\end{aligned}$$ The derivative of $Y$ with respect to time is: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{Y}=&\frac{\dot{n}}{s}-\frac{n}{s^2}\dot{s},\\
s\dot{x}\frac{dY}{dx}=&\dot{n}+3nH, \label{eq:ydot}\end{aligned}$$ where we used $\dot{s}=-3Hs$. Combining Eq. \[eq:xdot\], \[eq:boltz\], and \[eq:ydot\], we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dY}{dx}=&-\frac{s}{\dot{x}}\langle\sigma v \rangle \left(Y^2-Y^2_{\rm eq}\right),\label{eq:generalSimple}\\
\frac{dY}{dx}=&\left(\frac{\rho}{24\pi m^2 G}\right)^{1/2}(1+w)\left(1+\frac{d\log\rho}{d\log x}+\frac{d\log(1+w)}{d\log x}\right)\langle\sigma v \rangle \left(Y^2-Y^2_{\rm eq}\right). \label{eq:general}\end{aligned}$$
Eq. \[eq:general\] can be used for any function of $\rho$ and $w$. It is currently written for the case of a single Dark Matter species, but extending it to the case of multiple Dark Matter species is straight forward. See [@DHT2018; @Poulin:2018kap] for more details on the multi-species case.
Multiple energy densities
-------------------------
Equation \[eq:general\] is valid for any initial $\rho(T)$. However, in the case where one simply adds an extra contribution to the energy density, we can write the energy density as multiple contributing energy densities which is not only simpler than treating $w$ as a function of temperature, but also makes the equation clearer. In this section, we look at the case where we can write $\rho=\sum_i \rho_i$ with $p_i=w_i\rho_i$ with $w_i$ all constant. Following the same steps used to obtain Eq. \[eq:xdot\], we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{s}{\dot{x}}&=-\frac{1}{3mH}\sum_i\rho_i(1+w_i)\left(1+\frac{d\log\rho_i}{d\log x}\right).\label{eq:sbyxdotComp}\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eq \[eq:boltz\], \[eq:ydot\], and \[eq:sbyxdotComp\], we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dY}{dx}=&\left(\frac{1}{24\pi m^2 G(\sum_i\rho_i)}\right)^{1/2}\left(\sum_i\rho_i(1+w_i)\left(1+\frac{d\log\rho_i}{d\log x}\right)\right)\langle\sigma v \rangle \left(Y^2-Y^2_{\rm eq}\right). \label{eq:generalComp}\end{aligned}$$
The radiation energy density in the early universe is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_r=g_*(x)\frac{\pi^2}{30}\left(\frac{m}{x}\right)^4, \label{eq:rhor}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_*(x)$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom. If we set $\rho=\rho_r$ in Eq \[eq:generalComp\], we obtain the usual result $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dY}{dx}=&-\left(\frac{\pi g_*(x)}{45 G }\right)^{1/2}\left(1-\frac{1}{3}\frac{d\log g_*}{d\log x}\right)\frac{m\langle\sigma v \rangle}{x^2} \left(Y^2-Y^2_{\rm eq}\right).\label{eq:radOnly}\end{aligned}$$ The $\frac{d\log g_*}{d\log x}$ term is usually ignored because it is small, but we include it in our analysis for completeness.
As a final example, we follow the example from [@Iminniyaz:2018das]. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\rho=\rho_r+\rho_D \left(\frac{T}{T_0}\right)^{n_D}=\rho_r\left(1+\frac{g_*(x_0)}{g_*(x)}\eta\left(\frac{x_0}{x}\right)^{n_D-4}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_D$, $n_D>4$, and $\eta=\frac{\rho_D(T_0)}{\rho_r(T_0)}$ are all constants, $T_0$ is some constant reference temperature and $x_0=m/T_0$. In our analysis, we will assume that $p_D=w_D\rho_D$ with $3(1+w_D)=n_D$. Putting this into a similar form as Eq. \[eq:radOnly\] which only included radiation, we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dY}{dx}=&-\left(\frac{\pi g_*(x)}{45 G \left(1+\frac{g_*(x_0)}{g_*(x)}\eta\left(\frac{x_0}{x}\right)^{n_D-4}\right)}\right)^{1/2}\left[1-\frac{1}{3}\frac{d\log g_*}{d\log x}+\frac{n_D(n_D-1)}{12}\frac{g_*(x_0)}{g_*(x)}\eta\left(\frac{x_0}{x}\right)^{n_D-4}\right]\frac{m\langle\sigma v \rangle}{x^2} \left(Y^2-Y^2_{\rm eq}\right). \label{eq:singleCase}\end{aligned}$$
The terms in the square bracket are often neglected because in the radiation dominated case, it is approximately 1. However, if $\rho_D$ dominates resulting in a large value of $\eta$, then it is clear that this term becomes an important contribution.
Analytic Solutions {#sec:Analytic}
==================
In this section, we take an analytic approach to solving equation \[eq:general\] in terms of $\rho$ and $w$. We start by defining $\Delta=Y-Y_{\rm eq}$ and combine it with Eq. \[eq:generalSimple\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Delta}{dx}=-\frac{dY_{\rm eq}}{dx}-\frac{s}{\dot{x}}\langle\sigma v\rangle\Delta\left(\Delta+2 Y_{\rm eq}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For small values of $x$, $\Delta$ and $\frac{d\Delta}{dx}$ are small as $Y$ tracks $Y_{\rm eq}$ closely. Using these approximations, as well as equations \[eq:sdot\] and \[eq:neq\], solving for $\Delta$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta=\frac{1}{s\langle\sigma v\rangle\left(\frac{\Delta}{Y_{\rm eq}}+2\right)}\left(\dot{x}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\dot{x}}{x}-3H\right).\end{aligned}$$ The criterion for freezeout is given by $\Delta(x_f)=cY_{\rm eq}$ for some $c$. This $c$ will define the freezeout temperature, the point at which we change from the high temperature limit solution to the low temperature limit solution. We give more details about the choice of $c$ in section \[sec:numAna\] where we choose $c$ to best fit the numerical results. Using the early time solution, we can obtain an implicit equation for $x_f$: $$\begin{aligned}
cn_{\rm eq}(x_f)=\frac{1}{(c+2)\langle\sigma v\rangle}\left(\dot{x}|_{x=x_f}+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\dot{x}|_{x=x_f}}{x_f}-3H(x_f)\right), \label{eq:findXf}\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is given in Eq \[eq:FriedmanSingle\], $\dot{x}$ is given in Eq \[eq:xdot\], and $n_{\rm eq}$ is given in Eq \[eq:neq\]. Without knowing the functional forms of $\rho$ and $w$, this is as far as we can go in general. Even if Eq. \[eq:findXf\] is a complicated function, it can always be solved numerically for a value of $x_f$ much quicker than solving \[eq:general\].
Once $x_f$ is found, we can look at $\ref{eq:generalSimple}$ in the large $x$ case where $Y\approx \Delta$ and $Y_{\rm eq}\approx 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Delta}{dx}=-\frac{s}{\dot{x}}\langle\sigma v\rangle \Delta^2.\end{aligned}$$ Integrating from $x=x_f$ to $x\rightarrow\infty$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
Y(x\rightarrow \infty)=\left(\left(cY_{\rm eq}(x_f)\right)^{-1}+\int_{x_f}^{\infty} \frac{s}{\dot{x}}\langle\sigma v\rangle dx\right)^{-1}, \label{eq:yinfty1}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_{\rm eq}=n_{\rm eq}/s$, $s$ is given in Eq \[eq:s\], $\dot{x}$ is given in Eq \[eq:xdot\], and $n_{\rm eq}$ is given in Eq \[eq:neq\]. It is convenient to neglect the contribution from $\left(cY_{\rm eq}(x_f)\right)^{-1}$ as doing so ensures that $Y(x\rightarrow \infty)$ is a strictly increasing function of $c$. Not ignoring this term can lead to numerical issues such as having two values for $c$ orders of magnitude apart which give the correct relic density, or there being no values of $c$ which give the correct relic density. This gives: $$\begin{aligned}
Y(x\rightarrow \infty)=\left(\int_{x_f}^{\infty} \frac{s}{\dot{x}}\langle\sigma v\rangle dx\right)^{-1}, \label{eq:yinfty}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. \[eq:yinfty\], we can find the final relic density: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega h^2=\frac{m s_0 Y(x\rightarrow \infty)h^2}{\rho_C},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
s_0=2970\ \mbox{cm}^{-3},\end{aligned}$$ is the entropy density today and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_C =\frac{3 H_0^2}{8\pi G}\approx \left(1.054\times 10^{-5} \frac{\mbox{GeV}}{\mbox{cm}^3}\right)h^{2},\end{aligned}$$ is the critical energy density today. Here, $H_0$ denotes the value of the Hubble parameter today and is usually given by $H_0=100h \mbox{ km}/\mbox{s}/\mbox{Mpc}\approx 70\mbox{ km}/\mbox{s}/\mbox{Mpc}$ [@Kolb:1990vq].
Numerical Analysis {#sec:numAna}
==================
Solving the Boltzmann equation numerically
------------------------------------------
In this section, we will investigate numerical solutions to equation \[eq:general\]. To do so, we will assume that the Dark Matter is composed of scalars and that the thermally averaged cross section is approximately constant with $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \sigma v \rangle = \sigma_0.\end{aligned}$$ We will assume that the Dark Matter was in thermal equilibrium with the Standard Model well before it froze out. [^3]
The parameters that we are interested in varying are the mass of the Dark Matter ($m$), the value of $\eta$, and the thermally averaged cross section $\sigma_0$, as well as investigating the cases of $n_D=6,8$. The $n_D=6$ scenario corresponds to some quintessence models with a kination phase while the $n_D=8$ corresponds to brane world cosmology or some late inflaton decay models [@Iminniyaz:2018das]. We are not interested in changing $x_0$ because any such change can be absorbed into a change in $\eta$. For this numerical analysis, we took $x_0=25$.
$%\hspace*{-0.6cm}
\includegraphics[scale=0.20,keepaspectratio=true]{./sigVsM.png}
$
-0.1in
In figure \[fig:sigVsM\], we show the required thermally averaged cross section to obtain the observed relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.120$ for various values of $\eta$. First, we should comment on the shape of the $\eta=0$ curve, namely why it starts by increasing, followed by a sharp decrease, followed by another increase. It should be noted that the typical value of $x$ for freeze-out is in the range $x=10$ to $x=30$, so the important temperatures to consider are on the order of $m/10$. Since $\Omega_{\rm CDM}\sim mn$ where $m$ is the Dark matter mass and $n$ is the Dark Matter number density, we see that the general trend for increasing the mass should be to decrease the number density $n$ by increasing the thermally averaged cross section. In the low mass and high mass regimes, this is what happens since $g_*(x)$ does not change significantly for the important values of $x$. However, around $m=50$ to $m=200$ GeV, the Dark Matter is freezing out around the same time as the QCD phase transition, resulting in a rapidly changing $g_*(x)$. The increased numbers of degrees of freedom as we increase the mass results in requiring a decrease in the thermally averaged cross section to obtain the correct relic density. The derivative term $\frac{1}{3}\frac{d\log g_*}{d\log x}$ is small at all temperatures and does not significantly influence the above trends. Although it is usually ignored, we include it in our analysis.
As expected from equation \[eq:general\], we see from figure \[fig:sigVsM\] that increasing the value of $\eta$ results in requiring a smaller thermally averaged cross section. Even modest values of $\eta$ can have large effects on this value. We also see that the $n_D=8$ case always results in needing a smaller thermally averaged cross section.
![ The required thermally averaged cross section as a function of $\eta$ to obtain the correct relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.120$. The top figure is for $n_D=6$ while the bottom figure is for $n_D=8$. The various colors black, red, orange, brown, green, blue, and purple represent masses from $10^{-3}-10^3$ GeV by increments of an order of magnitude, respectively. []{data-label="fig:sigVsEta"}](./sigVseta6.pdf "fig:") ![ The required thermally averaged cross section as a function of $\eta$ to obtain the correct relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.120$. The top figure is for $n_D=6$ while the bottom figure is for $n_D=8$. The various colors black, red, orange, brown, green, blue, and purple represent masses from $10^{-3}-10^3$ GeV by increments of an order of magnitude, respectively. []{data-label="fig:sigVsEta"}](./sigVseta8.pdf "fig:")
-0.1in
In figure \[fig:sigVsEta\], we show the required thermally averaged cross section as a function of $\eta$ to obtain the correct relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.120$ for various masses. One thing to notice is that the masses do not follow any nice pattern in terms of where they start off for low $\eta$. This is understood by imagining picking points from the $\eta=0$ curve in figure \[fig:sigVsM\] at various masses and projecting them onto the $\sigma_0$ axis. Because of the irregular shape of the curve, the starting points for the masses will also be irregular.
![ The thermally averaged cross section required to obtain the correct relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.120$ as a function of mass and $\eta$. The top figure represents $n_D=6$ while the bottom figure represents $n_D=8$. The scale represents $\log_{10}\sigma_0$. []{data-label="fig:mVsEta"}](./mVseta6.pdf "fig:") ![ The thermally averaged cross section required to obtain the correct relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.120$ as a function of mass and $\eta$. The top figure represents $n_D=6$ while the bottom figure represents $n_D=8$. The scale represents $\log_{10}\sigma_0$. []{data-label="fig:mVsEta"}](./mVseta8.pdf "fig:")
-0.1in
![ The ratio of the thermally averaged cross section of the $n_D=6$ and $n_D=8$ cases required to obtain the correct relic density $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.120$ as a function of mass and $\eta$. $\sigma_0^{(6)}$ represents the cross section for $n_D=6$ while $\sigma_0^{(8)}$ represents the cross section for $n_D=8$. []{data-label="fig:mVsEtaRat"}](./mVsetaRatio.pdf)
-0.1in
One thing we do see is that at very small $\eta$, there is no effect as expected, but at around $\eta=0.1$ for $n_D=6$ and $\eta=0.01$ for $n_D=8$, the effects of the modified expansion start to be seen. Between $\eta=0.1$ and $\eta=10$ for both cases, we see that the required thermally averaged cross section starts to decreases according to a power law. From equation \[eq:singleCase\], we can deduce that this power law will have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_0\propto\eta^{-1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[fig:sigVsM\] and \[fig:sigVsEta\] give us an idea of how the cross section needs to change to get the correct relic density. In figure \[fig:mVsEta\], we show a full map which includes both effects. The various colors represent the value of $\log_{10}\sigma_0$. Here, we see that the cross section gets much smaller as $\eta$ increases and does not differ much as the mass increases. At first glance, it may be difficult to see any obvious differences between the $n_D=6$ case on the top and the $n_D=8$ case on the bottom. In figure \[fig:mVsEtaRat\], we plot the ratio $\sigma_0^{(6)}/\sigma_0^{(8)}$ where the superscript indicates the value of $n_D$. This shows us that the differences are more important at low mass and only differs by a factor of order 1.
At this point it should be noted that if the cross section required to obtain the correct relic density becomes too small, then it will bring the thermal equilibrium assumption into question. Although we do not worry about that in our case, if one was to consider much larger values of $\eta$, one would need to keep this in mind. Furthermore, our analysis will only hold if there is no entropy injection at the end of the new cosmological era defined by the dominance of the new energy density. If instead of a rapidly cooling energy density with $n_D>4$ we choose, for example, a new matter dominated era with $n_D=3$, the new energy density would need to decay away which would create an entropy injection diluting the DM. Further details about these scenarios can be found in [@Bernal:2018ins; @Bernal:2018kcw; @Hamdan:2017psw; @Hardy:2018bph].
Comparison with analytic approach
---------------------------------
When deriving the analytic approach in section \[sec:Analytic\], the value of $c$ was ambiguous. The standard lore suggests that if $\langle \sigma v\rangle \approx \sigma_0 x^{-n}$ for $x\gtrsim 3$, then one should choose $c$ such that $c(c+2)=n+1$ [@Kolb:1990vq]. The value of $n$ is related to the velocity dependence of the cross section and, in practice, accounts for how fast the Dark Matter freezes out after it is out of equilibrium. The larger the value of $n$, the faster the species freezes out. Although we are taking $n=0$ in our s-wave approximations, the effect of the extra energy density gives the equation a term which looks like $n=n_D/2-2$. Depending on the value of $\eta$, this term will change what we should choose for $c$ to a point that it is not clear what should be chosen.
We found that if we make fewer simplifications while using this approach, such as using Eq. \[eq:findXf\] to find $x_f$ and Eq. \[eq:yinfty\] to find $Y(x\rightarrow \infty)$ without neglecting terms, we need much different values of $c$ from the typical $c(c+2)=n+1$ to obtain the same relic density. See figure \[fig:cVals\] for the values of $c$ needed to obtain the correct relic density using the cross section values obtained in figure \[fig:mVsEta\]. We see that the value of $c$ changes drastically when we change $\eta$ but does not change much as the mass changes. Using this information, we can fit for $c$ to obtain the simple approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
c\approx \begin{cases}
0.0165m^{-0.219}\eta^{0.688} & \mbox{ for } n_D=6, \\
0.0658m^{-0.233}\eta^{0.774} & \mbox{ for } n_D=8.
\end{cases}\label{eq:cfunc}\end{aligned}$$ Using this approximation, we can calculate the relic density and see how it compares to the actual value. In figure \[fig:dOmega\], we plot $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \Omega h^2=\Omega_{\rm approx}h^2-0.120.\end{aligned}$$
![ The value of $c$ needed to obtained the correct relic density using the cross section values from figure \[fig:mVsEta\]. The top plot has $n_D=6$ and the bottom plot has $n_D=8$. Plotted is the value of $\log_{10} c$. []{data-label="fig:cVals"}](./c6.pdf "fig:") ![ The value of $c$ needed to obtained the correct relic density using the cross section values from figure \[fig:mVsEta\]. The top plot has $n_D=6$ and the bottom plot has $n_D=8$. Plotted is the value of $\log_{10} c$. []{data-label="fig:cVals"}](./c8.pdf "fig:")
-0.1in
![ The difference in the obtained relic density using the values of $c$ from Eq \[eq:cfunc\] and the observed relic density. The top plot has $n_D=6$ and the bottom plot has $n_D=8$. []{data-label="fig:dOmega"}](./dOmega6.pdf "fig:") ![ The difference in the obtained relic density using the values of $c$ from Eq \[eq:cfunc\] and the observed relic density. The top plot has $n_D=6$ and the bottom plot has $n_D=8$. []{data-label="fig:dOmega"}](./dOmega8.pdf "fig:")
-0.1in
This approach works well for most of the parameter space explored but can be off by a factor of order one in some places. In particular at low $\eta$ and low mass, the analytic approximation tends to be too small while at high eta and low mass, the result $n_D=8$ tends to be too large. This does allow one to have the correct order of magnitude for the relic density which, depending on the purpose, can be good enough. In the range considered, the biggest deviations in the $n_D=6$ case were $\Omega h^2=0.0715$ on the low end and $\Omega h^2=0.161$ on the high end. For the $n_D=8$ case, the biggest deviations were $\Omega h^2=0.0812$ on the low end and $\Omega h^2=0.255$ on the high end.
One may be concerned about the large range of $c$ obtained and the validity of the approximations made in section \[sec:Analytic\]. Recall that in the small $x$ regime, we assumed that $\Delta=Y-Y_{\rm eq}$ was small compared to $Y_{\rm eq}$ and for large $x$, we assume that $Y_{\rm eq}$ is much smaller than $\Delta$. Inevitably, when we go from one to the other, the assumption will break down and both values will be comparable. Where to choose this point becomes a question of what best fits the data.
Summary and Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
In this work, we derived a general Boltzmann equation which can be used for any modified expansion history of the universe. This was done by characterizing the energy density as a general function and letting $w$ from the equation of state vary with temperature. We then looked at the specific example where we could write the energy density as a sum of components where all the values of $w$ from the equations of state for each component were constant. Finally, we looked at the case of a single extra energy density component parameterized by how fast it cools, $n_D$, and how abundant it was compared to radiation, $\eta$. Using these results, we found an analytic approach to approximating the relic density.
We then solved the modified Boltzmann equation for this last case to compare the effects to the standard picture. We found that for $n_D=6$ and $n_D=8$, the required cross section to obtain the measured relic does not changes significantly for $\eta\lesssim 10^{-1}$ and follows a power law for $\eta\gtrsim 10$ with some transition region between them. Importantly, a larger value of $\eta$ required a smaller cross section. This is quite simple to understand if we were to imagine what the expansion history of the universe would be if we ignored radiation. In this hypothetical situation, the scale factor would go as $a\propto t^{2/n_D}$, which gives a Hubble expansion rate of $H=2 t/n_D$, meaning that at the same temperature, the universe would be expanding slower than the radiation dominated case where $H=t/2$. Because of this, it takes more time for the rate of expansion to be comparable to the rate of the reaction keeping the Dark Matter in equilibrium, so freezeout would occur later. A smaller cross section for the equilibrium reaction, which normally results in the Dark Matter freezing out earlier, is required to balance this effect.
We also showed that in the $n_D=8$ case, the cross section needed is comparable to the $n_D=6$ case. The only significant difference being in the low mass, high $\eta$ case where they start to differ by a factor of order 1.
This result has some important consequences for model building and Dark Matter detection. If one of these modified cosmological scenarios occurred in our Universe and Dark Matter went through freezeout, then it may well be the case that at weak scale masses, the cross sections are orders of magnitude smaller than current bounds. However, this opens the possibility that heavier Dark Matter particles underwent freezeout. The bound of the mass of Dark Matter undergoing freezeout is about $100$ TeV from perturbative unitarity [@Battaglieri:2017aum], but this bound could be relaxed in these scenarios. This again poses a problem for Dark Matter detection as they are not designed to look for Dark Matter at these masses. All in all, these results suggests that Dark Matter detection may be a bigger challenge than previously expected if there is a significant changes to the expansion rate of the early Universe.
The author thanks Stephen Godfrey, Catarina Cosme, and Maíra Dutra for guidance and helpful conversation. The author also thanks Keith Dienes and Brooks Thomas for introducing him to the subject of Dark Matter and freezeout. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
[99]{}
G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept. [**405**]{}, 279 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 \[hep-ph/0404175\]. J. L. Feng, Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**48**]{}, 495 (2010) doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101659 \[arXiv:1003.0904 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. G. B. Gelmini, TASI 2014 Lectures: The Hunt for Dark Matter, \[arXiv:1502.01320 \[hep-ph\]\]. L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski, WIMP dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**81**]{}, no. 6, 066201 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aab913 \[arXiv:1707.06277 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints, Eur. Phys. J. C [**78**]{}, no. 3, 203 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5662-y \[arXiv:1703.07364 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Battaglieri [*et al*]{}, US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report, \[arXiv:1707.04591 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1 (1990).
The Plank Collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, \[arXiv:1807.06209 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez and S. Profumo, JCAP [**1705**]{}, no. 05, 012 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/012 \[arXiv:1703.04793 \[hep-ph\]\]. F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez and S. Profumo, JCAP [**1802**]{}, no. 02, 046 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/02/046 \[arXiv:1712.07453 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Maldonado and J. Unwin, “Establishing the Dark Matter Relic Density in an Era of Particle Decays,” arXiv:1902.10746 \[hep-ph\].
J.D. Barrow, Massive particles as a probe of the early universe, Nucl. Phys. B [**208**]{}, 501 (1982). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90233-4 M. Kamionkowski and M.S. Turner, Thermal relics: Do we know their abundances?, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 3310 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3310 Horace Stoica, S.-H. Henry Tye and Ira Wasserman, Cosmology in the Randall-Sundrum Brane World Scenario, Phys. Lett. B [**482**]{}, 205 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0004126\]. Nobuchika Okada and Osamu Seto, Relic density of dark matter in brane world cosmology, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 083531 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0407092\]. E. Abou El Dahab and S. Khalil, Cold dark matter in brane cosmology scenario, JHEP [**0609**]{}, 042 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0607180\]. Wan-Lei Guo and Xin Zhang, Constraints on Dark Matter Annihilation Cross Section in Scenarios of Brane-World and Quintessence, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 115023 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.2451\[hep-ph\]\]. Haximjan Abdusattar and Hoernisa Iminniyaz, Abundance of Asymmetric Dark Matter in Brane World Cosmology, \[arXiv:1505.03716\[hep-ph\]\]. E. V. Linder, Exploring the Expansion History of the Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett [**90**]{}, 091301 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0208512\]. R. von Marttens, L. Casarini, D.F. Mota and W. Zimdahl, Cosmological constraints on parametrized interacting dark energy, \[arXiv:1807.11380\[astro-ph\]\]. A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, SUSY constraints from relic density: high sensitivity to pre-BBN expansion rate, Phys. Lett. B [**669**]{}, 46 (2008) \[arXiv:0803.0741\[hep-ph\]\]. A. Arbey, A. Deandrea and A. Tarhini, Cold dark matter in brane cosmology scenario, JHEP [**1105**]{}, 078 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.3244\[hep-ph\]\]. Mar Bastero-Gil, Rafael Cerezo and Joao G. Rosa, Inflaton dark matter from incomplete decay, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 103531 (2015) \[arXiv:1501.05539\[hep-ph\]\].
Pierre Salati, Quintessence and the Relic Density of Neutralinos, Phys. Lett. B [**571**]{}, 131 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0207396\]. Francesca Rosati, Quintessence and the dark matter abundance, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309124\]. Stefano Profumo and Piero Ullio, SUSY Dark Matter and Quintessence, JCAP [**0311**]{}, 006 (2013) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309220\]. N. Bernal, C. Cosme and T. Tenkanen, Phenomenology of Self-Interacting Dark Matter in a Matter-Dominated Universe, Eur. Phys. J. C [**79**]{}, no. 2, 99 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6608-8 \[arXiv:1803.08064 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Bernal, C. Cosme, T. Tenkanen and V. Vaskonen, Scalar singlet dark matter in non-standard cosmologies, Eur. Phys. J. C [**79**]{}, no. 1, 30 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6550-9 \[arXiv:1806.11122 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Hamdan and J. Unwin, “Dark Matter Freeze-out During Matter Domination,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**33**]{}, no. 29, 1850181 (2018) doi:10.1142/S021773231850181X \[arXiv:1710.03758 \[hep-ph\]\]. E. Hardy, JHEP [**1806**]{}, 043 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2018)043 \[arXiv:1804.06783 \[hep-ph\]\].
C. Pallis, Quintessential Kination and Cold Dark Matter Abundance, JCAP [**0510**]{}, 015 (2015) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0503080\]. Hoernisa Iminniyaz and Xuelei Chen, Relic Abundance of Asymmetric Dark Matter in Quintessence, \[arXiv:1308.0353\[hep-ph\]\]. R. Catena, N. Fornengo, A. Masiero, M. Pietroni and F. Rosati, Dark Matter Relic Abundance and Scalar-Tensor Dark Energy, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 063519 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0403614\]. R. Catena, M. Pietroni and L. Scarabello, Einstein and Jordan frames reconciled: a frame-invariant approach to scalar-tensor cosmology, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 084039 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0604492\].
G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta and J Beacom, Precise Relic WIMP Abundance and its Impact on Searches for Dark Matter Annihilation, \[arXiv:1204.3622 \[hep-ph\]\]. H. Iminniyaz, B. Salai and G. Lv, Relic Density of Asymmetric Dark Matter in Modified Cosmological Scenarios, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 055025 (2013) \[arXiv:1804.07256 \[hep-ph\]\]. K.R. Dienes, F. Huang, and B. Thomas, to appear.
A. Poulin and S. Godfrey, Multi-component dark matter from a hidden gauged SU(3), Phys. Rev. D [**99**]{} 076008 (2019) \[arXiv:1808.04901 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: For the case of asymmetric Dark Matter, one must include non-zero chemical potentials in the exponential. See [@Kolb:1990vq; @Iminniyaz:2018das] for details.
[^2]: It is typical to choose the mass scale in the definition of $x$ to be the same as the mass of the particle as it simplifies some of these equations. However, in the case of multi-species Dark Matter models where not all the species are the same mass, one must distinguish the mass scale in the definition of $x$ from the mass in the definition of $n_{\rm eq}$ [@Poulin:2018kap].
[^3]: If we assumed the Dark Matter were fermions, we would just change the number of degrees of freedom from 1 to 2 for Majoranna fermions or 4 for Dirac fermions. However, this does not qualitatively change the results.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We examine the impact of electromagnetic properties of neutrinos on the annihilation of relic neutrinos with ultra high energy cosmic neutrinos for the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process. For this process, photon-neutrino decoupling temperature is calculated via effective lagrangian model beyond the standard model. We find that photon-neutrino decoupling temperature can be importantly reduced below the QCD phase transition with the model independent analysis defining electromagnetic properties of neutrinos.'
author:
- 'S.C. İnan'
- 'M. Köksal'
title: 'The effect of electromagnetic properties of neutrinos on the photon-neutrino decoupling temperature'
---
Introduction
============
Neutrinos and photons are the most abundant particles in the universe. The universe is filled with a sea of relic neutrinos that decoupled from the rest of the matter within the first few seconds after the Big Bang. Unlike the relic photons, relic neutrinos have not been yet observed because of the interactions of their cross sections with matter are overwhelmingly suppressed. It is very important to detect relic neutrinos which have played a crucial role in Big Bang the nucleosynthesis, structure formation and the evolution of the universe. Nevertheless, some indirect evidences of the relic neutrinos may be observed, such as, the UHE neutrinos may interact with relic neutrinos via the $\nu_{cosmic}+\overline{\nu}_{relic}\to Z \to nucleons + photons$ reactions occurring on the Z resonance [@wei]. If relic neutrinos do exist, the existence of their mass spectrum may be reveal with detectors of UHE neutrinos, such as Icecube [@ice], ANITA [@ani], Pierre Auger Observatory [@pao], ANTARES [@ant].
The $2\rightarrow2$ scattering processes $\gamma\nu\rightarrow\gamma\nu$, $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow\nu\bar{\nu}$ and $\bar{\nu}\nu\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ have been extensively studied in literature [@abbas; @dic1; @abb; @abbas1; @ng]. When the neutrinos are massless, the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process implies a vanishing cross section from Yang’s theorem [@cny; @mgm] due to the vector-axial vector nature of the weak coupling. The cross section of the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process can be given to be of order $G_{F}^{2}\alpha^{2}\omega^{2}(\omega/m_{W})^{4}$ [@lev; @dic1]. This situation continues to until center of mass energies $\sqrt{s}\sim 2m_{W}$ where $m_{W}$ is the W boson mass. The dimension-8 effective lagrangian induced from loop contributions of SM particles can be given as follows [@dic]
$$\begin{aligned}
L^{SM}_{eff}=\frac{i}{32\pi} \frac{g^{2}\alpha}{m^{4}_{W}} A
[\overline{\psi}\gamma_{\nu}(1-\gamma_{5})(\partial^{\mu}\psi)-
(\partial^{\mu}\overline{\psi})\gamma_{\nu}(1-\gamma_{5})\psi]F_{\mu\lambda}F^{\nu\lambda}
\label{l1}\end{aligned}$$
where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field strength tensor, $g$ is the electroweak gauge coupling, $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant and $A$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
A=\left[\frac{4}{3} \ln\left(\frac{m^{2}_{W}}{m^{2}_{e}}\right)+1\right].\end{aligned}$$
It is shown that the equation (\[l1\]) can be rewritten in the following form [@dic],
$$\begin{aligned}
L^{SM}_{eff}=\frac{1}{8\pi} \frac{g^{2}\alpha}{m^{4}_{W}} A
T^{\nu}_{\alpha\beta}T^{\gamma\alpha\beta}
\label{l2}\end{aligned}$$
where $T^{\nu}_{\alpha\beta}$ and $T^{\gamma\alpha\beta}$ are the stress-energy tensor of the neutrinos and photons which are given by,
$$\begin{aligned}
T^{\nu}_{\alpha\beta}=&&\frac{i}{8}[\overline{\psi}\gamma_{\alpha}(1-\gamma_{5})(\partial_{\beta}\psi)+
\overline{\psi}\gamma_{\beta}(1-\gamma_{5})(\partial_{\alpha}\psi)\nonumber\\
&&-(\partial_{\beta}\overline{\psi})
\gamma_{\alpha}(1-\gamma_{5})\psi-(\partial_{\alpha}\overline{\psi})\gamma_{\beta}(1-\gamma_{5})\psi],\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
T^{\gamma}_{\alpha\beta}=F_{\alpha\lambda}F_{\beta}^{\lambda}-\frac{1}{4}
g_{\alpha\beta}F_{\lambda\rho}F^{\lambda\rho}.\end{aligned}$$
The photons and neutrinos decouple for the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process is calculated at a temperature $T_c\sim1.6$ GeV, or approximate one micro second after the Big Bang [@abb]. If the photon-neutrino interaction can be increased, then decoupling temperature is lowered to the QCD phase transition ($\Lambda_{QCD}\sim200$ MeV). Therefore, some remnants of the photons circular polarization can possibly be retained in the cosmic microwave background [@dic] which can be considered as an evidence for the relic neutrino background. Increasing the cross section of $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process can be achieved with using models beyond the SM. In this sense, effect of the large extra dimensions [@dic], unparticle physics [@dut] and excited neutrinos [@cem] have been calculated. They have found that the photon-neutrino decoupling temperature can be significantly brought down.
In this study, we have calculated that effect of the electromagnetic properties of neutrinos on the photon-neutrino decoupling temperature for the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process.
$\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process including electromagnetic properties of neutrinos
=========================================================================================
In the SM, there is no interaction between neutrinos and photons. Besides, minimal extension of the SM with massive neutrinos yields couplings of $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ and $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma\gamma$ by means of radiative corrections [@Schrock; @Marciano; @Lynn; @Crewther; @Feinberg]. There are a lot of models beyond the SM estimating large enough $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ and $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma\gamma$ couplings, although minimal extension of the SM give rise to very small couplings. For this reason, it is important to investigate electromagnetic properties of the neutrinos in effective lagrangian methods. Electromagnetic behavior of the neutrinos have significant effects on astrophysics, cosmology and particle physics. In this motivation, we have examined to effect of the Dimension-6 and Dimension-7 effective lagrangians on photon-neutrino decoupling temperature.
Dimension-7 Effective Lagrangian
--------------------------------
The dimension-7 effective lagrangian defining $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma\gamma$ coupling can be given by [@Nieves; @Ghosh; @Feinberg; @Liu; @Gninenko; @Larios2]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{nunuphotonphoton} {\cal
L}=\frac{1}{4\Lambda^3}\bar{\nu}_{i}\left(\alpha^{ij}_{R1} P_R+
\alpha^{ij}_{L1} P_L\right)\nu_{j}\tilde
{F}_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{4\Lambda^3}\bar{\nu}_{i}\left(\alpha^{ij}_{R2}
P_R+ \alpha^{ij}_{L2} P_L\right)\nu_{j} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\end{aligned}$$
where $F_ {\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field tensor, $\tilde
{F}_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}F^{\alpha\beta}$, $P_{L(R)}=\frac{1}{2}(1\mp\gamma_5)$, $\alpha^{ij}_{Lk}$ and $\alpha^{ij}_{Rk}$ are dimensionless coupling constants. Latest experimental bounds on neutrino-two photon coupling are obtained from rare decay $Z\to \nu \bar{\nu} \gamma\gamma$ [@Larios2] and the analysis of $\nu_\mu N\to \nu_s N$ conversion [@Gninenko]. The experimental model independent upper limit for $Z\to \nu \bar{\nu} \gamma\gamma$ decay has been found from the LEP data as follows [@Larios2],
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{leplimit} \left[\frac{1 GeV}{\Lambda}\right]^6
\sum_{i,j,k}\left(|\alpha^{ij}_{Rk}|^2+|\alpha^{ij}_{Lk}|^2\right)\leq2.85\times10^{-9}.\end{aligned}$$
In the external Coulomb field of the nucleus $N$, the model dependent searches of the Primakoff effect on $\nu_\mu N\to \nu_s N$ conversion founds about two orders of magnitude more restrictive bound than LEP data. The potential of photon induced reactions at the LHC to probe electromagnetic properties of the neutrinos has also been studied in the literature for $\Lambda=1$ GeV [@sa; @sa1]. It was shown that future experimental researches at the LHC will place more stringent bounds. We have used the model independent bound which was obtained from the LEP data. The contribution of the SM to the $\nu
\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process have been calculated in Refs.[@dic1; @abb] with using equation (\[l1\]). The squared amplitude for the SM ($|M_{1}|^2$) can be found from this effective Lagrangian in terms of Mandelstam invariants s and t as below
$$\begin{aligned}
|M_{1}|^2= -16\left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right)^2t(s^3+2t^3+3ts^2+4t^2s).\end{aligned}$$
The new physics contribution with using equation (\[nunuphotonphoton\]) comes from t and u channels diagrams for the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process. The polarization summed amplitude dimension-7 effective interaction square $(|M_{2}|^2)$ is given below,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{amplitude1} |M_{2}|^2=\frac{s^3}{8\Lambda^{6}}
\sum_{i,j,k}\left(|\alpha^{ij}_{Rk}|^2+|\alpha^{ij}_{Lk}|^2\right).\end{aligned}$$
It has been obtained that there is no contribution from the interference term of the SM and dimension-7 effective interaction to the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ scattering. The reason is that the SM interaction contains neutrinos of opposite helicity, dimension-7 effective interaction contain neutrinos of the same helicity. Hence, the total squared amplitude can be found,
$$\begin{aligned}
|M|^2=|M_{1}|^2+|M_{2}|^2.\end{aligned}$$
For $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process, the differential cross section can be obtained by using
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{dz}=\frac{1}{2!}\frac{1}{32\pi s}|M|^{2}.
\label{dcs}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, we get the total cross section ($\sigma_{cm}$) as follows,
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\nu \bar{\nu}\to
\gamma\gamma}=\frac{s^{3}}{20\pi}\left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right)^2
+\frac{s^{2}}{256\pi\Lambda^{6}}\sum_{i,j,k}\left(|\alpha^{ij}_{Rk}|^2+|\alpha^{ij}_{Lk}|\right).\end{aligned}$$
We have showed as a function of the center of mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ for both the $SM$ and total cross sections in fig. (\[fig1\]). During numeric analysis we have assumed to $\Lambda=1$ GeV to compare our results with current experimental LEP limit. In this figure, $\beta^2=\sum_{i,j,k}\left(|\alpha^{ij}_{Rk}|^2+|\alpha^{ij}_{Lk}|\right)$ is taken to be $2.89\times10^{-9}$ which is current experimental LEP bound. It has been shown that deviation from the SM increases as the $\sqrt{s}$ decreases. Also, Fig. (\[fig2\]) shows that the SM and total cross sections via the $\beta^2$ for $\sqrt{s}=5$ GeV. The total cross section is nearly the same as the SM at $\beta^2\sim10^{-13}$. This value almost $10^4$ times larger than the current experimental LEP limit. Specific values of the $\beta^2$ and $\sqrt{s}$ total cross section can be easily discerned from the SM cross section. Therefore, dimension-7 effective interaction can effect to the photon-neutrino decoupling temperature.
The temperature at which the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process ceases to take place can be found from the reaction rate per unit volume,
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{6}}\int\frac{d^3\vec{p_1}}{\exp(E_1/T)+1}
\int\frac{d^3\vec{p_2}}{\exp(E_2/T)+1}\sigma|\vec{\upsilon}|.
\label{roo}\end{aligned}$$
where $\vec{p_1}$ and $\vec{p_2}$ are the momentums of the neutrinos, $E_1$ and $E_2$ are the energies of the neutrinos, T is the temperature, $|\vec{\upsilon}|$ is the flux. The $\sigma|\vec{\upsilon}|$ can be obtained in terms of $\sigma_{cm}$ in the center of mass frame by using of invariance of $\sigma|\vec{\upsilon}| E_1E_2$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma|\vec{\upsilon}|=\frac{\sigma_{cm}s}{2 E_{1}E_{2}}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma|\vec{\upsilon}|=\frac{s^{4}}{40\pi E_1E_2}\left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right)^2+
\frac{s^{3}\beta^2}{512\pi E_{1}E_{2}}\end{aligned}$$
where $s=2 E_{1} E_{2}(1-\cos\theta_{12})$ and $\theta_{12}$ is the angle between $\vec{p_1}$ and $\vec{p_2}$. Then the reaction rate per unit volume can be obtained as follows,
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho=&&\frac{g^{4}\alpha^{2}A^{2}}{25 (2\pi)^{7}m^{8}_{W}}
T^{12}\int^{\infty}_{0}\frac{x^{5}
dx}{e^{x}+1}\int^{\infty}_{0}\frac{y^{5} d y}{e^{y}+1}+
\frac{\beta^2}{4(2\pi)^{5}}T^{10}\int^{\infty}_{0}\frac{x^{4}
dx}{e^{x}+1}\int^{\infty}_{0}\frac{y^{4} d y}{e^{y}+1}
\label{roo1}\end{aligned}$$
where $x=E_1/T$ and $y=E_2/T$. The integration is easily written by
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho=&&\frac{g^{4}\alpha^{2}A^{2}}{25 (2\pi)^{7}m^{8}_{W}} T^{12}
\left[\frac{31}{32}\Gamma (6) \zeta(6) \right]^{2}+\frac{\beta^2}{4(2\pi)^{5}}T^{10}
\left[\frac{15}{16}\Gamma (5) \zeta(5) \right]^{2}\end{aligned}$$
where $\zeta(x)$ is the Riemann Zeta function. At temperature $T$, the interaction rate $R$ can be found by dividing $\rho$ by the neutrino density $n_{\nu}=3\zeta(3)T^{3}/4\pi^{2}$,
$$\begin{aligned}
R=2.30\times10^{4}\left (\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{9}+
2.31\times10^{23}\beta^{2} \left (\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{7} sec^{-1}.
\label{rr}\end{aligned}$$
Multiplying equation (\[rr\]) by the age of the universe,
$$\begin{aligned}
t=1.48\times10^{-6} \left(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{-2}\end{aligned}$$
at least one interaction to occur is $R t= 1$. As a result, the decoupling temperature can be found with solution of the following equation,
$$\begin{aligned}
3.40\times10^{-2}\left
(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{7}+3.42\times10^{17}\beta^{2}\left
(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{5}=1.\end{aligned}$$
In Fig. (\[fig3\]) we have plotted the solution of the this equation for different values of the $\beta^2$. Here, current experimental LEP bound have taken to be maximum value of the $\beta^2$.
Dimension-6 Effective Lagrangian
--------------------------------
The Dimension-6 effective lagrangian for non-standard $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ interaction [@Larios1; @Maya; @Larios2; @Bell] is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
L=\frac{1}{2}\mu_{ij}\bar{\nu}_{i}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\nu_{j}F^{\mu\nu}
\label{lanm}\end{aligned}$$
here $\mu_{ii}$ is the magnetic moment of $\nu_i$ and $\mu_{ij}$ $(i\neq j)$ is the transition magnetic moment. In equation (\[lanm\]), new physics energy scale $\Lambda$ is absorbed in the definition of $\mu_{ii}$. We will examine $\nu\bar{\nu}\gamma$ interaction on the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process assuming neutrino magnetic moment matrix is virtually flavor diagonal and only one of the matrix elements is different from zero. Also, the standard relic neutrinos is considered to comprise of the three active neutrinos of the SM. Current experimental bounds on neutrino magnetic moment are stringent. The most sensitive bounds from neutrino-electron scattering experiments with reactor neutrinos are at the order of $10^{-11}\mu_B$ [@Li; @Wong1; @Wong2; @Daraktchieva]. Bounds derived from solar neutrinos are at the same order of magnitude [@Arpesella]. Bounds on magnetic moment can also be derived from energy loss of astrophysical objects. These give about an order of magnitude more restrictive bounds than reactor and solar neutrino probes [@Raffelt; @Castellani; @Catelan; @Ayala; @Barbieri; @Lattimer; @Heger].
The polarization summed amplitude square for the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process is given by the following equation,
$$\begin{aligned}
|M|^2=-16\left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right)^2t(s^3+2t^3+3ts^2+4t^2s)
+16\mu^{4}tu+32\mu^{2}t u s \left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Then the total cross section for the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process can be obtained as follows,
$$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma}=&&\int_{-1}^1 dz \frac{d\sigma}{dz} \nonumber \\
=&&\frac{s^3}{20\pi}\left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
+&&\frac{\mu^{2}s}{12\pi}\left(\mu^{2}+2s\left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$
We have calculated the total cross section with using experimental limits of the neutrino magnetic moments ($\mu_{\nu_{i}}, i=e,\mu,\tau $) for the $\nu \bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process. These bounds are $\mu_e=3.2\times10^{-11}\mu_B$, $\mu_\mu=6.8\times10^{-10}\mu_B$ and $\mu_\tau=3.9\times10^{-7}\mu_B$ [@data]. It has been seen that there are barely contribution from neutrino magnetic moments to the SM cross section of this process and we have not shown results in here. Therefore, this effective interaction must not reduce to photon-neutrino decoupling temperature significantly. This result can be seen with using same procedure as above. Then, the $\rho$ and $R$ are calculated by,
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho=&&\frac{g^{4}\alpha^{2}A^{2}}{25 (2\pi)^{7}m^{8}_{W}} T^{12}
\left[\frac{31}{32}\Gamma (6) \zeta(6) \right]^{2}+\nonumber\\ &&
\frac{\mu^{2}}{18\pi^{5}}\left(6\left(\frac{g^{2}\alpha A}{32\pi M_{W}^{4}}\right)
T^{10}\left[\frac{15}{16}\Gamma (5) \zeta(5) \right]^{2}+\mu^{2}T^{8}\left[\frac{7}{8}\Gamma (4) \zeta(4) \right]^{2}\right),\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
R=2.30\times10^{4}\left
(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{9}+
8.85\times10^{13}\mu^{2} \left
(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{7}+9.71\times10^{22}\mu^{4}
\left (\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{5} sec^{-1}.
\label{rr1}\end{aligned}$$
The solution of the following equation gives the decoupling temperature for photon-neutrino coupling,
$$\begin{aligned}
3.40\times10^{-2}\left
(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{7}+1.31\times10^{7}\mu^{2}\left
(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{5}+1.44\times10^{17}\mu^{4}\left
(\frac{T}{GeV}\right)^{3}=1.\end{aligned}$$
From this equation, we have found that the photon-neutrino decoupling temperature almost same the SM ($T_c\sim1.6$ GeV) when we used the experimental bounds on neutrino magnetic moments as we expected.
Conclusion
==========
If neutrino-photon decoupling temperature can be decreased to below the QCD phase transition ($\Lambda_{QCD}\sim200$ MeV), this could be an evidence for the relic neutrino background. Because some remnant the circular polarization could possibly be sustained in the cosmic microwave background. For reducing decoupling temperature, the total cross section of the photon-neutrino process should be increased. This can be done with contribution of new effective interactions. In this motivation, we have examined the effect of electromagnetic properties of the neutrinos on the photon-neutrino decoupling temperature with interaction of relic neutrinos with UHE cosmic neutrinos via the $\nu\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process. First, we have investigated to dimension-7 effective interaction effect on $\nu\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process. It is found that this effective interaction contribution to total cross section of the $\nu\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process is significant depending on the $\beta^2$. Therefore, photon-neutrino decoupling temperature can be reduced below the $\Lambda_{QCD}$ as seen from the Fig.\[fig3\]. On the other hand, even if $\beta^2$ is eight order of magnitude smaller than current experimental bound, this effective interaction can reduce to $T_c$ below the obtained value of the SM.
Second, we have examined to dimension-6 effective interaction impact on $\nu\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process. This effective interaction describes neutrino magnetic moment. Current experimental bounds on neutrino magnetic moment are stringent. Therefore, the contribution of the this effective interaction very tiny on the SM cross section $\nu\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$. Hence, the photon-neutrino cross section decoupling temperature is not almost changed.
Consequently, we have shown that dimension-7 effective interaction can permit of reduced the decoupling temperature for the $\nu\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process.
[99]{}
T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 234 (1982) . R. Abbasi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 092003 (2011). S. W. Barwick [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 171101 (2006). P. Abreu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 122005 (2011). J. A. Aguilar [*et al.*]{}, Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research A [**656**]{}, 11 (2011). A. Abbasabadi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 013012 (1998). D. A. Dicus and W. W. Repko, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 5106 (1993). A. Abbasabadi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 013012 (1999). A. Abbasabadi, A. Devoto and W. W. Repko, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 093001 (2001). W. P. Lam and K. W. Ng, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 3345 (1991). C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**77**]{}, 242 (1950). M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Rev. Lett [**6**]{}, 70 (1961). M. J. Levine, Nuovo Cimento A [**XLVIII**]{}, 67 (1967). D. A. Dicus, K Kovner and W W Repko, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 053013 (2000). S. Dutta and A. Goyal, Phys. Lett. B [**664**]{}, 25 (2008). S. C. İnan and M. Köksal, arXiv: 1203.5881. B. W. Lee and R. E. Schrock, Phys. Rev. D [**16**]{}, 1444 (1977). W. Marciano and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B [**67**]{}, 303 (1977). B. W. Lynn, Phys. Rev. D [**23**]{}, 2151 (1981). R. J. Crewther, J. Finjord and P. Minkowski, Nucl. Phys. B [**207**]{}, 269 (1982). S. Dodelson and G. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 913 (1991). J. F. Nieves, Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 1664 (1983). R. K. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D [**29**]{}, 493 (1984). J. Liu, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 2879 (1991). S. N. Gninenko and N. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Lett. B [**450**]{}, 165 (1999). F. Larios, M. A. Perez and G. Tavares-Velasco, Phys. Lett. B [**531**]{}, 231 (2002). İ. Şahin and M. Köksal, JHEP [**03**]{}, 100 (2011). İ. Şahin, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 033002 (2012). F. Larios, R. Martinez and M. A. Perez, Phys. Lett. B [**345**]{}, 259 (1995). M. Maya [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**434**]{}, 354 (1998). N. F. Bell [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 151802 (2005). H. B. Li [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 131802 (2003). Z. Daraktchieva [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**615**]{}, 153 (2005). H. T. Wong [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 012001 (2007). H. T. Wong [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 061801 (2010). C. Arpesella [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 091302 (2008). G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rep. [**320**]{}, 319 (1999). V. Castellani and S. Degl’Innocenti, Astrophys. J. [**402**]{}, 574 (1993). M. Catelan, J. A. d. Pacheco and J. E. Horvath, Astrophys. J. [**461**]{}, 231 (1996). A. Ayala, J. C. D’Olivo and M. Torres, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 111901 (1999). R. Barbieri and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 27 (1988). J. M. Lattimer and J. Cooperstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 23 (1988). A. Heger, A. Friedland, M. Giannotti and V. Cirigliano, Astrophys. J. [**696**]{}, 608 (2009). K. Nakamura [*et al.*]{},(Particle Data Group) J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010).
![The cross sections of $\nu\bar{\nu}\to \gamma\gamma$ process as a function center of mass energy $s^{1/2}$ when $\beta^{2}$ parameter is taken to be $2.89\times10^{-9}$. \[fig1\]](fig1.eps)
![The SM and total cross sections of $\nu\bar{\nu}\to
\gamma\gamma$ process as a function $\beta^{2}$ for $s^{1/2}=5$ GeV. \[fig2\]](fig2.eps)
![The decoupling temperature $T_{c}$ as a function of $\beta^{2}$. \[fig3\]](fig3.eps)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In spite of its relevance to the origin of complex networks, the interplay between form and function and its role during network formation remains largely unexplored. While recent studies introduce dynamics by considering rewiring processes of a pre-existent network, we study network growth and formation by proposing an evolutionary preferential attachment model, its main feature being that the capacity of a node to attract new links depends on a dynamical variable governed in turn by the node interactions. As a specific example, we focus on the problem of the emergence of cooperation by analyzing the formation of a social network with interactions given by the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The resulting networks show many features of real systems, such as scale-free degree distributions, cooperative behavior and hierarchical clustering. Interestingly, results such as the cooperators being located mostly on nodes of intermediate degree are very different from the observations of cooperative behavior on static networks. The evolutionary preferential attachment mechanism points to an evolutionary origin of scale-free networks and may help understand similar feedback problems in the dynamics of complex networks by appropriately choosing the game describing the interaction of nodes.'
author:
- Julia Poncela
- 'Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes'
- 'Luis M. Floría'
- Angel Sánchez
- Yamir Moreno
title: Complex cooperative networks from evolutionary preferential attachment
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In the last few years, it has been increasingly realized that there are many situations which are not well described by well-mixed (mean-field) models, lattices and uniformly distributed spatial models. This is the case with the majority of the so called complex systems, that are better characterized by what is generally known as complex networks [@siam; @PhysRep]. In many of these networks, the distribution of the number of interactions, $k$, that an individual shares with the rest of the elements of the system, $P(k)$, is found to follow a power-law, $P(k)\sim k^{-\gamma}$, with $2<\gamma<3$ in most cases. The ubiquity in Nature of these so-called scale-free (SF) networks has led scientists to propose many models aimed at reproducing the SF degree distribution [@siam; @PhysRep]. Most of the existing approaches are based on growth rules that depend on the instantaneous topological properties of the network and therefore neglect the connection of the structural evolution and the particular function of the network. However, accumulated evidence suggests, moreover, that form follows function [@guimera] and that the formation of the network is also related to the dynamical states of its components through a feedback mechanism that shapes its structure.
On the other hand, a paradigmatic case study of the structure and dynamics of complex systems is that of social networks. In these systems, it is particularly relevant to understand how cooperative behavior emerges. The mathematical approach to model the (cooperative versus defective) interactions is usually tackled under the general framework of evolutionary game theory through diverse social dilemmas. In the general case it is the individual benefit rather than the overall welfare what drives the system evolution. The emergence of cooperation in natural and social systems has been the subject of intense research recently [@sp05; @lhn05; @gcfm07; @pgfm07; @ohln06; @ezcs05; @spl06; @Nowak1; @jlcs07; @las08]. These works are based either on the assumption of an underlying, given static network (or two static, separate networks for interaction and imitation [@onp07]) or a coevolution and rewiring starting from a fully developed network that already includes all the participating elements. The results show that if the well-mixed population hypothesis is abandoned, so that individuals only interact with their neighbors, cooperation is promoted on heterogeneous networks, specifically on SF networks. However, the main questions remain unanswered: Are cooperative behavior and structural properties of networks related or linked in any way? If so, how? Moreover, if SF networks are best suited to support cooperation, then, where did they come from? What are the mechanisms that shape the structure of the system?
In this paper we analyze the growth and formation of complex networks by coupling the network formation rules to the dynamical states of the elements of the system. With the problem of the emergence of cooperation as a specific application in mind, we consider that the nodes of the network are individuals involved in a social dilemma and that newcomers are preferentially linked to nodes with high fitness, the latter being proportional to the payoffs obtained in the game. In this way, the fitness of an element is not imposed as an external constraint [@bb01; @cal02], but rather it is the result of the dynamical evolution of the system. At the same time, the network is not exogenously imposed as a starting point but instead it grows from a small seed and acquires its structure during its formation process. The main result of this interplay is the formation of homogeneous and heterogeneous networks that share a number of topological features with real world networks such as a high clustering and degree-degree correlations. Remarkably, the set of nodes sustaining the observed aggregate behavior is very different from that arising in a complex but otherwise static network. As a particular but most relevant conclusion, we find that the mechanism we propose not only explains why heterogeneous networks are tailored to sustain cooperation, but also provides an evolutionary mechanism for their origin.
Evolutionary Preferential Attachment model
==========================================
Our model naturally incorporates an intrinsic feedback between dynamics and topology. The growth of the network starts at time $t=0$ with a core of $m_{0}$ fully connected nodes. New elements are incorporated to the network and attached to $m$ existing nodes with a probability that depends on the dynamics of each node. In particular, we consider that the dynamics is dictated by the Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) game. In this two-players game, every node initially adopts with the same probability [@note3] one of the two available strategies, cooperation $C$ or defection $D$. At equally spaced time intervals (denoted by $\tau_{D}$) each node $i$ of the network plays with its $k_{i}(t)$ neighbors and the obtained payoffs are considered to be the measure of its evolutionary fitness, $f_i(t)$. There are three possible situations for each link in the network: [*(i)*]{} if two cooperators meet both receive $R$, when [*(ii)*]{} two defectors play both receive $P$, while [*(iii)*]{} if a cooperator and a defector compite the former receives $S$ and the latter obtains $T$. The four payoffs are ordered as $T=b>R=1>P=S=0$. After playing, every node $i$ compares its evolutionary fitness (payoff) with that corresponding to a randomly chosen neighbor $j$. If $f_{j}(t)>f_{i}(t)$ node $i$ adopts the strategy of player $j$ with probability [@note2] $$P_{i}=\frac{f_{j}(t)-f_{i}(t)}{b\cdot{\text {max}}\left[k_{i}(t),k_{j}(t)\right]}\;.
\label{replicator}$$
The growth of the network proceeds by adding a new node with $m$ links to the preexisting ones at equally spaced time intervals (denoted by $\tau_{T}$). The probability that any node $i$ in the network receives one of the $m$ new links is $$\Pi_{i}(t)=\frac{1-\epsilon+\epsilon
f_{i}(t)}{\sum_{j=1}^{N(t)}(1-\epsilon+\epsilon f_{j}(t))}\;,
\label{Pattach}$$ where $N(t)$ is the size of the network at time $t$. The parameter $\epsilon\in [0,1)$ thus controls the weight of the $f_{i}(t)$’s during the growth of the network. When $\epsilon>0$, nodes with $f_i(t)\neq 0$ are preferentially chosen.
The growth of the network as defined above is thus linked to an evolutionary dynamics and controlled by the parameter $\epsilon$ and the two associated time scales ($\tau_{T}$ and $\tau_{D}$). When $\epsilon\simeq 0$, referred to as the weak selection limit [@Nowak1], the network growth is independent of the evolutionary dynamics as all nodes are basically equiprobable. Alternatively, in the strong selection limit, $\epsilon\rightarrow 1$, the fittest players (highest payoffs) are much more likely to attract the newcomers. Therefore, Eq. (\[Pattach\]) can be viewed as an “[*Evolutionary Preferential Attachment*]{}” mechanism. We have carried out numerical simulations of the model exploring the ($\epsilon$, $b$)-space. In what follows, we focus on the results obtained when $\tau_{D}/\tau_{T}>1$, namely, the network growth is faster than the evolutionary dynamics [@note5]. Taking $\tau_{T}=1$ as the reference time, networks are generated by adding nodes every time step, while they play at discrete times given by $\tau_{D}$. As $\tau_{D}>\tau_{T}$, the linking procedure is done with the payoffs obtained the last time the nodes played [@note4]. All results for each value of $b$ and $\epsilon$ reported have been averaged over at least $10^3$ realizations and the number of links of a newcomer is taken to be $m=2$, whereas $m_0=3$.
Results
=======
The dependence of the degree distribution on $\epsilon$ is shown in Fig.\[figure1\] for $b=1.5$. As can be seen, the weak selection limit produces homogeneous networks characterized by a tail that decays exponentially fast with $k$. Alternatively, when $\epsilon$ is large, scale-free networks arise. Although this might a priori be expected from the definition of the growth rules, this needs not be the case: Indeed, it must be taken into account that in a one-shot PD game defection is the best strategy regardless of the opponent strategy. However, if the network dynamics evolves into a state in which all players (or a large part of the network) are defectors, they will often play against themselves and their payoffs will be reduced. The system’s dynamics will then end up in a state close to an all-$D$ configuration rendering $f_{i}(t)=0$ $\forall i$ $\in$ $[1,N(t)]$ in Eq.(\[Pattach\]). From this point on, new nodes will attach randomly to other existing nodes \[see Eq.(\[Pattach\])\] and therefore no hubs can come out. This turns out not to be the case, which indicates that for having some degree of heterogeneity, a nonzero level of cooperation is needed. Conversely, the heterogeneous character of the system provides a feedback mechanism for the survival of cooperators that would not outcompete defectors otherwise.
The degree of heterogeneity of the networks in the strong selection limit depends slightly on $b$. The results indicate that when $\epsilon\rightarrow 1$, networks with the highest degree of heterogeneity, corresponding to the largest values of $b$, are not those with maximal cooperation levels. In Fig. \[figure1\], we have also represented the average level of cooperation, $\langle c\rangle$, as a function of the two model parameters $\epsilon$ and $b$. The figure shows that as $\epsilon$ grows for a fixed value of $b\gtrsim 1$, the level of cooperation increases. In particular, in the strong selection limit $\langle c\rangle$ attains its maximum value. This is a somewhat counterintuitive result as in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 1$, new nodes are preferentially linked to those with the highest payoffs, which for the PD game, should correspond to defectors. However, the population achieves the highest value of $\langle c\rangle$. On the other hand, higher levels of cooperation are achieved in heterogeneous rather than in homogeneous topologies, which is consistent with previous findings [@sp05; @lhn05; @gcfm07].
The interplay between the local structure of the network and the hierarchical organization of cooperation is highly nontrivial. Contrary to what has been reported for static scale-free networks [@sp05; @gcfm07], Fig.\[figure2\] shows that as the temptation to defect increases, the likelihood that cooperators occupy the hubs decreases. Indeed, during network growth, cooperators are localized neither at the hubs nor at the lowly connected nodes, but in intermediate degree classes. It is important to realize that this is a new effect that originates in the competition between network growth and the evolutionary dynamics. In particular, it highlights the differences between the microscopic organization in the steady state for the PD game in static networks with that found when the network is evolving. We will come back to this question in the Discussion section below.
To confirm the robustness of the networks generated by evolutionary preferential attachment, let us consider the realistic situation that after incorporating a (possibly large) number of participants, network growth stops when a given size $N$ is reached, and that afterward only evolutionary dynamics takes place. In Fig. \[figure3\], we compare the average level of cooperation $\langle c\rangle$ when the network ceased to grow with the same quantity, but computed after allowing the evolutionary dynamics to evolve many more time steps $\langle c\rangle_{\infty}$ (without attaching new nodes). The green area indicates the region of the parameter $b$ where the level of cooperation increases with respect to that at the moment the network stops growing. On the contrary, the red zone shows that beyond a certain value of $b\approx 2.5$, cooperative behavior does not survive and the system dynamics evolves to an all-$D$ state. The increment of $\langle c\rangle$ when going from the steady state reached during network growth to the stationary regime attained once the underlying structure is static, has its roots on the fixation of cooperation in high degree classes, thus recovering the picture described in [@gcfm07]. On the other hand, when $b\gtrsim 2.5$, the few cooperators present in the growing network are not able to invade the hubs and finally, after a few more generations, cooperation is extinguished yielding $\langle c\rangle_{\infty}=0$. This result highlights the phenomenological difference between playing simultaneously to the growth of the underlying network and playing on fixed, static networks.
Another striking feature emerging from the interaction between network growth and the evolutionary dynamics is captured in Fig. \[figure4\], where the clustering coefficient, $CC$, has been represented as a function of the nodes degrees in the strong selection limit for several values of $b$. This coefficient measures the ratio of the number of triangles existing on the network over the total possible number of triangles, which relates to the possibility that a node connecting to a neighbor of another is also connected to this last one. Specifically, we will look at $CC(k)$, i.e., the way this coefficient depends on the degree of the node. Interestingly enough, the dependence of $CC(k)$ is consistent with a hierarchical organization expressed by the power law $CC(k)\sim k^{-\beta}$, a statistical feature found to describe many real-world networks [@PhysRep]. The behavior of $CC(k)$ in Fig. \[figure4\] can be understood by recalling that in scale-free networks, cooperators are not extinguished even for large values of $b$ if they organize into clusters of cooperators that provide the group with a stable source of benefits [@gcfm07].
Discussion
==========
Having presented our main simulation results, we now discuss them in detail and provide an interpretation of our observations that allows an understanding of the model behavior. To begin with, let us consider the emergence of cooperation in the resulting network in the strong selection limit ($\epsilon\rightarrow 1$). The organization of the cooperator nodes explains why cooperation survives and constitutes a unique positive feedback mechanism for the survival of cooperation. For simplicity, let us focus on how cycles of length $3$ (i.e., those contributing to $CC$) arise and grow. When a new node $j$ enters the network, it will preferentially attach to $m$ (recall we are using $m=2$) nodes with the highest payoff. Two situations are likely. On the one hand, it may link to a defector hub with a high payoff. As the newcomer receives less payoff than the hub, it will sooner or later imitate its strategy and therefore will get trapped playing as a defector with $f_j=0$. Subsequently, node $j$ will not attract any links during network growth. On the other hand, if the new node attaches to a cooperator cluster, the other source of high payoff, and forms a triad with the cluster elements, two outcomes are possible depending on its initial strategy. If the newly attached node plays as a defector, the triad may eventually be invaded by defectors and may end up in the long run in a state where the nodes have no capacity to receive new links. Conversely, if it plays as a cooperator, the group will be reinforced, both in its robustness against defector invasion and in its overall fitness to attract new links, i.e., playing as a cooperator while taking part in a successful (high fitness) cooperator cluster reinforces its future success, while playing as a defector undermines its future fitness and leads to dynamically (and topologically) frozen ($f_i=0$) structures, so that defection cannot take long-term advantage from cooperator clusters. Therefore, cooperator clusters that emerge from cooperator triads to which new cooperators are attached can then continue to grow if more cooperators are attracted or even if defectors attach to the nodes whose connectivity verifies $k>mb$. Moreover, the stability of cooperator clusters and its global fitness grow with their size, specially for their members with higher degree, and naturally favors the formation of triads among its components. Note, additionally, that it follows from the above mechanism that a node of degree $k$ is a vertex of $(k-1)$ triangles and then $CC(k)=\frac{(k-1)}{k(k-1)/2}=2/k$, the sort of functional form for the clustering coefficient reported in Fig. \[figure4\].
Another interesting phenomenon arising from our model is the fact, previously unobserved, that cooperators occupy the nodes with intermediate degree and the hubs are defectors, in contrast with the simulations on static networks [@gcfm07; @pgfm07]. To address this issue we have developed a simple analytical argument. Let $k_i^c$ be the number of cooperator neighbors of a given node $i$. Its fitness is $f_i^d=bk_i^c$, if node $i$ is a defector, and $f_i^c=k_i^c$, if it is a cooperator. The value of $k^c_i$ is expected to change due to both network growth (node accretion flow, at a pace of one new node each time unit $\tau_T$) and imitation processes that take place at a pace $\tau_D$. We will focus on the case in which $\tau_D$ is much larger than $\tau_T$. The expected increase of fitness is $$\Delta f_i = \Delta_{flow} f_i + \Delta_{evol} f_i,
\label{nueva1}$$ where $\Delta_{flow}$ means the variation of fitness in node $i$ due to the newcomers flow, and $\Delta_{evol}$ stands for the change in fitness due to changes of neighbors’ strategies. The above expression would lead to an expected increase in $k^c_i$ given by $$k^c_i(t+\tau_D)- k^c_i(t)=\Delta k^c_i = \Delta_{flow} k^c_i + \Delta_{evol} k^c_i.
\label{nueva2}$$ On the other hand, the expected increase of degree in the interval $(t,t+\tau_D)$ only has the contribution from newcomers flow and takes the form (recall that new nodes are generated with the same probability to be cooperators or defectors) $$\Delta k_i = \Delta_{flow} k_i = 2 \Delta_{flow} k^c_i.
\label{nueva3}$$
If the fitness (hence connectivity) of node $i$ is high enough as to attract a significant part of the newcomers flow, the first term in Eq. (\[nueva1\]) dominates at short time scales, and then the hub degree $k_i$ increases exponentially. Connectivity patterns are then dominated by the growth by preferential attachment, ensuring as in the Barabási-Albert [@bara] model that the network will have a SF degree distribution. Moreover, the rate of increase $$\Delta_{flow} k^c_i=\frac{1}{2} m \tau_D \frac{f_i}{\sum_j f_j}
\label{nueva4}$$ is larger for a defector hub (by a factor $b$) because of its larger fitness, and then one should expect hubs to be mostly defectors, as confirmed by the results shown in Fig. \[figure2\]. This small set of most connected defector nodes attracts most of the newcomers flow.
On the contrary, for nodes of intermediate degree, say of connectivity $m \ll k_i \ll k_{max}$, the term $\Delta_{flow}f_i$ in Eq. (\[nueva1\]) can be neglected, i.e., the arrival of new nodes is a rare event, so that for a large time scale, $\dot{k}_i=0$. Note that if $\dot{k}_i(t)=0$ for all $t$ in an interval $t_0\leq t \leq t_0+T$, the size of the neighborhood is constant during the whole interval $T$ and thus the evolutionary dynamics of strategies through imitiation is the exclusive responsible for the strategic field configuration in the neighborhood of node $i$. During these stasis periods the probability distribution of strategies approaches that of a static network in the neighborhood of node $i$. It is clear that this scenario can be occasionally subject to sudden (avalanche-type of) perturbations following “punctuated equilibrium” patterns in the rare ocasions in which a new node arrive. Recalling that the probability for this node $i$ of intermediate degree to be a cooperator is large in the static regime [@gcfm07] we then arrive to the conclusion that for these nodes the density of cooperators must reach a maximum, in agreement with Fig. \[figure2\]. Furthermore, our simulations show that these features of the shape of the curve are indeed preserved as time goes by, giving further support to the above argument based on time scale separation and confirming that our understanding of the mechamisms at work in the model is correct.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, we have presented a model in which the rules governing the formation of the network are linked to the dynamics of its components. The model provides an evolutionary explanation for the origin of the two most common types of networks found in natural systems: When the selection pressure is weak, homogeneous networks arise, whereas strong selection pressure gives rise to scale-free networks. A remarkable fact is that the proposed evolution rule gives rise to complex networks that share many topological features with those measured in real systems, such as the power law dependence of the clustering coefficient with the degree of the nodes. Interestingly, our results make it clear that the microscopic dynamical organization of strategists in evolutionarily grown networks is very different from the case in which the population evolves on static networks. Furthermore, as we have seen, the generated networks are robust in the sense that after the growth process stops, the dynamical behavior keeps its character.
Thinking of the specific application we are discussing here, the emergence of cooperation, it is particularly remarkable the special role of individuals with an intermediate number of connections. As we have reasoned above, as time proceeds and the network grows, cooperation increases by invading those intermediate nodes, and on the other hand the range of intermediate degrees grows as well, leading to further increase of cooperation. On the contrary, hubs or well connected nodes, which on the static scenario are the supporters of cooperation, in the evolutionary process are defectors that thrive and accumulate new nodes by being so, only to fall eventually in the class of intermediate degree nodes and become cooperators. The analogy with the effect of a well-doing middle class in a western-like society is tempting but would of course be too far-fetched to push it beyond a general resemblance. Nevertheless, one particular situation in which models like this, based on the evolutionary preferential attachment mechanism, may prove very relevant is in the formation of social networks of entrepreneurs or professionals, such as those studied in Silicon Valley [@saxenian; @alex]. The way these networks grow upon arrival of new individuals and subsequent cooperative interactions made them a natural scenario to apply these ideas in detail. Finally, another important conclusion is the resilience of the cooperative behavior arising in these networks, in so far as it does not decrease for a wide range of parameters upon stopping the growth process, and, in most cases it even exhibits a large increase of the cooperation level.
On more general theoretical grounds, figuring out why scale-free networks are so ubiquitous in Nature is one of the most challenging aspects of modern network theory. At variance with previous hypotheses, the evolutionary preferential attachment mechanism of Eq. (\[Pattach\]) naturally incorporates a competition between structural and dynamical patterns and hence it suffices to explain why SF networks are optimized to show both structural and dynamical robustness. The former is given by the scale-free nature of the resulting topology, while the latter is based on the high levels of cooperation attained in the grown networks. Note that this optimization acts at a local level since individuals search their own benefit rather than following a global optimization scheme [@doneti], to be compared with the fact that the resulting network has a very good cooperation level as a whole. Finally, we let for future research the question of whether Eq. (\[Pattach\]) can be applied to other sort of dynamics by appropriately defining the dynamical variable $f_i(t)$ and adjusting the growth rules. It is however reasonable to assume that the functional form in Eq. (\[Pattach\]) may render general for generating optimized SF networks.
We acknowledge support from the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia through the Ramón y Cajal Program (Y.M.) and grants FIS-2006-12781-C02-01, FIS-2005-00337, MOSAICO and NAN2004-9087-C03-03. A.S. is also supported by the Comunidad de Madrid (Spain) under grant SIMUMAT-CM.
[99]{}
Newman, M. E. J. (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. *SIAM Rev.* [**45**]{}, 167-256
Boccaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M. & Hwang, D. U. (2006) Complex networks: structure and dynamics. *Phys. Rep.* **424**, 175-308.
Guimerá, R. & Sales-Pardo, M. (2006) Form follows function: the architecture of complex networks. *Mol. Sys. Biol.* **2**, 42.
Santos, F. C. & Pacheco, J. M. (2005) Scale-Free Networks Provide a Unifying Framework for the Emergence of Cooperation. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{}, 098104.
Lieberman, E., Hauert, C. & Nowak, M. A. (2005) Evolutionary Dynamics on Graphs. [*Nature*]{} [**433**]{}, 312-316.
Gómez-Gardeñes, J., Campillo, M., Floría, L. M. & Moreno, Y. (2007) Dynamical Organization of Cooperation in Complex Networks. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 108103.
Poncela, J., Gómez-Gardeñes, J., Floría, L. M. & Moreno, Y. (2007) Robustness of Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma in Complex Networks. [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{}, 184.
Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M.A. (2006) A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. *Nature* **441**, 502-505.
Eguíluz, V.M., Zimmermann, M. G., Cela-Conde, C. J., & San Miguel, M. (2005) Cooperation and the Emergence of Role Differentiation in the Dynamics of Social Networks. *Am. J. Soc.* **110**, 977-1008.
Santos, F.C., Pacheco, J.M. & Lenaerts, T. (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics of Social Dilemmas in Structured Heterogeneous Populations. *Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA* **103**, 3490-3494.
Nowak, M. A. (2006) Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. *Science* **314**, 1560-1563.
Jiménez, R., Lugo, H., Cuesta, J. A. & Sánchez, A. (2008) Emergence and resilience of cooperation in the spatial Prisoner’s Dilemma via a reward mechanism. *J. Theor. Biol.* 250, 475-483.
Lozano, S., Arenas, A. & Sánchez, A. (2008) Mesoscopic structure conditions the emergence of cooperation on social networks. *PLoS ONE*, to appear.
Ohtsuki, H., Nowak, M. A. & Pacheco, J. M. (2007) Breaking the symmetry between interaction and replacement in evolutionary dynamics on graphs. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 98, 108106.
Bianconi, G. & Barabási, A.-L. (2001) Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. *Europhys. Lett.* 54, 436-442.
Caldarelli, G., Capocci, A., De Los Rios, P. & Muñoz, M. A. (2002) Scale-Free Networks from Varying Vertex Intrinsic Fitness. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 89, 258702.
The only exception is the initial core which is a fully connected cooperator network.
We have also explored other forms for the probability Eq. (\[replicator\]) such as unconditional imitation, with no significant qualitative changes.
The dependence of the network properties and average level of cooperation on $\tau_{D}/\tau_{T}>1$ is weak. We have checked that using $\tau_{D}/\tau_{T}=1,5,10, \text{and } 20$ produces the same qualitative results. On the other hand, the choice of $\tau_{D}/\tau_{T}<1$ seems not to be realistic as selection should be slower than growth. In these cases, cooperation and defection can not coexist as the system dynamics evolves either to an all-C or to all-D configuration. However, networks with diverse degree of heterogeneity can be generated. The payoffs are not accumulated, i.e., before playing, $f_{i}(t)$ is set to zero $\forall i$ $\in$ $[1,N(t)]$.
Barabási, A. L. & Albert, R. (1999) Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. *Science* [**286**]{}, 509.
Saxenian, A. (1996) *Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128*, (Harvard University Press).
Lozano, S. & Arenas, A. (2007) A model to test how diversity affects resilience in regional innovation networks. *Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation*, [**10**]{}, 8.
Donetti, L., Hurtado, P. I. & Muñoz, M. A. (2005) Entangled Networks, Synchronization, and Optimal Network Topology. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 95, 188701.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Chetana Jain
- Biswajit Paul
- Anjan Dutta
title: 'Orbital X-ray modulation study of three Supergiant HMXBs'
---
Introduction
============
The INTEernational Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory, $INTEGRAL$ was launched in 2002 October (Winkler et al. 2003) and has discovered many new hard X-ray sources during the regular survey of the Galactic center (Revnivtsev et al. 2004, Bird et al. 2007, Kuulkers et al. 2007). In the pre-$INTEGRAL$ era, most of the known HMXBs were Be-X-ray binary systems, but the $INTEGRAL$ observations have significantly changed the statistics concerning the nature of the companion star of HMXBs. For instance, Liu et al. (2000) had mentioned 54 Be X-ray systems and 7 supergiant X-ray binary systems in their catalog of HMXBs. But, due to a large field of view of the instruments on board $INTEGRAL$ (Lebrun et al. 2003, Ubertini et al. 2003), and a high sensitivity at hard X-rays, several new HMXBs have been discovered and the proportion of supergiant systems has increased drastically. It has particularly revealed many new HMXBs which are obscured by the dense and highly absorbing circumstellar wind of the companion, because of which these X-ray sources are not observable at low energies. Bird et al. (2007) identified 68 HMXBs in their third IBIS/ISGRI soft $\gamma$-ray survey catalog. Out of these, 24 systems were identified as Be X-ray systems and 19 as supergiants. In about 5 years since its launch, $INTEGRAL$ has revealed two distinct classes of supergiant X-ray binary systems. The first class includes obscured persistent sources (Kuulkers 2005) and the second class includes sources displaying a short transitory nature (Supergiant Fast X-ray Transients, SFXTs) with outbursts lasting for a few hours (Negueruela et al. 2006, Sguera et al. 2005, 2006). **Further, several persistent low luminosity, slow X-ray pulsators have also been identified, some of which belong to HMXB systems (Kaur et al. 2009).**
**Figure \[fig:fig1\] shows the orbital period distribution of the different sub-classes of high mass X-ray binaries. We have categorized the distribution into Be-star systems, the SFXTs, the persistent supergiant systems and the obscurred systems. Orbital period of only those HMXBs are shown which are mentioned in the HMXB catalogue by Liu et al. (2007). It is clear from the figure that the orbital period in Be-star systems range from 12$-$262 d, whereas the orbital period of supergiant systems are relatively shorter. The orbital period in these systems are mostly less than 15 d, except for one system having an orbital period of 42 d. Amongst the SFXTs listed in the catalogue, the orbital period is known in six systems and it varies over a wide range of 3.3$-$165 d. The obscurred sources tend to have small orbital periods with the widest known orbital period of about 13 d. The orbital periods of the three sources studied in this work are marked with a $``$plus” sign. The first source is an intermediate SFXT having an orbital period of about 18 d. The second source is a supergiant HMXB, whereas the third one is a highly obscurred system.**
We have carried out orbital modulation studies of bright $INTEGRAL$ sources and have discovered a very short orbital period in one source, SFXT IGR J16479$-$4514 (Jain et al. 2009). Here, we present results from three of the brightest $INTEGRAL$ sources, IGR J18027$-$2016, IGR J18483$-$0311 and IGR J16318$-$4848. These systems have a late O/early B type supergiant companion and are highly absorbed sources. While IGR J18027$-$2016 and IGR J18483$-$0311 are pulsars, nature of the compact object in IGR J16318$-$4848 is not yet known in spite of extensive observations with different observatories. IGR J18027$-$2016 is an eclipsing high mass X-ray binary consisting of a neutron star spinning with a period of 139 s. The eclipses provide a good fiducial timing marker for precise determination of the orbital evolution. IGR J18483$-$0311 is an intermediate system whose position on the Corbet diagram (Corbet 1986) indicates that it is likely a Be system, but a periodic fast X-ray transient activity observed in this system is typical of an SFXT system. It is therefore important to determine its orbital parameters. IGR J16318$-$4848 is one of the most absorbed Galactic sources known with an enormously high column density. A study of orbital modulation in all these systems is important to understand the mechanism for the short and long duration outbursts and is also useful to plan future orbital phase dependent observations.
IGR J18027$-$2016 is spatially associated with the X-ray pulsar SAX J1802.7$-$2017 (Augello et al. 2003) which was serendipitously discovered during a $Beppo$-SAX observation of the LMXB GX 9+1 in 2001 September. It is an eclipsing HMXB system and harbors an X-ray pulsar accreting matter from the stellar wind of the companion star, which is a late O/early B-type supergiant with a mass of 18.8$-$29.3 M$_{\odot}$ (Hill et al. 2005). From the $Beppo$-SAX observations, Augello et al. (2003) determined a pulse period of 139.612 s and from the pulse arrival time analysis, they determined an orbital period of $\sim$ 4.6 d. It was later confirmed by Hill et al. (2005), who determined an orbital period of 4.5696(9) d from the eclipse timing measurement of the ISGRI data. They also determined a projected semimajor axis (a$_{x}$ $\sin$ (i)) of 68 lt-s and a mass function of 16 M$_{\odot}$, from which they concluded the mass of the donor to be 18.8$-$29.3 M$_{\odot}$ and radius of 15.0$-$23.4 R$_{\odot}$. Spectral analysis with $XMM-Newton$ and $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI indicate a strong intrinsic absorption with a hydrogen column density N$_{H}$ of 6.8 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Hill et al. 2005). Lutovinov et al (2005) fitted the 18$-$60 keV spectrum with a powerlaw alongwith an exponential cutoff at high energies (E$_{c} \sim$ 18 keV).
IGR J18483$-$0311 was discovered with $INTEGRAL$ during a survey of the Galactic plane in 2003 April (Chernyakova et al. 2003). An average flux of $\sim$ 10 mCrab in the 15$-$40 keV was observed, which decreased to 5 mCrab in the 40$-$100 keV energy range. IGR J18483$-$0311 is a high mass X-ray binary with an early B-type supergiant companion star (Rahoui et al. 2008). From the timing analysis of the $RXTE$-ASM light curve, Levine et al. (2006) reported a 18.55(5) d orbital period and 21 s X-ray pulsations were reported by Sguera et al. (2007). The source displays an unusual behaviour and shares many properties with the known SFXTs and persistent supergiant systems. Association with a B0.5Ia supergiant companion star (Rahoui et al. 2008) and a fast X-ray transient activity (Sguera et al. 2007), indicate that the system could be an SFXT. But, the outbursts last for a few days, in contrast to a few hours long outbursts seen in other well known SFXTs (Sguera et al. 2007). The quiescent emission level is also higher in IGR J18483$-$0311, yielding an L$_{max}$/L$_{min}$ ratio of $\sim$ 10$^{3}$, whereas, in SFXTs, the ratio is 10$^{4}$ - 10$^{5}$. The system is therefore considered to be an $``$intermediate" SFXT. The 3$-$50 keV spectra is well fitted by an absorbed powerlaw with a photon index of 1.4 and a cutoff at 22 keV. A high intrinsic absorption is also seen with a column density, N$_{H}$ of 9 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. Spectra during the outbursts is well fit by an absorbed bremsstrahlung with N$_{H}$ of 7.5 $\times$ 10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and kT $\sim$ 21.5 keV (Sguera et al. 2007).
IGR J16318$-$4848 is one of the highly obscurred Galactic X-ray sources discovered by $INTEGRAL$ (Courvoisier et al. 2003) and follow-up by the $XMM-Newton$ observatory accurately localized its position (de Plaa et al. 2003, Schartel et al. 2003). A flux of 50$-$100 mCrab was observed in the 15$-$40 keV energy band with a significant variability on timescales of more than 1000 s (Walter et al. 2003). Observations made with the $XMM-Newton$ revealed the presence of strong Fe-K$_{\alpha}$, Fe-K$_{\beta}$ and Ni-K$_{\alpha}$ emission lines (Schartel et al. 2003, de Plaa et al. 2003), alongwith a highly absorbed powerlaw ($\Gamma \sim$ 1.7-2.1) continuum (Matt $\&$ Guainazzi 2003). The IR spectrum is also rich in emission lines, various orders of H, He I and He II (Kaplan et al. 2006). IGR J16318$-$4848 is surrounded by dense circumstellar material and powered by accretion from a stellar wind (Revnivtsev et al. 2003, Filliatre $\&$ Chaty 2004). From the archived $ASCA$ observations, Revnivtsev et al. (2003) determined an enormously high column density, N$_{H}$ $\simeq$ 10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, due to which, the source is not observable at energies below 4 keV.
We report the timing analysis of these three bright supergiant systems, IGR J18027$-$2016, IGR J18483$-$0311 and IGR J16318$-$4848. Using the data obtained from $Swift$-BAT and $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI, we have determined the orbital periods of IGR J18027$-$2016 and IGR J18483$-$0311. We have also discovered an 80 d periodicity in the occurence of outbursts in IGR J16318$-$4848, which is possibly indicative of a binary orbital period.
Observations and analysis
=========================
We have used data obtained with instruments on board Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer ($RXTE$), $Swift$ Gamma Ray Burst Explorer and INTErnational Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory ($INTEGRAL$). The three sources were regularly monitored by the All Sky Monitor (ASM) on board the $RXTE$. The ASM data used for the present work covered the time span from MJD 50088 to MJD 54860. The 15$-$50 keV light curves of IGR J18027$-$2016, IGR J18483$-$0311 and IGR J16318$-$4848 were obtained from the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT; Barthelmy et al. 2005) on board the $Swift$ observatory. The observations covered the time range from MJD 53413 to MJD 54867. For all the three sources, the 22$-$40 keV long term $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI light curve spanned $\sim$ 1350 days.
**IGR J18027$-$2016:** The long term $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM light curves of IGR J18027$-$2016 were corrected for the earth motion using the $earth2sun$ tool of the HEASARC software package $``$Ftools" ver6.5.1. We searched for the orbital period using the ftool - $efsearch$, which folds the light curve with a large number of trial periods around an approximate period. Figure \[fig:f1\] shows the $efsearch$ result on the light curve of IGR J18027$-$2016.
The top panel shows the result of period search on the long term $Swift$-BAT light curve. The peak here corresponds to the periodicity in the light curve. The inset figure is the expanded view around the peak. A gaussian fit around the peak gave the gaussian center as 394793(103) s (4.5693(11) d). The $efsearch$ result of the $INTEGRAL$ data, over the same range as in $Swift$-BAT, is shown in the second panel. The main peak corresponds to a period of 395056(210) s (4.5723(24) d). It should be noted that the present $INTEGRAL$ dataset is longer than that analyzed by Hill et al. 2005, who determined a period of 4.570 (3) d using the ISGRI data spanning $\sim$417 days. The $INTEGRAL$ data used in the present work covered the time range from MJD 52698 to MJD 54041. The third panel shows the $efsearch$ result on the 5$-$12 keV $RXTE$-ASM light curve. A peak is present but with a poor significance. The peak corresponds to a period of 394805(185) s (4.5695(21) d).
We have also confirmed the periodicity in the light curves of IGR J18027$-$2016, using the Lomb-Scargle periodogram method by means of the fast implementation of Press $\&$ Rybicki (1989) and Scargle (1982) technique. Figure \[fig:f2\] shows the periodogram generated using the $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM light curves.
As seen in Figure \[fig:f2\], a clear peak is present in the periodogram generated from the $Swift$ and $INTEGRAL$ light curves. But, periodicity could not be confirmed from the $RXTE$-ASM observations. The power spectrum in the case of $Swift$-BAT and $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI data, peaks at 0.218 d$^{-1}$, which corresponds to a periodicity of 4.5871 d. This result is in sync with the values determined by the $efsearch$ analysis and those reported by Hill et al. (2005). The significance of these peaks was confirmed by a randomization test. For both, $Swift$-BAT and $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI light curves, the time stamps of the observed count rates were randomly shuffled and a periodogram was generated from the resulting time series. We simulated 10,000 light curves and determined the maximum power for both the cases. As shown in Figure \[fig:f2\], the horizontal lines in the top two panels show the significance level. The dotted and dashed lines respectively show the 99.9$\%$ and 99$\%$ significance power among the randomized light curves. This imply that a peak power of 281 and 61 in the original $Swift$-BAT and $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI periodograms is unlikely to occur by chance and therefore the period detection is significant.
To determine the long term orbital solution, we folded the $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM light curves in 16 phasebins with a period of 394805 s. The folded light curves are shown in Figure \[fig:f3\].
A sharp eclipse is clearly seen in the folded $Swift$-BAT light curve. The eclipse lasts for $\sim$ 0.2 orbital phase. A clear eclipse in also seen in the folded $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI light curve but it is not sharp as compared to the eclipse seen in the folded $Swift$-BAT light curve. The eclipse detection in the folded $RXTE$-ASM light curves is not significant, but we emphasize that it occurs at the same phase as seen in the other two observations. We fitted a gaussian to the eclipse phase and the center of the best fit gaussian gives the mid eclipse time for that observation. **From the folded $Swift$-BAT light curve, we determined an eclipse half width of 0.1923 orbital phase. This implies an eclipse half angle of 0.604 radians. The mass of the companion star is known to lie within a range of 19$-$29 M$_{\odot}$. Therefore, assuming a canonical mass of 1.4 M$_{\odot}$ for the neutron star, the lower limit on the companion star radius will lie in the range 16.4$-$24.7 R$_{\odot}$.**
Table 1 gives a log of the mid eclipse times determined from each observation.
----------- ------------------ ------------- ------------------
Cycle Mid eclipse time Uncertainty Satellite
(MJD) (d)
0$\dag$ 52168.26 0.04 $Beppo$-SAX
68 52478.78 0.12 $RXTE$-ASM
167$\dag$ 52931.37 0.04 $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI
239 53260.37 0.07 $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI
352 53776.82 0.07 $Swift$-BAT
511 54503.38 0.07 $Swift$-BAT
----------- ------------------ ------------- ------------------
: X-ray mid-eclipse times of IGR J18027$-$2016.
$\dag$Reported by Hill et al. 2005 \[Table 1\]
We determined two mid eclipse times from the $Swift$-BAT data and one from $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI data. The eclipse seen in the $RXTE$-ASM light curve is not sharp and hence the determination of mid eclipse time involves a large error. We then combined these newly determined mid eclipse times with the known values and fitted a quadratic model to the ephemeris history. We determined an orbital period (P$_{orb}$) of 394787(34) s (4.5693(4) d) and a period derivative of 3.9(1.2)$\times$10$^{-7}$ d d$^{-1}$ at MJD 52168. We then subtracted the best fit linear component from the ephemeris history and the residual is plotted in Figure \[fig:f4\]. There are only few mid eclipse times reported for this source, therefore, it is not possible to accurately determine the orbital evolution of this binary system. But it should be noted that the period is indeed evolving and probably, future observations of the source can lead to determination of the orbital evolution in this system. **In particular, since this is an eclipsing system, the optical measurements of the companion star can be useful to place a constraint on the rate of mass loss from the donor star.**
**IGR J18483$-$0311:** The $efsearch$ period search result on the long term $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM light curves of IGR J18483$-$0311 are shown in Figure \[fig:f5\].
Clear peaks are seen in all the three results. A gaussian was fit around the peak in the $Swift$-BAT period search results (inset figure in the top panel) and the peak center determined. An orbital period of 1602796(2268) s (18.550(26) d) was determined. The peak in the $efsearch$ result of the 22-40 keV $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and 5$-$12 keV $RXTE$-ASM light curves corresponds to 1600227(2989) s (18.521(34) d) and 1602571(767) s (18.5482(88) d), respectively. These results are an improvement over the results obtained by Sguera et al. (2007), who analyzed $\sim$ 1142 days of data from the $INTEGRAL$ observations and determined an orbital period of 18.52 d. Whereas, the present result is more complete with the $INTEGRAL$ data covering the time range from MJD 52704 to MJD 54053.
IGR J18483-0311 is a bursting source and therefore, initially we could not determine an accurate period from the $efsearch$ analysis of the entire $INTEGRAL$ light curve. But after the removal of 5$\sigma$ bursts (as explained later), we determined the orbital period accurately. We have confirmed the periodicity in the long term $Swift$-BAT and $RXTE$-ASM light curves by using the Lomb-Scargle periodogram technique as mentioned in the case of IGR J18027$-$2016.
As shown in Figure \[fig:f6\], the peak in the Lomb-Scargle periodogram of the $Swift$-BAT light curve corresponds to 0.0538 d$^{-1}$, .i.e. a period of 18.5873 d. Similarly, from the $RXTE$-ASM light curve (Figure \[fig:f6\], bottom panel) a period of 18.7617 d has been found. The dotted and the dashed horizontal lines in Figure \[fig:f6\] correspond to 99.9$\%$ and 99$\%$ significance level as determined from the randomization test explained before. The $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM light curves were folded into 32 phasebins with a period of 1602571 s and are shown in Figure \[fig:f7\].
Clear peaks are seen in all the three folded light curves. The folded light curve shows that the source is inactive for about half the orbit.
IGR J18483$-$0311 is a transient source and many outbursts have been recorded by the instruments on board $INTEGRAL$. Figure \[fig:f8\] shows the long term $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI light curve binned with an orbital period of 18.5482 d. The bottom panel of the same figure shows the long term light curve binned with a period one-sixteenth of the orbital period.
Large variations, akin to the SFXT outbursts are seen in the bottom panel compared to the light curve shown in the top panel. To determine their phase occurence, we took the light curve binned with 1.1592 d and assuming a uniform exposure throughout the observation, we divided the signal count rate by the error associated with it. The resulting light curve is shown in Figure \[fig:f9\] (top panel). We then took the outbursts above 5 $\sigma$ and 10 $\sigma$ level and considering an orbital period of 18.5482 d, we determined their phase of occurence with respect to the most intense outburst. A histogram of the number of outburst in each orbital phase was created. It is shown in the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:f9\]. The solid curve in the histogram corresponds to outburst above 10 $\sigma$ level and the dotted curve is for the 5 $\sigma$ level. As can be seen in the figure, most of the outbursts occur at the same phase as the reference $``$most intense" outburst. Although, a few outburst occur at other phases also, but this result confirms the periodicity in the occurence of outbursts.
After the removal of 5$\sigma$ bursts, we searched for an orbital period in the $INTEGRAL$ data and the $efsearch$ result is shown in Figure \[fig:f5\] (middle panel). The folded $INTEGRAL$ light curve, after the removal of 5$\sigma$ outbursts, is shown in Figure \[fig:f7\] (middle panel). The profile is similar to the folded profile obtained of the $Swift$-BAT and the $RXTE$-ASM light curves.
**IGR J16318$-$4848:** As done in the case of IGR J18027$-$2016 and IGR J18483$-$0311, the long term $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM light curves were first corrected for the earth motion and the periodicity was searched using the ftool $efsearch$. The period search results are shown in Figure \[fig:f10\].
Top panel shows the $efsearch$ result from the $Swift$-BAT light curve and a peak is seen near $\sim$ 7 $\times$ 10$^{6}$ s. The period search analysis in IGR J16318$-$4848 is being reported for the first time, therefore, we have searched for a period over a wide range of trial periods. The inset figure is the expanded view around the peak, about which we fit a gaussian model. We obtained the best fit gaussian center as 6931624(1202) s (80.227(14) d). The detection significance of periodicity from the $INTEGRAL$ and $RXTE$ observations is very small, but we do detect a peak at 6915874(1808) s (80.045(21) d) and 6929084(1912) s (80.198(22) d), respectively. We tried to confirm the periodicity using the Lomb-Scargle periodogram technique as done above for the other two sources, but we could not detect a significant peak.
Figure \[fig:f11\] shows the folded $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM light curves of IGR J16318-4848. The light curves were folded with the respective best period determined in each case. We have done the rest of the analysis with the $Swift$-BAT light curve, which has the best statistics amongst the three observations.
A clear peak is seen in the folded light curve, along with small secondary peaks. The main peak lasts for about 0.2 orbital phase. Figure \[fig:f12\] shows the $Swift$-BAT light curve binned with a binsize of 80.22 d. The bottom panel of the same figure shows the light curves binned with a binsize one-sixteenth of 80.22 d. An intense outburst near the end of the observation clearly stands out and the peak observed in the folded orbital light curve could be dominated by this.
To check this, we applied a similar analysis as done above for IGR J18483-0311. We divided the signal count rate by the error in rate determination for the light curve binned with 5.013 d (shown in Figure \[fig:f13\] (top panel)). We then took the outbursts above 15 $\sigma$ and 20 $\sigma$ level and considering an orbital period of 80 d, we determined the phase of occurence of outbursts with respect to the most intense outburst. The bottom panel of Figure \[fig:f13\] shows the histogram of number of outbursts in each phase. Most of the outbursts occur around an orbital phase of 0.1, with occasional outbursts at phases about 0.4 and 0.7. It implies that though the outbursts occur with a periodicity of $\sim$ 80 d, there are three different orbital phases at which they occur.
Discussion
==========
Using the long term $Swift$-BAT, $INTEGRAL$-ISGRI and $RXTE$-ASM data of IGR J18027$-$2016, we have determined an accurate value of the orbital period of 4.5693(4) d. From the $Swift$-BAT and $RXTE$-ASM data, we have accurately determined an orbital period of 18.5482(88) d for IGR J18483$-$0311 and have found that the outbursts occur intermittently at intervals of $\sim$18.55 d. We have also found a $\sim$ 80 d periodicity in the occurence of outbursts from IGR J16318$-$4848.
All the three sources, IGR J18027$-$2016, IGR J18483$-$0311 and IGR J16318$-$4848, studied in the present work, are bright supergiant High Mass X-ray Binaries which accrete material through the stellar wind of a late O/early B-type supergiant companion. The classical supergiant systems have small and circular orbits, as compared to relatively larger orbits found in Supergiant Fast X-ray Transients. However, there are exceptions to this. Recently, Jain et al. (2009) determined a 3.32 d orbital period for the SFXT system IGR J16479$-$4514, which is smaller than that known in other SFXTs, IGR J11215$-$5952 (165 d: Romano et al. 2007; Sidoli et al. 2007) and SAX J1818.6$-$1703 (30 d: Bird et al. 2009). An orbital period of 4.56 d for IGR J18027$-$2016 is well within the expected range for supergiant systems, but an orbital period of 18.5508 d determined for IGR J18483$-$0311, is somewhat more than that expected from a supergiant system. IGR J18483$-$0311 is active for about half the orbital cycle. The quiescent emission level in IGR J18483$-$0311 is also higher (Sguera et al. 2007). All this imply that the source is an intermediate system between classical supergiants and SFXTs.
IGR J16318$-$4848 is a highly absorbed source with a hydrogen column density, N$_{H}$ $\simeq$ 10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$. The presence of strong absorption shows that the compact object must be embedded in a dense circumstellar envelope, originating from the accretion of stellar winds. **In several HMXBs, the orbital periods have been determined either through the timing analysis of the X-ray data (example, IGR J16479$-$4514: Jain et al. (2009); IGR J17544$-$2619: Clark et al. (2009); IGR J17252$-$3616: Zurita Heras et al. (2006)) or through the timing of the recurrent outbursts (example IGR J11215$-$5952: Sidoli et al. (2007); SAX J1818.6$-$1703: Sidoli et al. (2009)).** We have studied the periodicity in the occurence of outbursts in this system. The periodicity of $\sim$ 80 d in the outburst behaviour most likely represents the orbital period of the binary system and is a key diagnostic for studying the geometry of the system.
Several models have been proposed to explain the occurrence of periodic outbursts in the supergiant systems. In’t Zand (2005) suggested the $``$clumpy winds“ model according to which the wind from the donor star is composed of dense clumps with mass of the order of 10$^{19}$ - 10$^{20}$ g (Howk et al. 2000). Neutron star accretes from the wind of the supergiant at different rates depending on the wind density and short flares occur due to episodic accretion of clumps from the massive winds. Negueruela et al. (2008) suggested that outbursts occur due to accretion of clumps from the spherical wind. They proposed that the orbit of these systems are large and the wind clumps density is small. The outbursts in IGR J16318$-$4848 have been observed to occur at different orbital phases. **The pattern of the X-ray outbursts depend on the size, eccentricity and the orientation of the orbit.** Sidoli et al. (2007) proposed that the supergiant wind has an $``$equatorial disk” component, in addition to the spherically symmetric polar component. Outbursts occur when the neutron star crosses the equatorial disk component at the periastron, which is denser than the polar wind component. The neutron star can cross the disk twice depending on the truncation of the disk, its orientation and inclination with respect to the orbital plane.
In view of the results presented above, we point out that more sensitive and frequent monitoring of all the three sources is required in order to understand them in detail. Specially in the case of IGR J18027$-$2016, which show clear eclipses which can be used to time mark the orbital modulation and determine the orbital evolution in the system, if any. Using longer data sets, we have been able to determine the orbital period of IGR J18483$-$0311 with greater accuracy. Regular monitoring of the absorbed source IGR J16318$-$4848 is important to detect the orbital period with confidence.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the $Swift$-BAT and $RXTE$-ASM teams for provision of the data
Augello G., Iaria R., Robba N. R., Di Salvo T., Burderi L., Lavagetto G., Stella L., 2003, ApJ, 596, L63 Barthelmy S. D., Barbier L. M., Cummings J. R. et al., 2005, Space Science Reviews, 120, 143 Bird A. J., Malizia A., Bazzano A. et al., 2007, ApJS, 170, 175 Bird A. J., Bazzano A., Hill A. B., McBride V. A., Sguera V., Shaw S. E., Watkins H. J., 2009, MNRAS, 393, L11 Chernyakova M., Lutovinov A., Capitanio F., Lund N., Gehrels, N., 2003, ATel, 157, 1 **Clark D. J., Hill A. B., Bird A. J., McBride V. A., Scaringi S., Dean A. J., 2009, arXiv 0908.1041** Corbet R. H. D., 1986, MNRAS, 220, 1047 Courvoisier T. J. L., Walter R., Rodriguez J., Bouchet L., Lutovinov A. A., 2003, IAUC, 8063, 3 de Plaa J., den Hartog P. R., Kaastra J. S., in’t Zand J. J. M., Mendez M., Hermsen W., 2003, ATel, 119, 1 Filliatre P., Chaty S., 2004, ApJ, 616, 469 Hill A. B., Walter R., Knigge C. et al., 2005, A$\&$A, 439, 255 Howk J. C., Cassinelli J. P., Bjorkman J. E., Lamers H. J. G. L. M., 2000, ApJ, 534, 348 in’t Zand J. J. M., 2005, A$\&$A, 441, L1 Jain C., Paul B., Dutta A., 2009, **MNRAS, 397, L11** Kaplan D. L., Moon D. S., Reach W. T., 2006, ApJ, 649, L107 **Kaur R., Wijnands R., Patruno A. et al., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1597** Kuulkers E., 2005, AIPC, 797, 402 Kuulkers E., Shaw S. E., Paizis A. et al., 2007, A$\&$A, 466, 595 Lebrun F., Leray J. P., Lavocat P. et al., 2003, A$\&$A, 411, L141 Levine A. M., Corbet R., 2006, ATel, 940, 1 Liu Q. Z., van Paradijs J., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 2000, A$\&$AS, 147, 25 Liu Q. Z., van Paradijs J., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 2006, A$\&$A, 455, L1165 Lutovinov A., Revnivtsev M., Gilfanov M., Shtykovskiy P., Molkov S., Sunyaev R., 2005, A$\&$A, 444, 821 Matt G., Guainazzi M., 2003, MNRAS, 341, L13 Negueruela I., Smith D. M., Reig P., Chaty S., $\&$ Torrejon J. M., 2006, ESASP, 604, 165 Negueruela I., Torrejon J. M., Reig, P., Ribo, M., Smith, D. M., 2008, AIPC, 1010, 252 Press W. H., Rybicki G. B., 1989, ApJ, 338, 277 Rahoui F., Chaty, S., Lagage P., Pantin E., 2008, A$\&$A, 484, 801 Revnivtsev M. G., Sazonov S. Yu., Gilfanov M. R., Sunyaev R. A., 2003, AstL, 29, 587 Revnivtsev M. G., Sunyaev R. A., Varshalovich D. A. et al., 2004, AstL, 30, 382 Romano P., Sidoli L., Mangano V., Mereghetti S., Cusumano G., 2007, A$\&$A, 469, L5 Scargle J. D., 1982, ApJ, 263, S835 Schartel N., 2003, IAUC, 8072, 3 Sguera V., Barlow E. J., Bird A. J., et al., 2005, A$\&$A, 444, 221 Sguera V., Bazzano A., Bird A. J., et al., 2006, ApJ, 646, 452 Sguera V., Hill A. B., Bird A. J., et al., 2007, A$\&$A, 467, 249 Sidoli L., Romano P., Mereghetti S., Paizis A., Vercellone S., Mangano V., Gotz D., 2007, A$\&$A, 476, 1307 **Sidoli L., Romano P., Esposito P. et al. 2009, arXiv 0907.4041** Ubertini P., Lebrun F., Di Cocco G., et al., 2003, A$\&$A, 411, L131 Walter R., 2003, A$\&$A, 411, L427 Winkler C., Courvoisier T. J. L., Di Cocco G., et al., 2003, A$\&$A, 411, L1 **Zurita Heras J. A., de Cesare G., Walter R., Bodaghee A., Belanger G., Courvoisier T. J. L., Shaw S. E., Stephen J. B. 2006, A$\&$A, 448, 261**
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The existence of multiple planetary systems involved in mean motion conmensurabilities has increased significantly since the Kepler mission. Although most correspond to 2-planet resonances, multiple resonances have also been found. The Laplace resonance is a particular case of a three-body resonance where the period ratio between consecutive pairs is $n_1/n_2 \sim n_2/n_3 \sim 2/1$. It is not clear how this triple resonance can act in order to stabilize (or not) the systems.
The most reliable extrasolar system located in a Laplace resonance is GJ876 because it has two independent confirmations. However best-fit parameters were obtained without previous knowledge of resonance structure and no exploration of all the possible stable solutions for the system where done.
In the present work we explored the different configurations allowed by the Laplace resonance in the GJ876 system by varying the planetary parameters of the third outer planet. We find that in this case the Laplace resonance is a stabilization mechanism in itself, defined by a tiny island of regular motion surrounded by (unstable) highly chaotic orbits. Low eccentric orbits and mutual inclinations from -20 to 20 degrees are compatible with the observations. A definite range of mass ratio must be assumed to maintain orbital stability. Finally we give constrains for argument of pericenters and mean anomalies in order to assure stability for this kind of systems.
author:
- |
\
$^{1}$Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Observatorio Astronómico, IATE, Laprida 854, X5000BGR Córdoba, Argentina\
$^{2}$Departamento de Física, I3N, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
title: 'Dynamical analysis of the Gliese-876 Laplace resonance'
---
celestial mechanics, techniques: radial velocities, planets and satellites: formation.
Introduction
============
A three-body resonance is a planetary configuration were the period ratios between consecutive pairs of planets satisfies $n_{1}/n_{2} \sim p/q$ and $n_{2}/n_{3} \sim r/s$, with $p,q,r,s \in Z$. Due to the success of the *Kepler* mission detecting exosystems (candidates) trapped in three-body resonances and because this type of multiresonant configurations give a possible origin to the giant planets of our own solar system [@Morbidelli_etal_2007], currently three-body resonances present special interest in the scientific community.
Among the systems with three-planet resonances, @Lissauer_etal_2011 found some Kepler candidates in a multi-resonant configurations (e.g, KOI-152, KOI-730 and KOI-500). The candidate KOI-152 reveals a system of three hot super-Earth candidates that are in (or near) a 4:2:1 mean motion resonance [@Wang_etal_2012], having TTV signals that corresponds to gravitational interactions between them. The four candidates in the KOI-730 system satisfy the mean motion ratio 8:6:4:3. This resonant chain is a potential missing link that explains how planets that are subject to migration in a gas or planetesimal disk can avoid close encounters with each other, being brought to a very closely packed, yet stable, configuration [@Lissauer_etal_2011]. The KOI-500 is a (near-)resonant five-candidate system with combinations of mean motions given by $2n_2 - 5n_3 + 3n_4 \sim 1.6\times10^{-5}$ and $2n_3 - 6n_4 + 4n_5 \sim 1.3 \times10^{-5}$, maybe suggesting a strong interaction due to hidden companions in MMR [@Lissauer_etal_2011]. On the other hand, numerical studies using Saturn, Uranus and Neptune masses from @Morbidelli_etal_2007 showed that is possible to obtain configurations where the period ratio between consecutive pairs 2:3 and 4:5 (or 3:4) are stable for 400 Gyr.
The case where the period ratio between consecutive pairs is $n_1/n_2 \sim n_2/n_3 \sim 2/1$, is a particular case of a three-body resonance called [*Laplace resonance*]{}. This configuration is rare in our own solar system and the Galilean satellites Io, Europa and Ganymede constitute the only known example trapped in such a configuration [@Ferraz-Mello1979]. Among the vast variety of extrasolar planets, only GJ876 has been confirmed to be in a Laplace resonance.
Unconfirmed candidates of Laplace resonance detected with radial-velocity can be found in HD40307 and HD82943. The system HD40307 has been proposed to be locked in 4:2:1 MMR and studied by @Papaloizou_2010. HD82943 was studied by @Beauge_etal_2008. The mass ratio between inner pair is $m_2/m_1 \sim 1$ and between the outer pair is $m_3/m_2 \sim 0.2$. The results were found using Stokes-like drag force with fixed values for the e-folding times for the semimajor axes and eccentricities. The authors tested under a wide variety of masses for the third body, and the planets always evolved towards a double MMR, in which $n_1/n_2 \sim 2/1$ and the ratio $n_2/n_3$ also corresponded to a ratio of integers. In a large majority of the simulations the outer pair of planets was also trapped in a 2/1 MMR (i.e. $n_2/n_3 \sim 2/1$). The dynamical analysis of the results revealed that there is an **asymmetric** libration of resonant angles. Finally a clue that would be useful in this analysis is that the phase space associated to the Laplace resonance is complex, and appears to be populated with a number of small islands of stable motion surrounded by large chaotic regions of instability [see Fig.9 bottom in @Beauge_etal_2008].
The goal of the present work is to develop a dynamical analysis of the Laplace resonance using as primary target GJ876, because the system has been discussed previously in several works, giving us a well grounded basis with which to compare our results. In a parallel way we extend our understanding of the dynamical complexities of the Laplace resonance.
[ l c c c c c c c c ]{}\
\
& &\
\[1ex\]\
[**Parameter**]{} & [**Planet d**]{} & [**Planet c**]{} & [**Planet b**]{} & [**Planet e**]{} & [**Planet d**]{} & [**Planet c**]{} & [**Planet b**]{} & [**Planet e**]{}\
\
$P$ (days) & $1.937886$ & $30.1829$ & $60.9904$ & $124.51$ & $1.937780$ & $30.0881$ & $61.1166$ & $124.26$\
$m \, (\textrm{M}_{jup})$ & $0.0218$ & $0.747$ & $2.337$ & $0.0482$ & $0.0214$ & $0.7142$ & $2.2756$ & $0.0459$\
$a$ (AU) & $0.02110625$ & $0.131727$ & $0.211018$ & $0.33961$ & $0.02080665$ & $0.129590$ & $0.208317$ & $0.3343$\
$e$ & $0.178$ & $0.2498$ & $0.0328$ & $0.008$ & $0.207$ & $0.25591$ & $0.0324$ & $0.055$\
$\omega \, (^{\circ})$ & $224.0$ & $252.08$ & $248.7$ & $181.0$ & $234.0$ & $48.76$ & $50.3$ & $239.0$\
$\psi \, (^{\circ})$ & $357.6$ & $71.09$ & $341.13$ & $299.3$ & $229.0$ & $343.35$ & $16.0$ & $234.0$\
$M \, (^{\circ})$ & $133.6$ & $179.01$ & $92.43$ & $118.3$ & $355.0$ & $294.59$ & $325.7$ & $335.0$\
\[Table1\]\
Four planet coplanar fit for GJ876 with $i = 56.1^{\circ}$ from @Baluev_2011 and with $i = 59.^{\circ}$ for @Rivera_etal_2010. The masses listed in the table are corrected by the corresponding value of the inclination for each fit. The coordinates are given in Jacobi reference frame. In his work, Baluev gives the angle $ \psi = M + \omega$, so, the calculated value of $M$ is also written (in the same way for Baluev).
GJ876 {#sec2}
=====
The GJ876 system contains four confirmed planets, and as an exoplanetary system it is really unique. GJ876 was the first system detected locked in mean-motion resonance. The planets GJ876 b and c, have mass ratio $m_c/m_b\sim$ 3 and orbital periods of 61.11 and 30.08 days respectively [@Rivera_etal_2010] and their strong interaction is evident in radial velocity because their small semimajor axis ($<0.2 AU$) and small primary star ($M_{\bigstar}$ = 0.32 for and $M_{\bigstar}$ = 0.334 $M_\odot$ for ). An extensive bibliography on this system brought major contributions to the development of models and methods, including: detection using mutual interaction [@Rivera_Lissauer_2000; @Laughlin_Chambers_2001], planetary migration and resonance capture [@Kley_etal_2005], and periodic motion in planetary resonances for massive planets [@Hadjidemetriou2002; @Beauge_Michtchenko_2003].
From the very beginning, the possibility of hosting additional planetary bodies have been subject of intense studies and the last and outermost planet (GJ876 e) has been confirmed by two independent works [@Rivera_etal_2010; @Baluev_2011] to be in a 3-body resonant configuration (e.g. Laplace resonance) with planets GJ876 c and b. A detailed stability analysis for the system containing an additional 15 days period planet discarded its presence [@Correia_etal_2010; @GerlachHaghighipour_2012].
Resonant variables
------------------
Consider a system with three planets in the Laplace configuration. Then, the resonant variables involved in this problem are the resonant angles of the two two-body resonances taken separately
[$$\begin{split}
&\theta_{1} = \lambda_{1} - 2\lambda_{2} + \varpi_{1}\\
&\theta_{2} = \lambda_{1} - 2\lambda_{2} + \varpi_{2}\\
&\theta_{3} = \lambda_{2} - 2\lambda_{3} + \varpi_{2}\\
&\theta_{4} = \lambda_{2} - 2\lambda_{3} + \varpi_{3}.
\end{split}
\label{30}$$]{}
where $\lambda$ is the mean longitude and $\varpi$ is the argument of pericenter. We reserve the subscripts 1 to 3 for orbital elements and masses from innermost to outermost planet involved in the Laplace Resonance.
We can also define the Laplace variable (or $\theta_{5}$) which can be written as a combination of two of the resonant angles:
[$$\theta_{5} = \theta_{2} - \theta_{3} = \lambda_{1} - 3\lambda_{2} + 2\lambda_{3}.
\label{31}$$]{}
being the secular variables: [$$\begin{split}
&\Delta\varpi_{21} = \varpi_{2} - \varpi_{1} = \theta_{2} - \theta_{1}\\
&\Delta\varpi_{32} = \varpi_{3} - \varpi_{2} = \theta_{4} - \theta_{3}
\end{split}
\label{32}$$]{}
The libration/circulation regime and libration amplitudes of these angles give much information about the resonant dynamics. It is clear from equation that a simultaneous libration of the angles $\theta_{2}$ and $\theta_{3}$ means that the Laplace angle is also librating.
Simplified dynamical models for this type of resonant configurations can be found in @LithwickWu2012 and @BatyginMorbidelli2012. These models were obtained as a way of introducing dissipative effects in the evolution of resonant configurations, and are too simplified for a general dynamical analysis of three-body resonances. On the other hand, numerical simulations of capture into the Laplace resonance due to gas-driven migration were performed in @Libert_Tsiganis_2011, for different mass ratios and drag parameters. Results show that if one of the inner planets has its eccentricity pumped to a value higher than 0.3, then the mutual inclination can be excited up to 30$^{\circ}$.
We use here the best fit model for GJ876 as a first step trying to understand this Laplace-resonance configuration.
Dynamics for best fits {#stability}
----------------------
Table \[Table1\] gives the best fits planetary masses and orbital parameters from @Rivera_etal_2010 and @Baluev_2011 (and respectively from now on). The inner pair has a inner planet significantly less massive than the outer (e.g. GJ876 $m_b / m_c \sim 3$), meanwhile for the outer pair the mass ratio is $m_e / m_b \sim 0.02$. We integrated initial conditions from Table \[Table1\] and obtained qualitatively the same results than and .
The libration centers (around zero) and amplitudes are similar for the angles $\theta_{1}$, $\theta_{2}$ and $\theta_{3}$, while the last of the resonant angles $\theta_{4}$ is librating around $180^{\circ}$ with the same amplitude for both published solutions. This last result differs slightly from results given in where they claim that the $\theta_{4}$ is circulating. Some values for $\theta_{4} \sim 0^{\circ}$ are due to the small eccentricity of the planet, thus apparently giving circulation instead of libration around $\theta_{4} = 180^{\circ}$.
We plotted in the ($e_{j}\sin\theta_{i}, e_{j}\cos\theta_{i}$) space the initial conditions from in Figure \[fig2\]. We used color code for different total integration times: $10^{2}$ years (light-green), $10^{3}$ (dark-green), $10^{4}$ (light-blue) and $10^{5}$ years (dark-blue). The blue dots cannot be seen because no change in the libration region is evident after the first $10^{3}$. We checked that the secular angles $\Delta \omega_{32}$ and $\Delta \omega_{31}$ librate around $180^\circ$, while $\Delta \omega_{21}$ librates with a very low amplitude around zero (being the same behavior found by and ).
The Laplace angle $\theta_{5}$ is librating around zero with an amplitude $\sim 40^{\circ}$ (i.e. $\theta_{5} = 0 \pm 40^{\circ}$), for at least $3 \times 10^{6}$ years in both published fits. This amplitude is also consistent with the value given in . The non-regular libration of the Laplace angle is evident in the first 100 years of integrations.
We integrated the two solutions listed in Table \[Table1\] including calculations of various chaoticity indicators which identified this systems as irregular. This chaotic nature of the systems is later discussed and analyzed in more detail in sections \[sec3\] and \[sec5\]. Although chaotic, both systems are long-term stable, and it is worth to analyze them in a thorough way.
Rivera and Baluev show that their solutions are stable for at least $10^{6}$ years. These long term integrations contain thousands of secular periods of the system, corresponding to roughly $10^{8}$ to $10^{9}$ years when rescaled to the subsystem of the giant planets in our Solar System. Baluev’s long term integrations were done with initial conditions slightly different from those listed in Table \[Table1\]. The parameters were determined with the fitting model that accounts the white and red noise and fixing the eccentricity of the outermost planet at $e_{e} = 0$. Also long-term integrations were done with only three planets, not taking into account the innermost.
\
[![Stability maps for an exterior planet in Laplace resonance. [**Top panel**]{}. Megno chaos indicator. [**Middle panel**]{} $\Delta e_3$. [**Bottom panel**]{}. Test planet end-states (stable, escape from system ($a_3> 5$ AU), collision with central star $M_{\bigstar}$ ($a_3< 0.05$ AU), collision with another companion (when mutual distance with planet $i$ is lower than sum of their mutual radii), and capture orbit around $m_i$. The white line was calculated using [@Gladman_1993]. White circles are the locations in the plane for planets $1$ and $2$. The phase space of the system is explored by varying the semi-major axis $a$ and eccentricity $e$ of the outer planet marked as black circle.[]{data-label="fig3"}](./figuras/GJ876-texJ-e2p.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}]{}\
[![Stability maps for an exterior planet in Laplace resonance. [**Top panel**]{}. Megno chaos indicator. [**Middle panel**]{} $\Delta e_3$. [**Bottom panel**]{}. Test planet end-states (stable, escape from system ($a_3> 5$ AU), collision with central star $M_{\bigstar}$ ($a_3< 0.05$ AU), collision with another companion (when mutual distance with planet $i$ is lower than sum of their mutual radii), and capture orbit around $m_i$. The white line was calculated using [@Gladman_1993]. White circles are the locations in the plane for planets $1$ and $2$. The phase space of the system is explored by varying the semi-major axis $a$ and eccentricity $e$ of the outer planet marked as black circle.[]{data-label="fig3"}](./figuras/GJ876-tex-fin.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}]{}
Dynamics around best fits {#sec3}
-------------------------
Throughout the numerical integrations we choose the mass of the central star accordingly to each fit, in the case of $M_{\star} = 0.32 M_{\odot}$ while in $M_{\star} = 0.334 M_{\odot}$. The integrations are for coplanar systems. However we checked some runs with nearly coplanar systems and the general results remained almost unaltered.
As mentioned in the previous section, the best fits resulted chaotic although long term stable. This led to the question about the behavior of the system surrounding the best fits. The dynamics of the Laplace resonance present in the GJ876 is studied in this work through several stability maps carried out with a Burlisch-Stoer based N-body code (precision better than $10^{-12}$) using as initial conditions Jacobi osculating variables.
The numerical integrator calculates the MEGNO value (Mean Exponential Growth of Nearby Orbits) for each initial condition. For a detailed explanation of MEGNO ($<Y>$) we refer the reader to @Cincotta_2000, @Cincotta_Giordano_Simo_2003 and @Maffione_etal_2011. This indicator has the great feature of identifying chaotic orbits in less CPU time than other indicators (e. g. lyapunov characteristic exponent, etc), however it cannot give a precise representation of the structure of a resonance, as it only differentiate regular ($<Y> \sim 2$) from chaotic orbits ($<Y> \gg 2$).
For each initial condition we also calculated the maximum amplitude of variation of eccentricity attained during the integration ($\Delta e_{i}$ for each planet). Due to angular momentum conservation the lower mass planet exhibits higher variation ($\Delta e_{3} > \Delta e_{2}, \Delta e_{1}$). This indicator discriminates different kind of dynamics of the system. The most drastic changes in the eccentricity of a planet is when the body is located near the separatrix of a resonance, although the amplitude of variation has an upper bound. Thus $\Delta e_{3}$ can be used to define precise limits to resonance widths and extensions, without expensive additional numerical calculations.
We used these two indicators because they are complementary and they provide different kind of information.
Chaoticity Maps
---------------
We performed a series of maps around Rivera’s solution from Table \[Table1\] to find clues for the observed stability/chaos in the GJ876 system. We first integrated a grid of initial conditions for the outermost planet in the $(a_3,e_3)$ plane, taking its mass equal to $14.6 M_\oplus$. Figure \[fig3\] shows results in the region $a \in (0.03,4.86)$ and $e \in (0.0,0.4)$. The colors show the MEGNO (top) and $\Delta e_{3}$ (middle) values of each initial condition integrated for $5\times10^4$ years. We identified the location of planets 1 and 2 with white circles and the nominal location of planet 3 with a black circle. Red color-codes were reserved for orbits that disrupt within the total integration time.
Probably the first insight about the stability of the system can be given by testing if the system is stable according to the stability criteria developed by @MarchalySaari_1975. This criteria uses energy and angular momentum of a three-body system to estimate the Hill-stability limit. The problem of trying to fit this limit to our system is that we have essentially a four-body system. It is also a criteria developed considering the secular evolution of the system, which is not the case for a system trapped in MMR’s. Even with these reservations in mind, we have plotted the analytical stability limit as a white curve. The agreement with the N-body simulations is not clear. Although these maps were done using Rivera’s best fit, the same maps were also carried out around Baluev’s best fit. The results are almost independent of the fit used for the GJ876 system, probably evidencing the robustness of this approach.
MEGNO color-code identified the location of Rivera’s best fit inside a chaotic island (Fig. \[fig3\]-top). Although not surprising, because the best fit configuration has a chaotic value of MEGNO, this island appears to be surrounded by highly unstable regions. The x-axis was rescaled in order to show the period ratio $P_3/P_2$, and easily indentificate the vertical spikes at the true location of several MMR; namely from left to right 2:1, 5:2, 3:1, 7:2, 4:1, and 9:2. MEGNO identifies all the resonances as chaotic. When we plot the same grid using a color-code for the variation of eccentricity (Fig \[fig3\]-middle) we can see more clearly the MMR structure. [Outside the MMRs the eccentricity variation of the exterior planet remains almost unaltered ($\Delta e_3 \sim 0$) while inside the MMRs variations of the order of $\Delta e_3 \lesssim 0.2$ are observed. When two isolated resonances overlap each other the system becomes unstable, explaining the origin of red region below the @MarchalySaari_1975 limit.]{} Fig \[fig3\]-bottom shows the test planet final states (stable, escape, collision or capture). All the unstable conditions in red located to the right of the white line calculated with @MarchalySaari_1975 criteria correspond to orbits that escape from the system, thus Hill-stable configurations. Initial conditions to the left of this line can have several final states, however capture around the other planets seems to be improbable, maybe due to the strong interactions between the inner pair of planets involved in Laplace resonance.
In the top frame of Figure \[fig3\] we can see a strip located at almost the nominal semimajor axis but for eccentricity around $e_3\sim0.03$ where MEGNO values are equal to 2 (regular orbits) and $\Delta e_3 \sim 0$. Thus we identify this strip as the probable center of the resonance for this system. We integrated several conditions in this strip to show how the amplitude of Laplace angle varies. Figure \[fig3b\] shows the variation of $\theta_{5}$ with time for three of these runs. It clearly shows the tendency of the Laplace angle’s libration amplitude to go to zero for values around $e_{3} = 0.015$.
As stated before, although the best fits of Table \[Table1\] are cataloged as chaotic, this first sight at the phase space surrounding the initial condition for the best fit can give us some clues on the long-term stability of the Laplace resonance of GJ876. In fact, the location of the outermost planet best fit relative to this regularity strip at the 2:1 MMR with planet 2 is probably causing the system to be long-term stable despite its chaotic nature.
Three-body resonances are much more complex than their two-body counterparts. We have more free parameters to sample in our maps. Thus, we proceeded to analyze other planes to gain further insight.
Because the pair eccentricity and argument of perihelion ($e_3,\omega_3$) are highly correlated and not very well constrained from radial velocity determinations [see e.g. @Giuppone_etal_2009] it is expected that the GJ876 system has a lack of precision in those two parameters. Thus we performed a search within the plane ($e_3,\theta_4$) to see if we could find a regular solution throughout the resonant angle $\theta_4$=$\theta_4$($\omega_3$).
We performed these ($e_3,\theta_{4}$) maps for Rivera’s and Baluev’s fits, and computed the values of $<Y>$, and $\Delta e_{i}$, $i = 1, 2, 3$ as well as disruption times of the original system. The stable island where the best-fit from Table \[Table1\] is located is surrounded by highly unstable region (not surviving after $\sim 10^3$ years of integration) in red color.
The results are shown in Figure \[fig5\] where only the value of $\Delta e_{3}$ is shown in colors (the Megno values for this maps shows that the region sampled does not exhibit regular dynamics). Despite this, we can see in Figure \[fig5\] that the $\Delta e_{3}$ is a much better dynamical indicator. A structure of the space can clearly be distinguished where, judging by the values for the total disruption times, the dynamics is stable at least for $10^{5}$ years. This island is present at both plots, top and bottom, and they seem to differ in their orientation. Depending on the best fit, the orientation of the stable island seems to be oriented ($0^\circ,180^\circ$) Rivera (Figure \[fig5\]-Top) or ($90^\circ,270^\circ$) Baluev (Figure \[fig5\]-Bottom). At the center of this stable structure we identify that the orientation of the region with $\Delta e_{3} \sim 0$ is similar to the outermost stable structure.
Finally we must address that the same results were obtained without considering the innermost planet (those with period $P\sim 1.93 d$), thus there is no need to consider its presence as a chaoticity enhancer of the system. Due to this similarity of results without planet d, we continued to work with only the three outermost planets of the GJ876 system.
Limits to the stability {#sec5}
=======================
In a more general view, we tested some stability (although not regularity) limits for a multi-planetary system locked in a Laplace resonance. We performed a series of grids varying the mass, inclination and eccentricity of the the outermost planet of the system GJ876. We used the same chaoticity indicators as in previous section. Although not significantly different, the grid evaluating the $\Delta e_{3}$ is the clearest because it shows very sharp limits for the long-term stability of the system.
\
[![$\Delta e_{3}$ indicator for exterior planet in the plane ($e_3 \cos(\theta_4),e_3 \sin(\theta_4)$). Top (Bottom) using Baluev (Rivera) solution for the GJ876 system. The black dot represents the configuration from fits.[]{data-label="fig5"}](./figuras/RI_3pl_gr_De "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}]{}
First, we performed integrations of the GJ876 configuration from Rivera’s and Baluev’s best fit changing the mass of the exterior planet from $10^{-3}$ to $10 M_{jup}$ (i.e. corresponding to $m_3/m_2 \in (4 \times 10^{-4}$ to $4.2$). Figure \[fig6\]-top shows that there is a mass range were we can have stable solutions trapped in a three body Laplace configuration. There are not stable systems in a Laplace resonance with an infinitesimal outermost planet. As the mass of the exterior planet increases, the stronger interaction with the interior bodies causes the innermost planet eccentricity to vary up to 0.1. After $m_3/m_2 > 0.5$ (i.e masses greater than 1.27 $M_{jup}$) the system no longer survives the $10^{6}$ years. We can see that the variation of the eccentricity of the exterior planet is compensated with the variation of the interior ones as its mass $m_{3}$ gets bigger, and the perturbation increases.
\
[![Top:$\Delta e_{i}$ indicator for different masses of the exterior planet in units of intermediate companion using Rivera’s solution for the GJ876 system. The black dot represents the configuration from fits. Bottom: $\Delta e_{i}$ indicator for different inclination of the exterior planet. Rivera’s or Baluev’s solution initial conditions give qualitatively same results. The black dot represents $59^o$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](./figuras/RI_3pl_di_De "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}]{}
Taking again initial parameters from Table \[Table1\] we varied only the inclination of exterior body with the nodal longitude for all the planets set to $0^{\circ}$ and analyzed the chaos/stability. Although chaotic, the system is stable for $10^6$ years for inclination $i_3$ of exterior planet from $46^o$ to $72^o$, corresponding to mutual inclinations from $-15^o$ to $15^o$. Outside this range the system quickly collides (Figure \[fig6\]-bottom). The minimum variation of eccentricity for the less massive planet is produced when the system is coplanar, thus the most probable configuration. This results are also in agreement with [@Libert_Tsiganis_2011], where they show that when eccentricities of the planets remain below $\sim 0.35$, and excitation of the inclinations does not occur.
To gain independence of initial values from previous works, we found a representative plane were all angles were set to $0^\circ$ ($\theta_{1}=\theta_{2}=\theta_{3}=\Delta\varpi_{31}=0$) but $\Delta\varpi_{32}$=$180^\circ$ (according to the results of long term integrations). The only parameters with free values are the mean anomalies, in fact related between them: $M_1=2M_2=4M_3$.
We integrated the systems using this representative plane, varying $M_1$ from $0$ to $360^\circ$ and using all other parameters as given in Table \[Table1\]. Figure \[fig7\] shows the variations of eccentricities $\Delta e_{i}$ for the three planets depending on $M_{1}$, integrated for $10^6$ years. The other indicators showed same behavior. The aim of this $M_{1}$-grid was to identify the possible value for $M_{1}$ where the system appears less chaotic in order to have a set of values for the angular parameters which are more suitable for analyzing the stability maps of the system. All the systems are chaotic, but we identified very sharp limits to the long-term stability of the system: values for $M_{1}$ from $20^{\circ}$ to $260^{\circ}$ are long-term stable for at least the total integration time-span. Because the system with $M_{1}=60^{\circ}$ exhibits the lower amplitude of variation of the eccentricity $e_{3}$, we accordingly choose the initial values of $M_{2}=120^{\circ}$ and $M_{3}=240^{\circ}$ and ran integrations in a $(a_{3},e_{3})$ grid. We recall that unstable solutions for $M_1 \in [0^{\circ}, 20^{\circ}]$ as well as $M_1 \in [260^\circ,360^\circ]$ are unstable in less than $10^5$ years.
[![Representative plane showing general dynamical properties of Laplace resonance. The masses and eccentricities are taken from Table \[Table1\] and the angles are: $\theta_{1}=\theta_{2}=\theta_{3}=\Delta\varpi_{31}=0$, $M_{3} = 60^{\circ})$, and $\Delta\varpi_{31}$=$180^\circ$. All the conditions survived more than $4\times10^4$ years.[]{data-label="fig10"}](./figuras/RI_3plw180m60_MMR21_Dep.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}]{}\
Figure \[fig10\] shows the final angle-independent representative plane for the Laplace resonance in the GJ876 system. We can see the real extension of the Laplace resonance because we have become independent of the angles. An island of stability can be identified in the region where the MMR 2:1 is located, where the Laplace resonance is acting as protection mechanism of the bodies. We also performed integrations of the individual 2:1 and 4:1 resonance with the two planets involved in each one. In the map of the 2:1 resonance the stability area shrinks much more than the area showed in Fig. \[fig10\]. Thus the Laplace resonance can have important properties for stability of extrasolar planetary systems, although this doesn’t mean that every system trapped in a Laplace resonance will be stabilized by these mechanism.
Conclusions
===========
Despite the arbitrary choice of the studied system (GJ876), we introduced several constrains for a three-body system in a Laplace configuration. The analysis developed in this work could be easily expanded to any other system that seems to be near a three-body resonance.
We confirmed that published solutions of the system GJ876 are located truly in a Laplace resonance, although their behavior is chaotic (not due to the presence of the planet with period P=1.93 days).
Not only their Laplace angle is librating with small amplitude, also the nominal location of the systems from Table \[Table1\] are surrounded by stable although chaotic regions as shown in Figure \[fig3\]. We also showed that the same systems when integrated in other planes (e.g. $\Delta \varpi = 180$) are stable. Using Rivera’s solution for $e$ ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 regular solutions were found.
Through the exploration of the parameter space around best fit solutions we found that other stable Laplace solutions exist, surrounded by unstable region which is quickly evidenced in less than 1 $\times 10^3$ years. Also preferable orientations for the libration of Laplace angle was found (see Figure \[fig5\]).
We defined lower and upper mass limits for the outer planet ($0.02 m_{2} < m_{3} < 0.5 m_{2}$). We checked that these limits are independent on mass ratio between the two inner planets. This independence gives us enough reasons to suppose that similar stability limits can be found on other systems which are locked in this type of three body configurations. Limits in the mass ratio can be very useful for future works on problems involving three-body resonances.
The mutual inclination for the exterior planet can be from $-15^\circ$ to $-15^\circ$, being the coplanar orbits more regular solutions.
The Laplace resonance is surrounded by chaotic motion (determined with Megno). The behavior of the variation of eccentricity seems to be a good indicator for different dynamical regimes, and we verified that for a very thin island with eccentricities $e_3$ from 0.01 to 0.04 exists a region of regular orbits.
A representative plane for the Laplace resonance, independent of angular initial conditions was found. All angles must set to $0^\circ$ ($\theta_{1}=\theta_{2}=\theta_{3}=\Delta\varpi_{31}=0$) but $\Delta\varpi_{32}$=$180^\circ$. There exists a strict relation for the mean anomalies, i.e. $M_1=2M_2=4M_3$, although not all the values gave stable conditions. In this plane we can observed the real extension of Laplace resonance.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Numerical simulations were made on the local computing resources (Blafis Cluster) at the University of Aveiro (Aveiro, Portugal).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Supernovae (SNe) have been proposed to be the main production sites of dust grains in the Universe. Our knowledge on their importance to dust production is, however, limited by observationally poor constraints on the nature and amount of dust particles produced by individual SNe. In this paper, we present a spectrum covering optical through near-Infrared (NIR) light of the luminous Type IIn supernova (SN IIn) 2010jl around one and half years after the explosion. This unique data set reveals multiple signatures of newly formed dust particles. The NIR portion of the spectrum provides a rare example where thermal emission from newly formed hot dust grains is clearly detected. We determine the main population of the dust species to be carbon grains at a temperature of $\sim 1,350 - 1,450$K at this epoch. The mass of the dust grains is derived to be $\sim (7.5 - 8.5) \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$. Hydrogen emission lines show wavelength-dependent absorption, which provides a good estimate on the typical size of the newly formed dust grains ($\lsim 0.1 \micron$, and most likely $\lsim 0.01 \micron$). We attribute the dust grains to have been formed in a dense cooling shell as a result of a strong SN-circumstellar media (CSM) interaction. The dust grains occupy $\sim 10$% of the emitting volume, suggesting an inhomogeneous, clumpy structure. The average CSM density is required to be $\gsim 3 \times 10^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$, corresponding to a mass loss rate of $\gsim 0.02 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (for a mass loss wind velocity of $\sim 100$ km s$^{-1}$). This strongly supports a scenario that SN 2010jl and probably other luminous SNe IIn are powered by strong interactions within very dense CSM, perhaps created by Luminous Blue Variable (LBV)-like eruptions within the last century before the explosion.'
author:
- |
K. Maeda, T. Nozawa, D.K. Sahu, Y. Minowa, K. Motohara, I. Ueno, G. Folatelli, T.-S. Pyo,\
Y. Kitagawa, K.S. Kawabata, G.C. Anupama, T. Kozasa, T.J. Moriya, M. Yamanaka,\
K. Nomoto, M. Bersten, R. Quimby, M. Iye
title: Properties of Newly Formed Dust Grains in The Luminous Type IIn Supernova 2010jl
---
Introduction
============
Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) have been suggested to be one of major production sites of cosmic dust grains. This has been highlighted by their capability of producing dust in the early Universe thanks to the short time scale of massive star evolution leading to core-collapse and explosion [e.g., @dwek2007]. SNe eject metal-rich materials into space, which cool rapidly and provide an ideal condition for dust condensation [@kozasa1989; @todini2001; @nozawa2003].
Another dust production mechanism has also been suggested for a class of SNe exploding within dense circumstellar materials (CSM). Such SNe are classified as Type IIn due to their narrow hydrogen emission lines [@filippenko1997], probably arising from unshocked CSM [@chevalier1994], but also includes a rare class of SN Ib 2006jc-like objects [Type Ibn: @foley2007; @pastorello2008; @smith2008a; @tominaga2008; @anupama2009]. The strong interaction between the SN ejecta and CSM can provide an additional power source of the SN emission other than the radioactive decay chain $^{56}$Ni $\to$ $^{56}$Co $\to$ $^{56}$Fe [e.g., @chevalier1994; @chugai2001; @chugai2004; @chevalier2011; @chatzopoulos2012; @moriya2012; @moriya2013]. They show a range of luminosities [@taddia2013], perhaps due to a diversity in the strength of the interaction (i.e., in the ejecta properties and/or the CSM density). In an extreme situation, either with a large kinetic energy of the explosion and/or extremely high density CSM, such a system may also be responsible for (at least a part of) Super-Luminous SNe [SLSNe: see, @quimby2011; @galyam2012 and references therein].
In these strongly interacting SNe, the dense shell would undergo strong radiative cooling, thus the temperature could decrease to the dust condensation temperature while the density is still high [@pozzo2004; @smith2008a]. However, details of the process are yet to be clarified. One may expect that this ‘cooling-shell’ dust formation takes place favorably in an earlier phase than in other classes of CCSNe as reported in a few cases [e.g., @smith2008a], but constraining the dust formation time is generally difficult since it requires an extensive time-sequence from optical through IR to disentangle other possibilities like an echo from pre-existing dust grains in the CSM [see, e.g., @fox2011].
A main obstacle in understanding the importance of SNe in the cosmic dust inventory is generally insufficient data (or lack of detailed analysis) to specify the macroscopic and microscopic properties of newly formed dust grains in individual SNe. For most SNe suggested to have experienced dust formation, the link has been inferred by either a suppression of the red wing of spectral lines and/or a sudden drop in optical light curves [see, @kozasa2009 for a review]. Stronger cases have been reported for some SNe showing an excess in IR wavelengths that is attributed to thermal emission from newly formed dust grains. For some SNe the spectral energy distribution (SED) was constructed from NIR and mid-IR photometry [e.g., @mattila2008; @fox2009; @andrews2010; @fox2011]. The best cases have been provided by detection of a thermal component in their spectra, including SN II 1987A [in Mid – far-IR @moseley1989; @wooden1993], SN IIn 1998S [in NIR: @gerardy2000; @pozzo2004], SN IIp 2004et [Mid-IR: @kotak2009], SN IIn 2005ip [NIR – Mid-IR: @fox2010], and SN Ibn 2006jc [NIR: @smith2008a; @sakon2009].
The most convincing case has been reported for SN 1987A, where the dust is believed to have been formed deep in the SN ejecta through the concurrent appearance of the following events [e.g., @kozasa1989 for a review]: (1) the blue shift in emission lines in optical (and NIR) [@lucy1989; @meikle1993], (2) decline in the optical luminosity and increase in the luminosities at longer wavelengths [@whitelock1989; @suntzeff1990], and (3) thermal continuum emission in mid-far IR [@moseley1989; @wooden1993]. It is, however, very rare that all these three signatures are obtained for the same SN, given observational limitations. Typically, the spectral peak in the dust thermal emission is out of the observed wavelength range, and the quality of the spectra does not allow for a detailed investigation of line emissions at IR wavelengths. To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no NIR spectroscopic observation of dust-forming SNe which covers a dust thermal emission peak and, at the same time, has the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio sufficiently high to allow for a detailed study of line emissions.
SN IIn 2010jl offers a new, promising site to study dust formation. This SN was discovered in an image taken on Nov. 3.52, 2010 (UT) [@newton2010] in nearby galaxy UGC5189A (redshift of 0.010697 and the luminosity distance of 48.9 Mpc, as we adopt throughout this paper, from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database). It is classified as Type IIn [@benetti2010], and is intrinsically bright, reaching an absolute magnitude of $\sim -20$ [@stoll2011; @zhang2012]. Throughout this paper, we assume that the $V$-band maximum was reached at JD2455488 [@stoll2011] and we express the SN phase relative to this $V$-band maximum date. A pre-explosion image suggests that the progenitor of SN 2010jl was likely a massive star, with a main-sequence mass of $M_{\rm ms} \gsim 30 M_{\odot}$ [@smith2011]. Host galaxy properties imply that SN 2010jl exploded in a low metallicity environment, $Z \lsim 0.3 Z_{\odot}$ [@stoll2011]. SN IIn 2010jl was not only bright but also showed a slow evolution, similar to SN IIn 2006tf [@smith2008b]. While the initial decay rate was close to that of $^{56}$Co, later on around 100 days it flattened, and this flat evolution continued until at least 200 days [@zhang2012]. If the initial decay phase is interpreted as being powered by the decay of $^{56}$Co, it requires an unusually large amount of $^{56}$Ni synthesized at the explosion, as large as $3.4 M_{\odot}$ [@zhang2012]. Alternatively, the initial phase could be dominated by the SN-CSM interaction [@moriya2013]. In any case, there is no doubt that after $\sim 100$ days (as is the main focus of this paper) the radioactive energy input cannot be a major power source, and the SN-CSM interaction is the most likely power source. The total radiation energy output up to $\sim 200$ days in optical wavelengths, irrespective of the energy source, reached $\sim 4 \times 10^{50}$ ergs [@zhang2012]. The large luminosity and radiation output place SN 2010jl close to SLSNe [@quimby2011; @galyam2012 and references therein], thus understanding the properties of SN 2010jl could provide a hint in understanding yet-unresolved origins of these SLSNe. Strong SN-CSM interaction seems to provide a favorable site for the dust formation, perhaps through a dense cooling shell, as shown in some SNe IIn and the related SNe Ibn, including SN Ibn 2006jc, SNe IIn 1998S, 2005ip, and possibly SN IIn 2006tf and some other SNe IIn [@gerardy2000; @pozzo2004; @smith2008a; @smith2008b; @fox2010; @fox2011; @stritzinger2012]. This motivates our interest to study dust formation in luminous SN IIn 2010jl.
Dust formation in SN 2010jl, at relatively early-phases until $\sim 200$ days after the discovery, has been under debate. IR excess peaking at $\sim 5 \micron$ was reported by @andrews2011 on day $\sim 77$ (relative to V-band maximum). @smith2012 reported systematic blueshift in hydrogen emission lines at similar epochs. While @andrews2011 attributed the IR excess to an echo by pre-existing dust particles in the CSM, @smith2012 speculated that these two features could indicate new dust formation. @zhang2012 did not find a rapid decline in the optical light curve in the corresponding epochs, which is expected from the obscuration by newly formed dust particles, and suggested that the blueshifted emission lines might be due to a gas-opacity effect rather than the dust opacity [see also @smith2012].
In this paper, we present spectroscopic and photometric observations from optical through NIR of SN 2010jl at a late phase, about 550 days after the $V$-band maximum. We have found strong evidence for newly formed dust particles in this late phase, and our data set allows detailed study on the properties of the dust. In §2, we describe our observations and data reduction. Results are presented in §3, where we discuss properties of not only the dust grains but also the SN ejecta and CSM. The paper is closed in §4 with discussion and conclusions. An appendix is given for the optical spectrum data reduction, the SN environment, and for a constraint on a possible CSM echo in the SN optical spectrum.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
NIR observations
----------------
Our NIR observation was performed on April 24, 2012 (UT) (JD2456041.35) at the 8.2 m Subaru Telescope using the Infrared Camera and Spectrograph [IRCS: @kobayashi2000] and the Subaru 188-element Adaptive Optics system [AO188: @hayano2008; @hayano2010]. The date corresponds to $+553$ days after the $V$-band maximum [@stoll2011]. For spectroscopy, we used $J$, $H$, and $K$ grism with a 52 mas pixel scale. The slit width was taken to be 0.225", resulting in a spectral resolution of $\sim 800$ in each band. Spectroscopy was performed in two different dithering positions A and B, with a total exposure time of 300, 600, and 1,200 seconds in $J$, $H$, and $K$, respectively. The air mass was $\sim 1$ for all observations. The SN was observed in the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics (LGS-AO) mode, where SN 2010jl itself was used as a Tip-Tilt star. An A0V star, HIP104353, was observed as a telluric standard star in the same night, in the same grism and slit setups with the Natural Guide Star (NGS) AO mode. The acquisition images were checked to confirm that the target center was correctly placed on a slit, thus the effect of a possible, artificial spectral warping is minimal [@goto2003].
We used IRAF for the spectroscopic data reduction. We followed a standard procedure working on the difference images between two dithering positions, with flat fielding, bad pixel correction, and cosmic ray removal. The two-dimensional images were created for the negative and positive images with the standard star spectrum being a reference for the spectrum extraction. The wavelength was calibrated with comparison Ar lamp, which was then further checked with strong OH sky emissions. The one-dimensional spectra were extracted for the positive and negative images with further sky subtraction, where we optimized the aperture to provide the best signal-to-noise ratio without introducing an artificial change in the spectral shape. The positive and negative one-dimensional spectra were then combined to produce the final one-dimensional spectrum. The telluric absorption was removed using the standard star spectrum, where the A star atmospheric absorption lines had been removed before performing the telluric absorption correction. The flux calibration was also done using the standard star spectrum, assuming the black body temperature of 9,500K which we confirmed to be a good approximation in NIR for the Kurucz template A0V star spectrum. The flux was then further calibrated to match to the photometry (see below).
The narrow field imaging observation was performed with the same instruments, with LGS-AO for SN 2010jl and NGS-AO for a standard star FS143 [@hawarden2001]. We used a 20 mas pixel scale, resulting in a Field of View (FoV) of $21"\times 21"$. Five-point dithering was performed with an exposure of 5 seconds in each position. Given the narrow field of IRCS, we could not perform relative photometry with field stars. Thus, we performed absolute photometry with the standard star FS143. The sky condition was good, but we note that a systematic error at the level of $\sim 0.1$ mag in the absolute magnitude scale might be involved (while the color in different bands would not contain such a large systematic error). The imaging data reduction was performed using IRAF, following standard procedures. Every image at a different dithering position was checked, and those with background fluctuations apparently different from the others were removed from the analysis (typically the first dithering position). Sky flat images were created with the standard star images, which were then used for flat fielding and sky subtraction. Photometry was then performed on the combined images from different dithering positions. We used an aperture extraction of the flux, where we varied the size of apertures to check the convergence. The FWHM without AO core was typically 0.6", and the typical size of the aperture we used was $\sim (3 - 5) \times$ FWHM. We confirmed that the zero-point we derived for each band is consistent with the values reported in the instrument web page and past observations using the same instruments. We note that the standard star FS143 turns out to be a double star system spatially resolved in the AO-aided high resolution $K'$-band image, thus we adopted a large aperture not to miss the total light from the system. Our photometry results in $J = 14.09 \pm 0.1$ mag, $H = 12.89 \pm 0.04$ mag, and $K' = 11.98 \pm 0.02$ mag (where the errors account only for the statistical error).
Optical observations
--------------------
In the optical region, SN 2010jl was observed with the 2m Himalayan Chandra Telescope (HCT) of Indian Astronomical Observatory, Hanle, India, on March 15, 2012 (JD 2456002.12) and May 20, 2012 (JD 2456068.18), corresponding to $+514$ and $+580$ days since the $V$-band maximum, respectively. The spectra were obtained using grisms Gr\#7 (wavelength range 3500 - 7800 Å) and Gr\#8 (wavelength range 5200 - 9200 Å) available with the Himalaya Faint Object Spectrograph Camera (HFOSC). Arc lamp spectra of FeAr and FeNe for wavelength calibration and spectra of spectrophotometric standard, with broader slit to correct for instrumental response and flux calibration, were also observed during the observing run. Data reduction was carried out using various tasks available within IRAF. The images were bias-corrected and flat-fielded, then one dimensional spectra were extracted from the cleaned image using the optimal extraction algorithm [@horne1986]. The extracted arc lamp spectra were used for wavelength calibration. The accuracy of the wavelength calibration was checked using the night sky emission lines and, whenever required, a small shift was applied to the observed spectrum. The wavelength calibrated spectra were corrected for the instrumental response using the spectrum of spectrophotometric standards observed on the same night, and the supernova spectra were brought to a relative flux scale. The flux calibrated spectra in the two regions were combined to a weighted mean to obtain the final spectrum on a relative flux scale.
Imaging observations of SN 2010jl were performed on March 27, 2012 (UT) and on May 21 (UT). These were obtained in the Bessell BVRI bands with the HFOSC mounted on HCT. With a plate scale of 0.296 arcsec/pixel, the central 2kx2k region of the SITe CCD chip used for imaging observations, covers 10’x10’ of the sky. The images were reduced in the standard manner using IRAF. As the supernova is embedded inside the galaxy we opted for the profile fitting photometry using daophot available within IRAF. A set of secondary standard stars was calibrated in the supernova field on several nights under photometric sky conditions. Finally, the supernova magnitudes were calibrated with respect to the secondary standards. The photometry results in $B = 16.96 \pm 0.04$ mag, $V = 16.64 \pm 0.03$ mag, $R = 15.71 \pm 0.05$ mag, $I = 15.79 \pm 0.02$ mag on March 27, and $B = 17.27 \pm 0.04$ mag, $V = 17.02 \pm 0.04$ mag, $R = 16.00 \pm 0.06$ mag, $I = 16.16 \pm 0.05$ mag on May 21.
Note that the above photometry includes a possible contamination from an unresolved background region, thus it is likely an overestimate of the SN magnitude. According to @zhang2012, the host galaxy contamination is fainter than 18 mag within the 3" diameter of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). We have roughly checked how much the contamination could be in our photometry as follows. Assuming that the [*brightest*]{} region within the host galaxy as a hypothesized unresolved background region, we estimate that the [*upper limit*]{} of the background contamination would be 0.6–0.8 mag in $B$, $V$, $I$, and 0.2–0.3 mag in $R$. More details on the light curve evolution and the estimate of the host galaxy contamination will be provided elsewhere (I. Ueno et al., in preparation).
Results
=======
In this paper, we argue that dust grains were newly formed in SN 2010jl, probably around 1 year after the $V$-band maximum. The case for the dust formation is regarded to be solid when the following three signatures are simultaneously detected [see, e.g., @kozasa2009 for a review]: (1) Thermal emission from the dust grains, which was absent before the dust formation, (2) blueshift of emission line profiles, especially with the degree of the shift depending on the wavelength, and (3) decrease in the optical luminosity plus increase in the luminosity at longer wavelengths, corresponding to the thermal emission mentioned above.
Typically, it is very rare that all these signatures are found for individual SNe (e.g., except for SN 1987A and possibly 2006jc: see references in §1). In case only one or two signatures are found, there is always a caveat that these features might be created by mechanisms other than the dust formation. This is the main difficulty in investigating the dust formation in SNe. Even with all these signatures detected, it is still possible to attribute each feature to be caused by different mechanisms, while it has been regarded that the new dust formation is the most natural (and straightforward) interpretation, since the dust formation scenario explains all these properties in a unified manner without fine-tuning. This is our philosophy in this paper – since we have detected all these signatures in SN 2010jl, as we show in the following sections, we suggest that the case for dust formation is solid. We then analyze properties of the newly formed dust grains under the assumption that these features are mostly attributed to the formation of the dust. Further, we check this assumption (the dominance of the newly formed dust grains in causing these features) in view of other possible alternative mechanisms, and conclude that this assumption is well justified.
Indications for the Newly Formed Dust Grains
--------------------------------------------
Figure 1 shows a combination of the IRCS spectrum and the HCT spectrum with the flux scaled to the date of the IRCS observation ($+553$ days). The spectrum is corrected for the redshift of the host galaxy ($z = 0.010697$) and for Galactic extinction from @schlegel1998 ($E (B-V) = 0.027$ mag). No correction has been made for host-galaxy reddening, following @smith2011. For the optical spectrum, we adopted the one taken in March – the spectral evolution during this phase was small, and for the purposes of this paper adopting the spectrum taken on May does not change our conclusions. In NIR, we have calibrated the flux scale with the photometry taken in the same night. In optical, we have first estimated the magnitudes at the same epoch by a linear interpolation between the photometry in March and May, then the flux scale is matched to this estimate. The evolution in the light curve is not large between these epochs ($\sim 0.3$ mag), and moreover the colors in the optical bands have stayed almost constant. As seen in Figure 1, the HCT spectrum matches the photometry at different bands very well.
A striking feature in our spectrum is the clear detection of a thermal continuum component in NIR, which was absent in the early phase [$\sim + 100$ days; @andrews2011] as seen by comparing our late-time NIR spectrum and the SED at $\sim + 100$ days (Fig. 1). Unlike a few previous examples for which the continuum, increasing beyond the $K$-band, is detected in NIR spectra (see references in §1), the NIR emission peak in SN 2010jl is within the $H$ band, suggesting that the temperature of the emitting materials (irrespective of the nature of the material) is higher (i.e., $\sim 1,000 - 2,000$K) than the other examples.
Besides the continuum, the NIR spectrum shows P$_{\beta}$ and Br$_{\gamma}$, but otherwise the spectrum is quite featureless. The optical spectrum exhibits Balmer series (H$_{\epsilon}$, H$_{\delta}$, H$_{\gamma}$, H$_{\alpha}$) and He I $\lambda$5876, which all have intermediate-width components arising from the SN (see below). There are narrow emissions like \[OIII\] $\lambda\lambda$4959,5007, but they are probably from an unresolved background region (see Appendix). All the resolved strong lines with the intermediate-width component are hydrogen lines (plus He I $\lambda$5876), suggesting that the emitting region is either the shocked hydrogen-rich envelope or the hydrogen-rich CSM.
Figure 2 shows line profiles of the hydrogen emission lines. The line flux is expressed per velocity interval (i.e., $\Delta V \propto \Delta \lambda/\lambda_{0}$, where $\lambda_{0}$ is the rest wavelength of a line). The fluxes of the different lines are scaled according to the expected hydrogen emission line strength ratios in the Case B recombination [@osterbrock] for the temperature of $\sim 5,000 - 10,000$K, where the peak flux of H$_{\alpha}$ is taken to be about unity for the normalization. Namely, if all the line strengths follow the expected emission line ratios for the Case B recombination, then all the lines should show the peak flux at about unity with this normalization.
In optical wavelengths, the lines exhibit two components, a relatively narrow component at the rest wavelength (with the line width $\lsim 1,000$ km s$^{-1}$), and a broader (intermediate) component (FWHM $\sim 2,000$ km s$^{-1}$). The narrow component of H$_{\alpha}$ probably originates from the SN, as also seen in previous works [@smith2012; @zhang2012], while the narrow components in the other Balmer lines could be contaminated by the unresolved host and/or SN site (See Appendix). Due to the limited spectral resolution in our observation, we are unable to distinguish these two possibilities from the kinematics [$\sim 100$ km s$^{-1}$ or $28$ km s$^{-1}$ for the CSM case: @smith2011]. In NIR, no strong narrow emission lines from the background are seen. Because of this possible contamination from the background region to the narrow component in the optical lines, we focus on the intermediate-width component hereafter.
From Fig. 2 we see two clear features in the line profile: (a) the central wavelength of the intermediate-width component (see Fig. 2) is blueshifted (especially evident in the optical lines). Note that the degree of the blueshift is smaller for lines at longer wavelength, and with little or almost no blueshift for Br$_{\gamma}$. (b) A decrement in flux for lines at short wavelengths (especially evident in H$_{\beta}$ and H$_{\gamma}$) with respect to those expected for Case B recombination. Note that this decrement also persists if we normalize the line flux by the blue wing (§3.3), which means that at least a part of the decrement is independent of the normalization or intrinsic fluxes of different lines.
It has been reported that the blueshift was already present in the early phase, and it was about $\sim 550$ km s$^{-1}$ between $100-200$ days [@smith2012; @zhang2012]. We emphasize that the degree of the blueshift was larger in the late phase (after 400 days), reaching to $\gsim 700$ km s$^{-1}$ [Fig.2: see also @zhang2012]. Thus, it requires an additional mechanism to create (increase) the shift in the late phase, irrespective of a cause of the blueshift seen in the earlier phase [that is still under debate: see @smith2012; @zhang2012]. This additional mechanism is typically attributed to the dust formation when other signatures of the dust formation are simultaneously detected. We also emphasize that our spectra show a wavelength-dependence in the degree of the blueshift, for which no mechanism has been suggested except for obscuration by dust particles.
Figure 3 shows multi-band light curves of SN 2010jl including our photometry points. Between 100 and 200 days, SN 2010jl showed a flat light curve, which is interpreted as being powered by the SN-CSM interaction within smoothly distributed CSM materials [e.g., @zhang2012; @moriya2013]. The light curve shows that the optical luminosity decline was accelerated around 1 year after the $V$-band maximum, and the luminosity at $\sim 550$ days is about 1 - 2 magnitudes (depending on the band and including uncertainty in the background contamination) below the extrapolation from the light curve at the earlier phases.
As described above, we detect all three signatures of the formation of the dust grains in the late phase of SN 2010jl (see the first paragraph of §3). In the following sections, we will analyze the observational signatures and place constraints on properties of the newly formed dust grains.
Our NIR spectrum is, to our knowledge, the first clear spectroscopic detection of thermal emission covering the peak from newly formed hot dust from an SN in NIR, and one of the strongest cases of dust formation in SNe to date – the NIR thermal emission continuum from newly formed dust particles have been (spectroscopically) seen in a few SNe (see references in §1), but in these previous examples the emission peaks were out of the observed wavelength range.
Since detecting the wavelength-dependent profile of hydrogen emission lines is not common due to observational limitations [see, e.g., @lucy1989; @smith2008a; @smith2012], we here comment on this property. We note in particular that it is not only the blueshift but also the decrement that depends on the wavelength (Fig 2; see above). We suggest the following interpretation for this behavior: the intrinsic line profile of the intermediate-width component, for all the hydrogen lines, is at the rest wavelength but as one moves to shorter wavelengths, the intermediate-width component is blueshifted and suppressed due to presence of dust. This scenario explains the line profile change as a function of wavelength. The blueshift and suppression of the intermediate-width component are in line with the extinction by the newly formed dust particles as we see in the NIR continuum emission (see §3.2 and §3.3 for more details). The emission contribution in the red wing of the little-obscured NIR lines (i.e., P$_{\beta}$ and Br$_{\gamma}$) suggests that there is not a well-defined photosphere for the SN emission, and the SN emission is probably created as an optically thin emission in the interacting region (not as the photospheric emission arising below the interacting region). Otherwise, electron scattering would operate to suppress the emission from the receding side of the SN leading to the suppression of the red wing independent from the wavelength. This feature is difficult to reconcile with the obscuration created by the SN photosphere, as was discussed based on the early phase data [@smith2012; @zhang2012]. The dust particles cannot be distributed deep in the SN ejecta, as in this case it would not produce the absorption at the rest wavelength [@smith2008a]. Thus, the dust particles should have a large overlap to the intermediate-width component emitting region in their distribution, supporting the formation of the dust particles in the cold-dense shell created at the interaction [@smith2008a]. We note that the narrow emission components in H$_{\alpha}$ and possibly in P$_{\beta}$ and Br$_{\gamma}$ do not show the wavelength shift, and this is consistent with the dust formation: these narrow emission features (while possibly contaminated by the background) are believed to arise from the unshocked CSM at a large distance, thus the newly formed dust grains within the ejecta or interacting region would not obscure much of the narrow emission components.
We note that the suppression as compared to the expected line ratios from the Case B recombination should not be taken to be quantitative, since it is not clear if the Case B recombination is a good approximation in SN 2010jl. Indeed, the suppression of H$_{\gamma}$ and H$_{\beta}$ seems too large to be explained only by the extinction due to the newly formed dust particles, given the mild wavelength difference between these lines and H$_{\alpha}$. We note that the CSM density is probably very high in SN 2010jl (see §3.5), and it is very likely that even the first excited level of the neutral hydrogen is over populated. In this case, we expect a cascade of H$_{\gamma}$ and H$_{\beta}$ to H$_{\alpha}$ and other low-energy hydrogen series [@xu1992] like what happens for the Lyman series in the Case B case [@osterbrock], thus the intrinsic ratio of H$_{\gamma}$ to H$_{\alpha}$ and that of H$_{\beta}$ to H$_{\alpha}$ may well be much smaller than the Case B recombination. This indeed supports the CSM interaction scenario for a power source of SN IIn 2010jl. We discuss more details on this CSM density in §3.5.
Composition, Mass and temperature of the dust grains
----------------------------------------------------
The NIR spectrum of SN 2010jl shows a clear thermal emission signature from newly formed dust particles. Figure 4 shows comparisons between the observed spectrum and the theoretically expected emission for different dust species and sizes. We adopt the blackbody temperature of 6,500 K for the underlying SN emission [@zhang2012] which fits well the SN emission in the optical wavelength at $\gsim 5,000$Å. The blue continuum is not well fit by a single blackbody temperature: It may be contaminated by unresolved metal lines, e.g., Fe II [@foley2007], or contaminated by a scattered optical light echo [@miller2010; @andrews2011b]. As we will discuss in Appendix, the bluest potion of our spectrum is consistent with (but not exclusive to) the echo scenario, while the unresolved lines surely exist as well. We estimate that the echo would contribute at most $\sim 50$% of the total flux in our HCT optical spectrum.
The mass absorption coefficients of different dust species are calculated using optical constants by @zubko1996 for amorphous carbon, @draine2003 for astronomical silicate, @dorschner1995 for MgSiO$_3$, and @semenov2003 for Mg$_2$SiO$_4$. Graphite has the mass absorption coefficient similar to amorphous carbon in the wavelength range analyzed in this paper, thus we frequently refer the amorphous carbon and graphite grains as simply carbon dust.
In this section, we assume that the dusty region is optically thin to the NIR photons (see §3.4 for a detailed discussion). The total mass of the dust grains ($M_{\rm d}$) and the temperature of the dust ($T_{\rm d}$) are connected by $$F_{\nu} = \frac{M_{\rm d} B_{\nu} (T_{\rm d}) \kappa_{\nu}}{D^2} \ ,$$ where $F_{\nu}$ is the flux of the dust thermal emission, $\kappa_{\nu}$ is the dust mass absorption coefficient (which depends on the dust species and the size distribution), and $D$ is the distance to the SN (48.9 Mpc). Since the thermal emission was spectroscopically detected in our NIR observation, we can obtain $M_{\rm d}$ and $T_{\rm d}$ without degeneracy for given dust species and the size. Our model fit is shown in Figure 4.
In principle, with the temperature of the dust being a free parameter, the NIR thermal emission can be fit either by carbon, astronomical silicate, or MgSiO$_3$ grains. As long as the typical size of the dust ($a_{\rm d}$) is smaller than $\sim 0.1 \micron$, the size is not important in the NIR SED, and ($T_{\rm d}$, $M_{\rm d}$) $\sim$ ($1350$K, $8.5 \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$) for carbon and ($1450$K, $8.8 \times 10^{-3} M_{\odot}$) for astronomical silicate. If $a_{\rm d} \sim 0.1 \micron$, a slightly different set of ($T_{\rm d}$, $M_{\rm d}$) is required to fit the NIR spectrum, but the result is not very different from those for the dust with $a_{\rm d} < 0.1 \micron$. Dust particles as large as $a_{\rm d} \sim 1 \micron$ have a flat opacity dependence across the NIR wavelength range (as the dust size is similar to the electromagnetic wavelength), and a large value of $T_{\rm d}$ is required for carbon. The astronomical silicate grains with $a_{\rm d} \gsim 1 \micron$ do not fit the NIR spectrum irrespective of the temperature. Since the absorption coefficients of astronomical silicates are about an order of magnitude smaller than carbon, the dust mass ($M_{\rm d}$) required to fit the NIR spectrum is accordingly larger by about an order of magnitude for astronomical silicate than carbon.
The fit by MgSiO$_3$ grains provides qualitatively similar results to those by astronomical silicate, while quantitatively there is a big difference. The wavelength dependence of the absorption coefficients of MgSiO$_3$ is even flatter than astronomical silicate in the NIR wavelength range, and thus $T_{\rm d}$ is larger for MgSiO$_3$. Moreover, the dust mass has to be as large as a few $M_{\odot}$ if the newly formed dust is MgSiO$_3$, due to the small absorption coefficients of MgSiO$_3$ in NIR. A similar situation is the case for Mg$_2$SiO$_4$, where $M_{\rm d} \sim M_{\odot}$ is required to explain the flux level of the NIR emission. Indeed, Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ predicts a characteristic bump in the $H$ band, which does not fit to the observed smooth thermal emission.
In sum, either carbon or astronomical grains remain possible to reconcile the NIR emission property, if the dust temperature is simply taken as a free parameter. MgSiO$_3$ is highly unlikely, given the extremely large dust mass required to fit to the NIR emission. We exclude Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ solely on the basis of the unacceptable fit to the NIR emission spectrum. Additional information is given in other wavelength ranges, and in §3.5 we will show that the opacity behavior in mid-IR can also be used to reject MgSiO$_3$ and Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ even without direct observations in such a wavelength range.
The required temperature of the dust is too high for the hypothesized astronomical silicate dust and larger than the condensation temperature, which is typically $\sim 1,000$K [@nozawa2003]. This indicates that the newly formed dust is mainly carbon, either graphite or amorphous carbon. The condensation temperature for carbon grains is $\sim 1,900$K, fully consistent with the lower temperature we have derived. As analyzed above, the derived properties of the carbon dust are not sensitive to the unknown size of typical dust particles as long as $a_{\rm d} \lsim 0.1 \micron$, and these are $\sim 1,300 - 1,350$K and $\sim 8.5 \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$, while these are $\sim 1,800$K and $\sim 2.6 \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$ if $a_{\rm d} \sim 1 \micron$.
Size of the dust
----------------
Constraining the size of the dust particles is generally a tough task for astronomical objects, one that requires deriving the extinction curve across a broad wavelength range. This is especially a severe problem in studying newly formed dust particles in SNe, as the intrinsic SED of SN emission is not known a priori. For SN 2010jl, we propose an approach to tackle this problem, by investigating the line profiles of hydrogen emission lines from optical through NIR, and by attributing the difference in the line profiles to different optical depths at different wavelength.
As shown in Figure 2, the intermediate-width component of the hydrogen lines shows a blueshift especially evident in optical. This suggests that the line-emitting region and the dusty region have a large overlap, and the receding part of the emitting region is (partly) hidden by the newly formed dust particles (§3.1). The larger degree of the blueshift at shorter wavelengths also supports dust obscuration [@smith2008a].
Now, under a reasonable assumption that all the intermediate-width component hydrogen lines are emitted from the same region, we can obtain a rough constraint on how the dust opacity depends on wavelength (i.e., the extinction curve). Under this assumption, the intrinsic line profile is the same for all the lines, and the photon path length within the dusty, obscuring region is identical for all the lines. Namely, we can connect the observed profile ($f (v)$) and the intrinsic line profile ($f_{0} (v)$) as follow, where $v/c \equiv \lambda/\lambda_0 - 1$ ($\lambda_0$ is the rest wavelength of the lines, and $c$ is the speed of light): $$f (v) = f_0 (v) \exp(-\tau_{\lambda} (v)) \ ,$$ where $\tau_\lambda (v) = \int \rho \kappa_{\lambda} ds \propto \kappa_{\lambda}$ ($\rho$ is the density of the dust particles and $ds$ is the path length, which are both independent from the wavelength). The function $\tau_\lambda (v)$ describes the amount of absorption for a photon emitted from a given position. While the optical depth ($\tau_{\lambda} (v)$) depends both on the opacity ($\kappa_{\lambda}$) and the column density, the latter is independent from the wavelength. Accordingly, the [*difference*]{} in the observed profiles of different lines comes only from different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ under the assumptions described above. Although we do not know the intrinsic strengths of the hydrogen lines from different transitions (which do not follow the Case B recombination; §3.1), we expect that the blue wing of the lines should approach non-obscuration, thus we scale the observed line profiles of different lines (i.e., $f (v)$) at the blue wing.
The functional form of the absorbing fraction as a function of the wavelength across the same line (i.e., dependence of $\tau_\lambda (v)$ on $v$) depends on the structure and kinematics of the emitting and absorbing regions, and is generally not expressed in an analytic form. Still, we can test an approximated simple form for it, by the requirement that the profiles of different lines can be at least qualitatively explained by varying the single parameter $\tau_{\lambda}$. We have tested simple polynomial forms, and in Figure 5 we show an example where we adopt $\tau_{\lambda} (v) = \tau_0 ((v/c + 0.01)/0.01)^\beta$ (i.e., transparent for $v/c < -0.01$) and $\beta=5$. This form provides a reasonably good description of the blue portions of different lines, with the intrinsic line profile described by a Lorentzian [e.g., @stritzinger2012]. The normalization of the optical depth, $\tau_0 (\lambda)$, is a parameter which is different for different lines and estimated by fitting roughly a position of the peak flux in the absorbed line profiles. The values for $\tau_0$ we adopt in Figure 5 is the following: $\tau_0 = $ 0.17 (Br$_{\gamma}$), 0.44 (P$_{\beta}$), 1.5 (H$_{\alpha}$), 2.5 (H$_{\beta}$), 2.7 (H$_{\gamma}$). The functional form we adopted above creates too much absorption in the red, but we are mainly concerned with the behavior in the blue to derive the relative optical depth for the different lines. We are not aiming at fitting the detailed line profiles, since even without the absorption the interpretation of the intrinsic line profile in SNe IIn has not been fully clarified yet [see, e.g., @chugai2001; @chugai2004]. We emphasize that our procedure here is focusing on deriving the optical depth difference at different wavelengths – our treatment is quite general, and the results in the optical depth differences would not be sensitively dependent on the assumed functional form. This method allows the dependence of the opacity on the wavelength to be derived rather independently from the detailed kinematical properties of the emitting region.
In the right panel of Figure 5, we normalize the line profiles by the assumed intrinsic line profile, i.e., a Lorentzian with the FWHM of 1,800 km s$^{-1}$. This provides the escaping fraction of the light as a function of the wavelength (i.e., the path length within each line). The same analytic curves are shown in this plot, which shows that the decreasing escaping fraction from the blue to the red is well described by our formalism.
With the estimate of the wavelength-dependent optical depth (which is only dependent on the opacity), we can extract a rough behavior of the extinction of the newly formed dust as a function of wavelength. In Figure 6, we compare the phenomenologically derived optical depth (for different hydrogen lines as shown by open squares) to the theoretical expectations for different dust species and grain sizes (for carbon and astronomical silicate). The dust model is the same as that used in Figure 4 for the thermal emission. The first thing to note is that the observationally derived optical depth ($\kappa_{\lambda} \propto \lambda^{-1.6}$) follows roughly the expected behavior for carbon dust ($\sim \lambda^{-1.4}$) when the dust size is smaller than the wavelength of interest. Given the uncertainties involved in our derivation, the behavior we have derived is surprisingly close to the theoretical expectation. It favors again carbon over silicate, independent from the argument of thermal emission, as the silicate dust predicts a flatter opacity dependence (note that MgSiO$_3$ has even flatter distribution than astronomical silicate). Also, we do not see clear saturation of the opacity at shorter wavelengths, constraining the dust size as $a_{\rm d} \lsim 0.1 \micron$ (more likely $a_{\rm d} \lsim 0.01 \micron$ from the derived opacity difference within the optical wavelength).
Energy balance and effects of internal absorption
-------------------------------------------------
The above estimate on the optical depth at the line wavelengths suggests that there might be non-negligible extinction operating on the intrinsic spectrum, and thus the dust properties estimated in §3.2 may need some modifications. In Figure 7, we show the ‘intrinsic’ NIR spectrum corrected for dust absorption. For the dust obscuration, we assumed that the optical depth has the wavelength dependence of $\tau_{\lambda} \propto \lambda^{-1.4}$ and the normalization is taken at the optical depth derived at the wavelength of P$_{\beta}$. This relation represents very well the carbon dust properties in the wavelength range of interest with the typical size of $a_{\rm d} \lsim 0.01 \micron$ (see Fig. 6). The dust thermal emission luminosity needed to fit the observed spectrum is $\sim 5.1 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and it increases to $\sim 6.6 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in fitting the ‘intrinsic’ spectrum.
Fitting this ‘intrinsic’ spectrum by thermal emission from carbon dust grains, as we did for the observed spectrum, we derive $(T_{\rm d}, M_{\rm d}) \sim (1450 {\rm K}, 7.5 \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot})$. Naively one would expect that the required dust mass would go up if one includes the dust absorption, but we find that it is indeed not necessarily the case. Namely, it has been frequently mentioned that fitting an observed spectrum with the dust emission under the ‘fully optically thin’ assumption provides a lower limit of the dust mass as there should be additional dust particles hidden in the opaque region, but from our analysis we conclude that it can operate in the opposite way. With absorption, the required dust temperature and thus the specific intensity go up, and this effect reduces the dust mass needed to explain a given thermal emission flux. These two effects (color change and obscuration) almost cancel one another for SN 2010jl, and the resulting dust mass is indeed not very different in the two situations. Thus, we conclude that we can pin down the properties of the newly formed dust particles into a narrow range, namely $T_{\rm d} = 1350 - 1450$K and $M_{\rm d} = (7.5 - 8.5) \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$. In reality, the emission and absorption are coupled, and the transfer effects could make for an inhomogeneous temperature structure. Thus, radiation transfer simulations should be performed to be more conclusive on these properties, but this is beyond the scope of the present paper. Indeed, the optical depth we derived for the NIR wavelengths is below unity, thus the transfer effect should not be large anyway.
The same exercise can be performed for the optical spectrum. The observed luminosity in the optical wavelength is $\sim 1.4 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (obtained by integrating the HCT spectrum in Figure 1). Assuming the wavelength-dependent optical depth as described above, we obtain the intrinsic optical luminosity as $\sim 7.7 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Namely, the luminosity absorbed by the dust particles (in the optical wavelength) is $\sim 6.4 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$. It is comparable to the NIR thermal emission luminosity. However, there can be additional absorption occurring in the UV range which is not considered here. This could thus be an overestimate of the absorption in optical, and given the uncertainty in our treatment, we could allow a small difference in the optical depth for the lines and continuum. Let us now assume $\tau_{\rm cont} (\lambda) = \alpha \tau_{\rm line} (\lambda)$, where $\tau_{\rm cont}$ is the optical depth for the optical continuum emission while $\tau_{\rm line}$ is the optical depth derived from the line profile argument. In Figure 7, we show three examples, where we adopt $\alpha = 1$, 0.5, and 0.3. The case with $\alpha = 1$ corresponds to the case as described above. For $\alpha = 0.5$ and $0.3$, we obtain an intrinsic optical luminosity of $3.1$ and $2.2 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$, respectively. The moderate case with $\alpha \sim 0.5$ is consistent with the NIR luminosity with additional absorption in the UV. We note that the value of $\alpha$ smaller than unity would be consistent with a possible contribution of a CSM echo at a larger distance (see Appendix), since only a negligible fraction of the echo light would be absorbed by the newly formed dust grains.
The above argument additionally shows that the carbon dust grains provide a consistent view here. Indeed, the balance between the absorption in optical and the emission in IR provides an additional clue to distinguish different dust species. Figure 8 shows the expected thermal emission from different dust species in mid-IR, with the same model parameters ($T_{\rm d}$, $M_{\rm d}$) as in Figure 4 (which gives a good fit to the observed NIR spectrum for astronomical silicate and MgSiO$_3$, and a rough fit to the NIR flux for Mg$_2$SiO$_4$). Silicate dust, especially those without Fe, predicts a big bump at $\sim 10 \micron$. While no observations in such a wavelength range have been presented in this paper, it should affect the thermal balance. The resulting dust thermal emission luminosity is estimated to be $6.7 \times 10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (astronomical silicate), $6.3 \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (MgSiO$_3$), and $1.1 \times 10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Mg$_2$SiO$_4$). The astronomical silicate can still be consistent with the thermal balance (although carbon grains are preferred by other arguments), while MgSiO$_3$ and Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ are again both rejected by this argument since these dust particles should emit mostly in mid-far IR (Fig. 8). The expected thermal emission would exceed the available energy budget if these were responsible for the NIR emission.
The effect should be seen in the light curve as well. Here, adopting the properties of the dust grains obtained independently (§3.3), we estimate the effect of the newly formed dust in the optical light curve and compare the expected behavior with the observed light curve. Figure 7 also shows how much the observed photometry is changed due to dust absorption in the $B$, $V$, $R$, and $I$ bands (for carbon dust grains). SN 2010jl showed a flat light curve in the early phase. The light curve of SN 2010jl connecting the early [@zhang2012] and the late phases is shown in Figure 3. The decline rate in each band during $\sim 100 - 200$ days was fairly linear, and the rate per 100 days was $\sim 0.22$ mag in $B$, $\sim 0.27$ mag in $V$, $\sim 0.13$ mag in $R$, and $\sim 0.32$ mag in $I$ [@zhang2012]. The magnitude at $388$ days after the $V$-band maximum was already below the extrapolation from this decline rate [@zhang2012], indicating that the dust formation and the subsequent absorption had already started at this epoch – inspection of data presented by @zhang2012 shows that the line profiles of H$_{\alpha}$ and H$_{\beta}$ showed a change (blueshift) around this epoch (§3.1), and the H$_{\alpha}$ luminosity evolution also changed its behavior around this epoch. Assuming that the ‘intrinsic’ SN luminosity has evolved following the linear behavior observed in the earlier phase before the dust formation, we expect that the unobscured magnitudes were likely $B \sim 15.8$ mag, $V \sim 15.6$ mag, $R \sim 14.5$ mag, and $I \sim 15.2$ mag at $+553$ days. Thus, we estimate that the change in the magnitude due to the dust obscuration was $\sim 1.3$ mag in $B$, $\sim 1.2$ mag in $V$, $\sim 1.4$ mag in $R$, and $\sim 0.8$ mag in $I$ at $+553$ days, as is shown in Figure 3. If we assume the maximum possible contamination from the unresolved background (§2.2), this could reach to $\sim 2$ mag in $B$ and $V$ while $\sim 1.5$ mag in $R$ and $I$. The difference is roughly consistent with the dust obscuration with $\alpha$ in the range between 0.5 and 1. We also note that the estimated magnitude differences are generally larger for shorter wavelengths, consistent with the dust extinction scenario. Given our crude treatment, the value of $\alpha$ ($\sim 0.5 - 1$) indicates that the continuum and lines have experienced similar obscuration, suggesting that these two regions are roughly overlapping.
Note that the above argument is essentially identical to the heating balance frequently considered in studying the dust properties [see, e.g., @nozawa2008]. Since we have confirmed that the absorbed luminosity in optical is consistent with the emission luminosity in NIR, with the dust temperature and the dust absorption coefficient we estimated independently, this means that the dust temperature we derived from the thermal emission is consistent with the expectation from the heating balance.
The argument presented in this section shows that the optical depth of the newly formed dust grains is largely consistent with the observed light curve evolution without a significant change in the behavior of the intrinsic light curve evolution – a frequently adopted assumption in discussing the dust formation. Indeed, this is a widely accepted (while practically difficult) test when the optical light curve shows accelerated fading to distinguish whether the decrease is due to the intrinsic change in the light curve evolution (i.e., strength of the CSM interaction, which could arise from a change in the CSM distribution) or mostly due to the absorption by the new source of absorption (i.e., newly formed dust grains). Generally it is difficult to distinguish the two, but in this paper we are able to do this thanks to an independent measurement of the optical depth from the dust particles. Our analysis indicates that the absorption effect is the main cause of the change in the optical luminosity decline rate, while we do not reject a minor contribution from a possible change in the strength of the interaction.
The above point is highlighted in Figure 9, which shows a (roughly constructed) quasi-bolometric light curve of SN 2010jl, with and without the NIR contribution. Without observations in UV, we simply assume that the UV contributes $10\%$ of the optical luminosity following @zhang2012 – this is very likely an underestimate, given that the blue portion of the spectrum shows an excess as compared to a black body of $\sim 7,000$K. Given this uncertainty, we adopt a conservative error of $\pm 30$% for the bolometric luminosity. Figure 9 also compares the observed light curve with a simple power law behavior which is expected from the CSM interaction with smooth CSM distribution. While the ‘optical’ luminosity at $> 500$ days is well below the expectation from a smoothly-evolving CSM interaction, the ‘true’ bolometric luminosity in this phase as a sum of the optical and NIR emissions (mostly NIR) is largely consistent with this expectation. Thus, we do not require a significant change in the strength of the interaction (or CSM distribution), and conclude that the obscuration by the newly formed dust is mainly responsible for the optical light curve evolution as well. There is a hint of slight decrease in the total luminosity as compared to the expectation, which might suggest that the strength of the CSM interaction might have changed slightly (but not at the level of being the main reason of the optical luminosity decrease). However, given our crude estimate of the bolometric luminosity, we regard this discrepancy as only indicative. We also note that the energy input from the decay of $^{56}$Co can provide at most only a minor contribution in the luminosity in the late phase (i.e., $> 100$ days), with the upper limit placed by the requirement that the decay luminosity cannot exceed the early phase luminosity ($< 100$ days) (note that we do not insist that the early phase was powered by the decay, but rather we simply place the upper limit).
Properties of the ejecta and CSM
--------------------------------
So far in this paper the dust emission and absorption have been treated independently, and an important question is if these two are mutually consistent, or what implications the combination of the two have. The emission line profiles suggest that the emitting region is extended to the velocity of $V \sim 4,000$ km s$^{-1}$, and it did not evolve much from the early to the late phase [@zhang2012]. The wavelength-dependence of the line profiles suggests that the line-emitting region and the dusty region are largely overlapping (§3.1 & §3.3). Under the assumption that a dust mass of $M_{\rm d} \sim 8 \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$ is distributed in a shell whose inner radius is $R_{\rm d}$, the optical depth is estimated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& \tau_{\lambda} & \sim \frac{\kappa_{\lambda} M_{\rm d}}{4 \pi R_{\rm d}^2} \nonumber\\
& \sim & 8 \left(\frac{\kappa_{\lambda}}{22,000 \ {\rm cm}^2 \ {\rm g}^{-1}}\right)
\left(\frac{V}{4,000 \ {\rm km} \ {\rm s}^{-1}}\right)^{-2}
\left(\frac{t}{550 \ {\rm days}}\right)^{-2} \ .\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the opacity for carbon dust grains with $\lsim 0.1 \micron$, we obtain $\tau_{\lambda} \sim 10$ at 6563Å (H$_{\alpha}$), $4$ at 12818Å (P$_{\beta}$), and $2$ at 21661Å (Br$_{\gamma}$). Namely, the opacity provided by the dust of $M_{\rm d}\sim 8 \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$ as has been obtained by the dust thermal [*emission*]{} (§3.2) is by a factor of $\sim 10$ larger than that required to account for the dust [*absorption*]{} (§3.3).
In other words, the dust inferred by the thermal emission will totally black out any SN emission if this would be distributed homogeneously in the SN emitting region. Thus, the dust formation must have been localized within the ejecta, with the ‘filling factor’ being $\sim 0.1$, suggesting that the dust forming region is distributed as clumps within the ejecta.
The dominance of the hydrogen emission lines suggests that the dust formation region is either the shocked H-rich CSM or shocked H-rich envelope of the SN ejecta. Assuming that all the carbon atoms with the mass fraction of $X(C)$ were condensed into the dust particles within the swept-up region, then the dust mass ($M_{\rm d}$) and swept-up mass ($M_{\rm sw}$) are connected as follows: $M_{\rm d} = M_{\rm sw} X(C)$. For the CSM case, by taking the mass fraction of carbon atoms normalized by the solar abundance, this provides the estimate on the swept-up mass as $M_{\rm sw} \sim 0.27 M_{\odot} (Z/Z_{\odot})^{-1}$, where $Z$ is the metallicity of the SN site. Since the condensation of atoms into the dust may not be complete, this provides a lower limit for $M_{\rm sw}$, namely $M_{\rm sw} \ge 0.27 M_{\odot} (Z/Z_{\odot})^{-1}$. The environmental metallicity of SN 2012jl has been reported to be low, $Z \lsim 0.3 Z_{\odot}$ [@stoll2011] (see also Appendix). Thus, we constrain the swept up mass as $M_{\rm sw} \gsim 0.9 M_{\odot}$. If this was ejected by a steady mass loss, it corresponds to a mass loss rate of $\gsim 0.02 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ if the mass loss velocity was $\sim 100$ km s$^{-1}$ as was inferred from an emission component in a high resolution spectrum [or $6 \times 10^{-3} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ with the wind velocity of $28$ km s$^{-1}$ as inferred from an absorption component: @smith2011]. The average CSM density up to $\sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ cm is $n_{\rm CSM} \gsim 3 \times 10^{7}$ cm$^{-3}$, thus at least four or five orders of magnitude larger than typical CSM density around SNe Ib/c from a Wolf-Rayet progenitor [e.g., @chevalier2006b; @maeda2013], and at least two orders of magnitude larger than SNe IIp from a Red Supergiant progenitor [e.g., @chevalier2006a]. We note the above estimate should roughly apply even if the dust formation site is the shocked H-rich SN ejecta, since the amount of the SN ejecta swept up by the reverse shock is comparable to the amount of the swept up CSM by the forward shock [@chevalier1982], and since the metal content in the H-rich envelope should be similar to that in the CSM. The high-density CSM derived here may indicate LBV-like eruptions, suggested to take place at the end of the evolution of a massive star with $M_{\rm ms} \gsim 30 M_{\odot}$ [@smith2011].
The above estimate assumes that the mass fraction of carbon atoms in the dust forming site is represented by the environmental (or progenitor) metallicity. However, this may well provide merely a conservative lower limit for the swept-up mass, if one considers possible effects of the stellar evolution on the carbon abundance in the progenitor surface and the CSM. If the CSM was indeed created by LBV eruptions, then the carbon abundance there is likely suppressed due to the CNO cycle as was observed in N-rich ejecta around Eta Carina [@davidson1986; @smith2004]. This will lead to an increase in the estimate of $M_{\rm sw}$. On the other extreme, one may consider the case where the C-rich materials processed by the He-shell burning may have increased the carbon abundance in the progenitor surface and the CSM. We judge this latter case is highly unlikely, since such a case will lead to abundant He content in the interaction region as was observed for SN Ibc 2006jc [e.g., @anupama2009], not the H-rich abundance inferred from the spectrum of SN IIn 2010jl.
We can place a conservative upper limit on the mass loss as well (under the assumption that the carbon atom fraction is represented by $Z$). The ‘rarefied’ region should be at a lower density than the dusty clumps. Taking into account the filling factor of about 0.1, then the mass loss properties cannot be larger than the above estimate by more than one order of magnitude. Thus, our constraints on the mass loss properties are the following:
[**The swept up mass:**]{}\
$0.9 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot }\lsim M_{\rm SW} \lsim 9 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot}$.\
[**The mass loss rate (for a wind velocity of 100 km s$^{-1}$):**]{}\
$0.02 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ $\lsim \dot M \lsim 0.2 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$.\
[**The average density up to $\sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ cm:**]{}\
$3 \times 10^7 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1}$ cm$^{-3} \lsim n_{\rm CSM} \lsim 3 \times 10^8 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$.
The CSM density we estimated here can be further checked with the relative strengths of the hydrogen emission lines. Assuming that the interaction region is largely ionized, we expect that the electron number density is comparable to $n_{\rm CSM}$, i.e., $n_{\rm e} \sim 10^8$ cm$^{-3}$. At this electron density, the H$_{\beta}/{\rm H}_{\alpha}$ ratio can be smaller than the Case B recombination if the Sobolev (gas) optical depth to H$_{\alpha}$ is large ($\tau_{\rm H_{\alpha}} \gsim 10$) [@xu1992]. If we fit the blue wing of H$_{\beta}$ to that of H$_{\alpha}$ (to estimate the Balmer line ratios in the unobscured wavelength), the intrinsic H$_{\beta}/{\rm H}_{\alpha}$ ratio of $\sim 0.1$ is derived, which is consistent with the expectation based on the derived CSM density ($n_{\rm CSM} \sim 10^8$ cm$^{-3}$), if $\tau_{{\rm H}_{\alpha}} \sim 10 - 100$ [@drake1980; @xu1992]. The electron density cannot be larger than $\sim 10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$, since then the H$_{\beta}/{\rm H}_{\alpha}$ ratio increases above the Case B recombination expectation [@drake1980; @levesque2012]. Thus, we conclude that the CSM density we derived is consistent with the hydrogen line strengths.
Now, with the properties of the CSM estimated above through the dust properties, we can check if the expected properties of the SN arising from the SN-CSM interaction are consistent with the observations. The energy budget ($E$) and energy generation rate at the shock ($L$) due to the interaction are [see also, @zhang2012], $$\begin{aligned}
E &\sim& 8 \times 10^{50} \left(\frac{M_{\rm sw}}{5 M_{\odot}}\right) \left(\frac{V}{4,000 \ {\rm km} \ {\rm s}^{-1}}\right)^2 \ {\rm erg} \ , \\
L &\sim& 2 \times 10^{43} \left[\frac{\dot M / 0.1 M_{\odot} \ {\rm yr}^{-1}}{v_{\rm w} / 100 \ {\rm km} \ {\rm s}^{-1}}\right] \left(\frac{V}{4,000 \ {\rm km} \ {\rm s}^{-1}}\right)^3 \ {\rm erg} \ {\rm s}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ These are comparable to the observed radiation output ($\sim 4 \times 10^{50}$ erg in the first 200 days, which should be added by the smaller amount of the energy emitted after $+200$ days) and the total observed luminosity in optical and NIR at $+550$ days ($\sim 6.5 \times 10^{42}$ erg), assuming that about half of the kinetic energy was converted to the radiation energy. Detailed analysis is required to improve the above estimate, to address the conversion efficiency of the kinetic energy to the radiation energy and the shock velocity evolution [@moriya2012], but the rough agreement above strongly supports that the SN-CSM interaction is the main power source of the luminous SN IIn 2010jl.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
Summary
-------
In this paper, we presented optical and NIR spectra of the luminous SN IIn, 2010jl, at $\sim + 550$ days since $V$-band maximum. The NIR spectrum clearly shows a thermal continuum emission, which was absent in the early phase. The hydrogen emission lines show a wavelength-dependent line profile, where the optical lines show large blueshifts, P$_{\beta}$ shows a small blueshift, and there is virtually no shift for Br$_{\gamma}$. With these two spectroscopic features, we conclude that the dust grains were newly formed in SN IIn 2010jl in the late phase. The flux in the optical bands at $\sim +550$ days is offset from an extrapolation of the flat evolution seen in the early phase up to $\sim +200$ days. This indicates that SN 2010jl showed additional evidence for dust formation, namely the optical light is absorbed and re-emitted at longer wavelengths. Thus, SN 2010jl in the late phase has all the expected properties of new dust formation. The dust we see in the late phase ($\sim 550$ days) was most likely formed around 1 year after the $V$-band maximum.
We derived the mass and temperature of the newly formed dust grains. Thanks to the spectroscopic detection, the properties of the dust grains are specified with little uncertainty.
[**The main species:**]{}\
Carbon grains, either amorphous carbon or graphite.\
[**The typical size of the dust grains:**]{}\
$a_{\rm d} \lsim 0.1 \micron$ (most likely $a_{\rm d} \lsim 0.01 \micron$).\
[**The dust temperature:**]{}\
$T_{\rm d} \sim 1,350 - 1,450$K.\
[**The total mass of the dust grains**]{}:\
$M_{\rm d} \sim (7.5 - 8.5) \times 10^{-4} M_{\odot}$.
Note that the range of values of $T_{\rm d}$ and $M_{\rm d}$ takes into account the uncertainty in the optical depth of the dusty region to the NIR photons. The argument for the carbon grains is not only based on the NIR SED, but also on the opacity dependence with wavelength as derived by the different line profiles of hydrogen lines at different wavelengths. We have checked the heating balance between the absorption in optical and the emission in NIR, and we conclude that this is consistent with the properties of the dust (e.g., temperature) that we have derived by an independent method. Non-astronomical silicate grains like MgSiO$_3$ or Mg$_2$SiO$_4$ are clearly rejected by various arguments.
With the properties of the dust grains, we estimated the properties of CSM and SN ejecta as follows:
[**The swept up mass:**]{}\
$0.9 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot }\lsim M_{\rm SW} \lsim 9 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot}$.\
[**The mass loss rate (for the wind velocity of 100 km s$^{-1}$):**]{}\
$0.02 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ $\lsim \dot M \lsim 0.2 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$.\
[**The average density up to $\sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ cm:**]{}\
$3 \times 10^7 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1}$ cm$^{-3} \lsim n_{\rm CSM} \lsim 3 \times 10^8 (Z/0.3 Z_{\odot})^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$.\
[**The structure of the interacting region:** ]{}\
The dust grains are localized within $\sim 10$% of the emitting volume.
The CSM properties correspond to the mass loss history of the progenitor in the last 60 years before the explosion, assuming the mass loss wind velocity of $\sim 100$ km s$^{-1}$. The localized formation of the dust grains indicates that the dust grains were formed in high-density regions, probably distributed in high-density clumps. This supports the formation of the dust in a dense cooling shell created by the interaction between the SN and a dense CSM, as the dense cooling shell (or clumps) is expected to be formed from regions which experience radiative and hydrodynamic instabilities. The high density CSM is further supported by the relative strength of hydrogen emission lines.
We thus conclude that there is a very dense CSM around SN 2010jl, and we have found that the interaction of the SN with the CSM defined above can roughly explain the luminosity and energy output of the luminous SN 2010jl. The high-density CSM was likely produced by LBV-like eruptions, suggested to take place at the end of the evolution of a massive star with $M_{\rm ms} \gsim 30 M_{\odot}$ [@smith2011].
Discussions
-----------
As shown in this paper, the dust formation scenario provides a consistent and straightforward interpretation to various features of SN 2010jl in the late phase. Still, one may consider different scenarios, which may, in principle, partly contribute to each feature to some extent. Indeed, a combination of the blueshifted H${_\alpha}$ profile evolution and the flat optical light curve evolution up to $\sim 400$ days led @zhang2012 to hypothesize that these could be explained by the CSM interaction without invoking the dust formation in this early epoch (before the epoch of the dust formation we propose in this paper). If the extension of this idea could explain the later evolution, i.e., further blueshift in the H$_{\alpha}$ emission and the accelerated fading, is another story. For example, one may argue that the accelerated fading could be caused by the end of the main CSM interaction that could be related to the possible decrease in the $H_{\alpha}$ blueshift at $\gsim 500$ days as compared to that at $\sim 400$ days (while at $\gsim 500$ days it was still larger than $\sim 200$ days) [@zhang2012]. However, since the starting epoch of the change in this optical luminosity decrease and that of the possible $H_{\alpha}$ blueshift decrease were not coincident, we speculate that such a scenario would require a rather fine tuning. In the dust formation scenario, the decrease in the degree of blueshift seen in $H_{\alpha}$ at $\gsim 500$ days could be naturally explained if the dust formation was more or less completed (which we attributed to be around 1 year since the $V$-band maximum) and then the optical depth simply decreased following the expansion. In any case, it is definitely interesting to investigate details of the light curve and the line profile evolution, and their mutual relation (which has not been discussed quantitatively so far). Such a study will lead to an accurate evaluation on the properties of the dust grains.
Investigating details of the CSM interaction is however beyond the scope of the present paper, but we present some arguments that this would not change our result significantly. For example, this would not cause the wavelength-dependent line shift. Given that the optical depth we estimate based only on the line profiles at various hydrogen emission lines is quite consistent with the difference between the observed optical luminosity at $\sim 550$ days and the extrapolation from the early phase light curve evolution, there is no need to introduce additional cause of the luminosity change. Furthermore, we showed that the bolometric luminosity including NIR does not show significant change in the decline rate, strongly indicating that the possible effect from the change in the CSM interaction property should provide at most only a minor contribution.
We estimate that the dust particles we observed were formed at $\sim 1$ year after the explosion. There were possible dust signatures reported based on observations of SN 2010jl in the earlier phase, and we conclude that they are not the same component as described in this paper. @andrews2011 detected IR excess at $3.6$ and $4.5 \micron$ (with the peak redder than $4.5 \micron$), attributing it to an echo by pre-existing CSM dust grains. The NIR dust emission in the late phase exceeds the NIR magnitudes at day 108 reported in @andrews2011.With the monotonically decreasing SN luminosity [@zhang2012], it is unlikely that the dust we observed was this pre-existing CSM dust heated by the SN emission. Also, the estimated position of the CSM dust ($\sim 10^{18}$ cm from the progenitor) is too far to be shock heated by the SN forward shock. Indeed, if we estimate the location of the materials emitting the NIR thermal continuum assuming a black body (while this is just a rough estimate, since the optical depth in NIR as we derived is below unity), we obtain a radius of $\sim 2.8 \times 10^{16}$ cm from our NIR spectrum. This is much smaller than the pre-existing dust found by @andrews2011. The black body estimate is indeed close to the expected radius reached by the shock wave ($\sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ cm for a constant shock velocity of $4,000$ km s$^{-1}$, which is very likely an underestimate since the shock must have experienced deceleration), strengthening the case for the newly formed dust grains at the dense-cooling shell. Thus, the dust particles we observed in the late phase cannot be the same (pre-existing) dust particles reported in the early phase. Indeed, the above estimate of the emitting radius ($\sim 2 - 3 \times 10^{16}$ cm) also generally excludes a contribution from any pre-existing dust grains to the NIR emission at $\sim 550$ days, since at such a small radius and with a large luminosity of SN 2010jl, any pre-existing dust grains there must have been destroyed by the SN radiation [e.g., @fox2010].
In this context, we emphasize that our argument in the heating-cooling balance (§3.4) is totally independent from any pre-existing CSM dust grains. Such pre-existing dust grains never produce a ‘change’ in the absorption (thus the decrease in the optical luminosity). The possible mid-IR emission from the pre-existing dust must not be added to the bolometric luminosity from the system, since these dust grains at the distance of $\sim 10^{18}$ cm [@andrews2011] would reprocess the early phase radiation (thus should not be counted in considering the instantaneous luminosity output). From this argument, we conclude that we cannot either support or reject the pre-existing CSM dust from our observations, but our analysis of the newly formed dust grains is essentially insensitive to this.
@smith2012 reported wavelength dependent blueshift in the hydrogen lines in the early phase ($\lsim +100$ days), and they attributed this behavior either to the newly formed dust or to the optical depth effect of the emitting gas. We note that the blueshift we observe is more significant, as is shown by the H$_{\alpha}$ line profile evolution from the early to late phase [@zhang2012]. Although no detailed analysis on the dust properties (including the mass and temperature) was presented in @smith2012, we suspect that the dust mass must have been very small if not zero – otherwise the wavelength shift should have been greater in the early epoch and the NIR flux should have been much larger than in the late phase. We speculate that already in the early phase a small fraction of the shocked ejecta/CSM might have started the dust formation, but the major dust formation took place at $\sim 1$ year after the explosion.
We conclude that the newly formed dust grains are carbon grains. One interesting question is how the carbon dust grains were formed. As we conclude that the dust formation took place either in the shocked H-rich CSM or the shocked H-rich SN envelope, we expect that the number fraction of oxygen atoms was higher than that of carbon. In such a situation, the formation of carbon dust grains may be forbidden by the consumption of carbon atoms into the CO molecules [@nozawa2011]. Observationally, we have not detected any clear signature of CO molecules in the $K$-band spectrum despite good S/N – thus, it seems that even within the O-rich gas the carbon dust grains can form by avoiding the formation of CO molecules. The investigation of such a process is beyond the scope of this paper [see, e.g., @clayton2013], but we note that this could provide a hint for understanding the dust formation in SNe and other astrophysical environments. It would also be interesting to see if the carbon grain formation would have been preceded by formation of CO molecules. Unfortunately, the Spitzer data around 100 days [@andrews2011], well before our claimed epoch for the major formation of the dust grains, do not either support or reject existence of the CO. This anyway highlights the importance of both multi-epoch and multi-band observations. Another interesting possibility for the future is to follow SN 2010jl further to see if silicate dust is also formed as the temperature decreases.
In addition to the dust properties, our analysis allows us to constrain the CSM environment, independent from the optical light curve. We note that the density and distribution have also been constrained by X-ray observations. @chandra2012 [see also @ofek2013] derived the density slope of $\rho_{\rm CSM} \propto r^{-1.6}$ and the mass loss rate of $\sim 5 \times 10^{-3} M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ normalized at $10^{15}$ cm (here we assume the shock velocity of $4,000$ km s$^{-1}$ and the wind velocity of $100$ km s$^{-1}$ for a comparison to our result). This corresponds to the corresponding ‘local’ mass loss rate of $\sim 0.017 M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ at the distance of $2 \times 10^{16}$ cm. Thus, our independent estimate of the mass loss rate through the dust formation signal is roughly consistent with the X-ray measurement. Given uncertainties in both methods (e.g., ionization status in analyzing the X-ray absorption), we regard that the agreement is fairly good.
The conclusion about the high density CSM likely applies to other luminous SNe IIn as well. We note a striking similarity in the ejecta and CSM properties we derived for SN 2010jl and those derived for SN IIn 2006tf by @smith2008b, despite totally different approaches to estimate these properties. SN IIn 2006tf was similar to SN 2010jl in the luminosity, light curves, and spectral evolution [@zhang2012]. @smith2008b estimated the mass loss rate in the last decade before the explosion of SN 2006tf reached a few $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ to explain the luminosity of SN 2006tf (similar to that of SN 2010jl) by the SN-CSM interaction. The CSM density we estimated is a bit lower than this, but still much higher than a usual stellar wind and close to the amount expected for LBV-like eruptions of a massive star. Given uncertainties in both estimates (i.e., from the interaction luminosity and from the dust mass), the situations we infer for these two SNe are strikingly similar. Our analysis on the CSM properties around SN 2010jl will provide a useful basis on analyzing other (luminous) SNe IIn and potentially (at least a part of) SLSNe.
This research is based on observations obtained at the Subaru Telescope (S12A-047) operated by the Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and at the Himalayan Chandra Telescope (HCT) operated by the Indian Institute of Astrophysics. The authors thank the staff at the Subaru Telescope and the Himalayan Chandra Telescope for their excellent support in the observations. The authors also thank Masayuki Tanaka, Filomena Bufano and Giuliano Pignata for valuable discussion. This research is supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. This work has also been supported in part by the DST-JSPS Bilateral Joint Research Projects. K.M. and R.Q. acknowledge financial supports by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research for Young Scientists (23740141, 24740118). T.J.M. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Research Fellowship for Young Scientists (23-5929). We have used the Weizmann interactive supernova data repository (www.weizmann.ac.il/astrophysics/wiserep) to obtain the archive spectrum data for SN 2010jl around the $V$-band maximum.
A. Contamination from the unresolved background region
======================================================
In this section, we check how much the narrow component of the hydrogen emission lines is contaminated by emissions from the unresolved host and/or the SN environment, rather than a narrow emission from the CSM just around the SN. We assume that the HCT spectrum of the SN vicinity, used for the background subtraction, represents a spectrum of the unresolved background region from the host galaxy and/or SN environment (not affected by the SN emission). We estimate a possible contribution from the unresolved background region to the narrow component of the hydrogen emission lines seen in the SN spectrum as follows (Fig. A1). The extracted SN spectrum (Fig. 1) shows narrow emission lines of \[OIII\] $\lambda\lambda$4959, 5007, likely originated from the background, rather than the SN/CSM itself. We first scaled the background spectrum by the flux of the \[OIII\], then assumed that the scaled spectrum is representative of the unresolved background region. Then, we compared this spectrum with the hydrogen emission lines. As shown in Figure A1, the possible contamination from the background to the narrow emission lines seen in the SN spectrum is not negligible. Therefore, we decided not to discuss details of the narrow component in the main text.
B. SN site metallicity
======================
@stoll2011 reported that the metallicity around SN 2010jl is low, $Z \lsim 0.3 Z_{\odot}$. With the SN vicinity spectrum we obtained, we cross-checked this estimate. We first measured the fluxes of the narrow emission lines, H$_{\alpha}$, H$_{\beta}$, \[NII\] $\lambda$6584, and \[OIII\] $\lambda$5007. Then we used the N2 indicator (${\rm N2} \equiv \log({\rm [NII]}/{\rm H}_{\alpha})$) and O3N2 indicator (${\rm O3N2} \equiv \log (({\rm [OIII]}/{\rm H}_{\beta})/({\rm [NII]}/{\rm H}_{\alpha}))$), in order to derive the oxygen abundance ($\log ({\rm O}/{\rm H})$) using relations in @pettini2004. We then derived the metallicity as $12 + \log({\rm O}/{\rm H}) \sim 8.31$ by the N2 diagnostics and $\sim 8.36$ by the O3N2 diagnostics. Given the typical uncertainty of $\sim 0.1 - 0.2$ dex in these methods, our result agrees with that presented by @stoll2011. Adopting the solar metallicity as $12 + \log({\rm O}/{\rm H}) = 8.66$ [@asplund2004] and representing the metallicity by the O abundance, we estimate that $Z \sim 0.3 - 0.7 Z_{\odot}$. While the mean is larger than that derived by @stoll2011, the two results still agree within the error. In the main text, we adopt $Z = 0.3 Z_{\odot}$ as a reference value for the metallicity, following @stoll2011.
C. Possible echo contribution in the optical spectrum
=====================================================
As mentioned in §3.2, our optical spectrum in the late phase ($\sim +550$ days) shows deviation from a single black body fit especially in the blue, either due to unresolved lines or a light echo caused by the CSM. While it is not a main focus of the present paper, this itself is an interesting question, thus we provide a constraint with our data on this issue in this Appendix.
Figure C1 shows a comparison between the late phase spectrum and a pseudo echo spectrum. For the pseudo echo spectrum, we simply adopt the maximum-phase spectrum at $\sim 24$ days since the $V$-band maximum [@zhang2012] and apply an additional dependence of $f_{\lambda} \propto \lambda^{-1.2}$ to mimic the scattered spectrum [@miller2010]. From this exercise, we see that there is a hint of a light echo contribution below $\sim 5,000$Å, where the overall continuum slope is consistent with the expectation from the echo scenario. While this is not a probe of an echo contribution, this provides an upper limit of the contribution of an echo in the optical emission, which we estimate to be $\lsim 50$% at maximum in luminosity. Since the thermal balance argument in §3.4 already includes the uncertainty at this level (e.g., in the value of $\alpha$), this would not change our conclusion.
At the same time, there are emission features which cannot be attributed to the echo (e.g., at $\sim 4,500$ and $5,200$Å). Thus, even if the echo is present, the unresolved lines are also present as suggested by, e.g., @foley2007. Further investigating the echo contribution in the late phase emission is definitely interesting, and we will present detailed analysis on this issue elsewhere.
Andrews, J. E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 541
Andrews, J.E., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 45
Andrews, J.E., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 47
Anupama, G.C., Sahu, D.K., Gurugubelli, U.K., Prabhu, T.P., Tominaga, N., Tanaka, M., Nomoto, K. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 894
Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., Allende Prieto, C., & Kiselman, D. 2004, A&A, 417, 751
Benetti, S., et al. 2010, CBET, 2536, 1
Chandra, P., Chevalier, R.A., Irwin, C.M., Chugai, N., Fransson, C., Soderberg, A.M. 2012, ApJ, 750, L2
Chatzopoulos, E., Wheeler, J. C., Vinko, J., 2012, ApJ, 746, 121
Chevalier, R.A., 1982, ApJ, 258, 790
Chevalier, R.A., & Fransson, C. 1994, ApJ, 420, 268
Chevalier, R.A., Fransson, C., & Nymark, T.K. 2006a, ApJ, 641, 1029
Chevalier, R.A., & Fransson, C. 2006b, ApJ, 651, 381
Chevalier, R. A., Irwin, C. M., 2011, ApJ, 729, L6
Chugai, N.N. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1448
Chugai, N.N.,et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1213
Clayton, D.D. 2013, ApJ, 762, 5
Davidson, K., Dufour, R.J., Walborn, N.R., Gull, T.R. 1986, ApJ, 305, 867
Dorschner, J., Begemann, B., Henning, Th., Jaeger, C., Mutschke, H. 1995, A&A, 300, 503
Draine, B. T. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1026
Drake, S.A., & Ulrich, R.K. 1980, ApJS, 42, 351
Dwek, E., Galliano, F., & Jones, A.P. 2007, ApJ, 662, 927
Filippenko, A.V. 1997, ARA&A, 35, 309
Foley, R.J., Smith, N., Ganeshalingam, M., Li, W., Chornock, R., Filippenko, A.V. 2007, ApJ, 657, L105
Fox, O., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 650
Fox, O.D., Chevalier, R.A., Dewek, E., Skrutskie, M.F., Sugerman, B.E.K., Leisenring, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 1768
Fox, O.D., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 7
Gal-Yam, A. 2012, Science, 337, 927
Gerardy, C.L., Fesen, R.A., Höflich, P, Wheeler, J.C. 2000, ApJ, 119, 2968
Goto, M., et al. 2003, SPIE proc., 4839, 1117
Hayano, Y., et al. 2008, Proc. SPIE, 2008, 7015, 25
Hayano, Y., et al. 2010, Proc. SPIE, 2010, 7736, 21
Hawarden, T.G., Leggett, S.K., Letawsky, M.B., Ballantyne, D.R., Casali, M.M. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 563
Horne, K., et al. 1986, PASP, 98, 609
Kobayashi, N., et al. 2000, Proc. SPIE, 4008, 1056
Kotak, R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 704, 306
Kozasa, T., Hasegawa, H., & Nomoto, K. 1989, ApJ, 344, 325
Kozasa, T., Nozawa, T., Tominaga, N., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K. 2009, ASP conf. series, 414, 43
Levesque, E.M., Stringfellow, G.S., Ginsburg, A.G., Bally, J., Keeney, B.A. 2012, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:1211.4577)
Lucy, L. B., Danziger, I. J., Gouiffes, C., & Bouchet, P. 1989, in IAU Colloq. 120, Structure and Dynamics of the Interstellar Medium, ed.G. Tenorio-Tagle, M. Moles, & J. Melnick (LNP 350; Berlin: Springer),164
Maeda, K. 2013, ApJ, 762, 14
Mattila, S., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 141
Meikle,W. P. S., Spyromilio, J., Allen, D. A., Varani, G.-F., & Cumming, R. J. 1993, MNRAS, 261, 535
Meikle, W.P.S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 608
Miller, A.A., Smith, N., Li, W., Bloom, J.S., Chornock, R., Filippenko, A.V., Prochaska , J.X. 2010, ApJ, 139, 2218
Moriya, T.J., Blinnikov, S.I., Tominaga, N., Yoshida, N., Tanaka, M., Maeda, K., Nomoto, K. 2013a, MNRAS, 428, 1020
Moriya, T.J., Maeda, K., Taddia, F., Sollerman, J., Blinnikov, SI., & Sorokina, E.I. 2013b, MNRAS, submitted
Moseley, S. H., Dwek, E., Glaccum, W., Graham, J. R., Loewenstein, R. F., & Silverberg, R. F. 1989, Nature, 340, 697
Newton, J., & Puckett, T. 2010, CBET, 2532, 1
Nozawa, T., Kozasa, T., Umeda, H., Maeda, K., & Nomoto, K. 2003, ApJ, 598, 785
Nozawa, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1343
Nozawa, T., Maeda, K., Kozasa, T., Tanaka, M., Nomoto, K., Umeda, H. 2011, ApJ, 736, 45
Ofek, E.O., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 42
Osterbrock, D.E. 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, University Science Books
Pastorello, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 113
Pettini, M., & Pagel, B.E.J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59
Pozzo, M., et al. 2004, MNRAS, 352, 457
Quimby, R.M., et al. 2011, Nature, 474, 487
Sakon, I., et al. 2009, ApJ, 692, 546
Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
Semenov, D., Henning, Th., Helling, Ch., Ilgner, M., Sedlmayr, E. 2003, A&A, 410, 611
Smith, N., Morse, J.A. 2004, ApJ, 605, 854
Smith, N., Foley, R. J., & Filippenko, A. V. 2008a, ApJ, 680, 568
Smith, N., et al. 2008b, ApJ, 686, 467
Smith, N., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 63
Smith, N., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 17
Stoll, R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 34
Stritzinger, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 173
Sugerman, B.E.K., et al. 2006, Science, 313, 196
Suntzeff, N. B., & Bouchet, P. 1990, AJ, 99, 650
Taddia, F., et al. 2013, A&A, in press (arXiv:1304.3038)
Todini, P., & Ferrara, A. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 726
Tominaga, N., et al. 2008, ApJ, 687, 1208
Whitelock, P. A., et al. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 7
Wooden, D. H., Rank, D. M., Bregman, J. D., Witteborn, F. C., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Cohen, M., Pinto, P. A., & Axelrod, T. S. 1993, ApJS, 88, 477
Xu, Y., McCray, R., Oliva, E., Randich, S. 1992, ApJ, 386, 181
Yaron, O & Gal-Yan, A. 2012, PASP, 124, 668
Zhang, T., et al. 2012, AJ, 144, 131
Zubko, V. G., Mennella, V., Colangeli, L., & Bussoletti, E. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1321
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that the principal results of the article “The metric dimension of graph with pendant edges" \[Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 65 (2008) 139–145\] do not hold. In this paper we correct the results and we solve two open problems described in the above mentioned paper.'
author:
- |
D. Kuziak$^{1}$, J. A. Rodríguez-Velázquez$^{2}$ and I. G. Yero$^{2}$\
\
$^1$[Faculty of Applied Physics and Mathematics]{}\
[Gdańsk University of Technology,]{} [ul. Narutowicza 11/12 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland]{}\
[[email protected]]{}\
\
$^2$[Departament d’Enginyeria Informàtica i Matemàtiques,]{}\
[Universitat Rovira i Virgili,]{} [Av. Països Catalans 26, 43007 Tarragona, Spain.]{}\
[[email protected], [email protected]]{}
title: 'Corrections to the article “The metric dimension of graph with pendant edges" \[Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 65 (2008) 139–145\]'
---
[*Keywords:*]{} Resolving sets, metric dimension, corona graph.
[*AMS Subject Classification numbers:*]{} 05C69; 05C70
Introduction
============
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a simple graph of order $n=|V|$. Let $u,v\in V$ be two different vertices of $G$, the distance $d(u,v)$ between vertices $u$ and $v$ is the length of the shortest path between $u$ and $v$. Given a set of vertices $S=\{v_1,v_2,...,v_k\}$ of $G$, the [*metric representation*]{} of a vertex $v\in V$ with respect to $S$ is the vector $r(v|S)=(d(v,v_1),d(v,v_2),...,d(v,v_k))$. We say that $S$ is a [*resolving set*]{} for $G$ if for every pair of different vertices $u,v\in V$, $r(u|S)\ne r(v|S)$. The [*metric dimension*]{} of $G$ is the minimum cardinality of any resolving set for $G$ and it is denoted by $dim(G)$. The concept of metric dimension was introduced first independently by Harary and Melter [@harary] and Slater [@leaves-trees], respectively.
Let $G$ and $H$ be two graphs of order $n$ and $m$, respectively. The corona product $G\odot H$ is defined as the graph obtained from $G$ and $H$ by taking one copy of $G$ and $n$ copies of $H$ and then joining by edges all the vertices from the $i^{th}$-copy of $H$ with the $i^{th}$-vertex of $G$. Given the graphs $G$ and $H$ with set of vertices $V_1=\{v_1,v_2,...,v_{n}\}$ and $V_2=\{u_1,u_2,...,u_{m}\}$, respectively, the Cartesian product of $G$ and $H$ is the graph $G\times H$ formed by the vertices $V=\{(v_i,u_j)\;:\;1\le i\le
n,\,1\le j\le m\}$ and two vertices $(v_i,u_j)$ and $(v_k,u_l)$ are adjacent in $G\times H$ if and only if ($v_i=v_k$ and $u_j\sim u_l$) or ($v_i\sim v_k$ and $u_j=u_l$). The metric dimension of Cartesian product graph is studied in [@pelayo1].
The following results related to the metric dimension of the graph $(P_n\times P_m)\odot K_1$ and $(K_n\times P_m)\odot K_1$ were published in [@baskoro].
[*[@baskoro]*]{} For $n\ge 1$ and $1\le
m\le 2$, $dim((P_n\times P_m)\odot K_1)=2$.
[*[@baskoro]*]{} For $n\ge 3$, $$dim((K_n\times P_m)\odot K_1)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
n-1, & m=1, \\
n, & m=2.
\end{array}
\right.$$
In this paper we show that the above results are not correct for the case $m=2$ and $n\ge 3$. We also solve the general case $m\ge 2$.
Results
=======
If $n\ge 3$ and $m\ge 2$, then $dim((P_{n}\times P_{m})\odot
K_1)=3$.
Let $\{v_1,v_2,...,v_n\}$ and $\{u_1,u_2,...,u_m\}$ be the set of vertices of the graphs $P_{n}$ and $P_{m}$, respectively. The vertices of $P_{n}\times P_{m}$ will be denoted by $v_{ij}=(v_i,u_j)$ and the pendant vertex of $v_{ij}$ in $(P_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1$ will be denoted by $u_{ij}$. We will show that $S=\{v_{11},v_{1m},v_{nm}\}$ is a resolving set for $(P_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1$. The representations of vertices of $(P_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1$ with respect to $S$ are given by the following expressions, $$\begin{aligned}
r(v_{ij}|S)&=(d(v_{ij},v_{11}),d(v_{ij},v_{1m}),d(v_{ij},v_{nm}))\\
&=(i+j-2,m+i-j-1,m+n-i-j),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
r(u_{ij}|S)&=(d(u_{ij},v_{11}),d(u_{ij},v_{1m}),d(u_{ij},v_{nm}))\\
&=(i+j-1,m+i-j,m+n-i-j+1).\end{aligned}$$ Now, let us suppose there exist two different vertices $x,y$ of $(P_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1$ such that $r(x|S)=r(y|S)$. If $x=v_{ij}$ and $y=v_{kl}$, then $i\ne k$ or $j\ne l$ and we obtain that $$(i+j-2,m+i-j-1,m+n-i-j)=(k+l-2,m+k-l-1,m+n-k-l).$$ Which leads to $i=k$ and $j=l$, a contradiction. Analogously we obtain a contradiction if $x=u_{ij}$ and $y=u_{kl}$. On the other hand, if $x=v_{ij}$ and $y=u_{kl}$, then we have $$(i+j-2,m+i-j-1,m+n-i-j)=(k+l-1,m+k-l,m+n-k-l+1),$$ which leads to $1=-1$, a contradiction. So, for every different vertices $x,y$ of $(P_{n}\times P_{m})\odot
K_1$, we have $r(x|S)\ne r(y|S)$. Therefore, $dim((P_{n}\times
P_{m})\odot K_1)\le 3$.
On the other hand, since $(P_{n}\times
P_{m})\odot K_1$ is not a path, $dim((P_{n}\times
P_{m})\odot K_1)\ge 2$. Now let us suppose $S'=\{a,b\}$ is a resolving set for $(P_n\times P_{m})\odot K_1$. If there exist two different paths of length $d(a,b)$ between $a$ and $b$, then there exist two different vertices $c,d$ of $(P_n\times P_{m})\odot K_1$ such that $d(c,a)=d(d,a)$ and $d(c,b)=d(d,b)$, a contradiction. Let us suppose there is only one path $Q$, of length $d(a,b)$, between $a$ and $b$. Thus, all the vertices of $Q$, except possibly $a$ or $b$ which could be pendant vertices, belong either to a copy of $P_n$ or to a copy of $P_m$. We consider the following cases.
Case 1: If every vertex belonging to the path $Q$ has degree less or equal than three, then $m=2$ and $S'\subset
\{u_{11},v_{11},u_{21},v_{21}\}$ or $S'\subset
\{u_{1n},v_{1n},u_{2n},v_{2n}\}$. Let us suppose $S'\subset
\{u_{11},v_{11},u_{21},v_{21}\}$. Now, for the vertices $u_{1i},v_{1,i+1}$, $2\le i\le n-1$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
d(u_{i1},a)&=d(u_{i1},v_{11})+d(v_{11},a)\\
&=d(v_{i+1,1},v_{11})+d(v_{11},a)\\
&=d(v_{i+1,1},a),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
d(u_{i1},b)&=d(u_{i1},v_{11})+d(v_{11},b)\\
&=d(v_{i+1,1},v_{11})+d(v_{11},b)\\
&=d(v_{i+1,1},b).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $r(u_{i1}| S')=r(v_{i+1,1}|S')$, a contradiction. On the contrary, if $S'\subset
\{u_{1n},v_{1n},u_{2n},v_{2n}\}$, then for the vertices $u_{i1},v_{i-1,1}$, $2\le i\le n-1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
d(u_{i1},a)&=d(u_{i1},v_{1n})+d(v_{1n},a)\\
&=d(v_{i-1,1},v_{1n})+d(v_{1n},a)\\
&=d(v_{i-1,1},a),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
d(u_{i1},b)&=d(u_{i1},v_{1n})+d(v_{1n},b)\\
&=d(v_{i-1,1},v_{1n})+d(v_{1n},b)\\
&=d(v_{i-1,1},b).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $r(u_{i1}| S')=r(v_{i-1,1}|S')$, a contradiction.
Case 2: There exists a vertex $v$ of degree four belonging to the path $Q$. So, $v$ has two neighbors $c,d$ not belonging to $Q$, such that $d(c,a)=1+d(v,a)=d(d,a)$ and $d(c,b)=1+d(v,b)=d(d,b)$. Thus, $r(c| S')=r(d|S')$, a contradiction. Hence, $dim((P_{n}\times P_{m})\odot
K_1)\ge 3$. Therefore, the result follows.
The following lemmas are useful to obtain the next result.
[*[@pelayo1]*]{}\[remark-kn-pm\]$\,$ If $n\ge 3$ then $dim(K_n\times P_m)=n-1$.
[*[@buczkowski]*]{}\[one-pendant-edge\] If $G_1$ is a graph obtained by adding a pendant edge to a nontrivial connected graph $G$, then $$dim(G)\le dim(G_1)\le dim(G) + 1.$$
If $m\ge 2$, then $$dim((K_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
n-1, & \textrm{for $n\ge 4$,} \\
3, & \textrm{for $n=3$.}
\end{array}\right.$$
Similarly to the above proof, let $v_{ij}=(v_i,u_j)$ be the set of vertices of $K_{n}\times P_{m}$, where $v_i$, $1\le i\le n$ and $u_j$, $1\le j\le m$ are vertices of the graphs $K_{n}$ and $P_{m}$, respectively. Let us denote by $u_{ij}$ the pendant vertex of $v_{ij}$. Assume that $n=3$. We will show that $S=\{v_{11},v_{21},v_{3m}\}$ is a resolving set for $(K_3\times P_m)\odot K_1$. Let us consider two different vertices $x,y$ of $(K_3\times P_{m})\odot
K_1$. We have the following cases.
Case 1: $x=v_{ij}$ and $y=v_{kl}$. If $j=l$, then $i\ne k$ and either $i\ne 3$ or $k\ne 3$, say $i\ne 3$. So, for $v_{i1}\in S$ we have $d(x,v_{i1})=j-1<j=d(y,v_{i1})$. On the contrary, say $j<l$. If $i\ne 3$ or $k\ne 3$, for instance, $i\ne 3$, then for $v_{i1}\in S$ we have $d(x,v_{i1})=j-1<l-1\le d(y,v_{i1})$. Now, if $i=k=3$, then $d(x,v_{3m})=m-j>m-l=d(y,v_{3m})$.
Case 2: $x=u_{ij}$ and $y=u_{kl}$. Is analogous to the above case.
Case 3: $x=v_{ij}$ and $y=u_{kl}$. If $j=l$ and $i=k=3$, then we have $d(x,v_{3m})=m-j<m-j+1=d(y,v_{3m})$. Also, if $j=l$ and ($i\ne
3$ or $k\ne 3$), say $i\ne 3$, then for $v_{i1}\in S$ we have $d(x,v_{i1})=j-1<j\le d(y,v_{i1})$. On the other hand, if $j\ne l$, we consider the following subcases.
Subcase 3.1: $i=k$ and $i\ne 3$. If $j=l+1$, then we have that $d(x,v_{3m})=m-j+1=m-l<m-l+2=d(y,v_{3m})$. On the other hand, if $j\ne l+1$, then for $v_{i1}\in S$ we have $d(x,v_{i1})=j-1\ne
l=d(y,v_{i1})$.
Subcase 3.2: $i=k=3$. If $j=l-1$, then there exists $v_{r1}\in S$, $r\ne 3$ such that $d(x,v_{r1})=j=l-1<l+1=d(y,v_{r1})$. On the other hand, if $j\ne l-1$, then we have that $d(x,v_{3m})=m-j\ne
m-l+1=d(y,v_{3m})$.
Subcase 3.3: $i\ne k$. Hence, we have either $i\ne 3$ or $k\ne 3$, for instance $i\ne 3$. If $d(x,v_{i1})=j-1=d(y,v_{i1})$, then there exist $v_{r1}\in S-\{v_{i1}\}$, $r\ne 3$, such that $d(x,v_{r1})=j>j-1\ge d(y,v_{r1})$.
Therefore, $dim((K_3\times P_{m})\odot K_1)\le 3$.
On the other hand, let $S'=\{a,b\}$ be a resolving set for $(K_3\times
P_{m})\odot K_1$. If there exist two different paths of length $d(a,b)$ between $a$ and $b$, then there exist two different vertices $c,d$ of $(K_3\times
P_{m})\odot K_1$ such that $d(c,a)=d(d,a)$ and $d(c,b)=d(d,b)$. Hence, $r(c| S')=r(d|S')$, a contradiction. Moreover, if there is only one path $Q$, of length $d(a,b)$, between $a$ and $b$, then there exists a vertex $v$ of degree four belonging to the path $Q$. So, $v$ has two neighbors $c,d$ not belonging to $Q$, such that $d(c,a)=1+d(v,a)=d(d,a)$ and $d(c,b)=1+d(v,b)=d(d,b)$. Thus, $r(c| S')=r(d|S')$, a contradiction. Thus, $dim((K_3\times P_{m})\odot K_1)\ge 3$. Therefore, for $n=3$, the result follows.
Now, let $n\ge 4$. We will show that $S=\{v_{1m},v_{31},v_{41},...,v_{n1}\}$ is a resolving set for $(K_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1$. Let us consider two different vertices $x,y$ of $(K_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1$. We have the following cases.
Case 1: $x=v_{ij}$ and $y=v_{kl}$. If $j=l$, then $i\ne k$. Let us suppose $i=1$ and $k=2$. Hence for $v_{1,m}\in S$ we have $d(x,v_{1m})=m-j<m-j+1=d(y,v_{1m})$. Now, if $i\notin \{1,2\}$ or $k\notin \{1,2\}$, then we have $v_{i1}\in S$ or $v_{k1}\in S$, say $v_{i1}\in S$. Thus, we have $d(x,v_{i1})=j-1<j=l=d(y,v_{i1})$.
On the other hand, if $j\ne l$, say $j<l$, then there exists $v_{t1}\in S$, $t\in \{3,...,n\}$, $t\ne k$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
d(x,v_{t1})&=d(x,v_{i1})+d(v_{i1},v_{t1})\\
&\le j-1+d(v_{k1},v_{t1})\\
&< l-1+d(v_{k1},v_{t1})\\
&=d(y,v_{k1})+d(v_{k1},v_{t1})\\
&=d(y,v_{t1}).\end{aligned}$$
Case 2: $x=u_{ij}$ and $y=u_{kl}$. Since $d(u_{ij},v)=d(v_{ij},v)+1$ for every $v\in S$, we proceed analogously to the above case and we obtain that $r(u_{ij}|S)\ne r(u_{kl}|S)$.
Case 3: $x=v_{ij}$ and $y=u_{kl}$. If $j\le l$, then for every $v_{t1}\in S$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
d(x,v_{t1})&=d(x,v_{i1})+d(v_{i1},v_{t1})\\
&=j-1+d(v_{i1},v_{t1})\\
&<l-1+d(v_{i1},v_{t1})\\
&\le l+d(v_{k1},v_{t1})\\
&=d(y,v_{k1})+d(v_{k1},v_{t1})\\
&=d(y,v_{t1}).\end{aligned}$$ Now, if $j>l$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
d(x,v_{1m})&=d(x,v_{im})+d(v_{im},v_{1m})\\
&=m-j+d(v_{im},v_{1m})\\
&<m-l+d(v_{im},v_{1m})\\
&\le m-l+1+d(v_{km},v_{1m})\\
&=d(y,v_{km})+d(v_{km},v_{1m})\\
&=d(y,v_{1m}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, for every two different vertices $x,y$ of $(K_n\times
P_{m})\odot K_1$ we have, $r(x|S)\ne r(y|S)$ and, as a consequence, $S$ is a resolving set for $(K_n\times P_{m})\odot K_1$ of cardinality $n-1$.
On the other hand, by Lemma \[remark-kn-pm\] and Lemma \[one-pendant-edge\] we have $dim((K_{n}\times P_{m})\odot K_1)\ge
n-1$. Hence, for $n\ge 4$, the result follows.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education through projects TSI2007-65406-C03-01 “E-AEGIS" and Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00004 “ARES”.
[99]{}
P. S. Buczkowski, G. Chartrand, C. Poisson, P. Zhang, On k-dimensional graphs and their bases, [*Periodica Mathematica Hungarica*]{}, [**46**]{} (1) (2003), 9–15.
J. Cáceres, C. Hernando, M. Mora, I. M. Pelayo, M. L. Puertas, C. Seara, D. R. Wood, On the metric dimension of Cartesian product of graphs, [*SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics*]{} [**21**]{} (2) (2007) 273–302.
F. Harary, R. A. Melter, On the metric dimension of a graph, [*Ars Combinatoria*]{} [**2**]{} (1976) 191–195.
H. Iswadi, E. T. Baskoro, R. Simanjuntak, A. N. M. Salman, The metric dimension of graph with pendant edges, [*Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing*]{}, [**65**]{} (2008) 139–145,
P. J. Slater, Leaves of trees, Proceeding of the 6th Southeastern Conference on Combinatorics, Graph Theory, and Computing, [*Congressus Numerantium*]{} [**14**]{} (1975) 549–559.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Sagdeev-Zaslavski (SZ) equation for wave turbulence is analytically derived, both in terms of generating function and of multi-point pdf, for weakly interacting waves with initial random phases. When also initial amplitudes are random, the one-point pdf equation is derived. Such analytical calculations remarkably agree with results obtained in totally different fashions. Numerical investigations of the two-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) and of a vibrating plate prove that: (i) generic Hamiltonian 4-wave systems rapidly attain a random distribution of phases independently of the slower dynamics of the amplitudes, vindicating the hypothesis of initially random phases; (ii) relaxation of the Fourier amplitudes to the predicted stationary distribution (exponential) happens on a faster timescale than relaxation of the spectrum (Rayleigh-Jeans distribution); (iii) the pdf equation correctly describes dynamics under different forcings: the NLSE has an exponential pdf corresponding to a quasi-gaussian solution, like the vibrating plates, that also show some intermittency at very strong forcings.'
author:
- 'Sergio Chibbaro^a^, Giovanni Dematteis^b^, Christophe Josserand^a,c^ and Lamberto Rondoni^b,d,e^'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Wave-Turbulence Theory of four-wave nonlinear interactions'
---
*Introduction* Dispersive waves are ubiquitous in nature, and their nonlinear interactions make them intriguing and challenging [@whitham2011linear; @berry2000making]. Wave Turbulence is the theory that describes the statistical properties of large numbers of incoherent interacting waves, with tools such as the [*wave kinetic equation*]{} analytically derived in the late sixties. This equation describes the evolution of the wave spectrum in time, when homogeneity and weak nonlinearity are assumed [@falkovich1992kolmogorov; @nazarenko2011wave; @newell2011wave]. It has been applied to numerous phenomena, including ocean waves [@komen94; @onorato2002freely; @falcon2007observation], capillary waves [@pushkarev1996turbulence; @falcon2009capillary] Alfvén waves [@galtier2000weak], optical waves [@picozzi2014optical] and solid oscillations [@Dur_06; @Mor_08; @Bou_08; @Miq_13; @Cad_13; @Humbert16]. It is the analogue of the Boltzmann equation for classical particles and it allows the Rayleigh-Jeans equilibrium state as well as non-equilibrium solutions, in terms of Kolmogorov-Zakharov (KZ) spectra [@zakharov1967energy].
To characterise the invariant measure of the dynamics, that is to find the complete statistical description concerning all quantities of interest, an important step has been taken by Sagdeev and Zaslavski [@zaslavskii1967limits], who obtained the Brout-Prigogine equation for the probability density function (pdf) of wave turbulence [@brout1956statistical]. More recently, this statistical framework has been nicely revisited using the diagrammatic technique [@nazarenko2011wave] and performing analytical calculations, in the $3$-wave case [@Cho_05a; @choi2005joint; @Eyi_12]. Interestingly, many experimental and theoretical results have shown that deviations from wave-turbulence predictions can be found for rare events, [*e.g.*]{} *intermittency* [@majda1997one; @falcon2007observation; @falcon2008fluctuations; @lukaschuk2009gravity; @nazarenko2010statistics; @falcon2010origin]. This seems to be the case when a more general theoretical framework [@New_01a; @New_01b; @connaughton2003dimensional; @Lvo_04; @jakobsen2004invariant] is required, because the nonlinearities are not small [@chibbaro2015elastic; @chibbaro2016weak].
In this communication, the complete wave-turbulence theory is developed for a fully general 4-wave system, whose hamiltonian is expressed by the following canonical expression: $$\label{eq: H}
H=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{1}\omega_{1} A^{\sigma_1}_{1} A^{-\sigma_1}_{1} + \epsilon \sum_{1234} \mathcal{H}^{\underline{\sigma}}_{\underline{\mathbf{k}}}\:A_1^{\sigma_1}A_2^{\sigma_2}A_3^{\sigma_3} A_4^{\sigma_4} \:\delta_{\underline{\sigma}\cdot \underline{\mathbf{k}},\mathbf{0}}~.$$ Here, $\omega_{1}$ is the normal frequency of wave $1$, that nonlinearly interacts with waves $2,3,4$ with coupling constant $\mathcal{H}^{\underline{\sigma}}_{\underline{\mathbf{k}}}$, $\sum_i\doteq\sum_{\sigma_i=\pm1}\sum_{\bk_i\in\Lambda_L^*}$, $\Lambda^*_L=\frac{2\pi}{L}\mathbb{Z}^d_M$. $A_\bk^{\sigma}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(P_\bk + i\sigma Q_\bk)$ are the canonical variables of the wave-field, whose real and imaginary parts are the coordinates and momenta. $\sigma=\pm 1$ represents the “spin" of a wave, so that $A_\bk^+\doteq A_\bk$, $A_\bk^-\doteq A_\bk^*$ (\* is complex conjugation).
*Theory* Given the Hamiltonian (\[eq: H\]), we concisely derive the equations of motion in terms of canonical normal variables; the details are given in Ref.[@chibbaro20164]. First, recall that the action-angle variables (amplitudes and phases) for the linear dynamics are defined by $J_{\bk}=|A_{\bk}^\sigma|^2$ and $\varphi_\bk=\sigma \arg(A_\bk^\sigma),$ so that $A_{\bk}^\sigma=\sqrt{J_{\bk}}\psi_{\bk}^\sigma$, where $\psi_{\bk}=\exp(i\varphi_{\bk})$. Then, the Liouville measure $\mu$ preserved by the Hamiltonian flow reads: $d\mu=\prod_\bk dQ_\bk dP_\bk = \prod_\bk \frac{1}{i}dA^+_\bk dA^-_\bk
= \prod_\bk \frac{1}{i}da^+_\bk da^-_\bk =\prod_\bk dJ_\bk d\varphi_\bk. \;$$A^\sigma_\bk$ and $a^\sigma_\bk$ are linked by the rotation in the complex plane: $A_\bk^\sigma = a_\bk^\sigma e^{i\sigma\omega_\bk t}$. The equations of motion with 4-wave interactions can thus be expressed by ($\sigma=+1$ when it is omitted): $$\begin{aligned}
\lb{eq: after-int-repr}
\frac{\partial a_1}{\partial t}&=&\epsilon \sum_{234}\mathcal{L}^{+ \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4}_{1234}a_2^{\sigma_2}a_3^{\sigma_3} a_4^{\sigma_4} \nonumber\\
&& \btimes \exp \left[i \left(-\omega_1+ \sigma_2 \omega_2 + \sigma_3 \omega_3 + \sigma_4 \omega_4 \right) t\right] \\
&& \btimes
\delta_{- \mathbf{k}_1+\sigma_2 \mathbf{k}_2+\sigma_3 \mathbf{k}_3+\sigma_4 \mathbf{k}_4,\mathbf{0}} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For a system with $N$ modes in a box of size $L$, the complete statistical description of the field is given by the *generating function*, defined by: \_L\[,,T\]( \_[\_L\^\*]{}\_J\_(T) ) \_[\_L\^\*]{} \_\^[\_]{}(T) , \[eq: genfunct\] where $\lambda_\bk \in \mR,\;\; \mu_\bk \in \mZ$, $\forall \bk \in \Lambda^*_L$.
Assuming that the canonical wavefield enjoys the *Random Phase* (RP) property at the initial time, we have averaged over phases using the *Feynman-Wyld diagrams* [@nazarenko2011wave]. Further, taking the large-box limit, we have normalized the amplitudes in such a way that the wave spectrum remains finite. This step is crucial for the evaluation of the different diagrams [@Eyi_12]. Then, taking the large-box limit, followed by the *small nonlinearity* limit, and introducing the nonlinear time $\tau=\epsilon^2 T$, we have formally obtained the following closed equation for the generating function (the [*characteristic functional*]{}): $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d\cZ[\lambda,\mu,\tau]}{d\tau}= -192\pi \delta_{\mu,0} \nonumber \\
&&\btimes \sum_{\ul{\sigma}}\int d^dk_1d^dk_2d^dk_3d^dk_4 \lambda\left(\bk_1\right)|\cH_{1234}^{-\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4}|^2\delta(\tw^1_{234}) \label{concl1} \\
&& \btimes\delta^1_{234}\bigg(\frac{\delta^3 \cZ}{\delta\lambda(\bk_2)\delta\lambda(\bk_3)\delta\lambda(\bk_4)}-\sigma_2\frac{\delta^3 \cZ}{\delta\lambda(\bk_1)\delta\lambda(\bk_3)\delta\lambda(\bk_4)}+ \nonumber \\
&&\quad-\sigma_3\frac{\delta^3 \cZ}{\delta\lambda(\bk_1)\delta\lambda(\bk_2)\delta\lambda(\bk_4)}-\sigma_4\frac{\delta^3 \cZ}{\delta\lambda(\bk_1)\delta\lambda(\bk_2)\delta\lambda(\bk_3)}\bigg) \nonumber ~,\end{aligned}$$ which constitutes the main ingredient of the present communication. The frequency in $\delta(\tw^1_{234})$ has been renormalised [@nazarenko2011wave] as $\tw_\bk \doteq \omega_\bk+\Omega_\bk$, taking into account the self-interactions possible in 4-wave systems, that do not contribute to the nonlinear interactions but shift the linear frequency.
The characteristic functional constitutes the most detailed description of the phenomenon [@Monin], for which the following holds: (i) the RP property of the initial field is preserved in time, implying the validity of eq.(\[concl1\]) for $\tau>0$; (ii) eq.(\[concl1\]) has a solution preserving in time the stricter *Random Phase and Amplitude* (RPA) property of an initial wavefield, [*i.e.*]{} the possible factorization of $\cZ[\lambda,\mu,0]$; (iii) differentiating with respect to the $\lambda_\bk$’s, the *spectral hierarchy* for the moments, analogous to the BBGKY hierarchy in Kinetic Theory, is obtained. Then, RPA allows us to close the hierarchy, leading to the wave spectrum equation, the *kinetic equation*. As the characteristic functional gives too detailed information, in relevant situations we have derived the equation for the *characteristic function* $\cZ^{(M)}$, that concerns a number $M$ of modes, and enjoys the same properties of $\cZ[\lambda,\mu,\tau]$[@chibbaro20164]. Then, under the RPA hypothesis, we derived a closed fully general equation for the [*1-mode pdf*]{} that reads [@chibbaro20164]: =-= \[concl4\], $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_\bk&\doteq192\pi\sum_{\ul{\sigma}}\int d^d{\bk}_2 d^d{\bk}_3 d^d{\bk}_4 \delta^\bk_{234} \delta\left(\tw^\bk_{234}\right) \left|\cH^{-\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4}_{\bk234}\right|^2 \nonumber \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad \btimes n({\bk}_2) n({\bk}_3) n({\bk}_4) \ge 0, \label{eta}\\
\gamma_\bk&\doteq192\pi\sum_{\ul{\sigma}}\int d^d{\bk}_2 d^d{\bk}_3 d^d{\bk}_4 \delta^\bk_{234} \delta\left(\tw^\bk_{234}\right) \left|\cH^{-\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4}_{\bk234}\right|^2 \nonumber \\
& \btimes \Big[\sigma_2 n({\bk}_3) n({\bk}_4)+\sigma_3 n({\bk}_2) n({\bk}_3) \nonumber
+\sigma_4 n({\bk}_2) n({\bk}_3)\Big] \label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$ The conservation equation for $P$ explicitly expresses $F$, the flux of the 1-mode probability in the amplitude space. This is a nonlinear Markov evolution equation in the sense of McKean. As a matter of fact, the solutions must satisfy a set of self-consistency conditions: $n(\bk,\tau)=\int ds \;s P(s,\tau;\bk) \label{consistency}$, where $n(\bk,\tau)$ is the spectrum, that also appears in the formulas for the coefficients (\[eta\]). The derivation of the standard kinetic equation from equation (\[concl4\]) is straightforward. Let us assume that the wave turbulence picture is valid for $s\in(0,s_{nl})$, where the upper bound of the interval can also be $+\infty$ (a fact that will be discussed later). Using (\[concl4\]), the definition of the wave spectrum $n(\bk)=\int_0^{s_{nl}} s P(s) ds\,$ and integrating by parts, we obtain $$\label{derivkin}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial \tau} = \eta_\bk - \gamma_\bk n - s_{nl} (F(s_{nl}) + \eta_\bk P(s_{nl})).$$ The last term is a null term that has to vanish in order for the equation to be satisfied in general, giving a boundary condition in the amplitude space at $s=s_{nl}$. What we are left with is nothing but the kinetic equation. To make it clear for a concrete example of a $4$-wave resonant system where not only $2$ waves $ \rightarrow 2$ waves interactions are present, we derive the kinetic equation for the vibrating plates [@Dur_06]. Writing (\[derivkin\]) in the $2$-dimensional case, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kineticfull}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial\tau} = 192 \pi &\,\sum_{\ul{\sigma}} \int d^2 \bk_1 d^2 \bk_2 d^2 \bk_3 \delta^{(2)\bk}_{123} \delta(\tw^{\bk}_{123}) |\cH^{-\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4}_{\bk\bk_1\bk_2\bk_3}|^2 \nonumber \\
& \times n_\bk n_1 n_2 n_3 \cdot \Big( \frac{1}{n_\bk} + \frac{\sigma_1}{n_1} + \frac{\sigma_2}{n_2} + \frac{\sigma_3}{n_3} \Big),\end{aligned}$$ which is the same equation as in [@Dur_06; @during2017wave]: the quantity $J_{-\bk\bk_1\bk_2\bk_3}$ in [@Dur_06] corresponds to $4i \cH^{-\sigma_2\sigma_3\sigma_4}_{\bk\bk_1\bk_2\bk_3}$ because of the way their coefficients relate to the Hamiltonian coefficients. Therefore, a factor $16$ appears making the two equations identical. The equation for the pdf can be written also as the following set of stochastic differential equations ds\_=(\_-\_s\_) d+ dW\_, interpreted in the Ito sense and with self-consistent determination of $n(\bk,\tau)$. An important solution of (\[concl4\]) is the distribution Q(s,;)= e\^[-s/n(,)]{} . \[concl5\] In absence of forcing and dissipation, an H-theorem and the *law of large-numbers* for the empirical spectrum imply that the solution relaxes to $Q$, for typical initial wavefields [@Eyi_12; @chibbaro20164]. It strictly describes thermodynamic equilibrium only when $n$ is stationary, but our results show (see fig.\[fig1\]) that $P$ tends to the asymptotic state $Q$ before $n$ has reached its stationary state. This justifies that $Q$ be called distribution of equilibrium despite its formal dependence on time. Furthermore, the results in fig.\[fig2\] suggest that relaxation to equilibrium also extends to forced and damped systems.
The general stationary solution to eq.(\[concl4\]) reads [@choi2005anomalous; @nazarenko2011wave] P(s)=C e\^[-s/]{}- ()e\^[-s/]{} \[gensol\] where $\operatorname{Ei}(x)$ is the integral exponential function $\operatorname{Ei}(x)=-\int_{-x}^{\infty} \frac{{\rm e}^{-t}}t\,\mathrm dt$. Eq.(\[gensol\]) is obtained enforcing a constant probability flux in amplitude space: $F(s)=-s\big(\eta_\bk\frac{\partial P}{\partial s}+\gamma_\bk P\big)\equiv F_*$. For the positivity of $P(s)$ for $s\gg \nu$, $F_*$ must be negative, corresponding to a probability flux from the large to the small amplitudes. This must be physically motivated by the existence of strong nonlinear interactions (e.g. breaking of wave crests) which feed probability into the weak, near-Gaussian background. In this picture, this happens at $s=s_{nl}$ and due to the strong nonlinear effects $P(s)$ decays very quickly for $s>s_{nl}$. Thus, the cut-off amplitude $s_{nl}$ and the stationary flux $F_*$ are two aspects of the same phenomenon, connected to each other through the boundary condition that comes out of (\[derivkin\]) in a natural way: \[nat\] P(s\_[nl]{})=-F\_\*/\_. This is consistent with the fact that if the weak-turbulence assumption holds over the whole amplitude space, $s\in(0,\infty)$, the normalization of probability implies $F_*=0$, and the equilibrium exponential distribution is recovered, as expected in absence of strong nonlinear effects that would affect the dynamics. So, clearly the picture with cut-off is meant to describe systems where forcing and damping are present at some wave numbers, which are necessary to sustain the strong nonlinear phenomena. Then, the corrective term in (\[gensol\]) represents the increased probability in the tail of the distribution due to such nonlinear phenomena ($\operatorname{Ei}(x)\propto \frac{1}{x}$ for $x \gg1$).
Before numerically verifying this scenario, some remarks are in order. At variance with previous studies[@choi2005anomalous; @Eyi_12], we do not need a probability sink to allow the solution, because we have $F(s)=F_*$ for $s\in (0, s_{nl})$ (similarly as in [@nazarenko2011wave]). Integrating (\[concl4\]) from $0$ to $s_{nl}$, $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int_{0}^{s_{nl}} ds P(s)=F(s=s_{nl}) - F(s=0)= 0\label{norm}$, it is seen that the normalization of the probability in the system is preserved. This appears natural when considering the logarithmic variable $\sigma=\ln(s)$, whose probability density $\Pi(\sigma)$ satisfies \[simple\] \_t= \_F, with the same $F$ of Eq. (\[concl4\]). Imposing $F(s=0)=F_*$, as in the rest of the interval, just means that there is a probability flux from $\sigma_{nl} = \ln(s_{nl})$ toward $\sigma=-\infty$, with probability transferred to infinitesimally small amplitudes. In the stationary state, using (\[nat\]) and normalizing the probability yields: \[normconst\] C = ( 1 + )\^[-1]{}, where $\Gamma \simeq 0.5772$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, and $ P(s)=\frac{1}{\nu} e^{-s/\nu} \lb{asympt}$, in the $s_{nl} \rightarrow\infty$ limit. As $s_{nl}$ becomes finite, the complete solution has to be chosen (with $F_*<0$) and this contribution brings a correction to the asymptotic solution. In conclusion, given the cut-off value $s_{nl}$, which enters as a parameter of the model, and the spectrum $\nu=\eta/\gamma$ in the equilibrium limit, the two free constants in (\[gensol\]) are fixed and a unique general solution with cut-off is obtained. *Numerical results*
![Normalized pdf of the modes $|\Psi_{{\bf k}}(\tau)|^2$ for $|{\bf k}|=2$ as a function of the normalized quantity $x=|\Psi_{k}(\tau)|^2/n(k,\tau)$ where $n(k,\tau)$ is the mean value of $|\Psi_{k}(\tau)|^2$. The numerical simulation of the 2D NLSE is performed over a domain of size $256 \times 256$ using a regular square grid of mesh size $dx=0.5$ so that $512\times 512$ modes are simulated. The statistics and mean values are obtained both by an ensemble average over $128$ realizations of the numerical simulation of the NLS equation starting at $\tau=0$ with a Gaussian Fourier mode distribution with random phases, and using the isotropy of the fields allowing angular mean. The pdf are shown for $\tau=0.01$, $0.03$, $0.05$, $0.1$, $0.2$, $0.5$ and $1$ time units respectively from top to bottom. The short time pdf are concentrated around the mean value while they converge at large time to the expected $e^{-x}$ law (corresponding to the dashed red line, pdf for $\tau=10$) and no more variations of the pdf are observed for $\tau>10$. The inset shows the spectrum $n(k,\tau)$ for the times $\tau=0.1$, $10$, $30$, $50$ and $110$, from bottom to top respectively looking at low $k$. The equipartition of energy spectrum $n(k,\tau)\propto 1/k^2$ is still not reached for the latest time shown here.[]{data-label="fig1"}](rayleigh1.eps)
In order to validate these analytical predictions, we performed numerical simulations for two prototype equations of 4-wave turbulence. The first is the Nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) in two dimensions, modeling for instance the propagation of electromagnetic fields in optic fibers [@Dyachenko-92]: $$i \partial_t \Psi =-\frac12 \Delta \Psi +|\Psi|^2 \Psi,
\label{NLSE}$$ where $\Delta=\partial_x^2+\partial_y^2$ is the Laplacian operator and $\Psi$ is a field taking complex values. The second is the Föppl Von-Karman equation in two space dimensions for the vibrations of elastic plates [@landau], which in dimensionless form reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial^2 \zeta}{\partial t^2} &=& - \frac{1}{4}\Delta^2\zeta +
\{\zeta,\chi\} ;
\label{foppl0}\\
\Delta^2\chi &=&- \frac{1}{2}\{\zeta,\zeta\}.
\label{foppl1}\end{aligned}$$ $\chi$ is the Airy stress function imposing the compatibility condition for the displacement field and the Poisson bracket $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ is defined by $\{f,g\}\equiv f_{xx}g_{yy}+f_{yy}g_{xx}-2f_{xy}g_{xy}$, so that $\{\zeta,\zeta\}$ is the Gaussian curvature.
The reason for investigating these two models is that they exhibit an important difference in the 4-wave interactions: while the NLSE only allows a $2$ waves $\rightarrow 2$ waves collision kernel, because of an additional conservation law, the FVK equation allows $1$ wave $\rightarrow 3 $ waves collisions as well. Both equations are solved in a periodic square domain using similar numerical schemes involving a pseudo-spectral method (see for instance [@Dur_06] for details on the numerical methods). We first investigate the evolution of the fields starting with a Guassian distribution (consisting for NLSE of $|\psi({\bf k},0)|^2\propto e^{-k^2/k_0^2}$ with a random phase): the initial pdf of the amplitudes is given by $P(x)=\delta(x-1)$ for each mode, where $x=s/n(0)$ is the normalized amplitude. The evolution of the one mode pdf is shown in fig.\[fig1\] together with the time evolution of the density spectrum (inset). We can see that $P(x)$ converges rapidly to the exponential solution given by eq.(\[concl5\]), in agreement with the theory. Interestingly, the dynamics of the spectrum is different. The spectrum converges towards the equilibrium solution given by the Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum[@falkovich1992kolmogorov], but the characteristic time is much larger: the pdf has reached equilibrium when the spectrum is still far from it. That validates the theory and in particular it supports the RPA approximation, which appears to be verified from whatever initial conditions after extremely short times. The same dynamics was also observed for the elastic plate (not shown here). This evidence confirms the results already obtained for a general 3-waves system [@tanaka2013numerical].
![Normalized pdf of the Fourier modes $|\zeta_k|^2$ as a function of the rescaled parameter $s/n$ for two different wave numbers $k=3.45$ and $k=4.43$, in a linear-log plot. The statistical average is made using angle average due to the isotropy of the system and time average, because of the statistically stationary regime reached in time. Here $dx=0.25$ and the the square plate is $L\times L=1024\times 1024$, meaning that $4096\times4096$ modes are simulated. The pdf are reasonably well fitted by the equilibrium law $e^{-x}$ although for $k=4.43$ the generalized function (\[gensol\]) with the cut-off $s_{nl}=3.6\,n(k)$ is a much better fit. The inset shows the compensated spectrum $k^4|\zeta_k|^2$ that exhibits a complex inertial regime, with a $k^{-2}$ slope at large scale ($k \lesssim 1$) indicating intermittent behavior, and the expected weak turbulence spectrum $|\zeta_k|^2 \propto k^{-4}$ at smaller scales ($1 <k <5$), where are located the two modes shown here [@chibbaro2015elastic]. The other modes pdf’s show, outside of the forcing region ($k<0.05$), the exponential Rayleigh distribution.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps)
Then, we study the non-equilibrium wave turbulence energy cascade for the elastic plate dynamics obtained by injecting energy at large scale through a random noise in Fourier space at small $k$ and a dissipation dominant at small scale. The balance between these two contributions leads to a stationary regime with a wave turbulence spectrum following roughly $ |\zeta_k|^2 \sim k^{-4}$ at low forcing (up to a logarithmic correction [@Dur_06]) that corresponds to a constant flux of energy from the large to the small scales. It is thus tempting to compare the pdf of the Fourier modes of this dynamics with that of the Hamiltonian dynamics studied above, for which the theory has been derived. Indeed, no theoretical predictions can be easily made in such configuration, because the forcing-dissipation terms break the Hamiltonian structure. Moreover, while a distribution close to the one of the equilibrium situation could be expected at low forcing, intermittency at high forcing is supposed to heavily influence the pdf of the Fourier mode, similarly to what has been observed for the high moments of the structure function in real space [@chibbaro2015elastic]. Surprisingly, fig. \[fig2\] shows that the pdf’s are very close to the Rayleigh distribution predicted for the Hamitonian dynamics, in the absence of flux ($F_*=0$) even at high forcing where the spectrum exhibits a $k^{-6}$ slope at small $k$. However, a closer analysis shows a slight deviation from this distribution for modes at small scales, just before the dissipative range, where the pdf is better fitted by the generalized distribution (\[gensol\]) with $F_*\neq0$. Similar results have also been observed for the NLSE with no noticeable non-zero $F_*$. The weak value of $F_*$ obtained for our systems suggests that while clear signature of intermittency is detected in physical space via structure functions[@chibbaro2015elastic], it is difficult to find anomalous scaling looking at the 1-mode spectral pdf. On one hand, the effect is expected to be small for those systems where the spectrum of wave turbulence is only a small logarithmic correction to the equilibrium spectrum, so that the dominant signal in the fluctuations of the spectrum is due to the statistical equilibrium contribution. This is certainly the case for NLSE. On the other hand, fig.\[fig2\] suggests a non-trivial interplay between large and small scales, since in vibrating plates the spectrum is definitely far from equipartition at large-scales, but signature of intermittency is found at very small scales, even in physical space[@chibbaro2015elastic]. This issue deserves future investigation.
*Acknowledgements* The authors gratefully acknowledge the referee’s insightful remarks, that also allowed them to correct one error.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Recent progress in the diagnosis of flare fast particles is critically discussed with the main emphasis on high resolution Hard X-Ray (HXR) data from RHESSI and coordinated data from other instruments. Spectacular new photon data findings are highlighted as are advances in theoretical aspects of their use as fast particle diagnostics, and some important comparisons made with interplanetary particle data. More specifically the following topics are addressed
\(a) RHESSI data on HXR (electron) versus gamma-ray line (ion) source locations.
\(b) RHESSI hard X-ray source spatial structure in relation to theoretical models and loop density structure.
\(c) Energy budget of flare electrons and the Neupert effect.
\(d) Spectral deconvolution methods including blind target testing and results for RHESSI HXR spectra, including the reality and implications of dips inferred in electron spectra
\(e) The relation between flare in-situ and interplanetary particle data.
address: 'Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK'
author:
- 'John C. Brown and Eduard P. Kontar'
title: Problems and Progress in Flare Fast Particle Diagnostics
---
Sun, Solar Flares, X-rays, Radio Emission, Energetic Particles
INTRODUCTION {#INTRODUCTION}
============
We were invited to present a critical review of the present state of diagnostic methods for energetic particles in flares in the light of recent progress. To deal with all energy ranges of ions and electrons and all the numerous diagnostic techniques (Table 1) used for them is impossible in a 30-minute talk and a short report like this, and we have concentrated almost exclusively on hard X-ray diagnostics of electrons but with mention of some other regimes. From other talks at this meeting, it was clear that we have not yet taken fully on board the more definitive objective testing of models which state of the art data now allow. For example strong possibilities now exist of exploring quantitatively the possible non-isothermality of ultra-hot thermal flare plasmas by means of HXR spectra (Brown, 1974), rather than sticking to an isothermal fit, with potentially major implications for estimates of the flare electron energy budget. So a critical review is timely, especially in the light of recent high quality data (especially the Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) (Lin et al., 2002)) which is truly designed to help unravel ambiguities in data interpretation.
It is useful to start by commenting on what we mean by “fast" particles. Hard X-rays (HXR) are, broadly speaking, those at energies above the atomic line regime - roughly 10 keV. Such photons can very well be emitted profusely by a very hot ($T >>
10^7$K) flare plasma so in the HXR sense these locally Maxwellian electrons are “fast", particularly in the Maxwellian tail. What we implicitly mean by “fast" particle, however, is particles of energy exceeding thermal ones. Thus, these particles are essentially not in a Maxwellian and are far from equilibrium and their distribution function can be arbitrary. Such particles are truly “non-thermal". It has to be noted, however, that the relevant mean free path of the particles may not be the collisional one - wave interactions can drive distributions toward some local steady distribution possibly, though not necessarily, Maxwellian. Thus the fact that a loop is longer than the mean free path of a (say) $50$ keV particle does not preclude that particle being part of a locally near-Maxwellian distribution. On the other hand, seemingly non-Maxwellian distributions can be a sum of locally Maxwellian distributions.
We should also comment on why fast particles are important in flare modelling. While interpreting the HXR spectral diagnostic alone remains rather ambiguous, when combined with spatial and temporal HXR data and data at other wavelengths the data seem to be broadly consistent with a large fraction of flare impulsive phase power being in electrons of $\geq 20$ keV and ions in the $0.1$ - $1$ MeV range. Fast particles may thus be vital in flare energy transport in that phase (There are clear indications that pre-heating and gradual phase heating must be by other mechanisms). Secondly, dissipation of $100$ Gauss worth of magnetic energy in a coronal plasma of density $10^{10}$cm$^{-3}$ delivers a mean energy of $25$ keV per particle. Such particles have collisional mean free paths vastly larger than current sheet thickness. Consequently reconnection theory cannot be wholly credible if it treats the plasma as a fluid (MHD) and ignores particle kinetics and/or the presence of waves.
[**Electromagnetic radiation from particles:**]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X-ray Bremsstrahlung from electrons,
Plasma waves, gyrosynchrotron,
free-free radio emission,
nuclear and annihilation $\gamma$-ray lines,
pion decay $\gamma$-ray component,
atomic collision diagnostics, nonthermal ionisation, H$\alpha$ impact polarization
[**Interplanetary Particles:**]{}
electrons, ions, neutrons
: The various particle diagnostics involved in flare studies[]{data-label="table1"}
Remote radiation measurements in principle comprise the set of Stokes Intensities $I_{O,Q,U,V}(\lambda, {\bf \Omega}, t)$ as functions of wavelength $\lambda$, line of sight direction ${\bf
\Omega}$, and time $t$. The spatial information on $f_{e,i}({\bf
p},{\bf r},t)$ inferable is limited by the line of sight projection/integration in each pixel (${\bf \Omega}$) and by the fact that many physically important scales (sheet thickness, gyroradii, Debye length) are well below any spatial resolution currently, or ever likely to be, attainable.
RESULTS FROM RHESSI AND RELATED DATA
====================================
Structure of Paper
------------------
The last decade or so has brought a vast wealth of new flare solar activity data (GRO Compton, YohKoh, SOHO, TRACE, RHESSI, WIND, CORONAS-F) over numerous energy ranges. Of these the most pertinent to progress in fast particle diagnostics in flares are the remote sensing high resolution HXR imaging spectrometry of RHESSI and the interplanetary data from WIND (cf. papers in Lin and Krucker at this meeting). In this Section we summarise some of the most exciting imaging results from RHESSI. In Section 3 we discuss in more detail the analysis of RHESSI spectra and in Section 4 we touch briefly on other data.
HXR versus Gamma-Ray Source Location.
-------------------------------------
Gamma-ray events detected by RHESSI have been few in number but offer some tantalising results for particle acceleration, some contrasting with expectations. In particular the July 23 2003 2.2 MeV gamma-ray line image (Hurford et al., 2003) has a centroid clearly separated from the centroid, or any part of, the HXR (300-500 keV) image (Figure \[hurford\]). This appears to indicate that, in this event at least, MeV ions and deka-keV electrons are accelerated and/or propagate in different parts of the magnetic structure. As yet the only quantitative interpretation offered is that by Emslie, Miller and Brown (2004) in which ions are preferentially accelerated in larger structures than are electrons, or more generally in structures with longer Alfven travel times (i.e. structures of greater size, greater density, or lower field). The model can also yield the correct order of accelerated fluxes and spectra but only insofar as a suitable wave power is assumed.
![Hard X-ray emission versus 2.2 MeV centroid location for July 23,2002 flare from Hurford et al., (2003).[]{data-label="hurford"}](hurford.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
RHESSI HXR Images - Morphology, spectral structure and evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fully reliable methods for reconstruction of spectrometric images from RHESSI data are still under development but a variety of important new results have already emerged (Emslie et al., 2003). Though some HXR images show considerably more complexity than the canonical “two bright footpoints and faint coronal source", the majority of RHESSI images, of sources large enough to be resolved, do conform to that stereotype, at least approximately. Indeed, in high resolution spectrometric images at progressively higher energies (Aschwanden et al., 2002) show source separation from soft looptop to hard footpoints in line with the Brown (1971) thick target picture (The higher energy electrons penetrate deeper into solar atmosphere and thus produce higher energy X-ray emission in the region of higher density). The spectral index difference between footpoints can be roughly understood in terms of different column depth (Emslie et al., 2003). Aschwanden et al. (2002) have proposed that the loop density structure implied by these data, on the assumption of collisional transport, can be used as an atmospheric density probe.
Fletcher and Hudson (2002) made a detailed study of HXR footpoint motion, arguing that it rules out a single monolithic loop structure throughout the event and suggesting that the source may instead comprise a progressively activated sequence of very small sources indicating the instantaneous bundle of field lines along which electrons are being accelerated (Figure \[fletcher\_hudson\]). Since the HXR flux defines the total electron injection rate, this bundle cannot be too small ($>>$ current sheet thickness) or there would not be enough electrons available even if all of them were accelerated.
![Hard X-ray footpoint motion from Fletcher and Hudson (2002).[]{data-label="fletcher_hudson"}](fletcher_hudson.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
Dense thick target loop sources have been reported (Kosugi et al., 1994; Veronig and Brown, 2004) in which there are essentially no HXR footpoints, the entire loop emitting in both hard and soft XRs (Figure \[veronig\]). The high SXR loop emission measure indicates a loop density high enough to stop all but the highest energy ($\geq 50$ keV) electrons. Such a scenario had in fact been hinted at earlier (Kosugi et al, 1994) for a YohKoh event.
![April 14 flare. RHESSI images from Veronig et al. (2004).[]{data-label="veronig"}](veronig.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
Veronig et al. (2004) have studied the evolution of loop densities and temperatures and of HXR thick target beam parameters to test the physics of the Neupert effect (Neupert, 1969), interpreted purely as fast electron heating of loops. They find that including energy loss processes and comparing beam/plasma power gives a generally poorer cross-correlation than the raw Neupert HXR flux and time derivative of the SXR flux. They discuss possible interpretations of this paradox in terms of variable low energy cut-off, and of unresolved spatial structure including possible sequential activation of small field line bundles.
Kane and Hurford (2003) have reported a number of sustained coronal HXR sources of surprisingly large brightness and altitude but as yet no physical interpretation has been offered. These pose tantalising questions as to what field structure can accelerate and contain fast electrons in the corona.
While more work requires to be done, there are indications (Schmahl and Hurford, 2002) that RHESSI images also contain information on the photospheric albedo patch around primary sources, with the possibility of source height inference (Brown, van Beek and McClymont 1975).
HXR SPECTRAL INVERSIONS AND SOURCE ELECTRON SPECTRA
===================================================
As far as whole source HXR spectra are concerned (Figure \[hxr\]) shows how far RHESSI has advanced over typical previous data, with photon spectral resolution of $\sim 1$ keV. These enable for the first time (apart from Lin and Schwartz 1984) the systematic inference of source electron spectra following Brown (1971) and subsequent refinements and numerical implementations (Johns and Lin (1992); Thompson et al. (1992); Piana et al. (2003); Kontar et al. (2004)) to allow for regularised noise suppression. Such inversions are now possible with such precision as to yield the mean source electron spectrum $\bar F (E)$ and local electron spectral index $\delta (E)$ as detailed functions of electron energy $E$ (Figure \[kontar05\]). RHESSI data inversions of this kind are revealing a range of very interesting electron spectral features including variable high energy cut-offs (Kontar et al., 2004) and especially “dips" in the spectrum where $\delta (E)$ becomes very small or even negative (Figure \[kontar\])(Kontar and Brown, 2004). If such dips are proven to exist in the primary HXR spectrum they rule out a purely collisional thick target model in which the source electron spectrum cannot have $\delta (E)<-1$ (Kontar and Brown, 2004). Two possibilities that might make these inferred dips spurious are detector pulse pile-up (Smith et al., 2002) and albedo contributions (Alexander and Brown, 2002; Kontar, MacKinnon and Brown, 2004). Work so far appears to rule out pile-up but shows that albedo can create a spurious dip but at around $40$ keV. In at least one case, shown in Figure \[piana\], the dip is around $50$ keV and so may be real, though primary source directivity has yet to be folded into the analysis. A genuine dip could be the first direct inference of a low energy break in the electron spectrum, crucial to the electron energy budget (Brown, 1971).
![X-ray spectrum from 80s (Kane, Benz and Treumann, 1982) and RHESSI spectrum[]{data-label="hxr"}](hxr_old.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"} ![X-ray spectrum from 80s (Kane, Benz and Treumann, 1982) and RHESSI spectrum[]{data-label="hxr"}](hxr_new.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}
![Variation of local electron spectral index for Aug 21, 2002 M-class flare from Kontar and MacKinnon (2005).[]{data-label="kontar05"}](kontar_mackinnon.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
![Albedo correction and “dip" in mean electron spectrum for August 20, 2002 solar flare from Kontar et al. (2004).[]{data-label="kontar"}](kontar.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
![Mean electron spectrum obtained for July 23, 2002 flare from Piana et al. (2003).[]{data-label="piana"}](pianaetal.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
Given how vital the correct electron spectral shape is to testing models, Brown et al. (2004) are carrying out systematic tests of the reliabilities of different spectral inversion algorithms. One example of such a test is shown in Fig \[test\], which contains the (blind) target spectrum and the results of three distinct inversion algorithms, plus a forward best fit. Among the notable conclusions are that all the inversion algorithms are good at recovering dips and bumps, but that they do very badly in regimes where the electron flux is small (since high energy electrons swamp the photon data). These results are solely for an isotropic cross-section. Generally, results are quite sensitive to the exact form of the cross-section and so to the anisotropy of the electron distribution (Massone et al., 2004). This situation is not as discouraging as might first be thought. Massone (2004) have shown that, at least in principle, bremsstrahlung spectra could contain some information on both the angular and energy distribution of the course electrons, analogously to the case of gyrosynchrotron spectra (Fleischmann and Melnikov, 2003 ).
![The results of the inversions using various methods. Zero order regularization, first order regularization, regularization by coarse binning and forward fitting, respectively from top to bottom. The dash line shows the true solution. Successive curves have been scaled by 10 to render them visible.[]{data-label="test"}](test3.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
These “mean source electron spectra" (Brown, Emslie and Kontar, 2003) are source model independent. Recently developed algorithms for inferring mean source electron spectra (Kontar et al., 2004a) show substantial variation of the spectral shape of the electron spectrum as flares evolve (Kontar et al., 2004b). Application of this technique to a flare on February 26, 2002 has shown that the maximum accelerated electron energy rises and falls with time after the peak of the event, concurrent with a growing low-energy thermal component of the hard X-ray emission (Figure \[kontar04\]) (Kontar et al., 2004b).
Assuming propagation is dominated by collisions, one can infer injected (accelerated) electron spectra. To infer these “injection" electron spectrum creating them is more uncertain than finding mean spectra, requiring second deconvolution (Brown and Emslie, 1988; Kontar et al., 2004b) and model assumptions such as target ionisation structure (Kontar et al., 2003), non-collisional energy losses (Zharkova and Gordovskyy, 2003) (Figure \[zharkova\]) and magnetic effects (e.g. mirroring) an electron propagation.
Tests for pure thermality of the source spectrum (i.e. superposition of Maxwellian) are also being developed but require high order data derivatives (Brown and Emslie, 1988).
INTERPLANETARY PARTICLES
========================
These have been discussed extensively by others at this meeting and here we mention only a couple of points in relation to remotely sensed data. The simultaneous operation of RHESSI, and of TRACE, SOHO, GRO and KORONAS, with the interplanetary particle and plasma probes aboard the WIND spacecraft is yielding many new insights. In particular the multi-made movies generated by Krucker (2003) showing RHESSI SXR and HXR image evolution superposed on TRACE images of near simultaneous EUV “jets" formed and associated with Type III bursts and interplanetary electrons give clues to where the acceleration action is. For example, the simultaneous upward and downward electron propagation places the acceleration region in between.
The outward propagating electron streams are clearly visible via their electromagnetic emission (Vilmer et al., 2003). WIND allows us to follow these electron streams below ionospheric frequency cut-off ($\sim 8$MHz) down to the local space plasma frequency near the Earth orbit ($20$ kHz). For low energy electrons $\leq
50$ keV collective effects are crucial, since freely streaming electrons build up unstable distribution functions. A recent self-consistent approach (Melnik, 1995) shows that the generation of Langmuir waves at the front of the stream, and absorption at the back, lead to low spatial dispersion of electrons (Kontar et al., 1998). These collective effects allow electrons to propagate without substantial energy loss and are a source of the high level of plasma turbulence required for Type III emission (Melnik and Kontar, 2000).
Krucker et al (2003) have studied the spectral indices ($\delta
_{IP}$) of interplanetary (IP) electrons in relation to that at the flare site implied by different models of the HXR source. They find the fascinating result (Krucker, Kontar and Lin, 2004) that $\delta _{IP}$ are much closer to the flare $\delta$ for accelerated electrons if the electrons produce their HXRs in a thin target rather than a collisionally thick one ($\delta_
{THICK} = \delta_ {THIN} + 2$) (Figure \[krucker\]). This is strange, and correspondingly important. The possibility that HXRs are purely thin target is hard to reconcile with HXR footpoints and with the very large number of electrons it requires. An alternative explanation is that collective effects act on the beam (Haydock et al., 2001) to redistribute electron energies giving an effective energy loss cross-section which is constant with energy instead of $~1/E^2$ for collisions alone. Wave-wave interaction brings additional complications and are sensitive to local plasma inhomogeneities (Kontar and Pecseli, 2002)
CONCLUSIONS
===========
The interpretation of remotely sensed data at all wavelengths continues to be riddled with ambiguities but the recent spate of high resolution data from RHESSI and the numerous coordinated observations from other instruments is truly starting to break down these barriers to the understanding of fast particle acceleration and propagation in flares.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} We are thankful to A.G. Emslie, A. M. Massone, S. Krucker, M. Piana, A. Veronig for valuable discussions. We acknowledge the support of a PPARC Grant, a NATO Collaboration Grant and the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
![High energy cut-off change for Feb 26, 2002 flare from Kontar et al. (2004b).[]{data-label="kontar04"}](kontar04.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
![Results of the simulations of beam propagation from Zharkova and Gordovskyy (2003).[]{data-label="zharkova"}](zharkova.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
![Comparison of X-ray emitting electron spectrum and in-situ electrons from Krucker et al (2004).[]{data-label="krucker"}](krucker.eps "fig:"){width="76mm"}\
Alexander, R.C., Brown, J.C., Empirical correction of RHESSI spectra for photospheric albedo and its effect on inferred electron spectra, [*Solar Physics*]{}, [**210**]{}, 407-418, 2002
Aschwanden, M.J., Brown, J.C., and Kontar, E.P., Chromospheric Height and Density Measurements in a Solar Flare Observed with RHESSI - II. Data Analysis, [*Solar Physics*]{}, [**210**]{}, 383-405, 2002
Brown, J.C., The Deduction of Energy Spectra of Non-Thermal Electrons in Flares from the Observed Dynamic Spectra of Hard X-Ray Bursts, [*Solar Physics*]{}, [**18**]{}, 489-502, 1971
Brown, J.C., Thick Target X-Ray Bremsstrahlung from Partially Ionised Targets in Solar Falres, [*Solar Physics*]{}, [**28**]{}, 151-158, 1973
Brown, J.C., On the Thermal Interpretation of Hard X-Ray Bursts from Solar Flares, [*Edited by Gordon Allen Newkirk. International Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 57*]{}, Dordrecht; Boston: Reidel, 395-413, 1974
Brown, J.C. and Emslie, A.G., Analytic limits on the forms of spectra possible from optically thin collisional bremsstrahlung source models, [Astrophysical J.]{}, [**331**]{}, 554-564, 1988
Brown, J.C., Emslie, A.G., and Kontar, E.P., The determination and use of mean electron flux in solar flares [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**595**]{}, L115-L118, 2003
Brown, J. C., van Beek, H. F., and McClymont, A.N., Determination of the height of hard X-ray sources in the solar atmosphere by measurement of photospheric albedo photons, [Astronomy & Astrophysics]{}, [**41**]{}, 395-402, 1975
Brown, J.C., Emslie, A.G., Kontar, E.P., et al., in preparation to [Solar Physics]{}, 2005
Emslie, A.G., Kontar, E.P., Krucker, S., and Lin, R.P., RHESSI hard X-ray imaging spectroscopy of the large gamma-ray flare of 2002 July 23, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**595**]{}, L107-L110, 2003
Emslie, A.G., Miller, J.A., and Brown, J.C., An Explanation for the Different Locations of Electron and Ion Acceleration in Solar Flares, [*Astrophysical J.*]{}, [**602**]{}, L69-L72, 2004
Fleishman, G. D., and Melnikov, V. F., Gyrosynchrotron Emission from Anisotropic Electron Distributions, Astrophysical J., [**587**]{}, 823-835, 2003
Fletcher, L., and Hudson, H. S., Spectral and Spatial Variations of Flare Hard X-ray Footpoints, [*Solar Physics*]{}, [**210**]{}, 307-321, 2002
Haydock, E.L., Brown, J.C., Conway, A.J., and Emslie, A.G., The effect of wave generation on HXR bremsstrahlung spectra from flare thick-target beams, Solar Physics, [**203**]{}, 355-369, 2001
Holman, G. D., Sui, L., Schwartz, R. A., and Emslie, A. G., Electron bremsstrahlung hard X-ray spectra, electron distributions, and energetics in the 2002 July 23 solar flare, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**595**]{}, L97-L102, 2003
Hurford G.J., Schwartz, R. A., Krucker, S., et al., First Gamma-ray Images of A Solar Flare,[*Astrophysical J.*]{}, [**595**]{}, L77-L80, 2003
Johns, C., and Lin, R.P., The derivation of parent electron spectra from bremsstrahlung hard X-ray spectra, [*Solar Phys.*]{}, [**137**]{}, 121-140, 1992
Kane, S. R., Benz, A. O., and Treumann, R. A., Electron acceleration in impulsive solar flares, [*Astrophysical Journal*]{}, [**263**]{}, 423-432, 1982
Kane, S. R., and Hurford, G. J., RHESSI observations of the coronal component of solar flare hard X-ray sources, [*Advances in Space Research*]{}, [**32**]{}, 2489-2493, 2003
Kontar E.P., Lapshin, V.I., and Mel’nik, V.N. Numerical and analytical study of the propagation of a monoenergetic electron beam in a plasma, [*Plasma Physics Reports*]{} [**24**]{}, 772-776, 1998
Kontar, E.P., and Pecseli, H.L., Nonlinear development of electron-beam-driven weak turbulence in an inhomogeneous plasma, Physical Review E, [**65**]{}, 066408, 2002
Kontar, E.P., Brown, J.C., Emslie, A.G., Schwartz, R.A., Smith, D.M., and Alexander, R.C., An explanation for non-power-law behavior in the hard X-ray spectrum of the 2002 July 23 solar flare, [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}, [**595**]{}, L123-L126, 2003
Kontar, E.P., Piana, M., Massone, A.M., Emslie, A.G., and Brown, J.C.,Generalized Regularization Techniques With Constraints For The Analysis Of Solar Bremsstrahlung X-Ray Spectra, [*Solar Physics*]{}, in press, 2004a
Kontar, E.P., Emslie, A.G., Piana, M., Massone, A.M., and Brown, J.C., Determination Of Electron Flux Spectra In A Solar Flare With An Augmented Regularization Method: Application To Rhessi Data, [*Solar Physics*]{}, in press, 2004b
Kontar, E.P. and MacKinnon, A.L., Regularized Energy-Dependent Solar Flare Hard X-Ray Spectral Index, submitted to [*Solar Phys.,*]{} 2004
Kontar E.P., MacKinnon, A.L., and Brown, J.C., in preparation, [*Solar Physics*]{}, 2004
Kontar E.P., and Brown, J.C., Solar Flare Hard X-ray Spectra Inconsistent with the Collisional Thick Target Model, [*Advances in Space Research*]{}, this volume, 2004
Kosugi, T., Sakao, T., Masuda, S., Hara, H., Shimizu, T., Hudson, H.S., Hard and soft X-ray observations of a super-hot thermal flare of 6 February, Proc. Kofu Symposium, 127-129, 1994
Krucker, S., Lin, R.P., Kontar, E.P., Mason, G.M., Wiedenbeck, M.E., The X-ray source region of 3He-rich solar energetic particle events, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2003, abstract \#SH11D-1130, 2003
Krucker, S., Kontar, E.P., and Lin,R.P., Private communication, 2004
Lin, R.P., Krucker, S., Hurford, G. J., et al., RHESSI observations of particle acceleration and energy release in an intense solar gamma-ray line flare, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**595**]{}, L69-76,2003
Lin, R.P., Dennis, B.R., Hurford, G.J., et al, The Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI), [*Solar Physics*]{}, [**210**]{}, 3-32, 2002
Lin, R. P., and Schwartz, R. A., High spectral resolution measurements of a solar flare hard X-ray burst, [*Astrophysical J.*]{}, [**312**]{}, 462-474, 1987
Massone, A.M., Emslie, A. G., Kontar, E. P., et al., Anisotropic Bremsstrahlung Emission and the form of\
Regularized Electron Flux Spectra in Solar Flares, [Astrophysical J.]{}, [**613**]{}, 1233-1240, 2004
Massone, A.M., private comunication, 2004
Melnik, V.N., “Gas-dynamic” expansion of a fast-electron flux in a plasma, [Plasma Physics Reports]{}, [21]{}, [89-91]{}, 1995
Melnik, V.N., and Kontar, E.P., To gasdynamic description of a hot electron cloud in a cold plasma, [*New Astronomy*]{}, 5, 35-42, 2000
Neupert, W.M., Comparison of Solar X-Ray Line Emission with Microwave Emission during Flares, [*Astrophysical J.*]{}, [**153**]{}, L59-L64, 1968
Piana, M., Massone, A.M., Kontar, E.P., Emslie, A.G., Brown, J.C., and Schwartz, R.A., Regularized electron flux spectra in the 2002 July 23 solar flare, [*Astrophys. J.*]{}, [**595**]{}, L127-L130, 2003
Schmahl, E. J., and Hurford, G. J., RHESSI Observations of the Size Scales of Solar Hard X-ray Sources, [*Solar Phys.,*]{}, [**210**]{}, 273-286, 2002
Smith, D.M., Schwartz, R. A., Lin, R. P., et al., The RHESSI Spectrometer, [*Solar Phys.,*]{},[**210**]{}, 33-60, 2002
Thompson A.M., Brown J.C., Craig, I.J.D., and Fulber, C., Inference of non-thermal electron energy distributions from hard X-ray spectra, [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}, [**265**]{}, 278-288, l992
Veronig, A.M., and Brown, J.C., A Coronal Thick-Target Interpretation of Two Hard X-Ray Loop Events, [*Astrophysical J.*]{}, [**603**]{}, L117-L120, 2004
Vilmer, N., Krucker, S., Trottet, G., and Lin, R. P., Hard X-ray and metric/decimetric spatially resolved observations of the 10 April 2002 solar flare, [*Advances in Space Research*]{}, [**32**]{}, 2509-2515, 2003
Zharkova, V.V., and Gordovskyy, M., Electron Beam Dynamics and its Diagnostics from Hard X-Rays, [*Stars as Suns: Activity, Evolution and Planets*]{}, International Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 219, held 21-25 July, 2003 in Sydney, Australia, 2003
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Artificial neural networks can harness stochasticity in multiple ways to enable a vast class of computationally powerful models. Boltzmann machines and other stochastic neural networks have been shown to outperform their deterministic counterparts by allowing dynamical systems to escape local energy minima. Electronic implementation of such stochastic networks is currently limited to addition of algorithmic noise to digital machines which is inherently inefficient; albeit recent efforts to harness physical noise in devices for stochasticity have shown promise. To succeed in fabricating electronic neuromorphic networks we need experimental evidence of devices with measurable and controllable stochasticity which is complemented with the development of reliable statistical models of such observed stochasticity. Current research literature has sparse evidence of the former and a complete lack of the latter. This motivates the current article where we demonstrate a stochastic neuron using an insulator-metal-transition (IMT) device, based on electrically induced phase-transition, in series with a tunable resistance. We show that an IMT neuron has dynamics similar to a piecewise linear FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) neuron and incorporates all characteristics of a spiking neuron in the device phenomena. We experimentally demonstrate spontaneous stochastic spiking along with electrically controllable firing probabilities using Vanadium Dioxide (VO$_2$) based IMT neurons which show a sigmoid-like transfer function. The stochastic spiking is explained by two noise sources - thermal noise and threshold fluctuations, which act as precursors of bifurcation. As such, the IMT neuron is modeled as an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process with a fluctuating boundary resulting in transfer curves that closely match experiments. The moments of interspike intervals are calculated analytically by extending the first-passage-time (FPT) models for Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process to include a fluctuating boundary. We find that the coefficient of variation of interspike intervals depend on the relative proportion of thermal and threshold noise, where threshold noise is the dominant source in the current experimental demonstrations. As one of the first comprehensive studies of a stochastic neuron hardware and its statistical properties, this article would enable efficient implementation of a large class of neuro-mimetic networks and algorithms.'
author:
- Abhinav Parihar
- Matthew Jerry
- Suman Datta
- Arijit Raychowdhury
bibliography:
- 'paper\_refs.bib'
title: 'Stochastic IMT (insulator-metal-transition) neurons: An interplay of thermal and threshold noise at bifurcation'
---
Introduction
============
A growing need for efficient machine-learning in autonomous systems coupled with an interest in solving computationally hard optimization problems has led to active research in stochastic models of computing. Optimization techniques [@haykin_neural_2009-1] including Stochastic Sampling Machines (SSM), Simulated Annealing, Stochastic Gradients etc. are examples of such models. All these algorithms are currently implemented using digital hardware which first creates a mathematically accurate platform for computing, and later adds digital noise at the algorithm level. Hence, it is enticing to construct hardware primitives that can harness the already existing physical sources of noise to create a stochastic computing platform. The principal challenge with such efforts is the lack of stable or reproducible distributions, or functions of distributions, of physical noise. One basic stochastic unit which enables a systematic construction of stochastic hardware has long been known - the stochastic neuron [@gerstner_spiking_2002] - which is also believed to be the unit of computation in the human brain. Moreover, recent studies [@buesing_neural_2011] have demonstrated practical applications like sampling using networks of such stochastic spiking neurons. There have been some attempts for building neuron hardware [@mehonic2016emulating; @sengupta2016magnetic; @tuma2016stochastic; @pickett2013scalable; @indiveri2006vlsi], but building a neuron with self-sustained spikes, or oscillations, which are stochastic in nature and where the probability of firing is controllable using a signal has been challenging. Here, we demonstrate and analytically study a true stochastic neuron [@Jerry2017] which is fabricated using oscillators [@shukla_synchronized_2014; @shukla_pairwise_2014; @parihar_synchronization_2015] based on insulator-metal transition (IMT) materials, e.g. Vanadium Dioxide (VO$_{2}$), wherein the inherent physical noise in the dynamics is used to implement stochasticity. The firing probability, and not just the deterministic frequency of oscillations or spikes, is controllable using an electrical signal. We also show that such an IMT neuron has similar dynamics as a piecewise linear FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) neuron with thermal noise along with threshold fluctuations as precursors of bifurcation resulting in a sigmoid-like transfer function for the neural firing rates. By analyzing the variance of interspike interval, we determine that for the range of thermal noise present in our experimental demonstrations, threshold fluctuations are responsible for most of the stochasticity compared to thermal noise.
Materials and Methods
=====================
IMT phase change neuron model
-----------------------------
A stochastic IMT neuron is fabricated using relaxation oscillators [@shukla_synchronized_2014; @parihar_synchronization_2015] composed of an IMT phase change device, e.g. Vanadium Dioxide (VO$_{2}$), in series with a tunable resistance, e.g. transistor [@shukla_pairwise_2014] (Figure \[fig:vo2\_circuit\]a). An IMT device is a two terminal device with two resistive states - insulating (I) and metallic (M), and the device transitions between the two states based on the applied electric field (which in turn changes the current through the device and the corresponding temperature) across it. The phase transitions are hysteretic in nature, which means that the IMT (insulator-to-metal) transition does not occur at the same voltage as the MIT (metal-to-insulator) transition. For a range of values of the series resistance, the resultant circuit shows spontaneous oscillations due to hysteresis and a lack of stable point [@parihar_synchronization_2015]. Overall, the series resistance acts as a parameter for bifurcation between a spiking (or oscillating) state and a resting state of an IMT neuron.
The equivalent circuit model for an IMT oscillator is shown in Figure \[fig:vo2\_circuit\]b with the hysteretic switching conductance $g_{v(m/i)}$ ($g_{vm}$ in metallic and $g_{vi}$ in insulating state), a series inductance $L$, and a parallel internal capacitance $C$. Let the IMT and MIT thresholds of the device be denoted by $v_{h}$ and $v_{l}$ respectively, with $v_{h}>v_{l}$, and the current-voltage relationship of the hysteretic conductance be $$v_{i}=h(i_{i},s)$$ where $h$ is linear in $i_i$ and $s$ is the state - metallic (M) or insulating (I).
The system dynamics is then given by: $$\begin{aligned}
L\frac{di_{i}}{dt} & = & (v_{dd}-h(i_{i},s))-v_{o}\nonumber \\
C\frac{dv_{o}}{dt} & = & i_{i}-g_{s}v_{o}\label{eq:vo2_system}\end{aligned}$$ with $i_{i}$ and $v_{o}$ as shown in figure \[fig:vo2\_circuit\]b and $s$ is considered as an independent variable.
Mechanism of oscillations and spikes
------------------------------------
In VO$_{2}$, IMT and MIT transitions are orders of magnitude faster than RC time constants for oscillations, as observed in frequency [@kar_intrinsic_2013] and time-domain measurements for voltage driven [@jerry2016dynamics] and photoinduced transitions [@cocker2012phase]. As such, the change in resistance of the IMT device is assumed to be instantaneous. Figure \[fig:imt\_traj\]a shows the phase space $i_{i} \times (v_{dd}-v_{o})$. V-I curves for IMT device in the two states metallic (M) and insulating (I) and the load line for series conductance $v_{o}=i_{i}/g_{s}$ for the steady state are shown along with the fixed points of the system $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ in insulating and metallic states respectively. The load line and V-I curves are essentially the nullclines of $v_{o}$ and $i_{i}$ respectively. The capacitance- inductance pair delays the transitions and slowly pulls the system towards the fixed points S$_{1}$ and S$_{2}$ even when the IMT device transitions instantaneously. For small $L/C$ ratio, the eigenvector (of the coefficient matrix) with large negative eigenvalue becomes parallel to the x-axis, whereas the other eigenvector becomes parallel to AB’ or BA’ depending on the state (M or I). When the system approaches A from below (or B from above) and IMT device is insulating (or metallic) with fixed point $S_{1}$ (or $S_{2}$), the IMT device transitions into metallic (or insulating) state changing the fixed point to S$_{2}$ (or $S_{1}$). Two trajectories are shown starting from points A and B each for the system (\[eq:vo2\_system\]) - one for small $L/C$ value (solid) and the other for large $L/C$ value (dashed). After a transition, the system moves parallel to $x$-axis almost instantaneously and spends most of the time following the V-I curve towards the fixed point. Before the fixed point is reached the MIT (or IMT) transition threshold is encountered which switches the fixed point, and the cycle continues resulting in sustained oscillations or spike generation.
Model approximations and connections with FHN neuron
----------------------------------------------------
### Non-hysteretic approximation
The model of (\[eq:vo2\_system\]) is very similar to a piecewise linear caricature of FitzHugh-Nagumo (FHN) neuron model [@gerstner_spiking_2002], also called the McKean’s caricature [@tonnelier_mckeans_2003; @mckean_nagumos_1970]. Mathematically, the FHN model is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{du}{dt} & =f(u)-w+I_{ext}\nonumber \\
\tau\frac{dw}{dt} & =u-bw+a\label{eq:fitzhugh_system}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(u)$ is a polynomial of third degree, e.g. $f(u)=u-u^{3}/3$, and $I_{ext}$ is the parameter for bifurcation, as opposed to $g_{s}$ in (\[eq:vo2\_system\]). In the FHN model, one variable ($u$), possessing cubic nonlinearity, allows regenerative self-excitation via a positive feedback, and the second, a recovery variable ($w$), possessing linear dynamics, provides a slower negative feedback. It was reasoned in Ref. [@mckean_nagumos_1970] that the essential features of FHN model are retained in a “caricature” where the cubic non-linearity is replaced by a piecewise linear function $f(u)$. Nullclines of (\[eq:fitzhugh\_system\]) with a piecewise linear $f(u)$ are shown in figure \[fig:imt\_traj\]b in the phase space $u \times (1-w)$. A function $f(u)$ is trivially possible such that it is equal to $v_{dd}-h(i_{i},s)$ in the regions M and I, hence making the $u$-nullcline similar to the $i_{i}$-nullcline in those regions. In the region N, the difference between $f(u)$ and $v_{dd}-h(i_{i},s)$ for any state $s$ does not result in a difference in the direction of system trajectories but only in their velocity, because for small $L/C$ the trajectories are almost parallel to $x$-axis. Bifurcation in VO$_{2}$ neuron is achieved by tuning the load line using a tunable resistance ($g_{s}$), or a series transistor (figure \[fig:imt\_neuron\_mosfet\]a). Figure \[fig:imt\_neuron\_mosfet\]b shows two load line curves corresponding to different gate voltages ($v_{gs}$), where one gives rise to spikes while the other results in a resting state.
### Single dimensional approximation
Moreover, a single dimensional piecewise approximation of the system can be performed using a dimensionality reduction by replacing the movement along the eigenvector parallel to the x-axis with an instantaneous transition from A to A’, or B to B’. This leaves a 1-dimensional subsystem in M and I each along the V-I curves AB’ and BA’. Experiments using VO$_{2}$ show that the metallic state conductance $g_{vm}$ is very high which causes the charging cycle of $v_{o}$ to be almost instantaneous (figure \[fig:exp\_waves\]) and resembles a spike of a biological neuron. As such, the spiking statistics can be studied by modeling just the discharge cycle of $v_{o}$. The inductance being negligible can be effectively removed and only the capacitance is needed for modeling the 1D subsystem of insulating state (figure \[fig:firing\_rate\]a) making $v_{i}=v_{dd}-v_{o}$.
Noise induced stochastic behavior
---------------------------------
The two important noise sources which induce stochasticity in an IMT neuron are (a) V$_{IMT}$ ($v_{h}$) fluctuations [@jerry2017random; @zhang2016vo], and (b) thermal noise. Thermal noise $\eta(t)$ is modeled in the circuit (figure \[fig:firing\_rate\]a) as a white noise voltage $\eta(t)\mathrm{d}t=\sigma_{t}\mathrm{d}w_{t}$ where $w_{t}$ is the standard weiner process and $\sigma_{t}^{2}$ is the infinitesimal thermal noise variance. The threshold $v_{h}$ is assumed constant during a spike, but varies from one spike to another. The distribution of $v_{h}$ from spike to spike is assumed to be Gaussian or subGaussian whose parameters are estimated from experimental observations of oscillations. If the series transistor always remains in saturation and show linear voltage-current relationship, as is the case in our VO$_{2}$ based experiments, the discharge phase can be described by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process $$\mathrm{d}x=\frac{1}{\theta}(\mu-x)\mathrm{d}t+\sigma\mathrm{d}w_{t}\label{eq:ou_system}$$ where $\mu$,$\theta$ and $\sigma$ are functions of circuit parameters of the series transistor, the IMT device and $\sigma_{t}$. The interspike interval is thus the first-passage-time (FPT) of this OU process, but with a fluctuating boundary.
### OU process with constant boundary
Analytical expressions for the FPT of OU process (with $\mu=0$) for a constant boundary were derived using the Laplace transform method in Ref. [@ricciardi_first-passage-time_1988]. Reproducing some of its results, let the first passage time for the system (\[eq:ou\_system\]), with $\mu=0$, which starts at $x(0)=x_{0}$ and hits a boundary $S$, be denoted by the random variable $\mathbf{t_{f}}(S,x_{0})$, and its $m^{th}$ moment by $\tau_{m}(S,x_{0})$. Also, let $\mathbf{\widetilde{t_{f}}}(S,x_{0})$ be the FPT for another OU process with $\mu=0$, $\theta=1$ and $\sigma=2$, and $\widetilde{\tau_{m}}(S,x_{0})$ be its $m^{th}$ moment. Then time and space scaling for the OU process imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{t_{f}}(S,x_{0}) & \overset{d}{=}\theta\mathbf{\widetilde{t_{f}}}(\alpha S,\alpha x_{0})\nonumber \\
\therefore\tau_{m}(S,x_{0}) & =\theta^{m}\widetilde{\tau_{m}}(\alpha S,\alpha x_{0})\label{eq:fpt_const}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\theta\sigma^{2}}}$. The first 2 moments for the base case OU process $\widetilde{\tau_{1}}$ and $\widetilde{\tau_{2}}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{\tau_{1}}(S,x_{0})= & \phi_{1}(S)-\phi_{1}(x_{0})\nonumber \\
\widetilde{\tau_{2}}(S,x_{0})= & 2\phi_{1}(S)^{2}-\phi_{2}(S) -2\phi_{1}(S)\phi_{1}(x_{0})+\phi_{2}(x_{0})\label{eq:tau_expansion}\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{k}(z)$ can be written as an infinite sum $$\phi_{k}(z)=\frac{1}{2^{k}}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\left(\sqrt{2}z\right)^{n}\Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)\rho(n,k)}{n!}\label{eq:phi}$$ with $\rho(n,k)$ being a function of the digamma function [@ricciardi_first-passage-time_1988].
### OU process with fluctuating boundary
We extend this framework for calculating the FPT statistics with a fluctuating boundary $\mathbf{S}$ as follows. Let the IMT threshold be represented by the random variable $\mathbf{v_{h}}$. For the VO$_{2}$ based IMT neuron, the 1D subsystem in the insulating phase can be converted in the form of (\[eq:ou\_system\]) with $\mu=0$ by translating the origin to the fixed point. If this transformation is T then $x=\textrm{T}v_{i}=\textrm{T}(v_{dd}-v_{o})$, $\mathbf{S}=\text{T}\mathbf{v_{h}}$ and $x_{o}=\textrm{T}v_{l}$. The start and end points are B’ and A respectively in figure \[fig:imt\_traj\]. $\mathbf{v_{h}}$ is assumed constant during a spike, and across spikes the distribution of $\mathbf{v_{h}}$ is $\mathbf{v_{h}}\sim\mathcal{D}$, where $\mathcal{D}$ is either Gaussian, or subGaussian. For subGaussian distributions we use the Exponential Power family EP[\[]{}$\kappa$[\]]{}, $\kappa$ being the shape factor. Let the interspike interval of IMT neuron be denoted by the marginal random variable **$\mathbf{t_{imt}}(\mathcal{D},v_{l})$.** Then $\mathbf{t_{imt}}$ is related to $\mathbf{t_{f}}$ in equation (\[eq:fpt\_const\]), given common parameters $\theta$ and $\sigma$, as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{t_{imt}}(\mathcal{D},v_{l})|(\mathbf{v_{h}}=v) & \overset{d}{=}\mathbf{t_{f}}(\text{T}v,\text{T}v_{l})\end{aligned}$$ The moments of $\mathbf{t_{imt}}$ can be calculated as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{t_{imt}}(\mathcal{D},v_{l})^{m}] & =\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{t_{imt}}(\mathcal{D},\text{T}v_{l})^{m}|\mathbf{v_{h}}=v]]\nonumber \\
& =\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\tau_{m}(\text{T}\mathbf{v_{h}},\text{T}v_{l})]\nonumber \\
& =\theta^{m}\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\widetilde{\tau_{m}}(\alpha\text{T}\mathbf{v_{h}},\alpha\text{T}v_{l})]\label{eq:expectation_tower}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\theta\sigma^{2}}}$. If $\mathcal{D}$ is Gaussian or EP\[$\kappa$\] distribution and $\alpha\textrm{T}$ is an affine transformation, then $\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}}$ also has a Gaussian or EP\[$\kappa$\] distribution.
Experiments
-----------
IMT devices are fabricated on a $10$nm VO$_{2}$ thin film grown by reactive oxide molecular beam epitaxy on (001) TiO$_{2}$ substrate using a Veeco Gen10 system [@tashman2014epitaxial]. Planar two terminal structures are formed by patterning contacts using standard electron beam lithography which defines the device length (L$_{VO2}$). Pd ($20$nm) / Au ($60$nm) contacts are then deposited by electron beam evaporation and liftoff. The devices are then isolated and the widths (W$_{VO2}$) are defined using a CF$_{4}$ based dry etch.
The IMT neuron is constructed using an externally connected n-channel MOSFET (ALD110802) and the fabricated VO$_{2}$ device. A prototypical I-V curve is shown in figure \[fig:exp\_iv\]a. Within the experimental data, the current is limited to an arbitrarily chosen 200 $\mu$A to prevent a thermal runaway and breakdown of the device while in the low resistance metallic state. It should be noted that as the metallic state corresponds to the abrupt charging cycle of $v_{o}$, limiting the current would not have noticeable effect on spiking statistics of the neuron.
Threshold voltage fluctuations (cycle to cycle) were observed in all devices which were tested ($>10$). Threshold voltage distribution was estimated using the varying cycle-to-cycle threshold voltages collected from a single device. Thermal noise is not measured directly, but is estimated approximately by matching the simulation waveforms from the circuit model (Figure \[fig:firing\_rate\]a) with the observed experimental waveforms. It can be verified that thermal noise of the transistor is not the dominant noise source by measuring the threshold variation as a function of the transistor current (Figure \[fig:exp\_iv\]b) and observing that the distribution of switching threshold does not change with varying transistor current. Finally, the firing rate and its variation with $v_{gs}$ (Figure \[fig:firing\_rate\]b) were measured for a single device.
Results
=======
Spiking Statistics
------------------
### First moment and the firing rate
First moment of $\mathbf{t_{imt}}$ is calculated using (\[eq:tau\_expansion\]) and (\[eq:expectation\_tower\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{t_{imt}}(\mathcal{D},v_{l})] & =\theta (\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\phi_{1}(\alpha\text{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})]-\phi_{1}(\alpha x_{0}))\end{aligned}$$ The expansion for $\phi_{k}(z)$ in (\[eq:phi\]) can be used to calculate $\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\phi_{k}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})]$ using the moments of $\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}}$ as follows $$\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\phi_{k}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})]=\frac{1}{2^{k}}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(\sqrt{2})^{n}\mathbb{E}[(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})^{n}]\Gamma\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)\rho(n,k)}{n!}$$ Figure \[fig:firing\_rate\]b shows firing rate ($1/\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{t_{imt}}(\mathcal{D},v_{l})]$) as a function of $v_{gs}$ for various $\sigma_{t}$ values and for 3 distrbutions of threshold fluctuations. The calculations approximate the experimental observations well for all three $v_{h}$ distributions, the closest being EP[\[]{}3[\]]{} with $\sigma_{t}=4$.
### Higher moments
For higher moments, higher order terms are encountered. For example, in case of the second moment, using (\[eq:tau\_expansion\]) and (\[eq:expectation\_tower\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\widetilde{\tau_{2}}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}},\alpha\text{T}v_{l})]= & 2\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\phi_{1}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})^{2}]-\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\phi_{2}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})]\\
& -2\mathbb{E}_{v_{h}}[\phi_{1}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})]\phi_{1}(\alpha\text{T}v_{l})\\
& +\phi_{2}(\alpha\text{T}v_{l})\end{aligned}$$ with a higher order term $\phi_{1}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}}){}^{2}$. In the case of the third moment we obtain $\phi_{1}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})\phi_{2}(\alpha\textrm{T}\mathbf{v_{h}})$. As each $\phi_{k}$ term is an infinite sum, we construct a cauchy product expansion for the higher order term using the infinite sum expansions of the constituent $\phi_{k}$s and then distribute the expectation over addition. For example, if the $\phi_{k}$ expansions of $\phi_{1}(z)$ and $\phi_{2}(z)$ are $(\sum a_{i})$ and $(\sum b_{i})$ respectively, then the cauchy product expansion of $\phi_{1}(z)\phi_{2}(z)$ can be calculated as $\sum c_{i}$, where $c_{i}$ is a function of $a_{1...i}$ and **$b_{1...i}$**, and the expectation $\mathbb{E}[\phi_{1}(z)\phi_{2}(z)]=\sum\mathbb{E}[c_{i}]$. Since $c_{i}$ is a polynomial in $z$, $\mathbb{E}[c_{i}]$ can be calculated using the moments of $z$.
If $\mu_{imt}$ and $\sigma_{imt}$ are the mean and standard deviation of interspike intervals $\mathbf{t_{imt}}$, the coefficient of variation ($\sigma_{imt}/\mu_{imt}$) varies with the relative proportion of the thermal and the threshold induced noise. Figure \[fig:variance\] shows $\sigma_{imt}/\mu_{imt}$ (calculated using parameters matched with our VO$_{2}$ experiments) plotted against $\sigma_{t}$ for various kinds of $\mathbf{v_{h}}$ distributions fitted to experimental observations. $\sigma_{imt}/\mu_{imt}$ as observed in our VO$_{2}$ experiments is about an order of magnitude more than what would be calculated with only thermal noise using such a neuron, and hence, threshold noise contributes significant stochasticity to the spiking behavior. As the IMT neuron is setup such that the stable point is close to the IMT transition point (figure \[fig:imt\_neuron\_mosfet\]b), low $\sigma_{t}$ results in high and diverging $\sigma_{imt}/\mu_{imt}$ for any distribution of threshold noise, and $\sigma_{imt}/\mu_{imt}$ reduces with increasing $\sigma_{t}$ for the range shown. For a Normally distributed $v_{h}$ the variance diverges for $\sigma_{t}\lesssim8$, but for Exponential Power (EP) distributions with lighter tails, the variance converges for smaller values of $\sigma_{t}$. Statistical measurements on experimental data, as indicated in figure \[fig:variance\], provide measures of $\sigma_{imt}/\mu_{imt}$ (dotted line) and $\sigma_{t}$ (shaded region). We note that EP distributions provide a better approximation of the stochastic nature of experimentally demonstrated VO$_{2}$ neurons as the range of $\sigma_{t}$ is estimated to be less than $5$.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we demonstrate and analyse an IMT based stochastic neuron hardware which relies on both threshold fluctuations and thermal noise as precursors to bifurcation. The IMT neuron emulates the functionality of theoretical neuron models completely by incorporating all neuron characteristics into device phenomena. Unlike other similar efforts, it does not need peripheral circuits alongside the core device circuit (an IMT device and a transistor) to emulate any sub-component of the spiking neuron model like thresholding, reset etc. Moreover, the neuron construction not only utilizes inherent physical noise sources for stochasticity, but also enables control of firing probability using an analog electrical signal - the gate voltage of series transistor. This is different from previous works which control only the deterministic aspect of firing rate like the charging rate. A comparison of spiking neuron hardware characteristics in different works is shown in Table \[table:comparison\].
\#1[m[\#1]{}]{}
[>[****]{}PPPPP>P]{} \[2pt\]\[2pt\] & **@tuma2016stochastic** & **@pickett2013scalable** & **@sengupta2016magnetic** & **@indiveri2006vlsi** & **This work (VO$_2$)** Neuron type & Integrate & Fire & Hodgkin Huxley & Integrate & Fire & Integrate & Fire & Piecewise Linear FHN Material / Platform & Chalcogenide & Mott insulator NbO$_2$ & MTJ & 0.35 m CMOS & Vanadium Dioxide (VO$_2$) Material phenomenon & Phase Change & IMT & Spin transfer torque (STT) & - & IMT Spontaneous spiking using only device & No & Yes & No & - & Yes Peripherals needed for spiking & Yes, for spike generation and reset & No & Yes, for spike generation and reset & - & No Integration mechanism (I&F) & Heat accumulation & - & Magnetization accumulation & Capacitor charging & Capacitor charging Threshold mechanism (I&F) & External reset by measuring conductance & Spontaneous IMT & External reset by detecting magnet flip & Reset using comparator & Spontaneous IMT Stochastic & Yes & - & Yes & No & Yes Kind of stochasticity (I&F) & Reset potential & - & Differential & - & Threshold and differential Source of stochasticity / noise & Melt-quench process & - & Thermal noise & - & IMT threshold fluctuations & Thermal noise Control of stochastic firing rate & Only integration rate & - & Only integration rate & Only integration rate & Yes Status of experiments & Constant stochasticity, variable integration rate & Deterministic spiking & None & Deterministic spiking & Sigmoidal variation of stochastic firing rates Peak current & 750-800 A & & - & & 200 A Power or Energy/spike & 120 W & & - & 900 pJ / spike & 196 pJ / spike Voltage & 5.5 V & 1.75 V & - & 3.3 V & 0.7V Maximum firing rates & 35-40 KHz & 30 KHz & - & 200 Hz & 30 KHz
We also show that the neuron dynamics follow a linear “carricature” of the FitzHugh-Nagumo model with intrinsic stochasticity. The analytical models developed in this paper can also faithfully reproduce the experimentally observed transfer curve which is a stochastic property. Such analytical verification of stochastic neuron experiments is one of the first in this work. It is an important result as it indicates reproducibility of stochastic characteristics and helps in creating the pathway towards perfecting these devices. With a growing concensus that stochasticity will play a key role in solving hard computing tasks, we need efficient ways for controlled amplification and conversion of physical noise into a readable and computable form. In this regard, the IMT based neuron represents a promising solution for a stochastic computational element. Such stochastic neurons have the potential to realize bio-mimetic computational kernels that can be employed to solve a large class of optimization and machine-learning problems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This project was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants 1640081, Expeditions in Computing Award-1317560 and CCF- 1317373, and the Nanoelectronics Research Corporation (NERC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), through Extremely Energy Efficient Collective Electronics (EXCEL), an SRC-NRI Nanoelectronics Research Initiative under Research Task IDs 2698.001 and 2698.002.
Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
A.P. worked on the development of theory, simulation frameworks and mathematical models. M.J. worked on the experiments. A.R. advised A.P. and participated in the problem formulation. S.D. advised M.J. and also participated in the design of experiments and problem formulations.
Conflict of Interest Statement {#conflict-of-interest-statement .unnumbered}
==============================
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the ground state properties of the interacting spinless fermions in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital bands in the two dimensional honeycomb optical lattice, which exhibit different novel features from those in the $p_z$-orbital system of graphene. In addition to two dispersive bands with Dirac cones, the tight-binding band structure exhibits another two completely flat bands over the entire Brillouin zone. With the realistic sinusoidal optical potential, the flat bands acquire a finite but much smaller band width compared to the dispersive bands. The band flatness dramatically enhanced interaction effects giving rise to various charge and bond ordered states at commensurate fillings of $n=\frac{i}{6}~ (i=1\sim 6)$. At $n=\frac{1}{6}$, the many-body ground states can be exactly solved as the close packed hexagon states which can be stabilized even in the weakly interacting regime. The dimerization of bonding strength occurs at both $n=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\frac{5}{6}$, and the latter case is accompanied with the charge density wave of holes. The trimerization of bonding strength and charge inhomogeneity appear at $n=\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}$. These crystalline orders exhibit themselves in the noise correlations of the time of flight spectra.'
author:
- Congjun Wu
- 'S. Das Sarma'
title: 'The $p_{x,y}$-orbital counterpart of graphene: cold atoms in the honeycomb optical lattice'
---
Introduction
============
There has been tremendous progress during the past decade in the cold atom physics. In the early days, Bose-Einstein condensation was first realized in magnetic traps by using dilute alkali atoms [@anderson1995; @davis1995], where interaction effects are weak. Later on, important achievements have been made to realize strongly correlated systems by using optical lattices. The major advantage of optical lattices is the excellent controllability of interaction strength. For example, the superfluid to Mott insulator transition of bosons has been experimentally observed [@greiner2002]. Recently, cold atom physics in optical lattices is merging with condensed matter physics, which provides a wonderful opportunity to explore new states of matter.
An important aspect of strongly correlated systems is orbital physics, which studies an additional degree of freedom independent of charge and spin. In many transition metal oxides, the $d$-orbitals are partially filled, which enables the orbital degree of freedom active. Orbital physics is characterized by orbital degeneracy and spatial anisotropy of orbital orientation. The interplay between orbital, spin and charge degrees of freedom gives rise to many interesting phenomena such as metal-insulator transitions, superconductivity, and colossal magneto-resistance [@Imada1998; @tokura2000; @khaliullin2005].
Orbital degrees of freedom also exist in optical lattices. Although most of current research of cold fermions and bosons focuses on the lowest $s$-orbital bands, large progress has been made in high orbital bands. An important advantage of optical lattices is the rigidity of lattices. They are free of the Jahn-Teller type lattice distortion which often occurs in transition metal oxides and quench the orbital degrees of freedom. Orbital physics in optical lattices exhibits new features which are not usually realized in solid state systems. Recently, the properties of bosons in the first excited $p$-orbital bands have been attracting a great deal of attention [@scarola2005; @isacsson2005; @liu2006; @kuklov2006; @wu2006; @xu2007; @xu2007a; @alon2005]. Scarola [*et al.*]{} proposed to realize the supersolid state by using bosons in the high orbitals to generate the next-nearest neighbor interaction [@scarola2005]. Isacsson [*et al.*]{} investigated the sub-extensive $Z_2$ symmetry of the $p$-orbital bosons in the square lattice and its consequential nematic superfluidity [@isacsson2005]. Liu and Wu [@liu2006], and Kuklov [@kuklov2006] studied the antiferromagnetic ordering of the on-site orbital angular momentum moment. It was also proposed in Ref. [@liu2006] to enhance the life-time of $p$-orbital bosons by using a Bose-Fermi mixture to reduce the available phase space of decay process of bosons. Wu [*et al.*]{} [@wu2006] further investigated the superfluid and Mott insulating states of $p$-orbital bosons in the frustrated triangular lattice, and found a novel stripe phase of orbital angular momentums. Xu [*et al.*]{} studied a model of bond algebraic liquid phase [@xu2007] and phase transitions in anisotropic $xy$-models [@xu2007a] in the context in the $p$-orbital boson systems.
On the experimental side, the progress of orbital physics with cold atoms has also been truly exciting, which opens up the new opportunity to study orbital physics. Browaeys [*et al.*]{} [@browaeys2005] and Köhl [*et al.*]{} [@kohl2005] have demonstrated the population of high orbital bands with both bosons and fermions. Furthermore, Sebby-strabley [*et al.*]{} [@sebby-strabley2006] have successfully pumped bosons into the excited bands in the double-well lattice. More recently, an exciting progress has been made by Mueller [*et al.*]{} [@mueller2007] to realize the meta-stable $p$-orbital boson systems by using the stimulated Raman transition to pump bosons to high orbital bands. The spatially anisotropic phase coherence pattern has been observed in the time of flight experiments. This opens up a new experimental direction to investigate novel condensate of bosons in the excited $p$-bands.
On the other hand, fermions in the $p$-orbital bands also possess interesting behaviors [@wu2007; @wu2008; @wuzhai2007; @zhao2008]. Recently, Wu [*et al.*]{} [@wu2007] studied the flat band structure in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital physics in the honeycomb lattice. Compared to the $p_z$-orbital system of graphene, which has been attracting tremendous attention since the discovery of quantum Hall effect therein [@novoselov2005; @zhang2005; @neto2007], the $p_{x,y}$-orbital honeycomb systems exhibit new and even richer physics. In graphene, the active bands near the Fermi energy are “$\pi$”-type, composed of the $p_z$-orbital directly normal to the graphene plane, thus graphene is not a good system to investigate orbital physics. In contrast, it is the other two $p$-orbitals ($p_{x,y}$) that lie in-plane and exhibit both orbital degeneracy and spatial anisotropy, giving rise to the interesting flat band physics [@wu2007]. In solid state systems of graphene and MgB$_2$, $p_{x,y}$-orbitals hybridize with the $s$-orbital, resulting the $\sigma$-bonding (the $sp^2$ hybridization) band. This $\sigma$-band is fully filled and inert in graphene, but is partly filled and contributes to the two-band superconductivity in MgB$_2$ [@choi2002]. Due to the large $s$-orbital component, the essential feature of orbital physics, orbital anisotropy, is not prominent in these two systems. In contrast, the $p_{x,y}$-orbital bands in optical lattices are well separated from the $s$-band with negligible hybridization, providing an unique opportunity to study the pure $p_{x,y}$-orbital physics in the honeycomb lattice. This research will provide us another perspective in the honeycomb lattice and is complementary to the recent research focus on the single band system of graphene. Other works of the $p$-orbital fermions include the investigation of orbital exchange physics in the Mott-insulating states finding various orbital ordering and frustration behavior [@wu2008; @zhao2008], and the study of the possibility to enhance the antiferromagnetic ordering of fermions in the $p$-orbital of 3D cubic lattices [@wuzhai2007].
Interaction effects in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital honeycomb optical lattices can be much stronger that those in the $p_z$-orbital graphene systems. In real graphene the dimensionless coupling constant $r_s=e^2/(\epsilon\hbar v) $ has a maximum value of 2.3 in vacuum (and $r_s<1$ for the current available graphene samples on SiO$_2$ or SiC substrates), taking $v=10^6$ cm/sec. Thus graphene is very far from the $r_s=39$ regime needed for Wigner crystallization [@tanatar1989]. Much of graphene interaction physics is described by perturbative weak-coupling renormalizations of the quasiparticle spectral function, as shown both theoretically and experimentally [@dassarma2007; @dassarma2007a; @hwang2007]. Furthermore, real graphene physics is complicated by electron-phonon interactions [@tse2007]. In contrast, in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital honeycomb lattices systems, the flat band quenches the kinetic energy, and thus interaction physics is non-perturbative and generic, leading to qualitatively new orbital physics phenomena, e.g. Wigner-Mott physics, can show up easily [@wu2007].
This paper works as an expanded version of a previous publication of Ref. [@wu2007], with new results and all the theoretical details of the behavior of spinless fermions in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital bands in the honeycomb lattice. The current work is motivated by considerations of using the optical lattices to go beyond what can be achieved in solid state systems, i.e. obtain exotic strongly correlated orbital quantum phases which have not yet been studied in condensed matter physics. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[sect:band\], we analyze the band structures in both the simplified tight-binding model and the realistic optical potential constructed from three co-planar laser beams [@grynberg1993]. The band structures contain both Dirac cones in two dispersive bands, and other two nearly flat bands over the entire Brillouin zone (BZ) whose flatness becomes exact if the $\pi$-bonding is neglected. Special attention is paid for the orbital configurations of the localized Wannier-like eigen-functions in the flat bands, and also at the Dirac points. In Sect. \[sect:interaction\], the interacting Hamiltonian is introduced and methods of enhancing the Hubbard-like on-site interaction are proposed. In Sect. \[sect:1/6\], the interaction effect in the partially-filled flat band is discussed. The situation is somewhat analogous to that in the fractional quantum Hall effect of electrons in the lowest Landau level. When the flat band is partially-filled, the effects of interactions are entirely non-perturbative. We obtain the [*exact*]{} many-body plaquette Wigner crystal state at filling $\avg{n} =\frac{1}{6}$, which is the close packed hexagon state and is stable even in the weak interaction regime. In Sect. \[sect:comm\], we present various charge and bond ordered states, including dimerized and trimerized states at higher commensurate fillings in the strong interaction regime. In Sect. \[sect:exp\], the noise correlation in the time of flight experiments are discussed. Conclusions and outlook for the future research are discussed in Sect. \[sect:conclusion\].
$p_{x,y}$-orbital Band structure in the honeycomb lattice {#sect:band}
=========================================================
In this section, we will give a detailed analysis to the $p_{x,y}$-orbital band structure in the 2D honeycomb lattice which is featured by the interesting properties of both flat bands and Dirac cones. We will first discuss the experimental construction of such a lattice and then solve the band structure by using both the simplified tight-binding model and the realistic sinusoidal optical potential.
Construction of the optical honeycomb lattice
---------------------------------------------
The honeycomb optical lattice was realized experimentally by using three laser beams with co-planar propagating wavevectors $\vec q_i (i=1 \sim 3)$ quite some time ago [@grynberg1993]. The magnitudes of these wavevectors are the same and their directions form the angle of $120^\circ$ with each other. Assuming the polarization of the electric fields of the three beams are all along the $z$-direction, the optical potential distribution can be expressed as V(r)= V\_0 \_[i=1\~3]{} (p\_i r), \[eq:potential\] where $\vec p_1=\vec q_2 -\vec q_3$, $\vec p_2=\vec q_3 -\vec q_1$, and $\vec p_3=\vec q_1 -\vec q_2$. In the case of blue detuning, $V_0$ is positive and the potential minima form a hexagonal lattice as depicted in Fig. \[fig:potential\]. In contrast, the red detuning laser beams generate a 2D triangular lattice. In both cases, the lattice is topologically stable against the phase drift of the laser beams, which only causes a overall shift but not the distortion of the lattice. Fig. \[fig:potential\] B depicts the potential distribution in one unit cell of the honeycomb lattice, where a potential maximum locates in the center and six potential minima sit around. Without loss of any generality, we take $\vec p_{1,2}=p(\pm \frac{\sqrt 3}{2}
\hat e_x +\frac{1}{2} \hat e_y)$ and $\vec p_3= - p~ \hat e_y$ where $p=\frac{4\pi}{3a}$ and $a$ is the distance between the nearest neighbour site in the honeycomb lattice. We define the recoil energy in such a lattice system as $E_r=\frac{\hbar^2 p^2}{2m}$ where $m$ is the mass of the atom.
The tight-binding model
------------------------
The optical potential around the center of each site is approximately an anisotropic harmonic well. We assume that the vibration frequencies along the $x$, $y$ and $z$-directions satisfy $\omega_z \gg \omega_x=\omega_y=\omega_{xy}$, and thus the energy of the $p_z$-orbital is much higher than that of the $p_{x,y}$-orbital bands. When the lowest $s$-band is fully filled and thus inert, the active orbital bands will be of the $p_{x,y}$. Due to the spatial orientation of the $p$-orbitals, the hopping processes in the $p$-orbitals can be classified into the $\sigma$ and $\pi$-type bondings, respectively. The former describes the hopping between $p$-orbitals on neighbouring sites with the orientation along the bond direction, while the latter describes the hopping between $p$-orbitals perpendicular to the bond direction. In other words, the $\sigma$-bonding is of the “head to tail” type, while the $\pi$-bonding is of the “shoulder by shoulder” type. Typically, the amplitude of the $\pi$-bonding is much smaller than that of the $\sigma$-bonding because of the strong orientational anisotropy.
The structure of the honeycomb lattice is depicted in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_lat\] A. Each unit cell in the honeycomb lattice contains two sites depicted as $A$ and $B$. We define three unit vectors from site $A$ to its three neighbouring sites $B$ as e\_[1,2]{}= e\_x+ e\_y, e\_3=-e\_y, and their differences $\vec b_i=\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ijk}
(\hat e_j -\hat e_k)$ as b\_3&=&3 e\_x , b\_[1,2]{}=- e\_x e\_y. The projections of the $p$-orbitals along the $\hat e_{1,2,3}$ directions are defined as p\_[1,2]{}= p\_x+ p\_y, p\_[3]{}=-p\_y. Only two of them are linearly independent. In the realistic optical potential depicted in Fig. \[fig:potential\] A, the potential distribution inside each optical site is only approximately isotropic in the $xy$-plane. Away from the center, the potential exhibits a 3-fold rotational anisotropy. The point group symmetry respect to the center of each site is reduced into $C_{3V}$ including the 3-fold rotation and reflection. Nevertheless, as required by this symmetry, $p_{x,y}$ remain degenerate and each of $p_{1,2,3}$ defined above is still the on-site eigenstates with the orientation along the corresponding bond direction. But they are no longer purely parity odd due to the breaking of the inversion symmetry respect to the center of each optical site. (The overall inversion symmetry respect to the center of the each potential maximum is still preserved, but this involves the transformation among different sites.)
The $\sigma$-bonding part in the kinetic energy reads H\_[0]{}&=&t\_\_[r A, i=1\~3]{} { p\^\_[r,i]{} p\^\_[r + a e\_i,i]{} +h.c. } -\_[r A B]{} n\_[r]{}, \[eq:ham0\] where the summation over $\vec r$ in the first term is only on the $A$ sublattice, $a$ is the nearest neighbor distance, and $n_{\vec r}=n_
{\vec r,x}+n_{\vec r,y}$ is the total particle number in both $p_x$ and $p_y$ orbitals at the site $\vec r$. $t_\pp$ is positive due to the dominant odd parity component of the $p$-orbitals and is set to 1 below. Eq. \[eq:ham0\] neglects the much smaller $\pi$-bonding $t_\perp$ terms which in principle exist, and their effects will be discussed in Sect. \[subsect:pibond\].
Next we discuss the spectrum of the tight-binding Hamiltonian Eq. \[eq:ham0\]. In momentum space, we define a four-component spinor as (k)=(p\_[Ax]{}(k),p\_[Ay]{}(k), p\_[Bx]{}(k),p\_[By]{}(k))\^T, where each component is the Fourier transform of the $p_{x,y}$-orbit in site $A$ or $B$. Then Eq. \[eq:ham0\] becomes H\_0&=&t\_\_k \^\_(k) { H\_(k) -\_ } \_(k), where the matrix kernel $H_{\alpha\beta}(\vec k)$ takes the structure as
(
[cccc]{} 0&0& (e\^[i k e\_1]{} +e\^[i k e\_2]{}) & (e\^[i k e\_1]{} -e\^[i k e\_2]{})\
0&0& (e\^[i k e\_1]{} -e\^[i k e\_2]{})& (e\^[i k e\_1]{} +e\^[i k e\_2]{}) +e\^[i k e\_3]{}\
h.c.& & 0&0\
& & 0&0
).
Its spectrum is symmetric respective to zero because the sign of the $t_\pp$ term can be flipped by changing the sign of the $p_{x,y}$-orbitals in one sublattice but not the other. The dispersion relations of the four bands read E\_[1,4]{}&=& t\_, E\_[2,3]{}= as shown in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_band\]. Interestingly, the band structure exhibits two flat bands $E_{1,4}$ over the entire 2D Brillouin zone. The corresponding eigenvectors can be found analytically as \_[1,4]{} (k)&=& { \[f\_[23]{}\^\*(k)-f\_[31]{}\^\*(k)\], -f\_[12]{}\^\*(k),\
\
&&\[f\_[23]{}(k)-f\_[31]{}(k)\], f\_[12]{}(k) }\^T, \[eq:eigenvectors\] where $f_{ij}=e^{i\vec k \cdot \hat e_i}-e^{i\vec k \cdot \hat e_j}$ and the normalization factor reads N\_0(k)&=&(3-\_[i]{} k b\_i). On the other hand, the $E_{2,3}$ bands are dispersive exhibiting the Dirac cone structure, whose band width is determined by $t_\pp$. We construct a new set of basis which are orthogonal to $\psi_{1,4}(\vec k)$ and span the subspace for the $E_{2,3}$ bands as (k)&=&{f\_[12]{}(k), (f\_[23]{}(k)-f\_[31]{}(k)), 0, 0},\
\^(k)&=& {0, 0, f\^\*\_[12]{}(k), (f\^\*\_[23]{}(k)-f\^\*\_[31]{}(k))}.\
Then the Hamiltonian becomes the same as in graphene H\_[23]{}(k)=-(
[cc]{} 0& \_i e\^[-i k e\_i]{}\
\_i e\^[i k e\_i]{}&0
). \[eq:dirac\] Two Dirac cones appear at $K_{1,2}=(\pm\frac{4\pi}{3\sqrt 3 a},0)$. The eigenvectors of the bands $E_{2,3}(\vec k)$ read \_[2,3]{}(k)= {(k)e\^[i\_k]{} \^(k) }, with the angle of $\theta_{\vec k}$ \_k=(\_i e\^[ik e\_i]{}). \[eq:angle\]
The localized eigenstates
-------------------------
The complete flatness of the $E_{1,4}$ bands means that these eigenstates can be represented as linear superposition of a set of degenerate *localized* states. The construction of these localized state is depicted in Fig. \[fig:wannier\]. For each hexagon plaquette denoted by its center position $\vec R$, there exists one such eigenstate for the bottom band $E_1$ |\_[R]{}&=&\_[j=1]{}\^6 (-)\^[j-1]{}{ \_j |p\_[j,x ]{} -\_j |p\_[j,y]{}}, \[eq:wannier\] where $j$ is the site index and $\theta_j=(j-1)\frac{\pi}{3}$. The localized eigenstates of the $E_4$ band can be obtained by flipping the signs of the $p$-orbits on sites $2$, $4$ and $6$ and keep those on sites $1$, $3$ and $5$ unchanged. The $p$-orbital configuration on each site is perpendicular to the links external to the hexagonal loop, thus the $\sigma$-bonding forbids the particle to directly hop outside through these links. Furthermore, the amplitudes for the particle to hop to the $p$-orbital in the radial direction from the neighbouring sites vanish due to the destructive interference as shown in Fig. \[fig:wannier\]. The particle is trapped in the plaquette without “leaking” to outside, and thus $|\psi_{\vec R}\rangle$ is the eigenstate with the energy of $E_1$. The states $|\psi_{\vec R}\rangle$ are all linearly-independent apart from one overall constraint $\sum_{\vec R} |\psi_{\vec R}\rangle=0$ under periodic boundary conditions. The localized states on two neighbouring edge-sharing plaquettes are not orthogonal to each other.
The Bloch wave states in the flat band $E_1$ are constructed as |\_[1,k]{}= \_k e\^[ik R]{} |\_[R]{} (k (0,0)). The doubly degenerate eigenstate at $\vec k =(0,0)$ can not be constructed from the above plaquette states. They are $|\psi_{\vec k=(0,0)}\rangle_{1,2}=
\sum_{\vec r\in A} |p_{x(y), \vec r} \rangle-
\sum_{\vec r\in B} |p_{x(y), \vec r} \rangle$.
Orbital configuration at $\vec k=(0,0)$ and $K_{1,2}$
-----------------------------------------------------
The major difference between the physics of $p_{x,y}$-orbital bands and that of graphene is the orbital degree of freedom. The orbital configuration for each band varies as lattice momentum $\vec k$ changes in the Brillouin zone. Around the center of the Brillouin zone $\vec k=(0,0)$, the Hamiltonian can be expanded as H= \_1I - k\_y \_2 \_3 - k\_x \_2\_1, where Pauli matrices $\sigma_{1,2,3}$ describe the $p_{x,y}$-orbital degrees of freedom, and $\tau_{1,2,3}$ describes the sublattices $A, B$ degrees of freedom. The eigenvectors of $\psi_{1,2,3,4}$ can be approximated as \_[1,4]{}(k)&=& { -k\_y, k\_x, k\_y, k\_x },\
\_[2,3 ]{}(k)&=& { k\_x, k\_y, k\_x, k\_y }. Thus around $\vec k=(0,0)$, the orbital configuration is polar-like, i.e., a real combination of $p_{x,y}$. The orbital orientation in each site is either parallel or perpendicular to $\vec k$.
Now let us investigate the orbital configurations around the vertices of $K_{1,2}$ of the Brillouin zone. Around $K_1$, the Hamiltonian can be expanded as H(k) &=& - k\_x \_1 I + k\_y \_2 I\
&-&(+k\_x) \_1 \_3 - k\_y \_2 \_3\
&-& k\_y \_1 \_1 -(- k\_x) \_2 \_1, where $\Delta \vec k=\vec k-\vec K_1$ and $g_{\pm}(\vec k)=\Delta k_x \pm i \Delta k_y.$ The eigenvectors of the flat bands $E_{1,4}$ can be approximated as \_[1,4]{} (k)&=&{ 1+, -i \[1- \],\
&& \[1+\], i \[1-\] }\^T. Similarly, the eigenvectors of the dispersive bands $E_{2,3}$ are approximated as \_[2,3]{}(k)&=& {1-, i (1+),\
&&e\^[i\_k]{} (1-, -i (1+) }\^T, where $\alpha_k$ is the angle defined in Eq. \[eq:angle\]. Thus the orbital configuration at $\vec k =\vec K_1$ on each site is the axial state $p_x\pm i p_y$ as depicted in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_obcf\]. This is in contrast to the polar configuration at $\vec k=(0,0)$. The orbital configuration at $\vec k = \vec K_2$ can be obtained by performing time reversal transformation.
$\pi$-bonding term and other perturbations {#subsect:pibond}
------------------------------------------
The $\pi$-bonding term in principle exists in the realistic optical lattices. We define the projections of $p_{x,y}$-orbitals perpendicular to the $\hat e_{1,2,3}$ directions as p\^\_[1,2]{}=- p\_x p\_y, p\^\_3=p\_x. The $\pi$-bonding term can be written as H\_&=&-t\_\_[r A, i=1\~3]{} { p\^\_[r,i]{} p\^\_[r + a e\_i,i]{} +h.c. }. \[eq:hampi\] Please note that the hopping integral of the $\pi$-bonding has the opposite sign to that of the $\sigma$-bonding. In this case, the bottom and top bands $E_{1,4}$ are no longer rigorously flat but develops a narrow width $3 t_\perp$ as depicted in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_band2\]. The $E_1$ and $E_2$ bands still touch at the center of the Brillouin zone. This can be understood from the structure of the localized eigenstates in Fig. \[fig:wannier\]. The $\pi$-bonding term causes the particle leaking off the plaquette and thus correspondingly develops the band width. Nevertheless we will show in Sect. \[subsect:continuum\] that in the realistic optical potential that such an effect is negligibly small.
Next we discuss the case that the $A$ and $B$ sites are with different on-site potentials. In the graphene-like systems, this corresponds to a mass term in the Dirac point. In the $p_{x,y}$-orbital systems, such a term can be described as H&=& E { \_[r A]{} n\_[r]{}- \_[r B]{} n\_[r]{} }. \[eq:hammass\] The spectrum is depicted in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_band3\] with the opening of a gap of $\Delta E$ in the Dirac points as usual. Interestingly, the flat band feature remains unchanged. This can be understood in terms of the localized eigenstate picture. In this case, the localized eigenstates of the $E_1$ band still possess a similar configuration as in Fig. \[fig:wannier\], but their wavefunctions distribute with different weights on $A$ and $B$ sublattices.
Band structure from the continuum optical potential {#subsect:continuum}
---------------------------------------------------
We numerically calculate the band structure in the realistic optical potential of Eq. \[eq:potential\]. The band Hamiltonian becomes H=-+V\_0 \_[i=1\~3]{} (p\_i r). Since this is a non-singular sinusoidal potential, we use the plane wave basis to calculate the matrix elements $\avg{\vec k|H|\vec k^\prime}$ where $\vec k^\prime=\vec k\pm
\vec p_i (i=1\sim 3)$. For each $\vec k$ in the Brillouin zone, we truncate the matrix up to $120$ plane-wave basis, which should be sufficient for the lowest several bands.
The band dispersions along the path from $O$ to $K_1$, $M$ and $K_2$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_englvl\]. The locations of $O$, $K_{1,2}$, $M$ in the Brillouin zone are depicted in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_lat\]. The lowest two bands are of the $s$-orbital exhibiting Dirac cones at $K_{1}$ and $K_{2}$. The next four are of the $p_{x,y}$-orbitals. The band flatness is largely preserved even with the realistic optical potential of Eq. \[eq:potential\]. In Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_englvl\] A with $V/E_r=5$, the bottom one of the four $p$-orbital bands is nearly flat with the width of $7 \times 10^{-3} E_r$ which is only $2\%$ of that of the second one which is $0.35 E_r$. The width of the top band is $4\times 10^{-2} E_r$ which is still small but considerably larger than that of the bottom one. The third band is the widest one with the width of $0.62 E_r$. As we can see, the particle-hole symmetry in the tight-binding model is no longer kept because of the unavoidable hybridization with other bands and long range hoppings. The spectra become more symmetric with a strong optical potential as shown in Fig. \[fig:hnycmb\_englvl\] B ($V/E_r=10$) in which the tight-binding model is a better approximation and long range hoppings can be neglected. The widths of the beginning six bands (the $s$ and $p_{x,y}$-orbital bands) as a function of the $V_0/E_r$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig:bandwidth\].
Interactions in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital spinless fermions {#sect:interaction}
========================================================
In the following, we will mainly consider interacting spinless fermions in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital bands in the honeycomb lattices, and leave the research for spinful fermions in future publications. The preparation of spinless fermions can be controlled by cooling the system in the external Zeeman field. Due to the lack of spin relaxation mechanism in cold atom systems, the system will remain in the spin polarized state. The spinless fermions have been realized in many experiments. In particular, the strongly correlated polarized spinless fermion systems have been realized by using the $p$-wave Feshbach resonance [@regal2003; @gaebler2007; @ticknor2004; @zhang2004]. Therefore, in contrast to solid state electronic systems, where spin is almost always an important quantum dynamical variable, the cold atom fermionic systems created by Feshbach resonance, can be prepared as spinless (i.e. spin polarized), and consequently, our current spinless theory applies to such systems without any modifications. Of course, the problem of creating a laboratory $p_{x,y}$ orbital graphene system in cold atomic gases still remains, but given the rapid current experimental developments in fermionic cold atom matter, we are optimistic that our prposed system should soon be realized in practice.
Because of the orbital degeneracy, the on-site interaction for spinless fermions remains Hubbard-like H\_[int]{}= U \_[r ]{} n\_[r, x]{} n\_[r, y]{}, \[eq:hamint\] where the on-site interaction $U$ is U&=&d r\_1 dr\_2 V(r\_1-r\_2) ( (\_[p\_x]{}(r\_1) \_[p\_y]{}(r\_2))\^2\
&-&(\_[p\_x]{}(r\_1) \_[p\_y]{}(r\_1) \_[p\_x]{}(r\_2) \_[p\_y]{}(r\_2) ). Due to Paul’s exclusion principle, the $s$-wave scattering vanishes, and thus the $p$-wave scattering is the leading order contribution which is typically weak for low energy particles. The $p$-band fermions have high kinetic energy, and thus their $p$-wave scattering might not be small. To enhance $U$, we can use the $p$-wave Feshbach resonances among spinless fermions (e.g. $^{40}$K [@gaebler2007; @ticknor2004], $^6$Li[@zhang2004]). Although we do not want the system staying too close to the resonance because of the large atom loss rate there, an enhancement of $U$ to the order of the recoil energy $E_R$ while maintaining the stability of the system is still reasonable.
Another possible method is to use atoms with large magnetic moments which interact through magnetic dipole-dipole interactions as V(r\_1-r\_2)= { m\_1m\_2 - 3 (m\_1 r) (m\_2 r) }, where $r=|\vec r_1-\vec r_2|$ and $\hat r=(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)/r$. The fermionic atom of $^{53}$Cr is a good candidate whose magnetic moment is $m_{Cr}=6\mu_B$ (Bohr magneton). The spin polarization can be controlled by an external magnetic field. Below we give an estimation of $U$ from the magnetic dipole interaction. The vibration frequency in each site can be obtained as $\omega_{x,y}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{2} V_0 E_r}$. The length scale of the $p_{x,y}$-orbitals ($l_{x,y}=\sqrt{\hbar/m\omega_{x,y}}$) is typically one order smaller than $a$. For example, we estimate that $l_{x,y}/a\approx 0.2$ at $V_0/E_r=5$. Assuming strong confinement in the $z$-axis $l_z\ll l_{x,y}$, the vector $\vec r_1-\vec r_2$ linking two atoms in $p_x$ and $p_y$ orbits almost lies in the $xy$-plane. When the fermion spin is polarized along the $z$-axis, the interaction is repulsive and $U$ can be approximately estimated as U (1-3), where $\theta$ is the angle between $\vec r_1-\vec r_2$ and the $z$-axis. We estimate $\avg{r}=\sqrt{2l_{xy}^2+l_z^2}$ and $\cos\theta=l_z/r$, and find that $U$ can reach the order of $E_r$. For example, if we use the laser wavelength $\lambda\approx 0.8 \mu m$, $V/E_r=5$ (so that $l_{x,y}\approx 0.2 a$) and $l_z=0.2 l_{x,y}$, we arrive at $U=2.2$ KHz or approximately $100nK$. Increasing $V/E_r$ can further increase $U$ and suppress $t_\pp$, thus drive the system into even stronger correlation regime. $U$ can be adjusted from repulsive to attractive by tuning the polarization direction from perpendicular to parallel to the $xy$-plane.
The Wigner Crystal state at $\frac{1}{6}$-filling {#sect:1/6}
=================================================
In this section, we discuss interaction effects in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital systems. When the flat band is partially filled, interaction effects dominate the physics. In particular, a Wigner crystal state is stabilized even with the shortest range on-site interaction. We will mainly study the spinless fermion system below, and also give a brief discussion on the boson systems, but leave the study of the spinful fermion systems to a future publication.
Close packed plaquette state
----------------------------
Due to the complete suppression of the kinetic energy in the flat band, the effect of interactions is non-perturbative when the flat band is partially filled. Interestingly, at sufficiently low particle density $n\leq \frac{1}{6}$, the exact many-body ground state can be easily constructed as follows. Each individual particle localizes into a plaquette state depicted in Fig. \[fig:wannier\]. Any arrangement of these plaquette states avoiding touching each other is the kinetic energy ground state and costs zero interaction energy. Since the interaction is repulsive, this class of states also minimize the interaction energy and thus they constitute the many-body ground states. If we fix the particle density at $n<1/6$, the ground state configurations have large degeneracy corresponding to all the possible ways to arrange these hard hexagons.
Another class of systems exhibiting similar behavior is the frustrated magnets near full polarization in a large external magnetic field. The Holstein-Primakoff magnons, which are bosons, have a dispersionless flat band over the magnetic Brillouin zone. Interactions among magnons result in the magnon crystal state and magnetization plateau [@zhitomirsky2004] near the full polarization. However, this flat band behavior is difficult to observe because a very strong magnetic field to drive the system close to the full polarization is required. This means that the Zeeman energy reaches the exchange energy $J$ which is typically larger the order of meV. Flat band phenomenon also appears in systems of “fermion condensation” where strong interactions drive an originally dispersive band to flat within a finite width around the Fermi energy [@khodel1990]. This has been proposed to explain the Curie’s law behavior of the magnetic susceptibility in the itinerant heavy fermion compound CeCoIn$_5$ system [@khodel2005].
The close packed plaquette pattern without overlapping each other is depicted in Fig. \[fig:closepack\] corresponding to the filling of $n=\frac{1}{6}$. The completely filled lowest flat band corresponds to $n=\frac{1}{2}$, thus this close packed plaquette pattern corresponds to $\frac{1}{3}$-filling of the flat band. This state breaks the lattice translational symmetry and is three-fold degenerate. The other two equivalent states can be obtained by translating the state in Fig. \[fig:closepack\] along $x$-axis in the right or left direction at one lattice constant.
Stability of the Wigner crystal state
-------------------------------------
The above Wigner crystal state is a gapped state. We can give a rough estimation for a upper limit of the charge gap by constructing a trial wavefunciton for putting an extra particle in the close packed state in Fig. \[fig:closepack\]. In the weak interaction case $(U/t_\pp\ll 1)$, we can put the extra atom in the plaquette state located at $\vec R$ which is adjacent to three occupied plaquettes $\vec R_{1,2,3}$. Since there is already $1/6$ atom on average per site, the cost of the repulsion is $\frac{U}{6}$. On the other hand, in the strong coupling case $(U/t_\pp \gg 1)$, we put the particle into an excited state of the occupied plaquette $\vec R_1$ while fixing the orbital configuration on each site. Because fermions are spinless, the cost of energy comes from the kinetic part with the value of $\frac{3}{4}t_\pp$. Thus we obtain the upper limit for the charge gap which is determined by interaction at small values of $U$ and by kinetic energy $t_\pp$ at large values of $U$ as 6 t\_$.
We have checked this numerically.
For example, setting the $t\_/t\_=0.1$, we find that
the $$-state survives $U>t\_$.
In realistic systems, the ratio of $t\_/t\_$ is much smaller
than 0.1 with reasonable values of $V/E\_r$ as shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:bandwidth}, thus the 1/6-state can be stabilized
at much smaller values of $U$.
\subsection{Bosonic Wigner crystal state}
In the above hard hexagon state at $n=$, particles are
separated from each other, thus particle statistics do not play any role.
Such a Wigner crystal state should also occur with bosons or
Bose-Fermi mixtures with repulsive interactions.
The on-site interaction for $p$-band bosons reads
\bea
H_{int}=\frac{U}{2} \sum_{\vec r}
\Big\{ n^2_{\vec r}-\frac{1}{3} L_{z,\vec r}^2\Big\},
\eea
where $n$ is the total particle number and $L\_z$ is the orbital angular
momentum \cite{liu2006,wu2006}.
The $p$-band bosonic systems have been created experimentally
\cite{mueller2007}.
The life time of the $p$-band bosons is significantly enhanced
when the particle density per site is less than one, which can be
hundreds of times longer than the hopping timer from one site
to its neighbours.
Thus the $1/6$-state is also experimentally feasible in bosonic systems.
\section{Charge and bond orderings at commensurate
fillings of $n>\frac{1}{6}$}
\label{sect:comm}
In this section, we investigate the charge and bond orderings
at commensurate fillings higher than $$
by using the mean field theory to solve the interacting
Hamiltonian self-consistently.
We will present the result in both weak and strong coupling regimes,
but leave the detailed investigate of the physics of
orbital exchange at $n=1$ to a future research.
In the following calculation, we confine ourselves to the
unit cell up to 6-sites.
\subsection{Weak coupling regime}
\begin{figure}
\centering\epsfig{file=fillinga.eps,clip=1,width=\linewidth,angle=0}
\centering\epsfig{file=fillingb.eps,clip=1,width=\linewidth,angle=0}
\caption{The filling $\avg{n}$ vs. the chemical potential $\mu$
for spinless fermions for weak A) and strong B) interactions.
Due to the particle-hole symmetry, only the part with
$\mu$ from the band bottom $-\frac{3}{2}t_\pp$ to $U/2$ is shown.
Only one plateau appears in A) at $n=\frac{1}{6}$,
while a series of plateaus appear in B)
at $n=1/6, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, 5/6, 1$. From Wu {\it et al} \cite{wu2007}.
}\label{fig:filling}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\epsfig{file=dimer.eps,clip=1,width=0.8\linewidth,angle=0}
\caption{Bonding strength dimerization can occur at both $\avg{n}=
1/3$ in the weak coupling regime and $\avg{n}=1/2$ in the strong coupling
regime as depicted by the thickened (red) bonds.
The orbital orentation in the dimer is along the bond direction.
In the weak coupling case ($\avg{n}=1/3$), the the thickened bonds
correspond to the shared edges of two neighboring plaquette states
in the flat band.
In the strong coupling case ($\avg{n}=1/2$), each dimer contains one particle
as an entangled state of occupied and empty sites.
}\label{fig:dimer}
\end{figure}
When the filling $n>1/6$, exact solutions are no longer available.
Again we perform the self-consistent mean field solution to the interacting
Hamiltonian.
In the weak coupling regime ($U/t\_=1$), we plot the relation of
the filling $$ vs. $$ in Fig. \ref{fig:filling} A.
As $$ passes the charge gap, the system enters a compressible state.
$$ increases with $$ quickly with a finite but large slope.
This means that particles fill in other states in the flat band.
Due the preexisting crystalline ordered background,
these states are no longer exactly flat and develop weak dispersions.
This corresponds to adding additional $$ particles
into the background of the $$-state as depicted
in Fig. \ref{fig:closepack} ($N$: the total number of lattice sites).
Roughly speaking, these new particles also go into the localized plaquette
states.
When $$, we see a significant reduction
of density of states compared to those of the flat bands,
which still has a finite density of state attributed to the filling
of the dispersive band.
Let us look at the quasi-plateau at $$.
Although these newly occupied plaquettes can be arranged to avoid each other as
we did before, they unavoidably will touch the preoccupied ones.
As a result, for each occupied plaquette state, three of its six
neighbours are occupied alternatively.
The orbital configuration in such a state is as depicted in
Fig. \ref{fig:dimer}, for each bond shared by two occupied plaquettes,
the $p$-orbital orientation is parallel to the bond direction as a
compromise between two neighbouring plaquettes.
The bonding strength exhibits a dimerized pattern.
The ratio between the weakened and strengthened bonds is approximately
$0.44$.
Compared to the gapped dimerized phase discussed below in Sect.
\ref{subsect:strong}, this is a relatively weakly dimerized
phase.
At $>1/2$, all the flat band states are completely filled.
In the weak coupling regime, interaction effects are no longer
important and crystalline orders vanish.
Near $=1$, the density of states becomes linear with energy
as controlled by the Dirac cones.
Recently, it has been proposed to use the $s$-band in the
honeycomb optical lattice to simulate the Dirac cone physics \cite{zhu2007}.
The $p\_[x,y]{}$-band Dirac cones described above are also good for this
purpose and have even more advantages.
The velocity of the $p\_[x,y]{}$-Dirac cone is much larger than
that of the $s$-band due to a much larger band width
as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:bandwidth}.
The large energy scale here renders quantum degeneracy
and the low temperature regime much more accessible.
\subsection{Strong coupling regime at $n>\frac{1}{6}$ }
\label{subsect:strong}
\begin{figure}
\centering\epsfig{file=trimer.eps,clip=1,width=0.9\linewidth,angle=0}
\caption{The trimerized states at fillings
$\avg{n}=\frac{1}{3}, \frac{2}{3}$ in the strong coupling regime
as described by thickened bonds.
Each trimer contains one particle at $\avg{n}=\frac{1}{3}$
and two particles at $\avg{n}=\frac{2}{3}$.
}\label{fig:trimer}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering\epsfig{file=fvsxth.eps,clip=1,width=0.9\linewidth,angle=0}
\caption{The orbital configuration at the filling $\avg{n}=5/6$
exhibits the dimerized state of holes in the strong coupling regime.
Holes mainly distribute on the position of sites $1$ and $4$
in each unit cell with a large bonding strength.
}\label{fig:fvsxth}
\end{figure}
The physics in the strong coupling regime is very different
from that in the weak coupling regime.
Much more crystalline ordered states appear in the strong coupling
regime at commensurate fillings exhibiting rich structures
of dimerization and trimerization orders.
The relation of the filling $$ vs. $$ at $U/t=10$ is depicted
in Fig. \ref{fig:filling} B.
A series of plateaus occur at commensurate fillings of
$= (i=1\~6)$, which correspond to a set of
charge and bond ordered insulating states.
The charge gap for each insulating state is at the order of $t\_$
except for that at $=1$ which is at the order of $U$.
Since these gapped state appears at strong interaction regime,
they are not sensitive to a small $t\_$.
The band structure described in previous sections is completely
changed by the strong interactions.
Roughly speaking, at $>$, the preoccupied plaquette
states exert strong effects to the extra particles and vice versa.
The remaining part of the flat band disappear and the Dirac cone
structure is also destroyed.
At $=$, the strong coupling crystalline ordering
pattern is different from that in the weak coupling regime
depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:dimer}.
The system exhibits trimerized pattern as depicted in Fig. \ref{fig:trimer}.
Each trimer is repented as two thickened bonds and contains one particle.
In other words, each hexagon plaquette in the $=$ case
are occupied by two particles.
Such a state is also three-fold degenerate, and the other two
equivalent states can be obtained by translating the system
one lattice constant to right and left directions.
Let us consider one plaquette unit cell and describe the orbital
configuration.
We mark the six sites as $1\~6$.
The $p$-orbital configurations at sites 1, 6 and 2 are
$p\_x$, $p\_x p\_y (=158.4\^)$,
respectively, and those at 4, 5 and 3 are related
by a reflection operation respect to $x$-axis.
In other words, the occupied $p$-orbital at site 1 is parallel
to $x$-axis, and that at site 6 is almost along the direction of
bond $(1, 6)$ with a small deviation of $8.4\^$.
The particle density at each site is $n\_[6,2,3,5]{}=0.27$
and $n\_[1,4]{}=0.46$.
The bonding strength between neighouring sites $i,j$ are defined as
$B\_[ij]{}=-$ .
There are four non-equivalent bond strengths
of $(i,j)=(2,1); (2,3); (2, 5\^); (1, 4\^)$,
where $4\^$ and $5\^$ are the equivalent sites of
$4$ and $5$ in the neighbouring plaquettes.
We have $B\_[2,1]{}=0.58 t\_$, $B\_[2,3]{}=0.04 t\_$,
$B\_[2,5\^]{}=0.14 t\_$ and $B\_[1,4\^]{}=0$.
The average bonding energy per site can be evaluated from
the above bonding strengths as $0.446t\_$.
Instead of the above trimer pattern, one might also think of the dimer
covering with filling $$ in which only two third of sites
are covered by dimers.
However, a rough estimation of the average bonding energy per
site is approximately about $t\_$, which is
less energetically favorable because
particles are more localized in the dimer configuration.
The crystalline order pattern at the filling of $=$
is similar to that at $=$ with
each trimer containing two particles.
In this case, the parameters above change to $=153\^$;
$n\_[6,2,3,5]{}=0.76$, $n\_[1,4]{}=0.49$;
$B\_[2,1]{}=0.70 t\_$, $B\_[2,3]{}=0.07 t\_$, $B\_[2,5\^]{}=0.12 t\_$
and $B\_[1,4\^]{}=0.02 t\_$.
At $=$, the system exhibits a dimerized
pattern similar to that of $=$
in the weak coupling regime as illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:dimer}.
The major difference is that the dimerized state here is an
imcompressible insulating state while that in the weak coupling
regime is with a small but still non-vanishing compressibility.
The dimer is represented by a thickened bond in which one
particle hops back and forth.
It can be considered as a superposition of the two states of two sites
where one is occupied and the other is empty.
There are only two non-equivalent bonding strength:
$B\_[1,6]{}=0.95 t\_$ and $B\_[1,2]{}=0.1 t\_$.
The former is about one order larger that the latter, thus the system
is in the strong dimerization limit.
As shown in Fig. \ref{fig:filling} B, the energy scale of this dimerized
phase is set by $t\_$, which is much larger than the usual one in
dimerized magnetic systems with $t\^2\_/U$.
The low energy physics in the dimer phase should be described
by a quantum dimer model \cite{rokhsar1988}, which includes the
quantum resonance of different patterns of dimer coverings.
Although in the physical parameter regime the dimer crystal
configuration in Fig. \ref{fig:dimer} is stabilized, it would
be interesting to further investigate how to enhance quantum
fluctuations to achieve the quantum disordered dimer liquid phase.
The corresponding possible orbital liquid state in the
$p\_[x,y]{}$-orbital systems
would be an exciting state for a future study \cite{khaliullin2005}.
The ordering pattern at another commensurate
filling of $=$ as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fvsxth}.
The $p$-orbital configurations at sites 1, 6 and 2 are
$p\_y$, $p\_x p\_y $ respectively with
$=150.2\^$, and those at 4, 5 and 3 are related
by a reflection operation respect to $x$-axis.
The particle density at each site is $n\_[6,2,3,5]{}=0.94$
and $n\_[1,4]{}=0.62$.
The four non-equivalent bond strengths read
$B\_[2,1]{}=0.36$, $B\_[2,3]{}=0.08$, $B\_[2,5\^]{}=0.08$
and $B\_[1,4\^]{}=0.83$.
The $$-filling state can be considered as doping
the insulating state of one particle per site with $$ holes.
Holes are mainly concentrated on the positions of sites 1 and 4
in each unit cell.
The corresponding bonds have the largest bonding strength.
Such a state is the dimerized state of holes.
\section{Time of flight spectra}
\label{sect:exp}
$k\_[x,y]{}$ are plotted in units of
$$,
$(-, Noise correlation has become an important method to detect the ordering in cold atom systems in optical lattices [@altman2004; @imambekov2007]. In all the Mott-insulating states at commensurate fillings described in figures of \[fig:closepack\], \[fig:dimer\], \[fig:trimer\], and \[fig:fvsxth\], the enlarged unit cell contains six sites forming a plaquette. They should exhibit themselves in the noise correlation of the time of flight (TOF) signals. In the presence of the charge and bond orders, the reciprocal wavevector of the reduced Brillouin zone becomes $\vec G^\prime_1=(\frac{4\pi}{3\sqrt 3 a},0)=\frac{-1}{3}\vec G_1
+\frac{2}{3} \vec G_2 $ and $\vec G_2^\prime=(\frac{-2\pi}{3\sqrt 3 a}, \frac{2\pi}{3a})
=\frac{2}{3} \vec G_1-\frac{1}{3} \vec G_2$, where $\vec G_{1,2}$ are the reciprocal wavevectors for the original Brillouin zone. The correlation function is defined as C\_t(r, r\^)=\_t -\_t \_t, \[eq:noise\] where $t$ is the flying time.
For the close pack hexagon state at $\avg{n}=\frac{1}{6}$, Eq. \[eq:noise\] can be easily calculated. We have $\avg{n(\vec r)_t}=(\frac{m}{\hbar t})^3 |\psi(\vec k)|^2$, where $\vec k=m \vec r/(\hbar t)$, and $\psi(\vec k)$ is the Fourier transform of the plaquette-Wannier state depicted in Fig. \[fig:wannier\]. Thus C\_t(r, r\^)&=& ()\^6 |(k)|\^2 |(k\^)|\^2\
&& \_[G\^]{} (k-k\^-G\^), where $'-'$ ($'+'$) is for fermions (bosons) respectively, $\vec G^\prime = m \vec G^\prime_1
+ n \vec G^\prime_2$ with $m,n$ integers, and $\vec k^\prime=m \vec r^\prime/(\hbar t)$. After a spatial averaging and normalization, we find C\_t(d)&=&d r\
&&\_[G\^]{}(k -G\^), \[eq:timeofflight\] where $\vec k=m \vec d/(\hbar t)$. All the $\delta$-peaks are with equal weight because of the cancellation of the Fourier transform of the Wannier function, and the six-fold rotational symmetry in Fig. \[fig:wannier\].
For the crystalline ordering of fermions at other commensurate fillings, the noise correlation functions still exhibit the $\delta$-peaks located at the same reciprocal wavevectors of the reduced Brillouin zone. However the form factors are more complicated. Generally, $\avg{n(\vec r)}$ and $C_t(\vec r, \vec r^\prime)$ can be calculated as &&\_ \^\*\_(k) \_(k),\
C\_t(r, r\^)&& - |\_ \^\*\_(k)\_(k\^) |\^2\
&& \_[G\^]{} (k-k\^-G\^), where the Greek indices $\mu$ and $\nu$ denote the Wannier functions for the 12 $p_{x,y}$ orbitals in one plaquette. In particular, due to the loss of the six-fold lattice rotational symmetry in \[fig:trimer\] and \[fig:fvsxth\], the noise spectra of $C_t(\vec d)$ should show the reduced two fold rotational symmetry. Fig. \[fig:dimer\] still keeps the six-fold rotational symmetry, but the weight of the $\delta$-functions should not be the same as in Eq. \[eq:timeofflight\].
Conclusion and Discussion {#sect:conclusion}
=========================
In summary, we have proposed the laboratory analog simulation of a new kind of artificial graphene, unavailable in nature, where the $p_{x,y}$-orbitals are the key, unlike the real graphene made of the $p_z$-orbital. This switching of orbitals, as shown in this work, lead to novel strong correlation physics which cannot be studied in the corresponding solid state graphene systems.
We have shown the band structure of $p_{x,y}$-orbital honeycomb lattices contains both Dirac cones and flat bands. Particle interactions stabilize various incompressible Wigner crystal-like states at commensurate fillings. In particular, we have described the exact many body ground state at $\avg{n} =\frac{1}{6}$, which exhibits close packed hexagon plaquette order. Various charge and bond orderings appear in the strong coupling regime at higher commensurate fillings. These states exhibit their patterns in the noise correlation of time of flight experiments. Taking into account the recent exciting experimental realization of the $p$-orbital bosons [@mueller2007] and the fact that the honeycomb optical lattices were experimentally constructed quite some time ago [@grynberg1993], the $p_{x,y}$-orbital counterpart of graphene may be achieved in the laboratory in the near future.
Let us compare the Wigner crystal states in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital systems with those in the electron gas systems. Quantum Monte-Carlo simulations show that the Wigner crystal state is stable in the very low density regime at $r_s>39$ in two dimensions, where $r_s$ is the ratio between the average inter-electron distance and the Bohr radius [@tanatar1989]. The long range Coulomb interactions dominate over the kinetic energy when $r_s$ is large. In contrast, even the shortest range repulsive interaction can stabilize the crystal state in the $p_{x,y}$-orbital honeycomb lattice due to the suppression of the kinetic energy by the band flatness. Wigner crystal state also occurs in the fractional quantum Hall systems due to the suppression of kinetic energy by the magnetic field [@chen2006; @ye2002]. At low filling factors, crystalline ordered states energetically win over the Laughlin liquid state. It is also interesting to note the difference between our system and the $p_z$-orbital system of graphene, where the characteristic ratio between Coulomb interaction and kinetic energy $\frac{e^2}{\hbar v_f}$ ($v_f$ is the slope of the Dirac cone) is a constant independent of charge carrier density. As pointed out in Ref. [@dahal2006; @dassarma2007; @tse2007], interactions in graphene are not strong enough to stabilize the Wigner crystal state at any density.
Many interesting problems still remain open for further exploration, and we will leave them in future publications. For example, for the spinful fermions with repulsive interactions, it is natural to expect ferromagnetism due to the flat band structure. It would be interesting to study the competition between antiferromagnetic exchange and flat band ferromagnetism. If interactions are attractive, the pairing problem and the corresponding BCS-BEC crossover in the flat band might prove interesting. On the other hand, if we load bosons into the flat band beyond the density of $\avg{n}=\frac{1}{6}$, the frustration effect due to the band flatness to the superfludity is a challenging problem. Most intriguing is the possibility of exotic incompressible states analogous to the Laughlin liquid in fractional quantum Hall effect. These cannot be captured within the mean-field approximation used here for $n>1/6$. If one could devise appropriate variational liquid states projected into the flat band, these could be compared energetically with the Wigner crystals found here. Given the richness and surprises encountered in the fractional quantum Hall effect, flat band physics in optical lattices appears rife with possibility.
C. W. thanks L. M. Duan, E. Fradkin, and T. L. Ho for helpful discussions, and especially L. Balents and D. Bergman for an early collaboration. C. W. is supported by the start up funding at University of California, San Diego and the Sloan Research Fellowship. S. D. S. is supported by ARO-DARPA.
[10]{}
M. H. Anderson [*et al.*]{}, Science [**269**]{}, 198 (1995).
K. B. Davis [*et al.*]{}, Phy. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 5202 (1995).
M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, Nature [**419**]{}, 51 (2002).
M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 1039 (1998).
Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Science [**288**]{}, 462 (2000).
G. Khaliullin, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**160**]{}, 155 (2005).
V. M. Scarola and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 033003 (2005).
A. Isacsson and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 053604 (2005).
W. V. Liu and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 13607 (2006).
A. B. Kuklov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 110405 (2006).
C. Wu, W. V. Liu, J. E. Moore, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 190406 (2006).
C. Xu and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 104428 (2007).
C. Xu, Phase transitions in coupled two dimensional XY systems with spatial anisotropy, arXiv:0706.1609, unpublised.
O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 030405 (2005).
A. Browaeys [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 053605 (2005).
M. Köhl [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 80403 (2005).
J. Sebby-Strabley, M. Anderlini, P. S. Jessen, and J. V. Porto, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 033605 (2006).
T. Mueller, S. Foelling, A. Widera, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 200405 (2007).
C. Wu, D. Bergman, L. Balents, and S. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 70401 (2007).
C. Wu, Orbital ordering and frustration of \$p\$-band Mott-insulators, 2008.
K. Wu and H. Zhai, Quantum Antiferromagnetism in a Half-filled p-band Hubbard Model, arXiv.org:0710.3852, 2007.
E. Zhao and W. V. Liu, Orbital order in Mott insulators of spinless p-band fermions, 2008.
K. Novoselov [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**438**]{}, 197 (2005).
Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature [**438**]{}, 201 (2005).
A. H. C. Neto [*et al.*]{}, The electronic properties of graphene, arXiv:0709.1163, 2007.
H. J. Choi [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**418**]{}, 738 (2002).
B. Tanatar and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 5005 (1989).
S. Das Sarma, B. Y.-K. Hu, E. H. Hwang, and W.-K. Tse, Electron-Electron Interactions in Graphene, arXiv.org:0708.3239, 2007.
E. H. Hwang, B. Y.-K. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review Letters [**99**]{}, 226801 (2007).
S. Das Sarma, E. H. Hwang, and W. K. Tse, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 121406(R) (2007).
W.-K. Tse and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review Letters [**99**]{}, 236802 (2007).
G. Grynberg [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2249 (1993).
J. P. Gaebler, J. T. Stewart, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, cond-mat/0703087, 2007.
C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 053201 (2003).
J. Zhang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 30702(R) (2004).
C. Ticknor, C. A. Regal, D. S. Jin, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 42712 (2004).
M. E. Zhitomirsky and H. Tsunetsugu, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**160**]{}, 361 (2004).
V. A. K. et al., JETP Lett. [**51**]{}, 533 (1990).
V. A. Khodel, M. V. Zverev, and V. M. Yakovenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 236402 (2005).
S.-L. Zhu, B. Wang, and L. M. Duan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 260402 (2007).
D. S. Rokhsar and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2376 (1988).
E. Altman, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review A [**70**]{}, 013603 (2004).
A. Imambekov, V. Gritsev, and E. Demler, Fundamental noise in matter interferometers, cond-mat/0703766, 2007.
Y. P. Chen [*et al.*]{}, NATURE PHYSICS [**2**]{}, 452 (2006).
P. D. Ye [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 176802 (2002).
H. P. Dahal, Y. N. Joglekar, K. S. Bedell, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 233405 (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Geoffrey Fairchild[^1]'
- Byron Tasseff
- Hari Khalsa
- Nicholas Generous
- 'Ashlynn R. Daughton'
- Nileena Velappan
- Reid Priedhorsky
- Alina Deshpande
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: '2018-11-14'
title: 'Epidemiological data challenges: planning for a more robust future through data standards'
---
[^1]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.